Slashdot Mirror
.ZIP Standard to Fragment?
fudgefactor7 writes "As IDG.NET tells us, the venerable .ZIP compression standard is about to undergo a bit of a schism. PKWare and WinZip, the "big two" in the .ZIP format biz are (unfortunately) going to be making their respective releases incompatible (to an extent) and an archive made with one may not be accessible from another. The problem lies with PKWare not giving information to WinZip, thus making WinZip to go it alone."
What will my unix *zip programs be compatible with?
Trolling is a art,
The post was a little hyped. PKWare and WinZip only split on the encryption of the Zip file. I for one have long since encrypted Zip files with PGP when I needed that security. Zip encryption has always been a joke, and I doubt that too many are going to replace what ever trusted methods they have come up with for PKWare or WinZip's new method.
It is too bad that they split, but I use Zip files for compression not encryption. The compression is still cross-compatible, so life will go on.
What about reverse engineering? If hordes of *nix programmers can do it why can't Winzip do it? Legal issues? ...?
Thanks for any insight!
So what's the problem?
Just use GPL $zip and Windows Zip Folders!
Those are compatible...
boys, boys, boys... Let's all stop the fussin' and a feudin'
I LOVE you Winzip!
I LOVE you, PKZip!
*hugs all around*
There, isn't that better?
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
I'm hoping that WinZip changes the file extension for their new format to make it clear to anyone who gets ahold of such a file that it is not a standard Zip file.
And how much time will it be before someone just writes a program that handles both formats natively? RAR, ACE, and all the other compressors already do handle Zip file just fine.
Oh well, I guess I'll just have to keep using WinRAR.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Sounds a lot like the original riff in ARC that lead directly to ZIP in the first place (I know the exact circumstances are different, but the similarities are quite interesting). Yes, I'm that old :)
Yeah, I'll keep on using Winrar. It'll probably be able to read them both in a month.
---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
By default winxp can see the internals of zipfiles? Does that mean it won't be good for at least ONE of the standards?
Or does this spell hot fix time...
the rest of us will use RAR, after all who wants to get in the way of ego's ?
BTW can PK take back the
Come on now, Winzip, why not just drop the whole .zip compression altogether and do .rar instead? Not only is it much better, but you could very easily change your name from Winzip to Winra... oh, wait...
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Just screw em all and use rar.
So, if a fork occurs in a feature which nobody uses, does it make a sound?
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
This is only related to the encryption. Those of us who have been using winzip for a long time will remember that winzip never used to handle multiple part zips, so if you wanted to handle them you had to point winzip at a "real" pkzip. I will be very suprised if the same system doesn't occur here. Also who is going to use zip's build in encryption anyway?
Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
I guess I'll have to just keep using tar and gzip. Many apologies to the late Phil Katz....
This sig no verb.
Goodbye PKWare.
I p
Actually, there was an alpha 1.93a or some such prior, but anyway, it broke compatibility with v1.1. Well, we all downloaded v2.04 and moved on.
I don't really know many people who use PKZip anymore anyway. I use Winzip in Windows, and Infozip on the command line.
they will both still be compatible with whatever format M$ is now using natively .. which means they will still be compatible with one another .. which means this is a non-issue ..
...
In fact the last paragraph of the article states that this is a non-issue
Unless either of these can make my mpg, mp3 or jpg files smaller I really am not likely to care about any thing "new" these tools have to offer.
"What we found when we investigated was that PKWare had not fully revealed all of their extensions"
.NET"
Hmm...maybe they should rename the format to "ZIP
Ruby on Rails Screencast
How much does this really matter? First of all, I bet most people are still using their unregestered shareware winzip from ages ago. Most people know that the zip encryption is pretty much worthless, so they don't bother. The people who want an encrypted zip file are probably going to encrypt it with a quality encryption program, such as gpg or pgp, AFTER they have it zipped. The person on the other end unencrypts it and then opens it. I know the article said "95% of the time it'll work", but I bet it will be more like "It'll work 99.9999% of the time".
Also, the basic format isn't changing. It's just the encryption part, so zip files will still be usuable by nearly everyone.
there's zip, ace, tar, rar, bz, bz2, lzo, lzw, arj, lha, gzip.. jesus f'in christ.. even if pkware and winzip have they're differences, hell man.. you got a bunch of other formats to pick from.
I suppose maybe in this case, too much competition will hurt the consumer. If the end-user will have to install two different sets of "un-zip" utilities just to keep straight, that would really be a hassle. Perhaps other formats such as .rar or .ace will slide into the marketshare that the .zip format has enjoyed for so long. Who knows, maybe ARJ will come back! Then again, there is always the free GZip and TAR and that works pretty good.
"The problem lies with PKWare not giving information to WinZip, thus making WinZip to go it alone."
Compression employed on this sentence may cause incompatibility with standard English.
"Certificate-based encryption is still a work in progress," says Jim Peterson, PKZip chief technology officer. "We're not publishing it because we still have a number of features to add to Taco's Backside."
Great job, +2 so far.
Moderators, it's only informative if you actually read it...
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
switching the locations of the I accept and Quit buttons every time you open it.
