Because of your comment, I did a quick google search and pretty much every source says that .tar.gz is also pretty ancient and not that good (from a compression point of view). For better compression, you can use the xz or 7zip formats. The former is more used on Linux, if that's what you're using.
Yep, but Windows is still the majority right now... And i'm sure there are a lot of people out there that don't have 7zip installed (why doesn't MS include their own implementation already ?)
People barely understand how to open a .zip file, explaining what .tar.gz is and why you need an additional program (on Windows) is going to be impossible.
I tend to prefer zip because of cross compatibility with Windows with no extra software needed, and because the Windows software to unpackage a tar.gz that I have used required unpacking it twice (once for the gz, then again for the tar). It seemed like a hassle.
On Linux I command line everything, so they are the same to me, so I have no preference there. But is there something actually better about it?
With .zip you can extract just one file from it, while with .tar.gz you have to uncompress the whole .tar before you can get the files - so that's worse.
But, since you're compressing all files at once you could get better compression since information can be shared between files.
It's likely a combination of tradition/habit and compatibility. Tar.gz is widely supported on *nix systems, and while 7z is highly efficient, its not as widely supported and may need additional libraries or software to work on some systems,/distros
Yay this is now a URL. If your intention was not to post a URL to some random website not loading anything but javadscript, put a "" before the link I guess
yourfiles.tar.xz
Looks more like a one-way hash to me.
This is a one-way hash.
.
Yeah, well, couldn't find an image of pillows being sqashed to a singularity.
Luckily, it's open to interpretation, lol.
Mike: It's a cube of garbage. 🙄
Sully: I can still here her tiny little voice. 😦
Mike: Oh.
Sounds familiar to me
Spotted the Linux user
You got me!
I do NOT understand how zip is still the default. I use .tgz wherever I can.
Because of your comment, I did a quick google search and pretty much every source says that .tar.gz is also pretty ancient and not that good (from a compression point of view). For better compression, you can use the xz or 7zip formats. The former is more used on Linux, if that's what you're using.
Lzo or lzma is best for compression. Also depends on the compression rate. KDE Ark is awesome
Nono, z-standard is where it's at
Compatibility with literally anything under the sun that can decompress a compressed file.
But isn't that's given with tgz too?
Except of course Windows iirc
Yep, but Windows is still the majority right now... And i'm sure there are a lot of people out there that don't have 7zip installed (why doesn't MS include their own implementation already ?)
And this is the problem imo. If you NEVER change a thing you will never improve
Good luck teaching that to people who only use a computer to browse Facebook.
Not saying it's impossible, but it takes time
Do these even need zips?
They do but its useless. Winrar can handle .tar.* too
Windows, Android, iOS do not open them by default.
You can do it on iOS using Siri Shortcuts.
I don't get how they add all these formats to Shortcuts but only Zip into the file app...
People barely understand how to open a
.zipfile, explaining what.tar.gzis and why you need an additional program (on Windows) is going to be impossible.What exactly is better about tar.gz over zip?
I tend to prefer zip because of cross compatibility with Windows with no extra software needed, and because the Windows software to unpackage a tar.gz that I have used required unpacking it twice (once for the gz, then again for the tar). It seemed like a hassle.
On Linux I command line everything, so they are the same to me, so I have no preference there. But is there something actually better about it?
With .zip you can extract just one file from it, while with .tar.gz you have to uncompress the whole .tar before you can get the files - so that's worse.
But, since you're compressing all files at once you could get better compression since information can be shared between files.
Best explanation of tar/tar.gz that I have seen
Why use this over .7z? I'm legit curious.
It's likely a combination of tradition/habit and compatibility. Tar.gz is widely supported on *nix systems, and while 7z is highly efficient, its not as widely supported and may need additional libraries or software to work on some systems,/distros
Compatibility. Every Linux system comes with tar and gzip
Also, 7z does not store file permissions. Doesn't matter for a bunch of text/media files, but needed for distributing software.
Why use this over .xz? I'm legit curious.
Reminds me of the "grandma .zip" meme
Yay this is now a URL. If your intention was not to post a URL to some random website not loading anything but javadscript, put a "" before the link I guess
Test "example/.com"
Fuck Google
Oops, yeah that was my intention lol. I'll put some invisible unicode character after the dot, maybe that would do it.
Naw thats grandma.mp3 or grandma.jpg because thats clearly lossy compression not lossless.
For the love of God why did Google do this. Why is this a domain now ffs.
tar just wraps, doesn't compress. so more accurate would be the pillows in a looser bag that doesn't squish them even a little :)
Cuts them into nice stripes so they fit onto a tape spindle though.
I've learned something today