The rest of the world uses .zip and .rar and these retards still seem to use .lzh a lot.
It's not because the format itself was constructed by a "fellow" Jap is it?
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-28 6:39
Same reason why Americans use zip. All computer choices are made for convenience. There's nothing else behind it.
If they started with lzh they'll continue with lzh. Compression is really irrelevant when it comes down to it. Zip is a packaging mechanism, not a compressor.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-28 6:50
...the difference being...?
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-28 8:00
Compression's purpose is to compress. Zip hardly compresses. It's used in lieu of a setup package to hold multiple files, since you can't download a folder (can that ever be changed? fuck MS)
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-28 8:27
download winrar , then you will be the winrar
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-28 12:15
>>1 It's not because the format itself was constructed by a "fellow" Jap is it?
Yes, it is.
All computer choices are made for convenience.
HA! If that were true, we would be using RAR or 7Z.
Compression is really irrelevant when it comes down to it.
Except when you pay for your bandwidth and a million users downloading a file that's 100 KB smaller means you save 95 GB, or when you're backing data up and realize you can save one whole CD, for example.
>>4 since you can't download a folder (can that ever be changed? fuck MS)
Are you stupid? No, wait, that's not a question. You ARE stupid. Please read RFC 2616.
That's probably because n00bs tend to open(not extract) zip archives as folders.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-28 19:59
>>6 Please read RFC 2616.
It states that you can't design file folders to act as a whole to be downloaded? Right, it specifies exactly that, I'm sure.
There's always a way to do things. You are obviously far too stupid to think of one.
Also: Guess how many average users even have a compression manager on XP. All those quotes were a waste of time to do when you're not even going to make a decent point.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-28 20:16
>>8 >>11
what's wrong with tar, particularly compared to zip? and why would rar or 7z be any more convient than zip? (as far as I can tell, using anything other than zip is a major PITA on windows and linux; and I've been using computers since 94 - zip has always been more convient).
7z is nice because it's both fast and has good compression. Also, the program itself integrates nicely into Windows, and there's a command line version. Please explain how it is a "major PITA".
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-28 20:58
>>15
you have to install it. when 7z gets integrated into my OS we'll talk.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-28 21:04 (sage)
>>16
Oh, ok, you're one of those retards who think IE and WMP are awesome too.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-28 21:25
>>17
No, I'm one of those retards who knows anything about the computer industry. Why do you think Outlook is the most popular email client? Why do you think everyone still uses zip? Microsoft crafts the climate to how they choose based on what they give you. Learn that before you start forcing people to download 2mb of 7zip installation files.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-28 21:43 (sage)
>>18
(I know you're trolling, but eh)
I'm not forcing anyone, if they don't want to be able to open my uberleet 7z files then that's their choice. Also 7zip can make zips, if you plan to distribute to idiots.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-28 23:26
7z doesn't really integrate into the shell unless I can *automatically* click on a 7z file and have it open (I couldn't, last I looked).
Really, zip is used because it gets the job done, it's built into windows (and well supported on other platforms, like KDE) and it's universal.
There's really no *compelling* reason to drop zip, or to use rar (never understood why crack kiddiez and piratez luv dem sum rar; but it's always been that way); especially since the rar compression algorhythm is proprietary (meaning: can't be reproduced by any competeing company).
I don't see the need, and -truth be told- I've never *EVER* come across a 7z file while downloading shit. Ever.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-29 0:11
>>19
I'm not trolling. I hate the situation more than you do, I just know why there is a situation.
Once again: Windows itself can make zips. 7z holds nothing over zip for the average user. People don't even know what compression is or that it can vary greatly. It's like with audio quality and teenagers or with AOL users and the internet. People simply don't know, and don't want to know. They'd rather download 50mb of uncompressed file than 2mb of 7z. They just want their zip.
If there is a way to make an amazing OSS compression type like 7z standard, please tell me how. I see that offering 7z types with OSS downloads is catching on, but OSSers already have 7z support.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-29 1:31
>>20
.RAR compresses better (slightly, anyway) and the user interface in WinRAR kicks ass.
I've come across .7z's a lot when getting ROMs from IRC.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-29 1:33
Oh, and all of you who are dependent on the Windows shell to open programs and run your computer life are DUMBASSES. So you got to click *twice* to open a file. God, stop it already.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-29 1:48 (sage)
lzh is the original compression utility, and it was coded by a japanese guy.
look up the history of zip on wikipedia
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-29 5:56
>>23
Sorry, the person who uses the utility already included -standard- on their computer is not the dumbass; the dumbass is the ricer who goes out of their way to install some shitty 3rd party app to provide file compression (dispite it already being included in Mac, Windows and both Gnome and kde) just for the sake of ZOMG 1% SIZE DECREASE DOWNLOADS GO VROOM!!!!1
Btw, the interface to winrar fails it, hard.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-29 6:35
>>25
How would you know the interface to winrar fails if you dont go out of your way to install some shitty 3rd party app to provide file compression
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-29 9:04
>>13
There's no way to query a directory in HTTP you fucking n00b.
