Unofficial cheatcode for those who miss the old official home= cheatcode

[kl522]

I think the differences are not worth the trouble to leave a well established compression method.

I don't want to get into the war of the compression speed comparison, as I mentioned earlier, as some of the comparison what not a fair one, basically they did not use the same compression algorithm, it is not apple to apple.

However, I would like to dispute this point about cloop being the well eastablished compression method.

Which is more established compression method ?

Maybe my knowledge is skewed but here is what I know :-

1. Squashfs has long existed if not as long as cloop compression.
2. Squashfs is accepted into stock kernel a few versions back but cloop is still an external patch.
3. You can find squashfs in almost all embedded devices, including your typical home routers, home ADSL modems, home media players, home appliances such as TVs and so on. If you count the number of seats ( linux OS ) uses squashfs compared to cloop, squashfs is many many times more widespread than cloop..
4. Just run this utility on the compression file system :-

      $ file /mnt-system/KNOPPI/KNOPPIX
KNOPPIX: POSIX shell script text executable
     
     $ file /mnt-system/KNOPPIX/KNOPPIX.sq
KNOPPIX.sq: Squashfs filesystem, little endian, version 4.0, 630912472831 bytes, 189043 inodes, blocksize: 147 bytes, created: Mon Jan  7 04:52:16 1991

Now even a utility like 'file' knows about squashfs, which is more established ?