Re: KDE compression options: tar, zip, or rar
>> These are backup directories for my own use. Why is Rar considered a
>> power user tool? Is it superior (more compressed, faster, less prone
>> to corruption)?
> Its a properitary format. If you want good performance, go for 7zip (as
> an archiver, or lzma instead of gzip). In fact, I'm quite surprised to
> see it is not supported there.
I will google to see if 7zip can be added, thanks.
>> I don't think that any of them are lacking, but I would like to know
>> each format's features and benefits. Thanks.
> Tar is most likely to preserve all features of a Linux file system.
This is very important, thanks!
> Zip, unlike tar, provides more of random-access to the contents of the
> archive: no need to read the whole archive to get a single file. Rar has
> two modes: The "solid" one provides better compression but has the same
> issue as Tar.
Thanks. I do not need maximum compression, but rather maximum reliability.