Re: [Lzip-bug] Source code repository for lzip

[Antonio Diaz Diaz]

Michał Górny wrote:
> I wouldn't call contribution to lzip pretty friendly at the moment.

How can you know? You have never contributed to it.


> I'm afraid you are missing an important point here. xz is incredibly
> more popular, and has seen more development and re-implementations than
> lzip has.

You are missing several important points here:
  1) This list is not for discussing popularity of other software.
  2) Popular != better.
  3) More re-implementations usually means clueless developers.
  4) You are a rant away from being banned from this list.


> Considering that it uses the same algorithm as xz,
> [...]
> Then, it could actually become competitive in the xz compressor area
> as a better implementation of the LZMA2 algorithm.

  1) LZMA2 is not an algorithm. More like a sub-format.
  2) Lzip has never implemented LZMA2.
  3) There is no such thing as a "LZMA algorithm"; it is more like a 
"LZMA coding scheme". For example, the option '-0' of lzip uses the 
scheme almost in the simplest way possible; issuing the longest match it 
can find, or a literal byte if it can't find a match. Conversely, a much 
more elaborated way of finding coding sequences of minimum price than 
the one currently used by lzip could be developed, and the resulting 
sequence could also be coded using the LZMA coding scheme.


> the same limitations and can't ever have any significant advantages
> over it. Without these, it has no way of convincing people to switch to
> a less popular format and in fact gain any real popularity.

I seek an advance in things like data safety, simplicity of compression 
code and format, and efficient use of memory. Only fools value 
popularity over everything else.

But there is an even more important point at stake here. If xz becomes 
the de-facto standard compression format for GNU/Linux, proprietary 
extensions will be developed for it (its author welcomes them). Then 
people like you will have a hard time explaining their children how they 
helped Apple[1] to destroy Free Software a tool at a time.

[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html
"The existence of LLVM is a terrible setback for our community precisely 
because it is not copylefted and can be used as the basis for nonfree 
compilers".


Regards,
Antonio.