you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 21 points 6 days ago* (7 children)

I'm one of the seeming few who paid to register it back in the Win9x days. Turned out that the key also works for the non-free Linux version (think I only ever bothered to set that up once). These days gzipped tarballs or squashfs with zstd are my go-tos. The former for speed with source trees or such, and the latter for filesystem backups or larger directories, because loop mounting it is so fast and convenient.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 6 days ago (3 children)

    These days gzipped tarballs or squashfs with zstd are my go-tos.

    What the fuck did you just call me?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago (2 children)

    The former for speed with source trees or such

    xz -0 is faster than gzip and has a higher compression ratio.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago (1 child)

    That can't be right, all reports I have read about comparing xz with gzip tells me that xz will have better compression but at a slower speed than gzip.

    Have you run a test of gzip at the same compression level with the same data?

    I don't doubt that xz will be smaller, I doubt it will be quicker.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago

    This is actually stated in the xz man page: -0 is sometimes faster than gzip -9 while compressing much better.

    With a random test file on my system, xz -0 was 3 times as fast while achieving the same compression as gzip -6.

  • source
  • parent