🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <76000213@uiucdcsp> gillies@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>But when I benchmarked compress on some digital pictures, I found that
>stuffit's LZW algorithm is much more efficient than compress's
>algorithm.

> [stuff deleted about too many programmers involved with compress].

>So I'm not voting for making compress a standard.  I believe stuffit
>is better.
>
>Don Gillies {ihnp4!uiucdcs!gillies} U of Illinois
>            {gillies@cs.uiuc.edu}

I think the only thing compress has going for it is that almost all
Unix sites have it (something that is rather useful when you consider
that a majority of Usenix sites run some flavor of Unix).  If we had
a compatible program for the Macintosh, we could compress stuff at work
(using Unix, of course) and download those files at home (using the Mac,
of course).  Without such a program, this would be more problematic.

Essentially, like many things, compress can be/should be a standard
*NOT* because it is the best program for the job, but because it
is a good program that has the best distribution (it beats Unix
compact anyday, and has equally good distribution).

-Brad Knowles

UUCP: ...!ihnp4!occrsh!uokmax!blknowle     ARPA: blknowle@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu
SNAIL: 1013 Mobile Circle
       Norman, OK  73071-2522
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Philosophy of Boris Yeltsin: "If one wants to be unemployed, one will
	criticize ones' boss.  If one wants to be sent to Siberia, one
	will criticize the wife of ones' boss."
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Disclaimer: (The above opinions are my own.  They have nothing to do with the
		Univeristy of Oklahoma nor intelligance of any sort. :-)