Hacker News Reader

Comment by jnxx | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

That is just technical disagreements and sour grapes by someone involved in a competing format (Lzip).

There’s no evidence Lasse did anything “wrong” beyond looking for / accepting co-maintainers, something package authors are taken to task for not doing every time they have life catching up or get fed up and can’t / won’t spend as much time on the thing.

> That is just technical disagreements and sour grapes

Care to provide some evidence to back this statement?

It argues the topic pretty well: xz is unsuitable for long-term archival. The arguments are in-depth and well worded. Do you have any argument to the contrary beyond "sour grapes"?

It's not relevant to the current issue at hand.

If you say "sour grapes", then back down your bold statement or don't say at all.

What are you talking about? Do you understand multiple people use this site?

Also do you mean back up?

Antonio literally used to go around mailing lists asking for lzip support and complaining about xz:

- https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2017-06/msg00044.html

- https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2017/06/msg00433.html

Also, https://web.archive.org/web/20190605225651/http://octave.159...

I can understand wanting your project to succeed, it's pretty natural and human, but it's flagrant Antonio had a lot of feels about the uptake of xz compared to lzip, as both are container formats around raw lzma data streams and lzip predates xz by 6 months. His complaint article about xz is literally one of the "Introductory links" of lzip.

> xz is unsuitable for long-term archival

Neither is lzip since it doesn't contain error correction codes. You can add those with an additional file (to any archive) e.g. via par2 but then most of the points in the linked rant become irrelevant.

This link is opinion piece about the file format and has nothing to do with today's news.

Also, Lasse has not been accused of any wrong-doings.

His GH account was suspended, in what I believe a very unfortunate case of collateral damage.

Collateral damage yes, but it seems like he is currently away from the internet for an extended time. So it could be that Github needed to suspend his account in order to bypass things that he would otherwise have to do/approve? Or to preempt the possibility that his account was also compromised and we don't know yet.

Except it unnecessary complexity is very convenient to limit the code audit to only domain experts.

People don't always reveal the true reason they want to destroy something.

Like the lzip author when he wrote that hitpiece?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com