On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 07:23, Bruce Sass wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2002, Darren Freeman wrote:
> > > > So I would say this: apart from obvious shortening of bloated symbols,
> > > > leave them readable (and compatible!). As long as gzipping becomes the
> > > > standard, that's a good thing since it's a tiny penalty for a large
> > > > gain.
> > >
> > > Frankly, I consider it a hack.
>
> ya, also, "tiny" and "large" are relative
>
> I think the gain would depend on the situation; negative in the case
> of nothing but small live files, huge for archives of large files.
> Is one group more important than the other?
No. But how many "small" LyX files have you seen lately? =)
> > Why? Are we concerned with the size of a gzipped file or the original??
> >
> > What is the goal?
> >
> > The representation of the user's data is the goal, as I see it.
> Making compressed the default is raising the bar wrt systems LyX is
> usable with, for no clear benefit. An old slow box can probably get a
> new HD, cheap, but it is a lot tougher to cope with running out of CPU
> cycles, memory, or patience...
I never said make it the *only* choice, just the default. Those that
have slow boxes will most probably be clever enough to deselect a
checkbox (or change the extension).
> I would love to see LyX transparently handle *.lyx.{gz,bz2,zip,?} or
> *.ly{g,b,z,?} (respectively), but it should be up to the user to
> determine what the default behaviour will be.
Of course.
> Maybe system and user preference options like `default compression
> method', `enable automatic (re)compression', `compressed file suffix
> style (force it or not)', ..., along with a `save as compressed' menu
> item or [none, gzip, bzip, zip, ?], etc. radio buttons in a `save
> file' dialog, eh.
Too many options bamboozle newbies. I know ;) Most people won't have an
issue with compressing new files, I expect. Many won't even know the
difference.
> - Bruce
Have fun,
Darren
