3 ms·
I think this is one of those things where the author is pretty much 100% right and it just won't happen. Habits are hard to break and in many cases, the negati
by sbuttgereit 11y ago
I think this is one of those things where the author is pretty much 100% right and it just won't happen. Habits are hard to break and in many cases, the negatives just don't impose a high enough cost to matter.
There are times when I do seriously look for the optimum way to do things like this and then there's most of the time I just want to spend brain cycles on more important problems.
- yborg 11y agoThe author is not 100% right, as is always the case with this, it depends on the data you are compressing. Here is a stackexchange with some relevant experiments: https://superuser.com/questions/581035/between-xz-gzip-and-bzip2-which-compression-algorithim-is-the-most-efficient https://superuser.com/questions/581035/between-xz-gzip-and-b... I believe that the biggest driver of using old-school ZIP or GZIP is the fact that everyone knows that everything can decompress these formats. And in a modern world of terabyte disks in every laptop, multicore multi-Ghz CPUs, and megabit bandwidth, it isn't worth the effort of using a format that saves an additional 20% on compressed size at the cost of someone not being able to decompress it.
- bhouston 11y agoOn typical source trees and mesh data xz is in the range of twice at good at compressing than gzip. That is very significant imo.
- barrkel 11y agoThat's only really much good if you're in the business of archiving things like that. For most people, source trees are ad-hoc downloads for patch fixes, oddball platform compiles, etc. And then the universality of gzip is better than any marginal space savings from xz.