The problem is that its multipart format is extremely widespread for certain purposes, and 7z fails to properly unpack those formats. So I find myself having to use it on wine. I try to avoid those situations and I literally never use it to create an archive nor is it my default unpacker but I can’t seem to be rid of it.
While both are Archive Programs, WinRAR does a bunch of things that 7Zip does not and some things 7Zip does better, as 7Zip does a couple of things that WinRAR doesn’t and a few things that WinRAR doesn’t do as well as 7Zip.
Also depending on what you are archiving WinRAR does it better for various things, where 7Zip tends to work better at Raw Data and certain Data Structures.
I really dont think there are that many people out there who are going out and making consciously decided choices between winrar and 7zip based on stuff like this
I found one explanation in that winrar is developed by germans and 7zip by a russian guy. Maybe some people dont want to support russian stuff? But thats pretty far fetched imo…
tar doesn’t even provide compression. Which may be what you want. If you have a weak CPU and a big storage device why would you waste the cpu cycles? I know I’ve removed the compression step in AUR builds for example. But if you don’t know what it does, maybe an all in one solution like 7zip or winrar might be a more attractive prospect.
The tar format doesn’t, but the tar command has command line flags for a number of compression algorithms, and if your algorithm of choice doesn’t have a flag, you can just pipe it to the compression program.
The pixz compressor provides parallized compression/decompression (desirable on modern CPUs), uses LZMA (like 7zip or xz), and provides indexed access when used as tar's compressor. The last of these is what you want.
I very rarely list the content of compressed files, so that doesn’t bother me much.
Back in the day the trick to get better compression on zip files was to first make an uncompressed zip file, and then put that in a compressed zip file. tar did that all by itself!
The only thing I’ve done with a GUI archiver for the past 20+ years is right click on a file and select “extract to here”. But more commonly I just extract things on the command line, without any automatic processing.
I don’t understand how some people can be using that garbage when 7zip exists
The problem is that its multipart format is extremely widespread for certain purposes, and 7z fails to properly unpack those formats. So I find myself having to use it on wine. I try to avoid those situations and I literally never use it to create an archive nor is it my default unpacker but I can’t seem to be rid of it.
It insists on itself.
While both are Archive Programs, WinRAR does a bunch of things that 7Zip does not and some things 7Zip does better, as 7Zip does a couple of things that WinRAR doesn’t and a few things that WinRAR doesn’t do as well as 7Zip.
Also depending on what you are archiving WinRAR does it better for various things, where 7Zip tends to work better at Raw Data and certain Data Structures.
I really dont think there are that many people out there who are going out and making consciously decided choices between winrar and 7zip based on stuff like this
I found one explanation in that winrar is developed by germans and 7zip by a russian guy. Maybe some people dont want to support russian stuff? But thats pretty far fetched imo…
In fact both of them are developed by russians
Isnt winrar developed by some people in Berlin?
It was invented and developed by a Russian but the company that sells it is registered in Germany.
I don’t understand how people can be using that garbage when
tarexiststar doesn’t even provide compression. Which may be what you want. If you have a weak CPU and a big storage device why would you waste the cpu cycles? I know I’ve removed the compression step in AUR builds for example. But if you don’t know what it does, maybe an all in one solution like 7zip or winrar might be a more attractive prospect.
The tar format doesn’t, but the
tarcommand has command line flags for a number of compression algorithms, and if your algorithm of choice doesn’t have a flag, you can just pipe it to the compression program.Compressed tars suck anyway since you need to decompress them in order to get the list of files inside, unlike in any other sane archive format.
The pixz compressor provides parallized compression/decompression (desirable on modern CPUs), uses LZMA (like 7zip or
xz), and provides indexed access when used astar'scompressor. The last of these is what you want.https://github.com/vasi/pixz
pixzis packaged in Debian-family distros.I very rarely list the content of compressed files, so that doesn’t bother me much.
Back in the day the trick to get better compression on zip files was to first make an uncompressed zip file, and then put that in a compressed zip file.
tardid that all by itself!I mean that’s what GUI archivers do when you open the file.
So tar is only useful for some kind of automatic workflows where archives are processed automatically. Like what package managers do.
The only thing I’ve done with a GUI archiver for the past 20+ years is right click on a file and select “extract to here”. But more commonly I just extract things on the command line, without any automatic processing.
How is it garbage though?
It’s closed source
But it works.
People often overestimate how much a normal everyday user needs or cares. Goes for pretty much everything, tech, music, art, etc.
Maybe enterprise support? It know this is important for many companies or governmental agencies.
People, not companies