From: nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson)
Subject: Shouldn't we be using zoo?
Date: 26 Apr 92 02:43:47 GMT
Shouldn't the standard linux archiver be zoo, not tar/compress? Zoo
always makes smaller files than tar/compress (e.g. system sources are
20% smaller).
-russ <nelson@crynwr.com> I'm proud to be a humble Quaker!
Crynwr Software Crynwr Software sells packet driver support.
11 Grant St. 315-268-1925 Voice
Potsdam, NY 13676 315-268-9201 FAX
From: hlu@phys1.physics.wsu.edu (Hongjiu Lu)
Subject: Re: Shouldn't we be using zoo?
Date: 26 Apr 92 22:11:45 GMT
In article <704256227snx@crynwr.com>, nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson) writes:
|> Shouldn't the standard linux archiver be zoo, not tar/compress? Zoo
|> always makes smaller files than tar/compress (e.g. system sources are
|> 20% smaller).
|>
|> -russ <nelson@crynwr.com> I'm proud to be a humble Quaker!
|> Crynwr Software Crynwr Software sells packet driver support.
|> 11 Grant St. 315-268-1925 Voice
|> Potsdam, NY 13676 315-268-9201 FAX
I am not sure about that. At least, I saw for the same stuffs, gnutar cfz
is 10% smaller than the zoo file I got.
H.J.
From: tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Theodore Ts'o)
Subject: Re: Shouldn't we be using zoo?
Reply-To: tytso@athena.mit.edu
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1992 23:09:55 GMT
The main reason to stick with tar files is that tar is a standard ---
literally, an international standard, as part of POSIX. Every single
Unix machine that you're going to come across has tar. Many Unix
machines around the net don't have programs that can read zoo, or zip,
or arc, or whatever people's pet archiver happens to be. Tar also has
the advantage of handling links, device files, and directories
correctly.
Life is much simpler if we use tar or tar.Z (or maybe someday tar.F) as
our interchange formats. If you want to use zoo or zip or whatever your
favorite pet archiver happens to be, fine. But if you're uploading
something to TSX-11.MIT.EDU, please upload a tar or tar.Z file. Thanks!
- Ted