Re: Re: GNU Coding Standards, automake, and the recent xz-utils backdoor

[wrotycz]

> lz4 and zstd are quite a bit less resource-hungry than xz   Is it?  By 
default, and up to -19 level, zstd uses 8 MiB (sliding) window, when xz uses 8 
MiB at level 6, which is default, default and doubles is every next level. More 
over that, xz compression with 8 MiB window uses 96 MiB of memory, when zstd 
needs 272 MiB at level 19, 224 MiB at lv. 16 and 232 MiB at lv. 12.  Similarily 
with decompression - xz needs 11 MiB to decompress archive with 8 MiB window, 
zstd needs 30 MiB to decompress it.   I don't see where zstd is 'less 
resource-hungry than xz'.    > With these options, the zst tarball came 
withing a hare's breath of the xz compressed file size.   Here are some 
samples of about 8 MB files compressed with bzip2, gzip, xz and zstd with 
different levels of compression:   paste.ee paste.ee/p/tVIWG  paste.ee 
paste.ee/p/PsNrx   > I did not find any drawbacks.   Except higher memory 
requirements, lower compression, similar issues with long term archiving 
usefulness, 'there are no drawbacks'.