Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 from ihnp4 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site chinet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!chinet!randy
From: randy@chinet.UUCP (Randy Suess)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c,net.unix
Subject: Re: Re: Compaction Algorithm (pack vs compress)
Message-ID: <383@chinet.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 2-Mar-86 09:53:06 EST
Article-I.D.: chinet.383
Posted: Sun Mar  2 09:53:06 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Mar-86 03:52:38 EST
References: <207@pierce.UUCP> <3261@sun.uucp> <226@uvacs.UUCP>
Reply-To: randy@chinet.UUCP (Randy Suess)
Organization: chi-net, Public Access UN*X, Chicago IL
Lines: 17
Xref: watmath net.lang.c:8066 net.unix:7299

In article <226@uvacs.UUCP> rwl@uvacs.UUCP (Ray Lubinsky) writes:
>Hold on thar, Babaloo!  If you mean better in terms of *byte* savings, I
>imagine ``compress'' could easily do better than ``pack''.  

>Sqeezing a few extra bytes out of a file can only be worth it if it results in
>reducing by the 1K minimum data block size (2 basic file system blocks

	Ahhh!, but transfering a 50-60% compressed file long distance at
1200 baud makes me much happier than transfering one at 33% packed.
Every little bit helps.  

-- 
.. that's the biz, sweetheart...
Randy Suess
chinet - Public Access UN*X
(312) 545 7535 (h) (312) 283 0559 (system)
..!ihnp4!chinet!randy