26

Re: Popularity of different archivers among programmers

Hello, Lazytech, you wrote: L> For example, I have some files of a format.pptx, everyone in the size less than 4 MB (these are different versions of the same presentation). Their total size - about 25,6 MB. If to pack them into archive Zip, the file in the size about 25,6 MB turns out. If I pack them into indispensable archive.7z or.arc the file size will be less than 4 MB. There is a difference? In the theory yes, and in practice I use archivers extremely rarely for their original mission (actually creation of archives in sense  copies) is not actual for a long time already (hard disks stand copecks). At me too costs 7zip, but for all time 7z-archive I did all once - when it was necessary to "pack" the big files of a board till the size "getting" into restrictions of mail.

27

Re: Popularity of different archivers among programmers

Pzz> I use zip, something to send not-juniksoidu because any person can unpack zip, and tar.gz for myself and for dialogue with unixoids because it to me is customary and consequently that he understands specific for  features, type of access rights to files and symbolical links. zip-y perfectly works for this all

28

Re: Popularity of different archivers among programmers

Hello, vsb, you wrote: vsb> The  I store in 7z because it compresses better, and I pay for a taken place. vsb> About other formats, as far as I know, 7z it is one of the best, and it is direct the last kilobytes to me it is not necessary to save, therefore other formats did not use. Can in vain, but nevertheless exotic formats it is possible years through 20 and not to unpack, and 7z hardly somewhere gets to. For the sake of justice I will remind that the format.7z has an essential lack: such archives very much are afraid of the slightest damages. On idea even if only one byte will be beaten, the archive cannot be unpacked.

29

Re: Popularity of different archivers among programmers

Hello, koandrew, you wrote: K> In the theory yes, and in practice I use archivers extremely rarely for their original mission (actually creation of archives in sense  copies) is not actual for a long time already (hard disks stand copecks). At me too costs 7zip, but for all time 7z-archive I did all once - when it was necessary to "pack" the big files of a board till the size "getting" into restrictions of mail. To me at one time regularly sent databases, on one hundred with superfluous mbyte everyone. It appeared that the archive.7z from such DB "weighs" approximately in 2 times less, than archive Zip (for example, 7-8 MB against 14-15 MB). It was necessary to advise to the person to start to use the archiver 7-Zip.

30

Re: Popularity of different archivers among programmers

Hello, AlexRK, you wrote: ARK> And what for they are necessary? 1) that users swung your products hardly faster - not at all of 100 megabit, someone uses the mobile Internet. Well or though simply downloaded: after a while it bothers them also they interrupt downloading, and go to competitors. 2) to get into restriction of the size  letters (25 meters like). 3) You as small... Though, can the little fool you pretend to be. Or at all you do not pretend to be...

31

Re: Popularity of different archivers among programmers

Hello, Lazytech, you wrote: L> Considering that is a forum of programmers, I was surprised a little with small popularity of such archivers, as ZPAQ and FreeArc. I did not begin to add them in inquiry not to affect purity of experiment. I use almost always zip. And if to other person I send, I try to do only in zip. Saving of a place by means of the archiver, even for transfer on the Internet is irrelevant for a long time already. The main sense in the archiver now that heap of files in one file to place. Somehow all already occupies archive 100 MB or 120 MB, and stronger difference between the modern archivers does not quit. If only for any special cases, rather recently I remember 7z th  in 4 that zip packed in  the size and it therefore did not climb one file on a flash card with fat32.

32

Re: Popularity of different archivers among programmers

Hello, Michael7, you wrote: M> I Use almost always zip. And if to other person I send, I try to do only in zip. Saving of a place by means of the archiver, even for transfer on the Internet is irrelevant for a long time already. The main sense in the archiver now that heap of files in one file to place. Somehow all already occupies archive 100 MB or 120 MB, and stronger difference between the modern archivers does not quit. If only for any special cases, rather recently I remember 7z th  in 4 that zip packed in  the size and it therefore did not climb one file on a flash card with fat32. Above I gave an example a double difference in size between archives.7z and Zip, containing the same database. On occasion the difference in size can be even more. If the modern formats like.7z can be compared with Blu-ray, Zip unless with obsolete DVD-Video.

