Squashfs-ed knoppix

[kl522]

There maybe some truth in some of the older threads. However, the then cloop and the then squashfs might be different now. For software/hardware, 6months or 1 year is already a big difference. So I am not too sure of their relevance in todays view.

Technical analysis might be useful. But unless it is subtantiated with real life data, otherwise it is academic. I dare say in order to see the significant and conclusive difference in terms of performance, one will have to carefully design experiments to observe them. Otherwise at a gross level, especially on today's hardware, it will be hard to notice any difference.

And for usage history, I put my bet on squashfs. You see them in almost all of the embedded linux devices today. These devices have much more stringent CPU and memory contraints than a typical notebook/desktop.

[utu]

@ kl522

I would like to sign on to krishna's post #5 and
suggest Klaus K. probably has good reasons for lagging
the squashfs effort. Among other reasons is Ubuntu
and Fedora are plowing this ground. KK is a one-man
effort AFAIK.

This is not to diminish your effort or Forester's,
merely to suggest that we keep our discussions relative
to computer metrics, and not spend any time on long-
distance prognostications on ulterior motives.

Foresters decompress times on 'a machine at work'
seemed attractive. What were its parameters?
How does that machine compare to my Laptop/SDCard rig?