Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 11:01:00 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: nate@rocky.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams) Cc: terry@lambert.org, nate@rocky.sri.MT.net, questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: undump program Message-ID: <199512191801.LAA14830@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199512191751.KAA26854@rocky.sri.MT.net> from "Nate Williams" at Dec 19, 95 10:51:15 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > No, it means that your statement is tantamount to the claims of a 50% > > size reduction for *any* file using a recoverable compression algorithm. > > I made no such claims. I said the dumped version was faster than the > un-dumped version. I stand behind that claim. I live in the real world > and work with 'real' tools, not something which should exist but > doesn't. > > We don't have check-pointing, nor was that even an issue until you > brought it up. The request was for an 'undump' program so an individual > could dump a perl binary and ship it. He didn't want a discussion on > the relative merits of bload/bsave, checkpointing, or how useless it is. Well, then; give him an "undump" program. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199512191801.LAA14830>