From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Message-Id: <199512191801.LAA14830@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Subject: Re: undump program
To: nate@rocky.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams)
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 11:01:00 -0700 (MST)
Cc: terry@lambert.org, nate@rocky.sri.MT.net, questions@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199512191751.KAA26854@rocky.sri.MT.net> from "Nate Williams" at Dec 19, 95 10:51:15 am
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

> > No, it means that your statement is tantamount to the claims of a 50%
> > size reduction for *any* file using a recoverable compression algorithm.
> 
> I made no such claims.  I said the dumped version was faster than the
> un-dumped version.  I stand behind that claim.  I live in the real world
> and work with 'real' tools, not something which should exist but
> doesn't.
> 
> We don't have check-pointing, nor was that even an issue until you
> brought it up.  The request was for an 'undump' program so an individual
> could dump a perl binary and ship it.  He didn't want a discussion on
> the relative merits of bload/bsave, checkpointing, or how useless it is.

Well, then; give him an "undump" program.


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.