Re: KDE compression options: tar, zip, or rar
> tar is not compression, it's an archive (tar = Tape ARchive). You generally
> zip tarballs with either bzip (*.tar.bz) or gzip (*.tar.gz or *.tgz). I
> don't know if KDE defaults to one of these.
>
The file manager entry says Compress -> As Zip/Tar so I suppose that
the tarballs are compressed with Zip. The other tow entries are "As
Zip" and "As Rar" so I cannot imagine what benefit Zip/Tar has over
Zip.
> If you're sending files to people, in general, a *nixy user will be
> expecting a zipped tarball, most Windows Users will be expecting a zip
> archive. More 'power' windows users will be expecting .rars.
>
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)?
> Zip is probably the most widely-supported, but not always installed by
> default on Linux distros. I've never found a [b|g]zipped tarball to be
> particularly lacking.
>
I don't think that any of them are lacking, but I would like to know
each format's features and benefits. Thanks.
--
Dotan Cohen
http://what-is-what.com
http://gibberish.co.il
Reply to: