mitsue@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mitsue Osanami) (04/25/91)
People should not be getting too excited about ARJ 2.00 or any other... 90% of the code used in ARJ is "stolen" directly from LHA. I do not think it at all appropriate for Jung to be putting a copyright and "all rights reserved" on code that wasnt' written by him. The code is the SAME in most parts of the code down to formatting and a few comments. If you will go back to ARJ version .20 the results from it will be BYTE for BYTE the same as that from AR2! The only advancement that he has made is increasing the dictionary size to 22k! This guy deserves no recognition.
c60b-1eq@web-4e.berkeley.edu (Noam Mendelson) (04/25/91)
In article <11382@uwm.edu> mitsue@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mitsue Osanami) writes: >People should not be getting too excited about ARJ 2.00 or any other... >90% of the code used in ARJ is "stolen" directly from LHA. I do not think it >at all appropriate for Jung to be putting a copyright and "all rights >reserved" on code that wasnt' written by him. The code is the SAME in >most parts of the code down to formatting and a few comments. If this is true, I'm interested in how he decreased compression time dramatically (substantially less than LHa's time) while still coding all of it in ANSI C (so Mr. Jung claims). LHa is partly coded in assembler. -- +==========================================================================+ | Noam Mendelson ..!ucbvax!web!c60b-1eq | "I haven't lost my mind, | | c60b-1eq@web.Berkeley.EDU | it's backed up on tape | | University of California at Berkeley | somewhere." |
rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) (04/27/91)
In article <11382@uwm.edu> mitsue@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mitsue Osanami) writes: > >People should not be getting too excited about ARJ 2.00 or any other... > >90% of the code used in ARJ is "stolen" directly from LHA. I do not think it >at all appropriate for Jung to be putting a copyright and "all rights >reserved" on code that wasnt' written by him. The code is the SAME in >most parts of the code down to formatting and a few comments. > >If you will go back to ARJ version .20 the results from it will be BYTE for >BYTE the same as that from AR2! > >The only advancement that he has made is increasing the dictionary size to >22k! This guy deserves no recognition. It's a big speed increase over LHA. That alone is worth considering. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks. | Ron Dippold
Peter_Gutmann@kcbbs.gen.nz (Peter Gutmann) (05/01/91)
lines: 26 >If you will go back to ARJ version .20 the results from it will be BYTE for >BYTE the same as that from AR2! I noticed this when I prepared my compression list a few months ago: The results for ARJ 1.x and Lha 2.x are virtually byte-for-byte identical for ever file in the BWC corpus. I thought this was just a *tad* suspicious at the tim but I never mentioned anything since I didn't really want to start a war about it. Another thing is that the code posted a while back as LZJU90 appears to be slightly reformatted Lharc code. I really think this should have been credite as LHA or LHY (Y as in "Yoshi", the Lharc author), and not LZJU. I'm not sure what method ARJ 2.00 uses (one of these top-secret patented ones) but whatever it is it's not Lharc code any more - it achieves better performance than Lha at greater speed. Disclaimer: I'm not trying to start a war, these are just my observations. -- Peter_Gutmann@kcbbs.gen.nz || peter@nacjack.gen.nz || pgut1@cs.aukuni.ac.nz (In order of decreasing reliability) Warning! Something large, scaly, and with fangs a foot long lives between <yoursite> and <mysite>. Every now and then it kills and eats messages. If you don't receive a reply within a week, try resending...