From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 24-148-111-2.ip.mhcable.com ([24.148.111.2] helo=smtp.mhcable.com) by speech.braille.uwo.ca with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1CCwae-00045P-00 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 04:47:04 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by deliver.mhcable.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24702E722E for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 00:38:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp.mhcable.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (VaMailArmor-2.0.1.16) id 20473-1B4EFEE7; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 00:38:58 -0400 Received: from sent.com (24-105-197-112.cm.mhcable.com [24.105.197.112]) by smtp.mhcable.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F06B9E71F8 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 00:38:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i8U8l2Pm020904 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 04:47:02 -0400 Received: from localhost (chuckh@localhost) by sent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) with ESMTP id i8U8l2EC020901 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 04:47:02 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 04:47:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Chuck Hallenbeck To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." In-Reply-To: <20040930063526.GA2263@lnx3.holmesgrown.com> Message-ID: References: <20040928003402.GD25684@romuald.net.eu.org> <20040930063526.GA2263@lnx3.holmesgrown.com> X-OpenPGP-Fingerprint: 0C589180D4496F1544BAB4308355D1BC33DC7DB46 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-AntiVirus: checked by Vexira MailArmor (version: 2.0.1.16; VAE: 6.27.0.12; VDF: 6.27.0.80; host: smtp.mhcable.com) Subject: Re: Linux and data storage? X-BeenThere: speakup@braille.uwo.ca X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." List-Id: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 08:47:04 -0000 Steve, I have been thinking about why folks get so gun shy with respect to such reliable technologies. I think sometimes it originates with the all too common disasters that come from working in the DOS world, or Windows world, where there has always been this utterly stupid and risky business about "text mode" vs. "binary mode" for file transfers and compression. Making the wrong choice here can really cause you to shoot yourself in the foot. For me, one of the enormous advantages of saying bye bye to the Microsoft atrocities is the ability to forget about that distinction, text mode vs. binary mode. Data are compressed and uncompressed, uploaded and downloaded, without ever once having to give a second thought to those modes, which are nowadays only booby traps. But I have no idea how one overcomes being nervous about the matter. Maybe we need a mailing list for "recovering MS-holics!" Chuck On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, Steve Holmes wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Ahh this fear of compression! Can't say for sure about over the net > between the two machines (shell world and your web host) but I know > for sure that files transferred via a 56K modem are compressed in > transit and then decompressed as they spill onto your computer so at > the day you wish to pull those files down to a local machine of yours > over the modem, guess what, compression will be there like it or not. > If I were a system administrator preparing to transfer someone's files > over to another location, I would use tar, compress it with the gzip > or bzip2 option and ship that over and then do likewise to unpack it; > no questions asked. This situation is 100% reliable! I havenever > lost data in the 20 years I've been computing due to any file > compression. Now since rsync has been discussed here as a viable > method of transferring files and keeping them in sync in the future, I > recall there being a "compress on the fly" option and I would > incourage its use simply to move things more quickly. But that is an > option in itself. -- The Moon is Waning Gibbous (96% of Full) Home page at http://www.mhcable.com/~chuckh Speakfreely address 24.105.197.112:2074