home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!paperboy.osf.org!hsdndev!dartvax!news
- From: fermat@fermat.dartmouth.edu (Michael Glenn)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.misc
- Subject: Re: NeXT ModPlayers (Cf. Getting more space ...)
- Message-ID: <C1H8oE.5qw@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
- Date: 26 Jan 93 19:55:23 GMT
- References: <1993Jan26.181644.4276@adobe.com>
- Sender: news@dartvax.dartmouth.edu (The News Manager)
- Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
- Lines: 35
-
- >
- > > 69929 ModPlayer_V2.5.tar.Z
- > > 44327 ModPlayer_V2.5.tar.squfile
- > > 38541 ModPlayer_V2.5.tar.z
- >
- > > So gzip gives the maximum compression.
- >
- > Great, but how about using ".zip" to avoid confusion? :-)
- >
-
- Well, a couple of reasons. Here is the full story:
-
- 69929 ModPlayer_V2.5.tar.Z
- 53937 ModPlayer_V2.5.zip
- 53447 ModPlayer_V2.5.lha
- 50854 ModPlayer_V2.5.tar.lha
- 44327 ModPlayer_V2.5.tar.squfile
- 38663 ModPlayer_V2.5.tar.zip
- 38541 ModPlayer_V2.5.tar.z
-
- As you can see, zip acting on a directory doesn't really do a very good
- job. On a single file yes (gzip always seems to beat it slightly), but on
- directories no. In general, lha always does better than zip on
- directories with large numbers of files. (don't get rid of lha just yet)
- Always the *best* compression can be had by tarring everything first, and
- then using either zip or gzip.
-
- So, if you have to choose between file.tar.z and file.tar.zip, I would
- easily choose file.tar.z instead. Aside from it having two fewer letters,
- gzip is totally gnu, incredibly easy to install, and will undoubtedly
- replace the unix compress/uncompress. (it works exactly the same way,
- though with some added options) It is a utility that will be on everyones
- system very soon. I can't say the same of zip.
-
- Michael Glenn
-