Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 12 Dec 1997 11:59:33 -0600 (CST) | From | Phil Brutsche <> | Subject | Re: OFFTOPIC: Re: bzip2 for kernel dists? |
| |
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Mitch Davis wrote:
> Jordan Mendelson wrote: > > > > So, bzip2 yeilds better compression, it's free (no patent restrictions on Yes it does, At a cost of speed. > > algs, etc), and it's available in binary & source form for Linux & a number > > of other OSs. What's keeping kernels from being distributed like this? > > Other people's mileage may vary, but I have found bunzip2 to be > absolutely hideously SLLOOOWWW. The following test shows bunzip2 > to be 10 times slower to decompress than gunzip: > mjd@taco [~/tx] time cat gimp-0.99.15-data-extras.tar.* > /dev/null > [timing stuff snipped] > Note this is under HP-UX, but the results are very similar under Linux. > > I guess it depends on whether you have CPU cycles to burn. > > Mitch. > > -- > | mailto:mjd#NOSPAM@nsmd.aus.hp.com | Not an official view of: | > | mailto:mjd#NOSPAM@alphalink.com.au | OpenView Telecom Division | > | Remove the #NOSPAM to send me mail | Hewlett Packard Australia | >
I saw the speed difference too. As happens so much in compression, the tighter you compress something, the longer it takes. Leave it as an option for:
1) People who understand how to use it 2) Have a hideously slow internet connection 3) And have CPU cycles to burn
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Phil Brutsche
"Be of stout heart, Number One. We've handled the Borg. We can certainly handle Admiral Jellico." - Jean-Luc Picard
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|  |