There's always a way to do things.
Yes, but you're too stupid to realize that would require a new HTTP protocol.
what's wrong with tar, particularly compared to zip?
Tar doesn't provide native compression, encryption, directory encryption, and many other features modern archivers offer, and it has a kinda ugly command syntax.
and why would rar or 7z be any more convient than zip? (as far as I can tell, using anything other than zip is a major PITA on windows and linux
RAR or 7Z would be more convenient because they offer more features, compress more, and are cheaper. And no, they are not a PITA because 7-Zip is free software, unrar is found in most distributions, and WinRAR can be installed in 1.5 seconds.
>>16 you have to install it
Faggot clueless luser.
>>25
STFU and go play Windows Solitaire. (Who needs shitty 3rd party games anyways?)
BTW, WinRAR's interface is better than WinZip's and Explorer.exe, only you're too stupid to realize. Either way, I prefer to use RAR.EXE by hand, that's even better.
>>25
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY *WRONG* ABOUT THE WINRAR INTERFACE SUCKING
it provides a context menu function called "Extract each archive to separate folder" which allows me to take up to 100 or so individual archives (almost any format) and unpack them ALL to separate folders in ONE CLICK. Way better than Windows' built in wizard shit which takes three clicks to do the same thing for even ONE zip/rar file. THAT is a PITA.
the ability for an OS to create a packageable folder is not dependent on HTTP spec. fucking moron. The whole of your argument is: "WINDOWS NOOBS SUX"
go back to jerking off to your gentoo building fagg0t
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-29 12:35
>>28
Any respectable file archiving utility has that feature. Took a while before 7zip got it though.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-29 15:48
>>29 the ability for an OS to create a packageable folder is not dependent on HTTP spec.
You are a professional idiot, or a professional troll. My whole argument is you are stupid enough to not realize you fucking cannot retrieve a directory and all of its files recursively using HTTP because you fucking can't. When you GET a folder, the server sends you the default file, or generates an index. When you GET a file, you just get a file. There are no more operations you can perform without modification of the HTTP protocol.
BTW, I'm not a Gentoo ricer, I'm a Windows NT user though not a luser.
It's fun how braindead lusers come complaining that computers aren't pres butan receev complete report just like you wanted, and you even pretend to have a fucking idea of what you're talking. It's like the guy who wanted an OS to automatically convert images to a different format when you rename their extensions. Just keep whining and asking Microsoft for braindamaged features to put into Explorer.exe.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-29 15:56
>>31 It's like the guy who wanted an OS to automatically convert images to a different format when you rename their extensions
That was me. I'm not even kidding. Only about 10 people visit this board. Also, thanks again for missing the point, so I once again have to explain to your dead brain how it would work.
7zip Setup.folder
download
Open .folder
Click Setup
All other folders on OS would not be .folder, only specially packaged folders. It could even have compression ability.
I can't believe you're still on about HTTP spec. You really are brain dead.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-29 16:17
WinRAR is not such a PITA. The average user would still benefit from the trouble of installing it which isn't hard anyways. Why? Because of the beautiful thing called the right click. I can right click ANY archive and select "extract here" or "extract to folder" and BLAM! It's done!
Another beauty of winRAR, newer versions of it have at least rudimentary support for every major archival format. I can unzip .zip and .7z files with it.
.7z format is probably the best format I've seen for distributing various versions of the same thing.
I downloaded Final Fantasy 3 for SNES and the .7z file was about the same size as a single rom. (4.8MB) Inside the package however, was EVERY VERSION OF THE ROM RELEASED. This file contained 258MB worth of roms. Each only a little different than the others. Raring up just 2 of these roms had me with a file that was 4.2MB. You cannot honestly tell me that .7z isn't superior especially for things like this.
The best part of this? I was able to right-click the folder and go Extract to Final Fantasy III/ and all of the files were in that directory with nothing more than WinRAR installed.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-29 16:39
>>31
The HTTP spec says nothing about directory indexes.
Generating indexes is up to the application running the HTTP protocol, it could very well serve a recursive TAR of the directory if the administrator wanted that.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-29 17:22
>>34
Or it could send an file containing info about the files in the directory (xml would work nicely), so that the browser could display an index with an option to recursively download everything to a single container file.
automatically convert images to a different format when you rename their extensions
This is only a bad idea because filenames and filetypes are so stupidly mixed in most current filesystems. With a database filesystem, it could work (in an altered form). Although, of course, in a perfect world filetypes wouldn't matter, and if someone sent you a file of unknown type, your computer would request a filter or something (written for a simple VM with no system access) from that person to convert it to a base type.
