Message-ID:	<3286142D.71F1@ananke.amu.edu.pl>
Date:	Sun, 10 Nov 1996 18:43:09 +0100
From:	Mark Habersack <grendel AT ananke DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl>
Reply-To:	grendel AT ananke DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl
Organization:	Home, sweet home
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
CC:	Malcolm Taylor <malcolm AT manawatu DOT gen DOT nz>,
	"John M. Aldrich" <fighteer AT cs DOT com>, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Why not to use 'tar' before packing DJGPP?
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 961110143406 DOT 8417D-100000 AT is>

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> IMHO, better compression ratios is not always good enough reason to switch
> to another compressor.  Do we really think everybody out there (GNU sites,
> SimTel sites) are so stupid in that they continue using this ``old''
> compression technology?  Do savings in disk storage (which is about the
> cheapest asset nowadays) indeed justify turning our back on compatibility?
> I'm not sure.
You're absolutely right. But the point is that the algorithm used by
PKZIP/ZIP may be improved and modernized so that it'll give better
results whilestill being compatible with all the tools around. The two
mentioned compressors just do not take advantage of all opportunities to
improve the compression.

-- 
===========================================================
October. And the trees are stripped bare of all they wear.
What do I care? October.
And Kingdoms rise, And Kingdoms fall,
But you go on, and on.
===========================================================

- Raw text -