mylivecd compression

[AS]

Hello,

considering that different users (and different kernel version) may require different compression, being myself inf favor of gzip compression, probably the simplest solution is to create an alias for mylivecd command:

alias mylivecd="mylivecd --gzip"

put the above line in ~/.bashrc and you will have you own default. 

AS

[scoundrel]

whats the difference between xs and gzip .??  not asking about time .. and what happened to "remasterme" ?

xz and gzip are different compression formats which mylivecd can use ......  it can also use lzma compression.

remasterme was a small script which prepared the user's environment for remastering.
It did things like unmount all but root and home partitions and a couple of things of that nature, and then it ran the mklivecd script.
mylivecd script has replaced mklivecd script.

So if you wish you could use a new remasterme script to run mylivecd as was done previously with mklivecd.

Hope that makes some sense 

nope.. no sense at all ..  but what I really want to know is which is better and how?? .. aside from the time diff

did me a gzip and it took only 12 minutes on a pristine lxde .

[Was_Just19]

whats the difference between xs and gzip .??  not asking about time .. and what happened to "remasterme" ?

xz and gzip are different compression formats which mylivecd can use ......  it can also use lzma compression.

remasterme was a small script which prepared the user's environment for remastering.
It did things like unmount all but root and home partitions and a couple of things of that nature, and then it ran the mklivecd script.
mylivecd script has replaced mklivecd script.

So if you wish you could use a new remasterme script to run mylivecd as was done previously with mklivecd.

Hope that makes some sense 

nope.. no sense at all ..  but what I really want to know is which is better and how?? .. aside from the time diff

did me a gzip and it took only 12 minutes on a pristine lxde .

Better is dependant on what is acceptable in your circumstances .....

xz has higher compression than either lzma or gzip, and so will make a smaller ISO for a given size of installed OS.

In my case it made an ISO that was 400MBs smaller than the one made by gzip.
Unfortunately it took a mighty long time to do that .....  much longer than I had been prepared for.

The size of the ISO, when they are both between 2GB and 3GB, makes little difference in use .....  they both fit on a DVD and neither fit on a CD.

If I was trying to fit something on a CD, and gzip was making an ISO that was a little too lage for a CD, then xz would be worth using, as it would likely create a smaller ISO that would fit on the CD.

So, depending on your requirements, xz can be the way to go .....  for size ........  and gzip if the size is not critical, as it is much faster to do the job.

I hope that helps explain the difference to a user.

regards. 

[Dragynn]

Just for comparison, my last few re-masters have been done with the default xz max compression, size apparently seems to matter in an exponential as opposed to linear fashion, because my little re-masters of ~ 1.4-1.6 gigs compress to under 400 mb and do so in well under ten minutes.

[scoundrel]

whats the difference between xs and gzip .??  not asking about time .. and what happened to "remasterme" ?

xz and gzip are different compression formats which mylivecd can use ......  it can also use lzma compression.

remasterme was a small script which prepared the user's environment for remastering.
It did things like unmount all but root and home partitions and a couple of things of that nature, and then it ran the mklivecd script.
mylivecd script has replaced mklivecd script.

So if you wish you could use a new remasterme script to run mylivecd as was done previously with mklivecd.

Hope that makes some sense 

nope.. no sense at all ..  but what I really want to know is which is better and how?? .. aside from the time diff

did me a gzip and it took only 12 minutes on a pristine lxde .

Better is dependant on what is acceptable in your circumstances .....

xz has higher compression than either lzma or gzip, and so will make a smaller ISO for a given size of installed OS.

In my case it made an ISO that was 400MBs smaller than the one made by gzip.
Unfortunately it took a mighty long time to do that .....  much longer than I had been prepared for.

The size of the ISO, when they are both between 2GB and 3GB, makes little difference in use .....  they both fit on a DVD and neither fit on a CD.

If I was trying to fit something on a CD, and gzip was making an ISO that was a little too lage for a CD, then xz would be worth using, as it would likely create a smaller ISO that would fit on the CD.

So, depending on your requirements, xz can be the way to go .....  for size ........  and gzip if the size is not critical, as it is much faster to do the job.

I hope that helps explain the difference to a user.

regards. 

thanks .. being an abuser myself, that does explain it a bit..