From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Dec 19 10:04:21 1995 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id KAA25710 for questions-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 1995 10:04:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA25705 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 1995 10:04:19 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id LAA14830; Tue, 19 Dec 1995 11:01:00 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199512191801.LAA14830@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: undump program To: nate@rocky.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 11:01:00 -0700 (MST) Cc: terry@lambert.org, nate@rocky.sri.MT.net, questions@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199512191751.KAA26854@rocky.sri.MT.net> from "Nate Williams" at Dec 19, 95 10:51:15 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > > 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.