D Installler

[Lutger]

Daniel Keep wrote:
> 
> Lutger wrote:
>> Lester L. Martin II wrote:
>>> Dear Mr. Keep,
>>> I believe 7z to be much better than the ones you described as it has
>>> better compression although I haven't look at zip and tar and
>>> compression methods that deeply. I've always judged compression by how
>>> small it gets my files.  The way you judge it seems to be more
>>> interesting.
>>> Lester L. Martin II
>>> Daniel Keep Wrote:
>>>
>> While 7z is a great compression format, (de)compressing is much slower
>> than the zlib codec. Furthermore, 7z is LGPL and zlib has a BSD style
>> license. tar doesn't do compression by itself, it's for archiving only.
> 
> Well, I *did* say "Zip", "tar" and "7z" as opposed to "DEFLATE/zlib",
> "bzip2" and "LZMA".  I've noticed lots of people tend to confuse archive
> and compression formats.  :3

I know, I meant to say that, talking about compression only, speed can 
be a criterium too.

...
> Honestly, I've been tempted on more than one occasion to just write a
> *simple* archive format for Tango.  Of course, no one else would support
> it, which would kinda defeat the purpose...

I'm not sure. It might still be useful if it would offer advantages 
above zip / tar / whatever.