Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1997-49,: RE: OFFTOPIC: Re: bzip2 for kernel dists?

# RE: OFFTOPIC: Re: bzip2 for kernel dists?

Adam McKee (amckee@poboxes.com)
Fri, 12 Dec 1997 13:56:46 -0600 (CST)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Peter T. Waltenberg: "ncp compile probs"
- Previous message: Jim Bray: "Re: modutils 2.1.71: Ouch, no kerneld for message 2147418113"

It does compress slowly, but decompression is pretty snappy (though still
slower than gzip). I think bzip2 is ideal for distributing software -
remember that decompression is going to happen a lot more times than
compression. The succession of LZ77-based compression by BWT-based
compression is inevitable as machines get faster. But it will take some
time to replace a standard as strongly entrenched as gzip. gzip is an
absolutely superb LZ77-based compressor - maybe even the best of its kind.

How about integrating the BWT-based compression in bzip2 into gzip in
order to speed the transition and make it easier?

gzip -bwt? Just an idea.

-- Adam

On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, linux kernel account wrote:

> Thanks for using NetForward!
> http://www.netforward.com
> v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v
>
> On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Jordan Mendelson wrote:
>
> > So, bzip2 yeilds better compression, it's free (no patent restrictions on
> > 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?
>
> One reason is that: While compressing you typical 30meg kernel tar, one
> tends to grow old and grey.. I use bzip2 all the time, it's good... But
> it's VERY slow..
>

- Next message: Peter T. Waltenberg: "ncp compile probs"
- Previous message: Jim Bray: "Re: modutils 2.1.71: Ouch, no kerneld for message 2147418113"