Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 01:25:53 -0700 From: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@efn.org> To: Studded <Studded@dal.net> Cc: "hackers@FreeBSD.ORG" <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: .zip vs. .tar.gz [was: zipfs filesystem anyone ? ] Message-ID: <19971024012553.49295@hydrogen.nike.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <199710240807.BAA01837@mail.san.rr.com>; from Studded on Fri, Oct 24, 1997 at 01:07:38AM -0700 References: <199710240807.BAA01837@mail.san.rr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Studded scribbled this message on Oct 24: > On Fri, 24 Oct 1997 16:26:35 +0930, Mike Smith wrote: > > >If tar was smart, it would use the external compression tool to > >compress the data for each file as it read it, rather than compressing > >the output stream. You would still lose, as the tar format does not > >have a central directory. > > I've never understood why InfoZip didn't catch on more in the > Unix world. It is a very useful tool, which does almost everything on > the list of requests that you and others are asking for. :) If you > want more info, http://www.cdrom.com/pub/infozip/ well.. personally it's because you can't compress/decompress with the same program and the output is noisy... nothing nicer than doing: tar -czf file.tar.gz file and know that it's exactly what you wanted... no output, nothing... :) plus you get much better compression rates as you merge the whole group of files into one big one... meaning your dictionary will be larger we you compress most of the files... and really... how slow is it to extract a few hundredk now days? if you want infozip.. just install the package/port... -- John-Mark Gurney Modem/FAX: +1 541 683 6954 Cu Networking Live in Peace, destroy Micro$oft, support free software, run FreeBSD
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19971024012553.49295>