Re: tar vs

[Micha Feigin <michf@post.tau.ac.il>]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 13:26:40 -0400
Frank McCormick <fmccormick@videotron.ca> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 19:16:04 +0200
> Micha Feigin <michf@post.tau.ac.il> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 12:08:08 -0400
> > Frank McCormick <fmccormick@videotron.ca> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > >   What is Linuxs "obsession" with tar ? What is (are) the advantage
> > > (s) of tar over ZIP/RAR for example.
> > > 
> > 
> > tar is almost as old as the computer (it's been around since magnetic
> > tapes) and it represents the *nix philosophy of do one task and do it
> > will
> > 
> > What you do here is separate the work of grouping together files
> > (tar) and compressing them (most commonly gzip and bzip2 in this case
> > there is also compress and a few others which are rarely used these
> > days).
> > 
> > zip does all the work in one place, it's also been around for ages
> > but it only more recently propagated to *nix. I don't know the
> > difference in efficient, but zip has the drawback that it doesn't
> 
> 
>    Good. Answers my questions. Didn't think about the permissions
> problem. I guess in my daily usage it doesn't make a great deal of
> difference if I own the files I extract providing they're in my home.
> 

The owner usually isn't an issue in daily usage but file permission is. You
don't want you entire directory marked executable.

> Thanks
> 
> Cheers
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iD8DBQFF/CTQzWG7ldLG6fIRAuHGAJsGKl5sQm6cHZkHv/bQbJhD5KsMmACgibfR
> AHYheyDfl4fg/IFb1dEc3Eg=
> =1ILO
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
>