Hi Michiel,

On 2018-02-05 21:32:10, you wrote to me:

 WV>> Progress would be using a better compression algorithm! ;)

 MvdV> I disagree. Compression algoritmes have evolved way past the law of
 MvdV> decreasing added value. Adding another few tenth od a percent is nor
worth
 MvdV> the hassle.

Compared to standard zip, modern compression algorithms compress way better.
More like 10% in a worst case, but typically better than that.

 WV>> You shouldn't just store fidonews in compressed form, but all your
 WV>> files as much as possible, than it matters.

 MvdV> Then use the OS's disk compression instead of compression each fikle
 MvdV> individually.

That limits your choice too much. You have degraded performance on all disk
operations. Not just on the files you want to store compressed. Besides those
mostely are already compressed. Trying to compress already compressed files is
a waste of cpu cycles.

 WV>> That argument also works the other way arround. Nothing stops you (or
 WV>> anyone else), to decompress the received zip file, and store it
 WV>> uncompressed.

 MvdV> That is extra work for me... Let those who want the (percieved)
advantage
 MvdV> of compression carry the burden.

It's you who want to change standard operation, why should everybody else adapt
to your preference?

 WV>>>> That would break the chronological order of the files when you
 WV>>>> list a directory with FNEWS (zip)files alphabetically (which
 WV>>>> most filesystems do).

 MvdV> So what? What is the advantage of chronological order over alphabetical
 MvdV> order?

The chronological order! Duh!


Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815