On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Tom Kaitchuck wrote: > On Friday 01 August 2003 07:30 pm, Todd Walton wrote: > > > A: Have the insertion utilities archive and compress by zipping. Have > > > Fred compress by zipping. Yields good compression. Requires no major > > > changes to Fred. Requires no changes to FProxy. > > > B: Have the insertion utility archive by taring (no compression). Have > > > Fred compress by zipping. Yields better compresion ratios. Requires no > > > major changes to Fred. FProxy needs to be able to read tars. > > > C: Have the insertion utility archive by taring (no compression). Have > > > Fred compress by Bzipping. Yields best compression ratios. Requires > > > adding Bziping compressing/decompressing code into Fred. FProxy needs to > > > be able to read tars. > > > > > > OK, does that some things up? Now everyone vote and end this infernal > > > thread. > > > > I vote for D: Scrap the idea. > > > > Let clients do it if they wish, and let clients deal with the problems if > > they wish. The benefits to Freenet won't be much. The amount of > > compressible content in Freenet is surely not that great. > > Then why not A? That does yeald improvement, and is very non invasive.
Because A involves changes to Fred. I don't think you'll get that past Matthew. Let clients do it if they wish, but not the node. -todd _______________________________________________ devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
