From: Michele Andreoli (m.andreoli@tin.it)
Date: Fri May 19 2000 - 11:23:40 CEST
On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 09:24:32PM -0300, Claudio Neves nicely wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is not directly related with the topic, but is related
> with compression, speed and space!
>
> Have anyone tried UPX ?! http://wildsau.idv.uni-linz.ac.at/mfx/upx.html
> It's a compressor for executables, and it accept many executable
> formats, including dos, windows and linux/i386 .
Already suggested and tested: no significant gain compressing ELF.
In addition, you need of the upx binary, very big.
>
> The executables can be run normally, they are uncompressed on
> the fly (similar to the old lzexe on DOS), with very little overhead.
> It would benefit mulinux in the sense that the ramdisk size required
> to store the files uncompressed from the floppies would be smaller.
> I think it makes a difference with low-memory computers (4MB or
> even 8MB with the EXT addon).
> I haven't had time to play with upx + mulinux, but if anyone have the
> time to play with it, it would be nice to know the results! :)
>
This is a general question: what is better beetwen:
1) to compress a directory with many files compressed in it
2) to compress a directory with uncompressed files in it
I think 2).
Michele
-- I'd like to conclude with a positive statement, but I can't remember any. Would two negative ones do? -- Woody Allen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: mulinux-unsubscribe@sunsite.auc.dk For additional commands, e-mail: mulinux-help@sunsite.auc.dk
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Sat Feb 08 2003 - 15:27:14 CET