Re: [OT] Zip file browsing tool
On 03/03/2008, Douglas A. Tutty <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 07:03:26PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > If you happen to be using GNOME (God's own DE), then file-roller
> > will do just fine. Simply fire up Nautilus and click on the zip
> > file. But Dotan is correct: it also take *time*. So while it's
> > plowing thru the zip file, relax, get a cup of steaming hot coffee,
> > and scald the face of the idiot who created an 18GB zip file...
> Assuming that the person intended to send that much data (pictures) via
> the network, and that the person can't create a tarball, what's the
> problem with an 18GB zip file? Its dos's version of a tarball.
Tarballs are made for archiving onto tape. Therefore tar archives can
be split to multiple tapes with no size limit (within reason, which
18GB isn't even in this case). Tarballs be also be read (I believe,
I've never tried) from the middle provided they were prepared that
Zip files, like tar, must live within the constraints of the
environment in which they were developed. FAT16 drives were very
problematic about 2 or 4 GB, and therefore zip was designed with that
size limitation in mind. Sure, you _could_ make a larger one, but you
could also bike from Beijing to Beirut in theory as well (yes, some
have done it). Theory is not practice and in practice, work within the
limitations set by the engineer who created the tool you are using.
> iso files aren't compressed. When downloading a new OS CD, I wish they
> were gzipped; would save a bunch of telephone time.
File a bug. I think it's a great idea.
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?