To:	mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca
Cc:	opendos AT delorie DOT com
References:	<Pine DOT LNX DOT 3 DOT 95 DOT 970404185837 DOT 1353Q-100000 AT capslock DOT com>
Message-Id:	<AAfmSHpW27@mpak.convey.ru>
Organization:	International Brownian Movement
From:	"-= ArkanoiD =-" <ark AT mpak DOT convey DOT ru>
Date:	Sat, 5 Apr 97 06:51:05 +0300
Subject:	Re: Interactive shells Re: 32bit BIOS
Lines:	23
MIME-Version:	1.0

nuqneH,

> Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 19:03:30 -0500 (EST)
> From: "Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca>
> Reply-To: "Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca>
> To: "Jonathan E. Brickman" <brickman AT cjnetworks DOT com>
> cc: opendos AT delorie DOT com
> Subject: Re: Interactive shells Re: 32bit BIOS
[dd]
>
> Well, I'm glad that you agreed with me, the latter statement is
> not in tune with what I was trying to say.  TGZ *IS* a good
> archive format.  When I compare ZIP to TGZ in Linux, I find that
> TGZ comes out smaller all of the time.  I don't know about the
> speed, but the archives are usually smaller.

The reason is simple - .zip has uncompressed archive header and .tar.gz is
archived and *then* compressed.

--- 
                                       _     _  _  _  _      _  _
   Must be a visit from the dead..     _| o |_ | | _|| |   / _||_|   |_ |_ |_
   CU in Hell ..........  Arkan#iD    |_  o  _||_| _||_| /   _|  | o |_||_||_|

- Raw text -