On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 09:55:04AM -0300, Caco Patane wrote: > So, bzip2...
bzip2 is slow (to compress). Gzip is fastest, but 7zip appears to me (entirely subjectively) to be faster than bzip2. > > On 5/19/06, freenetwork at web.de <freenetwork at web.de> wrote: > >>> High level question: Why is it necessary to support several =20 > >>> compression standards? > >> > >>I'm not sure either that it is a good idea. > >> > >>NextGen$ > > > >I think we should only support ONE compression scheme. It should be fairly > >STANDARD, read: _100%_ of other languages (c, cpp, cs, php, perl, lisp, > >whatever) should have a library for this codec. It does not need to have > >the best compression ratio, a fairly good is good > >enough. it should be somewhat speedy and nice to CPU and RAM resources. -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060519/360cd0de/attachment.pgp>
