• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    9525 days ago

    Zip makes different tradeoffs. Its compression is basically the same as gz, but you wouldn’t know it from the file sizes.

    Tar archives everything together, then compresses. The advantage is that there are more patterns available across all the files, so it can be compressed a lot more.

    Zip compresses individual files, then archives. The individual files aren’t going to be compressed as much because they aren’t handling patterns between files. The advantages are that an error early in the file won’t propagate to all the other files after it, and you can read a file in the middle without decompressing everything before it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1324 days ago

      Yeah that’s a rather important point that’s conveniently left out too often. I routinely extract individual files out of large archives. Pretty easy and quick with zip, painfully slow and inefficient with (most) tarballs.

    • @gareppa
      link
      924 days ago

      A tar directory also preserves file permissions. And can preserve groups/ownership if needed.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      324 days ago

      Can you evaluate the directory tree of a tar without decompressing? Not sure if gzip/bzip2 preserve that.

    • fmstrat
      link
      fedilink
      1
      edit-2
      24 days ago

      Nowhere in here do you cover bzip, the subject of this meme. And tar does not compress.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        724 days ago

        It’s just a different layer of compression. Better than gzip generally, but the tradeoffs are exactly the same.

        • fmstrat
          link
          fedilink
          224 days ago

          Well, yes. But your original comment has inaccuracies due to those 2 points.