Mail Archives: opendos/1997/04/07/04:34:06
On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, James Lefavour wrote:
> > > Agreed. .tgz / .tar.gz is not really a very processor-efficient
> > > format.
> >
> > Well, I'm glad that you agreed with me, the latter statement is
> > not in tune with what I was trying to say. TGZ *IS* a good
> > archive format. When I compare ZIP to TGZ in Linux, I find that
> > TGZ comes out smaller all of the time. I don't know about the
> > speed, but the archives are usually smaller. Nonetheless, TGZ
> > belongs in UNIX, and ZIP in DOS. I like it that way too because
> > when I find a program on the net, I know whether or not it is for
> > DOS or Linux usually.
>
> Also consider that while zip is probably the closest thing to a DOS
> standard compression tool, we also have the completely free Infozip
> distribution available for use. So this doesn't confuse long term
> users, source and utils are available, and it doesn't add a dime in
> cost to the package. The only thing TGZ doesn't supply out of this
> list is familiarity by long time DOS users who _don't_ have linux and
> unix experience. Not all dos users are *nix users ;-)
That is *exactly* what I'm trying to say. ZIP is freely
available in DOS, and is the most popular archive format in DOS.
The sources are freely available (InfoZIP on simtelnet). TGZ is
mainly a UNIX archiver format, and should stay that way.
Virtually every archiver is available for every OS, however for a
particular OS, one should use the archiver which is most
widespread for that OS. Thats all I've been trying to say all
along. I think we're both saying that, but just in different
words.
Mike A. Harris | http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris
Computer Consultant | Coming soon: dynamic-IP-freedom...
My dynamic address: http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris/ip-address.html
mailto:mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca
OpenDOS: The NEW DOS with FREE source code! http://www.caldera.com
- Raw text -