Page 1 of 1
Detailed compression alogorithm comparison
Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2003 9:00 am
by closet geek
http://reviews.geekhaven.net/compression/
written by one of my mods, it makes interesting reading!
cg
Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1854, old post ID:15303
Detailed compression alogorithm comparison
Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:18 pm
by Red Squirrel
Cool. I'll post it on the home page.
Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1854, old post ID:15308
Detailed compression alogorithm comparison
Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2003 8:01 pm
by wldkos
I liked it. I'll stick with tar.gz though, always have used that and bzip2. Anyways, there is no discussion link at geekhaven, which is why cg= fuckup
.
Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1854, old post ID:15313
Detailed compression alogorithm comparison
Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2003 8:10 pm
by Chris Vogel
wldkos wrote: cg= fuckup
.
Actually,
CG = Pop Idol.
That article looks very interesting. I notice
tarbell instead of
tarball, but that's not a big deal...
Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1854, old post ID:15314
Detailed compression alogorithm comparison
Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2003 9:10 pm
by Red Squirrel
Yeah noticed that too.
Several times in a row too.
Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1854, old post ID:15315
Detailed compression alogorithm comparison
Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:52 pm
by wldkos
takahita_tsukino wrote: wldkos wrote: cg= fuckup
.
Actually,
CG = Pop Idol.
That article looks very interesting. I notice
tarbell instead of
tarball, but that's not a big deal...
i noticed that as well but just thought it was a thing I never heard of.
jimbob.tar and jimbob.tar.gz are different.
Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1854, old post ID:15336
Detailed compression alogorithm comparison
Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:18 pm
by closet geek
MB (who wrote the article) is going to change everything related to the tarbell mistake when he's got more time he's currently away from home and only has access to 28.8K
cg
Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1854, old post ID:15337
Detailed compression alogorithm comparison
Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:25 am
by megaspaz
hmmm.... what is a tarball? a *.tar file? if that's the case, i was under the impression that *.tar files are just uncompressed archives.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/compression-faq/p...section-25.html
tar is not a compression program. It just combines several files
into one, without compressing them.
if the above is the case, then how can a tarball have any compression stats? please define a tarball for me in these stats since this is a point of confusion as everyday verbage can have a tarball equalling *.tar, *.tar.Z, *.tar.gz, etc....
Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1854, old post ID:15451
Detailed compression alogorithm comparison
Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:28 pm
by Anonymous
Sorry! I was under the impression that it was. I removed it and changed tar.gz to gzip, since that's the official name. I also included a note at the bottom that Tarball is not a compression algorithm.
The new version can be seen at the same location with a simple press of the reload (or refresh, depending on your browser! See, I don't discriminate
, though I will tell you that Opera is the best browser anywhere and you won't be able to visit my site if you don't use it)
Anyway, sorry for the little problems!
Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1854, old post ID:15455
Detailed compression alogorithm comparison
Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2004 5:15 pm
by wldkos
I didnt know that spaz. good looks
Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1854, old post ID:15458
Detailed compression alogorithm comparison
Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2004 11:30 pm
by megaspaz
nothing to apologize for. everyone uses tarball for *.tar.gz and other compressed archives even though they really aren't the same thing. but it seemed because of this everyday usage, i felt that you just needed to clarify what you meant as a tarball, since a *.tar isn't a compressed archive and shouldn't have any compression stats.
Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1854, old post ID:15509
Detailed compression alogorithm comparison
Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2004 2:06 am
by wldkos
so you can ]#tar -cvf * shitloadoffiles_become_one_that'snotzipped.tar
?
but adding the "tar -cvzf adds the compression?
Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1854, old post ID:15519
Detailed compression alogorithm comparison
Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:57 pm
by megaspaz
wldkos wrote: so you can ]#tar -cvf * shitloadoffiles_become_one_that'snotzipped.tar
?
but adding the "tar -cvzf adds the compression?
yep. the "z" flag in the tar command tells it to use gzip. using the "j" flag instead of "z" tells tar to use bzip.
Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1854, old post ID:15532
Detailed compression alogorithm comparison
Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 8:15 am
by wldkos
werd, I knew that, but you helped clarify. Thank man.
Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1854, old post ID:15542