Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It argues the topic pretty well: xz is unsuitable for long-term archival. The arguments are in-depth and well worded. Do you have any argument to the contrary beyond "sour grapes"?


It's not relevant to the current issue at hand.


If you say "sour grapes", then back down your bold statement or don't say at all.


What are you talking about? Do you understand multiple people use this site?

Also do you mean back up?

Antonio literally used to go around mailing lists asking for lzip support and complaining about xz:

- https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2017-06/msg00044.html

- https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2017/06/msg00433.html

Also, https://web.archive.org/web/20190605225651/http://octave.159...

I can understand wanting your project to succeed, it's pretty natural and human, but it's flagrant Antonio had a lot of feels about the uptake of xz compared to lzip, as both are container formats around raw lzma data streams and lzip predates xz by 6 months. His complaint article about xz is literally one of the "Introductory links" of lzip.


> xz is unsuitable for long-term archival

Neither is lzip since it doesn't contain error correction codes. You can add those with an additional file (to any archive) e.g. via par2 but then most of the points in the linked rant become irrelevant.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: