>> Had cloop not been a project of Klaus
>Ah! I didn't know that! Well, if it's his own, then it *must* be the best ;D
>Sadly, egomania is the enemy of getting the best results.
>That explains why everyone remasters knoppix with squashfs!

If you think _that_ of Klaus you have catched the wrong person.

Klaus is just a very careful person, who you could also call conservative.

Remember also when Klaus used cloop there was _nothing_ else available and that squashfs
had some problems before. It might also be that UnionFS still has / had problems with squashfs.

I don't remember what was the case with zisofs though.

>Don't worry, cloop isn't the devil or poisonous or anything. It just doesn't get the
>best compression and also incurs a big performance penalty on memory-limited
>machines compared to the native compressed filesystems, which was the point
>of my original post.

Yes, you are right with those both, _BUT_ isofs is quite error-resistant and this get directly to cloop as there are just blocks that fail like on a normal CD.

I think it used to be an argument.also.

>I think it's more useful to keep discussions at a technical level rather than
>answering with personal insults.

Agree.

cu

Fabian