[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Lzip-bug] about lzip..

From: Antonio Diaz Diaz
Subject: Re: [Lzip-bug] about lzip..
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:41:22 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i586; en-US; rv:1.7.11) Gecko/20050905

Hello Jan, Thank you for writing about lzip.

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Seeing the ddrescue release announcement of Freshmeat, I noticed that the tarball was offered in .lz format too. I suspected that this may be something called lzip, and did a google search, which revealed that Lzip was actually an April Fools Joke 2001 project:

You didn't need to search google. Lzip is mentioned in the release changes and as an (optional) dependency of ddrescue.

Now it seems that another Lzip (yours) showed up in 2008 according to the freshmeat page at http://freshmeat.net/p/lzip . This name confusion is bad ...

Do you suggest I should refrain from choosing the name I consider appropiate for my project just because seven years ago some guy with too much spare time decided to use that name in a joke?

What can lzip do better than lzma from http://tukaani.org/lzma/ (which is already used widely (e.g. present in distributions and, for example2, lzma'ed payload for RPM packages))?

Lzip provides a much simpler and reliable implementation. Lzip also provides a simple but safe file format, with magic bytes and integrity checking. The stable branch of lzma-utils, the one "widely used", uses the lzma-alone file format, which lacks both. I hope everybody who cares about data safety will switch from the lzma-alone format to the lzip format as soon as they know about it.

A comparison even shows that lzip seems to be just around lzma:

Of course. Both implement the same algorithm, so it is not a surprise that both behave similarly.

Best regards,

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]