Subject: Re: VOTE! Zip vs Compress! From: system@kryton.UUCP (Scott Beckstead) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1992 19:51:33 PDT
keith@ksmith.uucp (Keith Smith) writes:
> I'd like to make 2 points.
>
> 1. zip, zoo, freeze, arc, lha, ad nauseum do a tons better job of
> compressing and are much more feature laden than tar.Z. They provide
> levels of recovery, and directories, checksums, and much much more.
> They are far superior than tar.Z. Period.
>
> 2. Stick with tar.Z. I *THINK* in tar.Z tar.Z is FAST. I don't have
> to remember all the flags and crap to make something happen. I use tar
> already for tape and disk backup on a daily basis. Tar handles
> sub-directories far better. Even though I have 'less' on every machine
> I use, I *STILL* type flipping 'more' 75% of the time. <sigh>. There is
> something to be said for tradition here.
> --
> Keith Smith uunet!ksmith!keith 5719 Archer Rd.
> Digital Designs BBS 1-919-423-4216 Hope Mills, NC 28348-2201
> Somewhere in the Styx of North Carolina ...
I'll make one more. I use tar.Z on a daily basis at work. it runs on
my unix box and I don't have to ask the sysadmin to install a new
package for me. I don't want to have to think about it. I don't want
to have to compile anything to look at what is in an archive (zoo lha
and zip all need compilation and installation on MOST unix sites).
Truth to tell zip/zoo/lha et al. don't do any better than tar.Z unless
you are REALLY pressed for space. Then it's time to buy a new HD
anyway. I mean 20% of a 100k file is what 20k if you are complaining
about 20k of disk space you need more HD space anyway.
System Administrator Paradox Alley F&SF BBS and Usenet News/Mail
805-492-8789 Thousand Oaks, Ca. The Place For Science Fiction and Fantasy
"Spin My Nipple Nuts and Send Me to Alaska!" Kryten, Red Dwarf