E.g.: Computer receives image/png file, can't handle it, requests image/png->image/bitmap filter, receives it, user wants to view file, computer applies filter to file & displays bitmap.
Unfortunately, operating systems will suck for probably at least a couple more decades.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-29 17:27
This thread is made of troll and awesome. GG guys.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-29 18:02
>>35
Computers should NEVER install software behind your back. Leaves user open to exploits. Accepting only "signed" software locks you in to specific vendors or those who can spoof the certificate.
STOP BITCHING ABOUT NOT KNOWING THE FILE TYPE
GET LINUX OR CYGWIN AND USE THE FUCKING FILE COMMAND ALREADY AND SHUT THE FUCK UP
WILL SOMEONE MAKE A GUI VERSION OF FILE (GFILE, XFILE OR WHATEVER) SO THESE "WAAH MY FILENAME DOESN'T TELL ME SHIT" TYPES CAN STFU AND GTFO
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-29 18:10
>>37
Not software, just an algorithm for converting one datastream to another (notice how I mentioned a VM).
Also storing filetype inside a file (such that 'file' can recognize it) is an even uglier hack than storing it in the filename. And it doesn't make opening files any easier at all.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-29 18:19
>>39
Might not be a bad idea, then. Sorry for not reading your post.
Data files, for the most part, already do identify themselves through unique patterns or magic numbers within the file. They SHOULD do this. It is the only platform independent way for a file to provide positive type ID, within the file itself. Even considering metadata or multi-stream files, you are still storing and associating specific filetypeid data with the file itself. You aren't separating it no matter what you do, so you might as well make it simple and put it in the same file.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-29 18:28
>>38
You have NEVER opened any picture-file with a hex-editor, have you?
Just look at the first few bytes. This stuff is stored in EVERY file. The filename with the extension is just for stupid Windoze so it can tell what kind of file it is. All other operating systems use this header, so they don't actually need this extension, as you can see here: http://crono.co.uk/stuff/file.png
Any questions?
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-29 18:41
>>39,40
I am perfectly aware of the structure of many file formats. All I said is that it's a bad idea. I know that currently operating systems, file systems, and transport protocols have minimal support for metadata, so these kinds of ugly hacks are necessary. And I believe the situation will improve in the future.
Just look at those file formats you mentioned: Basically all they do is compress bitmaps. Then every format has its own way of storing the metadata associated with the bitmap (compression type, alpha channel, width, height, palette, comments, etc). This causes overhead in implementations and numerous shitty limitations (only gif can contain animations, only png has proper alpha support). It's a shitty situation.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-29 20:48
>>32 That was me. I'm not even kidding.
I'm not surprised, you're the lusers' hero.
7zip Setup.folder
How's that too different from downloading a fucking RAR file?
>>33
That's because of solid compression. You can do the same with RAR, TAR+BZIP2, and any archiver that doesn't suck (oops ZIP).
>>34 The HTTP spec says nothing about directory indexes.
I said the server returns, not HTTP specifies.
>>35 Or it could send an file containing info about the files in the directory (xml would work nicely)
Yay, let's use XML so it's scalable and Web 2.0.
if someone sent you a file of unknown type, your computer would request a filter or something (written for a simple VM with no system access)
Crappy idea, and bound to have bugs that compromise security one way or another. I want to install my things by hand, choose my sources, do it the way I like, and be able to say "NO U, I'm not installing this shit even if it's required to view this file".
Unfortunately, operating systems will suck for probably at least a couple more decades.
Fortunately, OSes will not be completely luser-friendly for a couple more decades. Fixed.
>>37 Computers should NEVER install software behind your back.
Agree, and I will add, computers should never do anything behind your back.
>>38 Not software, just an algorithm for converting one datastream to another (notice how I mentioned a VM).
And that would be...? SOFTWARE YOU IDIOT
Also storing filetype inside a file (such that 'file' can recognize it) is an even uglier hack than storing it in the filename.
Finally, something I agree with.
>>40 The filename with the extension is just for stupid Windoze so it can tell what kind of file it is.
Yay, let's run file on everything all the time, reading two or three times more hard disk sectors (depending on your FS) just to be able to name your files like "dude" and "pal", without the .PNG or .PL .
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-29 21:22
>>42 Yay, let's use XML so it's scalable and Web 2.0.
No, I hate XML, but in this case it would work best, unless everyone will suddenly agree on a suitable binary container.
Crappy idea, and bound to have bugs that compromise security one way or another.
No. Since this would only need to convert between two datastreams, the VM could be small enough that it can be guaranteed to be free of bugs.
OSes will not be completely luser-friendly for a couple more decades.
You are mistaking efficiency for user-friendliness. Seriously, computer use could be much more efficient than it is today, especially for more advanced users.
