Commercial Support references on the Xubuntu website

Eero Tamminen oak at
Thu Aug 23 19:55:03 UTC 2007


On Thursday 23 August 2007, Giuseppe Torelli wrote:
>> 143 MB of file-roller 2.16 against 92 MB of xarchiver in svn NOT 0.4.6.

That's not really much of a difference (saves only about third). 
In Maemo they would be both considered bloated no-gos.

> gt[xarchiver]$ ll ~/Xarchiver_Test/
> -rw-r--r-- 1 gt users 86096370 2007-01-12 
13:17 /home/gt/Xarchiver_Test/
> As you can see that archive was 86 MB not 1Gb

It would seem that in both archivers the memory grows linearly compared to
the archive size, is this right?   I.e. both use O(1) algorithm, which is
a clear mistake if one wants to deal with larger amounts of data.

What makes this even stranger is that Zip files have the index separately at 
the end of the archive unlike e.g. tar(.gz) files which don't have an
index.  Where these programs are wasting the memory, I'm pretty sure
InfoZip (the command line tools for handling zip files) doesn't have this

	- Eero


More information about the xubuntu-devel mailing list