Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!gatech!hao!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!homxb!whuts!tes
From: tes@whuts.UUCP (STERKEL)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: trivial improvement Re: standards is standards Re: SQUASHED!
Message-ID: <2377@whuts.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-Jul-87 06:55:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: whuts.2377
Posted: Fri Jul 10 06:55:53 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 12-Jul-87 12:37:27 EDT
References: <2290@whuts.UUCP> <3320028@hpsrlc.HP.COM> <131@bernina.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 16
Summary: Squashing extra compression trivial

In article <131@bernina.UUCP>, zu@ethz.UUCP (Urs Zurbuchen) writes:
> I don't understand why so many of you are against squashing. It produces
> smaller archives, what's so bad about that?
I ran multiple tests (reported here about three months ago) of
the various "archiving" programs.  The test covered several million
bytes, of various archive candidates (source code and
documentation).

*Squashing, at best, only produced 2.3% improvement, normally
less than 2.0% improvement*  I call that a trivial improvement,
and not worth risking creating archives incompatible with 
UNIX(tm) sites, and those sites running SEA and/or Buerg software.
-- 
                         Terry Sterkel
        {clyde|harvard|cbosgd|allegra|ulysses|ihnp4}!whuts!tes
              [opinions are obviously only my own]