| 1 |
Peter Volkov <pva@g.o> posted |
| 2 |
1229707964.13304.1334.camel@localhost, excerpted below, on Fri, 19 Dec |
| 3 |
2008 20:32:44 +0300: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> В Птн, 19/12/2008 в 17:06 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh пишет: |
| 6 |
>> But disk space is cheap. How big are the dictionaries? The vim |
| 7 |
>> dictionaries are around half a meg uncompressed, and if you're looking |
| 8 |
>> to save a meg or two in disk space on the kind of system that includes |
| 9 |
>> dictionaries then you're doing something seriously wrong... |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Size is times larger. All dictionary data (without index) I have |
| 12 |
> currently installed occupies 93M in compressed form and uncompressed |
| 13 |
> it'll take 402M. This does not count dictionaries I'm going to add into |
| 14 |
> the tree. If I remember correctly all dictionaries I needed from |
| 15 |
> stardict site took about 1Gbyte (uncompressed). Also some people use |
| 16 |
> more then two languages and then they'll use more dictionaries. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I believe this is all people have been asking, really. For a gig of |
| 19 |
data, compression to under a couple hundred megs sounds worthwhile. For |
| 20 |
a hundred megs, compression to twenty megs, or even ten or five, not so |
| 21 |
much, as on the fast machines a hundred megs or so of space shouldn't be |
| 22 |
an issue, while on the slow machines, the decompression latency isn't |
| 23 |
tolerable. But a gig of space (or even half a gig)... that's rather |
| 24 |
different as there are still a decent number of people for whom that's 1% |
| 25 |
or more of their total, who may be willing to take that latency as they |
| 26 |
have better things to do with the space. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 30 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 31 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives