Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:30:11 +0100 From: Alex Zbyslaw <xfb52@dial.pipex.com> To: "Sherman, Michael \(GE Energy\)" <michael.sherman@og.ge.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tar or gtar Message-ID: <42D3C5E3.4060101@dial.pipex.com> In-Reply-To: <9CC5C6311E4BBB45BF135CAF2B9B6DB4014AC60E@SCHMLVEM04.e2k.ad.ge.com> References: <9CC5C6311E4BBB45BF135CAF2B9B6DB4014AC60E@SCHMLVEM04.e2k.ad.ge.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Sherman, Michael (GE Energy) wrote: >Hi all. > >I am running 5.3. I noticed that by default the BSD tar is used. Are there any advantages of gtar over tar? If so which ones? Also which compression switch is more efficient -z or -Z ? > > It depends what you need. If you need command-line argument compatibility with some other hosts, then gtar is better since it will install pretty much everywhere (and is the default on e.g. Linux). Or if gtar does something that BSD tar doesn't (incremental "backups", maybe? who knows what other bloat). Otherwise, I have never found any specific disadvantage to BSD tar. You can easily have both and the actual tar files should be compatible. --Alex
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42D3C5E3.4060101>