Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 02:40:00 -0500 (CDT) From: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@futuresouth.com> To: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> Cc: Michael Schuster <Michael.Schuster@utimaco.co.at>, "hackers@FreeBSD.ORG" <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: .zip vs. .tar.gz [was: zipfs filesystem anyone ? ] Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971024023702.19781C-100000@shell.futuresouth.com> In-Reply-To: <199710240656.QAA01921@word.smith.net.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 24 Oct 1997, Mike Smith wrote: > If tar was smart, it would use the external compression tool to > compress the data for each file as it read it, rather than compressing > the output stream. You would still lose, as the tar format does not > have a central directory. I have to disagree with this. it's much more efficient space-wise to compress a tarball than it is to tar a bunch of compressed files. and tar isn't meant to be a random-access archive method; tar and gzip are meant to save space and preserve directrory/file layout. And they're perfectly suited for this task. They don't do what you're discussing too well, no, but they aren't MEANT to. tar is smart for what tis' doing. > > mike > *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* | FreeBSD; the way computers were meant to be | * "The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is * | that I haven't figured out how to light the middle yet."| * fullermd@futuresouth.com :-} MAtthew Fuller * | http://keystone.westminster.edu/~fullermd | *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.971024023702.19781C-100000>