33

Re: Popularity of different archivers among programmers

34

Re: Popularity of different archivers among programmers

Hello, the Philosopher, you wrote: ARK>> And what for they are necessary? 1) That users swung your products hardly faster - not at all of 100 megabit, someone uses the mobile Internet. Well or though simply downloaded: after a while it bothers them also they interrupt downloading, and go to competitors. . However, github gives archives in zip. Well the stupid... And, by the way, I do not have any users.> 2) to get into restriction of the size  letters (25 meters like). And I do not send the big archives by mail. And even if suddenly such need arises, I will use on 99 % all the same zip.> 3) You as small...> Though, can the little fool you pretend to be. Or at all you do not pretend to be... Application to any program can be found. However programming in itself does not attract need for specific archivers. I will remind that  just was surprised - why at a forum of their programmers nobody uses.

35

Re: Popularity of different archivers among programmers

Hello, AlexRK, you wrote: ARK> Application to any program can be found. However programming in itself does not attract need for specific archivers. I will remind that  just was surprised - why at a forum of their programmers nobody uses. I also did not speak about any specific archivers. However, if to use 7z, instead of zip the size (on the average) turns out in 2.5 times less. I here now led experiment: if to shake a zip a folder with  a zip 7.5 meters, and 7 2.5 meters turns out. With xml' and csv' will be too most, and them more often both send by mail, and spread for the general access. Game  costs candle.

36

Re: Popularity of different archivers among programmers

Hello, Lazytech, you wrote: L> Considering that is a forum of programmers, I was surprised a little with small popularity of such archivers, as ZPAQ and FreeArc. I did not begin to add them in inquiry not to affect purity of experiment. 7-zip it is pleasant to me because of a combination of several things: - the Interface  and fast works. - to clamp more strongly as a rule it is problematic and demands strongly more time. - it is possible to open what  exe/lvm/vmdk/squashfs and all in one program. - normally processes errors and supernumerary situations. For example normally opened zip and cab on which Windows and WinRar drop. Well and already simply habit. Under linux frequently I use gzip, but only because of its scalability. Now to find the distribution kit without gunzip/zcat , and p7zip/xz by default often misses. About FreeArc - the interface pull out an eye and the response longer. No compression is necessary such sufferings)) And ZPAQ at all in a subject - at normal level of compression from 7-zip differs only absence GUI. And at maximum resources eats in fantastic volume. Archiving turns to a sado-maso.

37

Re: Popularity of different archivers among programmers

Hello, Lazytech, you wrote: L> Considering that is a forum of programmers, I was surprised a little with small popularity of such archivers, as ZPAQ and FreeArc. I did not begin to add them in inquiry not to affect purity of experiment. Correctly asked question comprises half of answer. The question was in archive sending (possibly by mail). From a question follows that the size of archive will be small enough (to 10-20MB). And at such volumes there is no special sense something to save or somehow especially  => should be used ZIP (generally), or tar.gz (for *nix receivers). And another matter when you need to reserve great volumes of the information is perfect. Here zpaq with possibility of creation of incremental archives,  and enciphering out of competition. Especially if reservation goes on any public cloud of type DropBox / J.Disk where the place costs money and to store the data in an open type it is impossible on determination.  on Yandex. A disk

38

Re: Popularity of different archivers among programmers

Hello, Lazytech, you wrote: L> Considering that is a forum of programmers, me small popularity of such archivers Yes as a little surprised that archivers recently not that that are necessary. And if are necessary that the most widespread undertake. At * tar gz - simply ours ... <<RSDN@Home 1.0.0 alpha 5 rev. 0>>

39

Re: Popularity of different archivers among programmers

Hello, AlexRK, you wrote: ARK> I have zip-archives in the size in some gigabyte, access to contents very fast. Archives do not for this purpose that in it often to be rummaged.... <<RSDN@Home 1.0.0 alpha 5 rev. 0>>

