[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RAR under linux: any alternative?

On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 18:51 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Alex Malinovich wrote:
> > I don't know, maybe I'm just dense or something, but explain to me why
> > you would WANT to put that information in the archive itself? 
>     What, the checksums?  Uh, so the reference is where you need it, with the
> archive.  No need to go external.  Also since the checksums are on a
> per-file-inside-the-archive basis you can see what files are corrupt and
> extract around that.  Something tar, esp. split tars, is utterly incapable of.
>  Trust me, I tried.

This is all assuming that the portion of the file that got corrupted
ISN'T the portion storing the checksum data. If it is, the file is of no
use to you.

> > If an archive is CORRUPTED (which is why we're distributing the sums and the
> > PARs in the first place), what good will it be that the sums and
> > recovery info are IN the file?
>     Partial recoveries in spite of the above.  IE, redundancy is a good thing.
>  Say the part of the archive that is corrupt is a file that isn't needed.  You
> don't have to wast an entire PAR on that section.  Just extract the other
> files and ignore the corrupted one.

I seem to recall someone saying something about being responsible and
educating one's self on a piece of software? You don't "use up" a PAR.
It's not a bandage, or a tissue. It's perfectly possible to restore more
than one file with one PAR. (Depending on the total number of parts in
the archive set and the total number of PAR's included.)

>     I'd say that's pretty much a certainty.  Please, if you're going to start
> blasting a piece of software on its technical merits at least do the
> responsible thing and educate yourself of what it can and cannot do prior to
> stepping up on your soapbox and inserting your foot into your mouth?  Thanks.

I don't believe I ever began "blasting" a piece of software. What I did
was refute YOUR assertion that RAR is superior to a combination of free
software tools that performs a nearly-identical function. If you want to
use a non-free archiving utility, you are quite welcome to do so. Just
don't state AS FACT your OPINION that an equivalent result cannot be
obtained using different tools.

I'm very familiar with the RAR program and its evolution over the last
10+ years, including the new features that 3.0 introduced. My question,
as before, remains what practical benefit this software presents that
CANNOT be achieved otherwise?

Alex Malinovich
Support Free Software, delete your Windows partition TODAY!
Encrypted mail preferred. You can get my public key from any of the
pgp.net keyservers. Key ID: A6D24837

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: