3 ms·

> Bzip3: A better and stronger spiritual successor to BZip2 Please, no. What's next ? BZip4 and BZip5, each one incompatible with each other ?

• sitkack 2y ago
  this is the way.
• snvzz 2y ago
  The format gets a new major version precisely because it is incompatible.
• chefandy 2y ago
  Yeah I'm sick of this. Did you know you can't even use ext2/3/4 together on the same partition? What a mess.
  • loeg 2y ago
    The ext4/3 filesystems, notably, can read/write ext2 (and for ext4: ext3) filesystems in a compatible way.
    • chefandy 2y ago
      Oh yeah true
    • toast0 2y ago
      IIRC, ext3 filesystems, if properly unmounted can be mounted with an ext2 driver
  • LeFantome 2y ago
    Perhaps not the best example
• wakawaka28 2y ago
  If they have to be incompatible then it's better to not conceal that. Generalized file formats require you to implement more stuff to support them, and we can't tell the format by looking at the file name.
• lifthrasiir 2y ago
  While the name bzip3 itself would be okay for reasons others stated, I still don't like it because it is so easy to confuse with bzip2 and may indicate a false relationship with bzip2 regardless of intents. A spiritual successor doesn't have to be named confusingly similar, after all.
• roytam87 2y ago
  and we all know that bzip2(1997) is incompatible with bzip(1996).