And that would be...? SOFTWARE
Sure, but without the security issues that were alluded to.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-30 0:07
>>43
you should use kde you dickless blackanese piece of shit
lzh is used only for small (in both size and number) files.
they use rar for big things like ISOs.
and use zip for images
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-30 1:00
i'm liking the idea of an image-conversion algorithm virtual machine (ICA-VM)
while we're at it, let's make a video-conversion algorithm vm as well (VCA-VM)
get to work!
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-30 3:23
That's because of solid compression. You can do the same with RAR, TAR+BZIP2, and any archiver that doesn't suck (oops ZIP).
I just want everyone to know that tar+bzip2 is complete garbage. To get at a single file you need to decompress the bz2. There is no random access within the file. And guess what? You can do the same shit with zip! zOMG!
Think of it like this:
zip -0 = tar
zip -9 = gzip -9
Guess what would happen if I used the second on the first? WHOA!
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-30 5:59
rar is Not Free. Use bzip2 or 7zip.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-30 6:08
>>47
tar is a container (just like 7z, zip and even rar), gzip/bzip2 are compressors. the difference is that the files are stored compressed inside of the container in 7z, zip, etc.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-30 7:37
>>47
No shit, Sherlock. You really are clueless. Google solid compression or something. Then read how tar and bzip2 work, which are two different things. And zip -9 is not equivalent to gzip -9 .
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-30 8:30 (sage)
this thread fails
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-30 10:09
>>50
You don't get it, so let me elaborate (just for you!). Read very carefully, okay?
tar is an archiver. It allows you to store files uncompressed in a single file. Guess what an uncompressed zip does? It stores files uncompressed in a single file. So yes, they can work very much alike, contrary to penguin fucking fanboys.
Now what does gzip do? It compresses a file. Guess what zip usually is used for? Compressing a file. What does gzip use? Deflate, a variant of LZ77. What does zip use? LZ77.
So... if you were to roll a bunch of files into an uncompressed zip, it would be analogous to using tar. If you were then to compress that uncompressed zip with zip, it would be analogous to gzipping a tarball.
And by the way, that is how solid compression works: by compressing data across files. A single data block, instead of one for every file. That's all. So tar+gz is a form of solid compression, and so is zip+zip. If you hate zip so much, you should hate tar+gz more, because unlike a normal zip, tar+gz can never randomly access files internally.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-30 10:14
Oh, by the way, since I just know you're going to be stupid: when I say an uncompressed zip, I mean a zip that used zero compression, not a zip that has yet to be zipped. Zipping a zip that already used compression won't help, just so we're clear, mmkay?
PS. You're an idiot.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-30 10:32
>>52
Gzipping a tarball is similar to a ZIP file, but this is not what you posted so don't come changing what you said to look less stupid. You said zip -9 is equivalent to gzip -9 which is not. Nothing will change the fact you're an idiot.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-30 11:05
>>27
Wether you have a point there or not is irrelevant - you have issues man. Go see a shrink.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-30 12:12
>>55
Is it because I don't like lusers fagging up my OSes?
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-30 12:38
>>53: "when I say an uncompressed zip, I mean a zip that used zero compression, not a zip that has yet to be zipped. Zipping a zip that already used compression..."
This HAS to be the LEAST INTELLIGENT SENTENCE POSSIBLE using the word "zip."
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-30 13:02
>>54
Haha, you got owned, and that's the best you can come up with? Only a complete nub wouldn't understand what was being said in >>47.
Oh, wait...
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-30 18:37
>>38 >>35
<FATAL_BLOW>
Ok, back to the argument that including typeid information within a file is an "ugly hack."
Is it an "ugly hack", then, for XML files to include the <?xml version="1.0">, </xml> tags? Is it an "ugly hack" for HTML files to include the <html>, </html> tags?
</FATAL_BLOW>
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-30 19:28
IM ZIPPING THE ZIP OUT OF YOUR ZIPPY ZIPPYNESS!
thread over.
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-30 19:53
>>59
For reasons of elegance, having a root element in 'nestable' formats like XML is nice. For (X)HTML, they conveniently named it 'html'. They could've named it 'document' or 'hypertext' or whatever. It does not identify the filetype. Send it to a good browser with mimetype text/plain, and it will happily display the source instead of parsing it. Same goes for the 'xml' directive, except in that case it's not a root attribute, but serves to give version/encoding info (which should actually be in metadata attached to the file, so it is an ugly hack, but it's necessary because metadata is far from universally supported).
Name:
Anonymous2006-05-30 20:03
BTW, there is no "</xml>".
Also, there is actually a way to specify filetype in xml (sort of): with the xmlns attribute. The reason for this is that xml is actually a container format (like tar, in a way), so it has an external filetype (xml), and one or more internal 'filetypes' (xhtml, svg, etc).