40

Re: Popularity of different archivers among programmers

Hello, vsb, you wrote: vsb> Other programmers not especially anxious by questions of license purity, normally put WinRAR, the interface at it is more pleasant. I bought it, partly as compensating that when that  for a long time, still in 90 used to broken lines.... <<RSDN@Home 1.0.0 alpha 5 rev. 0>>

41

Re: Popularity of different archivers among programmers

Hello, Lazytech, you wrote: L> Considering that is a forum of programmers, I was surprised a little with small popularity of such archivers, as ZPAQ. Taking an opportunity, minute of "advertizing". As I actively use zpaq, I for myself collected a packet which I update in process of an output of new versions. Well and as collected for one distribution kit to collect for other popular distribution kits (Debian, Ubuntu, CentOS, Fedora etc) was a trick. In repositories, besides the last version, contains as version 6.55 which works without the index file for multivolume archives that allows to divide/stick together received archives into parts of any necessary size. It happens it is useful, when "the zero" part turns out very big and does not get into any requirements on file size. In this case, after creation of the first copy we cut it on pieces of the necessary size with names.0 001-00N, and the further incremental parts will proceed with last  (which as can be cut/stuck together if needed). In general, use on health of Bekapimsja on Yandex. A disk

42

Re: Popularity of different archivers among programmers

Hello, Lazytech, you wrote: L> For the sake of justice I will remind that the format.7z has an essential lack: such archives very much are afraid of the slightest damages. On idea even if only one byte will be beaten, the archive cannot be unpacked. Not absolutely so. Specificity of a format that an archive table of contents to be stored in the file end. If the file end misses/is damaged, archive not to open. But it is theoretically possible to recover the data, but without names of files and attributes ( still that, it it is necessary to know parameters with which package was produced) but if it was solid archive the data will represent a mash from sequentially written down files, and it is necessary to divide pens these files. Concerning beaten byte. In this case that unit to which to concern this byte, but a block head to beaten byte will be not derived completely (and files in a block head) it is possible to decode. Files will be derived from other units without problems.

43

Re: Popularity of different archivers among programmers

Hello, Aniskin, you wrote: A> Not absolutely so. Specificity of a format that an archive table of contents to be stored in the file end. If the file end misses/is damaged, archive not to open. But it is theoretically possible to recover the data, but without names of files and attributes ( still that, it it is necessary to know parameters with which package was produced) but if it was solid archive the data will represent a mash from sequentially written down files, and it is necessary to divide pens these files. Concerning beaten byte. In this case that unit to which to concern this byte, but a block head to beaten byte will be not derived completely (and files in a block head) it is possible to decode. Files will be derived from other units without problems. I suspect that to the normal user will recover rather uneasy archive.7z even with one beaten byte. And the beaten archive.arc in the presence of enough of the information for recovery is repaired for few seconds by a regular method. Simply in life everyone happens. For example, at me on a hard disk once appeared two or three software-beda, everyone in the size in one byte. I learned about them only when could not open files on which they had. P.S. It is interesting, why till now there are no regular or at least indirect means for recovery of beaten archives.7z? Certainly, always it is necessary to do , but in practice of that only does not happen...

44

Re: Popularity of different archivers among programmers

Hello, Lazytech, you wrote: L> Hello, Aniskin, you wrote: L> I Suspect that to the normal user will recover rather uneasy archive.7z even with one beaten byte. Depending on where the beaten byte is allocated, the part of files can be derived 7-Zip. L> And the beaten archive.arc in the presence of enough of the information for recovery is repaired for few seconds by a regular method. RAR archives of the fifth version can be created dataful for recovery. But it raises the size of archive. And 7z the format is designed for the minimum file size. I am familiar with its inner pattern, I can tell that in it there is a saving on everything, than it is possible. And generally is specialized  which can be submitted any file on an input, and on an output there will be the additional file containing the data for recovery, and further the same software it is possible to use for recovery of an original file if in it there will be an error. To unwinding a title I will not tell, it is necessary to google. L> it is interesting, why till now there are no regular or at least indirect means for recovery of beaten archives.7z? Looking that is understood as recovery. If there are beaten bytes - that them simply not from where to take. If there is a table of contents in the end of a file, but it is necessary to know compression parameters. And for  files I think simple decisions was not present generally.

