#140541 - 2005-05-29 05:00 PM
UPX compression?
|
iffy
Starting to like KiXtart
Registered: 2005-05-29
Posts: 149
Loc: The Netherlands
|
UPX (v1.25) can reduce the kix32.exe big time. But compressing v4.50rc1 gives an error with the default commandline of UPX. The -force parameter does seem to work without any problems though and reduces kix32.exe from 248kb to 108kb.
Questions is: does anyone have a reason not to use an executable packer like UPX, that is, does anyone know of any problems?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#140543 - 2005-05-29 05:54 PM
Re: UPX compression?
|
iffy
Starting to like KiXtart
Registered: 2005-05-29
Posts: 149
Loc: The Netherlands
|
Err... to make it smaller? 
It's not that important, but still, if you can easily save on some bandwidth why not do it? But to elaborate... I do know, and even use some sort of version control to achieve the same. But for a new "project" I'm looking into packing a script and dependent files into a single exe and that exe won't be used by people who either use batch files or who could implement version control / local caching.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#140545 - 2005-05-29 06:54 PM
Re: UPX compression?
|
iffy
Starting to like KiXtart
Registered: 2005-05-29
Posts: 149
Loc: The Netherlands
|
I had read through that topic before posting and didn't find as much discussion as you seem to see there. Mostly I see a lot of talk why you would not want to compress, what use it might have or what nifty techniques one could use to conserve bandwidth but not an answer to the topic posters question, and none to mine so far for that matter.
Btw.. you definitely have my support for MakeEXE. I, and many others I'm sure, would like to see a sort of compile to .exe for KiX scripts. I've been using KiX since 1998, or perhaps even earlier and most of the time the plain .kix file + kix32.exe is fine but sometimes it's not.
Kixcrypt is very very useful, especially since it supports bundling dependent files. Perhaps Ruud and Richard should work together
Edited by iffy (2005-05-29 06:59 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#140547 - 2005-05-29 07:32 PM
Re: UPX compression?
|
iffy
Starting to like KiXtart
Registered: 2005-05-29
Posts: 149
Loc: The Netherlands
|
The point is that I would want the combined executable to be as small as possible to conserve bandwidth and make it start faster on the client (on low bandwidth connections like 64kbit to 256kbit). And I prefer, for different reasons, to make the source files smaller instead of the resulting combined package. As I said, local caching is not an option unfortionately in the project I'm currently playing with. As for ones views of the depth of a conversation I guess that different people have different standards.
Edited by iffy (2005-05-29 07:34 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#140549 - 2005-05-30 12:12 AM
Re: UPX compression?
|
iffy
Starting to like KiXtart
Registered: 2005-05-29
Posts: 149
Loc: The Netherlands
|
Just my original question: does anyone have a reason not to use an executable packer like UPX, that is, does anyone know of any problems?
I meant does it break functionality? Like suddenly script abc.kix doesn't work anymore on machine XYZ or something like that.
I thought that was pretty clear but perhaps I should have pointed that out better. I'm not interested in a debate of whether or not to compress, the shortcomings of UPX or any packer for that matter or techniques for bandwidth preservation. Those are of course a good topics but have nothing to do with my question. Same goes, imho, for the conversation thread you mentioned earlier. Ciper's basic question as to why the increase in size over time or why the kix executables aren't compressed already in some form is not answered.
You have way too much attitude for a moderator, calm down a bit, step down from your pedestal. Nothing wrong with your knowledge, but if you'd talk to your partner in the way you answer questions here you'd be sleeping on the couch a lot.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#140551 - 2005-05-30 12:34 AM
Re: UPX compression?
|
iffy
Starting to like KiXtart
Registered: 2005-05-29
Posts: 149
Loc: The Netherlands
|
Hadn't thought of that one even if I usually tend toward 'speed' instead of 'size' when setting compiler options myself. Could explain the size difference when packing but that's besides the question of 'known compatibility issues' when using a packer like upx or aspack for (w)kix32.exe
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#140553 - 2005-05-30 02:00 AM
Re: UPX compression?
|
iffy
Starting to like KiXtart
Registered: 2005-05-29
Posts: 149
Loc: The Netherlands
|
Well, first I didn't think I was being "flippant", the smiley should have made that quite clear. But if you interpreted it that way then I'm sorry. Perhaps we got of on a wrong start. And about attitude and mirrors... ever heard the one about "it takes one to recognize one" ? 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#140555 - 2005-05-30 02:11 AM
Re: UPX compression?
|
iffy
Starting to like KiXtart
Registered: 2005-05-29
Posts: 149
Loc: The Netherlands
|
/me apologizes for any misbehaviour
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Arend_, Allen, Jochen, Radimus, Glenn Barnas, ShaneEP, Ruud van Velsen, Mart
|
0 registered
and 484 anonymous users online.
|
|
|
