Jon Dowland wrote: > Bob Proulx wrote: > > Jon Dowland wrote: > > > linux-3.6-rc2.tar.bz2 78M > > > linux-3.6-rc2.tar.gz 99M > > > linux-3.6-rc2.tar.xz 65M > > linux-3.6-rc2.tar.lz 66M > > > > I think lzip is worthy enough that it should have a mention too. It > > has gotten less attention than xz and that is sad since it is a nice > > free software tool. I recompressed that file using lzip for this > > comparison. > > Thanks for the data (mashed/reformatted into quote above). I copied the > listings from the kernel.org archives, so the choice of compression types > was theirs (although I hadn't heard of lzip, thanks!)
There is a problem with the mashing and reformatting. It makes lzip appear to be 66M against xz being 65M and so xz is better, right? But wait the above says that gz is 99M. But ls says 100M. So the listed sizes are not 100% correct. So 66M is true if 100M is true. But it seems that something was truncating down to 99M and so perhaps that 65M is actually 66M? In which case xz and lz were actually the same for that sample. Or perhaps if they count 65M as true for xy then perhaps it should be 65M for lz too? I think you see the problem. I don't really know from the above data whether xz or lz is the same or worse or better. I didn't go and download the linux-3.6-rc2.tar.xz file to see what size it actually should be listed as. I probably should have. But I didn't have the time. It would be better to look at the long byte counts for this type of comparison. Bob
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