45

Re: Popularity of different archivers among programmers

Hello, Aniskin, you wrote: A> And generally is specialized  which can be submitted any file on an input, and on an output there will be the additional file containing the data for recovery, and further the same software it is possible to use for recovery of an original file if in it there will be an error. To unwinding a title I will not tell, it is necessary to google. I so understood, something is meant like it: ICEECC, QuickPAR, MultiPAR, RSC32 and others - [1]:: Programs:: Computer forum Ru. Board Read-Solomona WinRAR 16-bit codes the Description: the popular archiver, since version 5.0 creates to 65535 volumes of recovery. Besides, uses codes RS and for adding of the information of recovery to archives, favourably differing from all other archivers. However, owing to rigid requirements to high-speed performance the number of units of a partition internally is restricted at level of several hundreds, and the choice of percent of redundancy the Home page is accessible to the user only: http://www.win-rar.ru/ Page for downloading: http://www.win-rar.ru/download/ QuickPAR the Description: the popular program for integrity check and recovery of files. It was widely used at date transmission on network Usenet. It was not updated since 2004. Now the project is dead the Home page: http://www.quickpar.org.uk/ Page for downloading: http://www.quickpar.org.uk/Download.htm MultiPAR the Description: the modern follower and clone QuickPAR. The Multiprocessor support, Junikoda, Russian. The recursive bypass of directories. The Home page is permanently updated: http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA021385/ Page for downloading: http://www.vector.co.jp/soft/dl/winnt/u … 60801.html the Mirror: http://multipar.eu/ ICEECC the Description: the program is in many respects similar MultiPAR, but appeared for some years earlier. Russian misses. The Home page was not updated since 2009: http://www.ice-graphics.com/ICEECC/IndexR.html Page for downloading: http://www.ice-graphics.com/ICEECC/DownloadR.html

46

Re: Popularity of different archivers among programmers

Hello, Lazytech, you wrote: L> I so understood, something is meant like it: Yes, I also meant it.

47

Re: Popularity of different archivers among programmers

Hello, Lazytech, you wrote: L> One week ago I launched this inquiry: What archivers use? L> considering that is a forum of programmers, me small popularity of such archivers, as ZPAQ and FreeArc a little surprised Ha-ha!! The dude, you got out of 90-s' ?? It then was fashionable to have 20 archivers, to arrange tests and to go mad for 3 bytes. Today the best archiver - what YOUR CLIENTS can open.  it only ZIP. Itself with might and main I use "normal" 7zip but when hamsters ask files, always I give zip'. Generally, it is strange even to mention in 21 century any not that that atavisms, and generally to anybody unknowns ! FreeArc I still heard (at all had no never), and here ZPAQ - generally without concept. By the way, some clients even on RAR do so: and since then only .

48

Re: Popularity of different archivers among programmers

49

Re: Popularity of different archivers among programmers

Hello, Lazytech, you wrote: L> For example, I have some files of a format.pptx, everyone in the size less than 4 MB (these are different versions of the same presentation). Their total size - about 25,6 MB. If to pack them into archive Zip, the file in the size about 25,6 MB turns out. If I pack them into indispensable archive.7z or.arc the file size will be less than 4 MB. There is a difference? If all.pptx to rename in.zip, to unpack, and then to pack all together, it turns out even less.

50

Re: Popularity of different archivers among programmers

Hello, alexzzzz, you wrote: A> If all.pptx to rename in.zip, to unpack, and then to pack all together, it turns out even less. I suspect that archivers like 7-Zip at package in the continuous archive approximately and do.