LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Linux - Newbie (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-newbie-8/)
-   -   which tool is more reliable to archive files (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-newbie-8/which-tool-is-more-reliable-to-archive-files-4175549095/)

F,Dillon@NYC 07-27-2015 04:45 PM
which tool is more reliable to archive files
 
tar, rar or zip

suicidaleggroll 07-27-2015 05:11 PM
reliable how?

Archy1 07-27-2015 06:01 PM
Perhaps tar since it lacks compression.

vincix 07-27-2015 06:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archy1 (Post 5397082)
Perhaps tar since it lacks compression.
Tar doesn't lack compression. It makes use of bunzip2 (-j) or gunzip (-z) to compress.

Moreover, I don't know about zip, but winrar can also archive without any compression.

dugan 07-27-2015 06:21 PM
For archiving? They're the same in terms of reliabiity.

Archy1 07-28-2015 12:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vincix (Post 5397087)
Tar doesn't lack compression. It makes use of bunzip2 (-j) or gunzip (-z) to compress.

Moreover, I don't know about zip, but winrar can also archive without any compression.
gzip and bzip2 aren't really related to the tar archive format, although since they are both so commonly used to compress tar files, the tar command (not archive format) makes use of them to save the user some time.

Edit: I see that the op was talking about "tools" (i.e. commands); my apologies.

fatmac 07-28-2015 04:33 AM
Personal preference, tar, using gzip or bzip2.

ugjka 07-28-2015 06:50 AM
Avoid zip https://marcosc.com/2008/12/zip-file...ng-i-hate-you/


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:35 PM.