Re: OpenSSH

From: willjay (willjay_at_excite.com)
Date: 09/21/03 

Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 09:24:49 -0400

Nobody uses plain old compress, and I doubt that bzipcompresses all that
much better than gzip And any savings you might see in the 'little bit' of
extra compression is eaten up on my maching buy having to have both gzip and
bzip and probably (f-inkzip) tommorow installed.

What's really going on here, is somebody is really proud that they we able
to get bzip to compile on openserver and now to justify their effort they
are craming it down our throats.

wj

"Brian K. White" <brian@aljex.com> wrote in message
news:60bd4c6b.0309210117.4fff6fc2@posting.google.com...
> "willjay" <willjay@excite.com> wrote in message
news:<9h6bb.8478$8j.4776@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
> > Well if you can't extarct the binary it's no good to anyone. Nobody
asked
> > him to justify anything. I am making a requuest, and, further more if
I
> > did make an exe it wouldn't be in a format nobody can use. I asked him
to
> > make .Z or gzip available. Does it make since to make an exe available
in a
> > format that practically nobody uses? And further more, I have yet to
hear
> > anyone state a single good reason for using bzip, other than just
because
> > it's there and they can.
>
> here's a reason:
> Because some people use it to package things that you might want.
>
> bzip2 compresses almost twice as well as plain old compress. That is
> enough reason to use somethings else. since it's no harder to install
> bzip2 than gzip, and bzip2 compresses a little better, might as well
> use that. If gzip came stock with the system that might be a
> reasonable argument because it is almost as good, but it doesn't.
>
> Size does matter. especially to servers (like jpr's) that dole out
> files to many users (like you). It is to the interest of everyone who
> uses the net if everyone does whatever they can to not waste the
> bandwidth.
> Size also matyters when a customers box does not have a fast net
> connection. I still have to cu to some sites and use uuencode and %put
> %take to transfer files at 9600. Size matters a LOT there. (and the
> first thing I do in such cases is install that godawful kermit or
> rz/sz that no one can use so that future transfers are faster, fault
> tolerant, resumable, easier, ...)
>
> Here is 3 commands to get both gzip and bzip2 (and wget in the
> bargain) all at once:
> rftp -g -bh pcunix.com /pub/bkw setup_gnu
> chmod 755 setup_gnu
> ./setup_gnu gzip-1.2.4 bzip2-0.9.5d
>
> What, you want to avoid using a script some guy whos morals, hygene,
> and sexual proclivities you don't trust wrote? Ok, here is a slightly
> longer recipe that uses only stock commands:
>
> cd /tmp
> rftp -g -bh ftp2.caldera.com /pub/skunkware/osr5/vols
> bzip2-0.9.5d-VOLS.tar
> tar xvf bz*.tar
> custom -i -p SKUNK99:Bzip2 -z /tmp
> rm VOL.*
>
> but wait, it's even easier...
> any box that can even *run* openssh shipped with a skunkware cd. Just
> pop the cd in, run custom, point click drool.
>
> If you had a little different mindset about stuff like this, and were
> open to installing things like that godawful wget that no one can use
> instead of good ole ftp, you could be installing things with *one*
> line:
>
> wget -q -O - ftp://server/path/app.tar.bz2 |bzcat |tar xvf -
> or
> wget -q -O - http://server/path/app.tar.bz2 |bzcat |tar xvf -
>
> wam bam thank you maam
>
> I think you have it backwards as to what is handy and what is a pain
> in the neck.
>
> As a person who also provides binaries:
> I build it and package it for my own convenience. It is most
> convenient for me to install the bins I built using the single line
> like above. Why should I work harder than I already have for you?
> Unless you are sending me a check?
>
> And as a person who sometimes needs binaries:
> If I need a binary, then I don't care *how* it's packaged. I'm just
> grateful someone somewhere not only built the thing I need, but were
> even nice enough to make it publicly available so I could find it and
> get it. Complain about how it's packaged? Unbeleivable...
>
> But... definitely there is such a thing as inconvenient recipes to
> getting and installing some things. So just for the sake of argument,
> suppose something *was* packaged so horribly that it was a real pain
> in the neck chore to unpack and install? I still wouldn't bother the
> person who provided it. I'd just go through whatever hell is necessary
> the one time, then repackage it in whatever way I thought was more
> sensible and make that publicly available somewhere myself. (as long
> as we are talking about freely redistributable software)
>
>
>
> >
> > wj
> >
> >
> > "Joe Dunning" <joedunning1234@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0309201602560.18253-100000@c941211-a...
> > > On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, willjay wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why don't you replace those "god awful" bzip files with a real zip
file
> > such
> > > > as gzip or plain old .Z so you don't force others to adapt to your
> > > > preferences. How in the world do you justify requiring the use of
bzip.
> > I
> > > > am sure that the addtional space savings is nil.
> > >
> > > Why don't you create your own binaries and make them available to
others?
> > >
> > > Did it ever occur to you that J-P R. does not have to justify the use
> > > of bzip?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > wj
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Jean-Pierre Radley" <jpr@jpr.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:20030919233741.GH417@jpradley.jpr.com...
> > > > > There was a CERT alert regarding OpenSSH three days ago. I've
> > prepared
> > > > > a new archive of binaries for OSR 5.0.6; they will also function
on
> > OSR
> > > > > 5.0.5. Get it from:
> > > > >
> > > > > ftp.jpr.com:/pub/openssh4osr5.tar.bz2
> > > > >
> > > > > >From the README:
> > > > >
> > > > > README for installing JPRadley's binaries for OSR 5.0.6
> > > > > of prngd version 0.9.27 of Dec 20, 2002
> > > > > and OpenSSH version 3.7p1 of Sep 16, 2003,
> > > > > built using OpenSSL version 0.9.7b of Apr 10, 2003.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > JP
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OpenSSH
    ... > Nobody uses plain old compress, and I doubt that bzipcompresses all that ... > extra compression is eaten up on my maching buy having to have both gzip and ... gzip doesn't ship with the OS any more than bzip2 does. ... long as the install is no mor difficult than any oither, ...
    (comp.unix.sco.misc)
  • Re: OpenSSH
    ... > did make an exe it wouldn't be in a format nobody can use. ... > anyone state a single good reason for using bzip, ... Because some people use it to package things that you might want. ... since it's no harder to install ...
    (comp.unix.sco.misc)
  • RPM bzip2, reiser, loop-aes, web badge
    ... I'm presuming that the FC RPMs are compressed (as 'A' the full install ... size is larger than the ISOs and 'B' the ISOs don't compress very ... how it was preferable to use gzip over bzip2 as gzip is faster. ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: slow download
    ... Microsoft MVP - FrontPage ... have to download & install JVM from Sun to even see them. ... |> | for a web page or a email or not to compress at all. ... compress photo ...
    (microsoft.public.frontpage.client)
  • Re: 2003 R2 SETUP2.EXE generates "Program too big to fit in memory
    ... compress in a zip file if you will. ... It really sounds like a corrupted file. ... <The install of Windows was a clean install on one server and an upgrade on ... <servers are giving the error. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.setup)