how about .tar.zip or .tar.rar?
this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2024
915 points (99.0% liked)
linuxmemes
21393 readers
1339 users here now
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
- Instance-wide TOS: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
- Lemmy code of conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
2. Be civil
- Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
- Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
- Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
- Bigotry will not be tolerated.
- These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
3. Post Linux-related content
- Including Unix and BSD.
- Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of
sudoin Windows. - No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
4. No recent reposts
- Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't fork-bomb your computer.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Kind of redundant. Both .zip and .rar store an index of files within the archive and are a bit 'inside-out' when it comes what we get from tar.gz.
That is, ZIP is pretty close to what you'd get if you first gzipped all your files and then put them into a .tar.
RAR does a little more (if I remember correctly), such as generating a dictionary of common redundancies between files and then uses that knowledge to compress the files individually, but better. Something akin to a .tar file is still the result though.
load more comments
(4 replies)
That's fine. I'm use to being unrepresented in the arj, lha, and uc2 crew
If you download and extract the tarball as two separate steps instead of piping curl directly into tar xz (for gzip) / tar xj (for bz2) / tar xJ (for xz), are you even a Linux user?
load more comments
(1 replies)
.tar.xz
☠️
one of the cool things about tar is that it's hard link aware
I'm from tar.gz.gpg gang to keep away nasty storage providers
.txz, I'm too lazy to type the full name
Good ol -xvjpf
tar cvjf compressed-shit.tar.bz2 /path/to/uncompressed/shit/
Only way to fly.
load more comments
(3 replies)
.tar.zst forever
I'm a 7z person.
What's wrong with .7z?
Nothing, but I've read people who act as if tar files are some sort of alien artifact ready to rip their faces off.
This guy tar balls
Bzip2 compression is often surprisingly good with text files, especially log files. It seems to "see" redundancies there - and logs often have a lot of it - far better than gzip and sometimes even lzma.
Anyway, if I saw a bunch of tar.bz2 files, that's what I'd expect to find in them.
i just use either zip or tar+gzip. personally, i avoid rar as it's a proprietary format.
I unironically used xz for a long time. It was just eazy and all around very good compress. A close second is 7zip because I used it on windows for years.