• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -31 year ago

    I avoid it and use zip or 7z if I can. But for some crazy reason some people stil insist on using that garbage tool and I have no idea why.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      7
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Are zip and 7z really that much easier?

      tar cf foo.tar.xz wherever/
      zip -r foo.zip wherever/
      7z a foo.7z wherever/
      

      I get that tar needs an f for no-longer-relevant reasons whereas other tools don’t, but I never understood the meme about it beyond that. Is c for “create” really that much worse than a for “add”?

    • aard
      link
      fedilink
      61 year ago

      If you want to do more than just “pack this directory up just as it is” you’ll pretty quickly get to the limits of zip. tar is way more flexible about selecting partial contents and transformation on packing or extraction.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        100% of tarballs that I had to deal with were instances of “pack this directory up just as it is” because it is usually people distributing source code who insist on using tarballs.

    • TimeSquirrel
      link
      fedilink
      0
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Because everyone else does, and if everyone else does, then I must, and if I do, then everyone else must, and then everyone else does.

      Repeat loop.

        • Baut [she/her] auf.
          link
          fedilink
          71 year ago

          I think that’s pretty mean towards the free software developers spending their spare time on Latex and the GNU utils.
          I and many academics use Latex, and I personally am very happy to be able to use something which is plain text and FLOSS.
          I also don’t see your problems with tar; it does one thing and it does it good enough.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I also don’t see your problems with tar; it does one thing and it does it good enough.

            The problem is the usage of the tool which people invent different mnemonics for because it’s UX is stuck in 1986 and the only people who remember the parameters are those who use it daily.

            Similar thing for LaTeX: it’s so absurdly crusty and painful to work with it’s only used by people who have no alternative.

            //ETA
            Also, I don’t want to be mean towards the maintainers of LaTeX. I’m sorry if I made any LaTeX maintainer reading this upset or feel inferior. Working on the LaTeX code is surely no easy endeavour and people who still do that in 2023 deserve a good amount of respect.

            But everytime I had to work with LaTeX or any of its wrappers was just pure frustration at the usage and the whole project. The absolute chaos of different distributions, templates, classes and whatnot is something I never want to experience again.

        • Eager Eagle
          link
          English
          3
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          speaking of which, you might want to check out typst if you haven’t heard of it - I really hope this replaces most uses of LaTeX in the next years.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            Thanks I’ll keep an eye on that project. I did try pandoc and LyX in the past to ease the pain but typst appears to have the courage to finally let LaTeX be and not build a new wrapper around it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      01 year ago

      You do you. Compression is waste of time; storage is cheap in that you can get more, but time? Time, you never get back.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 year ago

        Yes, and I’d rather not have my time wasted by waiting on thousands of small files transfer, rather than just compressing it and the time spent of one file transferring being much smaller.

      • Eager Eagle
        link
        English
        41 year ago

        as in time wasted transferring a highly compressible file that you didn’t bother compressing first?

        it’s only a waste of time when the file format is already compressed.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -11 year ago

          Unless you measure your baud in dial up modem, it often can take longer to compress / transport / uncompress than just transfer directly.

          • Eager Eagle
            link
            English
            51 year ago

            unless you’re picking a slow compressor that’s not true at all

            Original size | 100 GB
            Compressed size | 47.8 GB (2.091 ratio)
            Transfer speed | 1 Gbps (125 MB/s)
            Original transfer time | 100 GB / 125 MB/s = 800 seconds
            Compressed transfer time | 47.8 GB / 125 MB/s = 382.4 seconds
            
            Compressor | Snappy
            Compression ratio | 2.091 ratio
            Compression speed | 565 MB/s
            Decompression speed | 1950 MB/s
            Compression time | 100 GB / 565 MB/s = 177 seconds
            Decompression time | 47.8 GB / 1950 MB/s = 24.5 seconds
            
            Transfer time w/o compression | 800 seconds
            Transfer time with compression | 177 + 382.4 + 24.5 = 584.9 seconds