@Dashrender said in zip and . rar files?:

@JaredBusch said in zip and . rar files?:

@notverypunny said in zip and . rar files?:

The advantage that I remember rar having was that it could split and then recombine an archive at the appropriate size for floppy disks. Seems foolish now but in the era of dial-up and 1.44 MB 3.5" diskettes it was a killer feature that winzip (also a paid software once upon a time, not always built into windoze) didn't have.

Correct, that was the huge benefit to rar over zip in the 90’s. You are also correct that native zip support in windows is relatively recent.

If by recent you mean Windows XP...

LOL, yeah, 18 years ago at this point 🙂

@tonyshowoff said in Linux: Zip and 7Zip:

Sorry if this was mentioned but I didn't see it directly mentioned for clarity:

If your compression is unavailable directly in tar (-J being essentially 7zip, my favourite), you can tar it first (without compression) and then compress the tar, this maintains both Unix metadata and also gives the benefit.

Also, if you compress something already compressed you won't get the best benefit, at least not when it comes to using something as powerful as LZMA/7zip.

I believe that that is mentioned in the tar article.

I've never read the Eula since I never considered installing it but I'm pretty sure that the time after the trial was actually a violation. The kind if stuff that the BSA looks for.