If you RTFA, why couldn't the editor? Oh, this is slashdot, sorry ...
So what will people do now? Use PNG instead.
The format is close to zip (using lz77 and is lossless as far as I can tell) so the compression ratio should be about the same.
-Q
No users were harmed in the posting of this message.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/State/may00/katz21052 000a.asp
What? you mean there's competing closed source applications on windows that break compatibility with each other.
Surely, you jest.
Altp.
Can I get a D?!?!
D!!!
Can I get an M?!?!
M!!!
Can I get a C?!?!
C!!!
Can I get an A?!?!
A!!!
What's that spell!?!?
Tyranny!
What's that spell!?!?
Bunch of assholes in Congress!
What's that spell!?!?
Lack of Innovation!
Dunno if either side would be big enough assholes to try it, but why couldn't you use DMCA there?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
I used to know a PKWare. Let's see. I think the last time I used it was back in Win31 days! Until now I didn't care much about which one I would use. Now that they are diverging, it appears that WinZip will be the one I use since I can find it more readily than PKWare. Besides, I seem to remember a while back something about PKWare ceasing to be. Guess I was wrong.
.tar.gz files, I'll stick with it. So in effect, instead of not caring, I just have to care enough to make a mental note to only remember WinZip and forget PKWare. And if I run across a PKWare-only file, either I'll have to trash it or download a trial PKWare long enough to convert the file, and then discard it.
Also, since WinZip is compatible with
HAHAHHAHAAAHAHAHAHA
I am sooo glad I read that article - that one line made the whole read worth it.
Thank you!
Why are we still all using this archaic .zip, when there's stuff that's so much better?
Yes, because after all, IDG is just a bunch of clowns in a dorm room running a P133 sitting in a pizza box left over from last month's dinner, and has already exploded into a ball of fire from the slashdotting. Or not :-)
Please help metamoderate.
sounds like PKware is following the route of all the other major software organizations. Sharing info with people, making friends, being helpful. Then when the chance comes - breaks away from the group and wont share with the others. Oh - wait - that isn't the big boys, that was kindergarden.
- Your stupidity got you into this mess, why can't it get you out? -Will Rogers
It seems as if PKWare and Winzip are moving into the realm that is dominated by PGP and the GNU variant. PGP compresses the data when it encrypts it, so that need was taken care of already. I wouldn't use either Winzip or PKZip to send an encrypted zip file, because PGP is more universally known, and can give you 2048 bit encryption.
AFAIK, the actual zip standard hasn't changed, which means that you'll be able to open zip files with either program (or the WinXP shell... heh). That's what I see most zip files being used for anyway... Windows based shareware / freeware. Stuff where encryption is not necessary.
The venerable tar.gz and tar.bz2 formats, thankfully, will not be dictated by stupid companies. :-)
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
in two weeks third-party programs like Powerarchiver or Ultimatezip will have figured out how to deal with either, making this mostly moot.
-JDF
I wonder how often the "Slashdotted - text below" posts here on /. have "clever" little changes to them?
Lasers Controlled Games!
Single purpose tools, you know it makes sense.
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
But the spec should not come out until a product is done, says Steve Crawford
Hasn't PKWare ever heard of a preliminary spec? Although they are correct that a final specification shouldn't be published until they have created an implimentation to demonstrate its viability, they could take examples from the rest of the world and let WinZip know what they're thinking.
Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
LHA was much better even ten years ago. It was standard on Atari ST and Amiga computers. And it generally got better compression, too. To this day it's still installed by default on most Linux distros but nobody uses it any more.
Even if I dont have either winzip or pkzip installed on my winxp system, i can still compress / uncompress files. So that means .zip is supported natively by windows xp.
;-)
So who wins if pkzip and winzip decide to make incompatible formats? The one who gets Redmond to endorse their standard..
and would that mean that linux users automatically support the other
If you're not using firefox, you're not surfing the web, you're suffering it.
---
PKWare charges outrages prices for something that is obsolete. WinRar (www.rarlabs.com) gives much better compression, especially for graphics.
Nico and Winzip clearly control the market, thus the format. I don't see how PKWare stays in business anyway. Does Winzip pay them a royalty for the word "zip" or for the 2-byte "PK" eye-catcher in the archives?
.nosig
I personally try and use winrar as much as I can. The only times I even use the "zip" compression is when I have to send a file to someone who can't use or doesn't have winrar installed.
Personally I would like to see this issue resolved because there really is no need two have two different zip formats out there. My hope is that winrar will implement both (if possible) and just let it be.
Yes, I do know the answer to that, and so do most of you, but the hordes of Windows users out there do not.
What will happen is that the WinZip will win this feud, simply because it is what people use.
...and since the problem stems from PK not sharing information, UNIX zip implementations will likely behave in the same manner as WinZip.
www.wavefront-av.com
Microsoft bashing aside for the moment, since Windows XP has built in support for .zip files, does this even matter? Your average windows user doesn't use encryption, and those in the know, use better formats of security.
PKWare's chief competitor, WinZip
I wonder how these guys feel about the zip support embedded in XP?
Just look at how the article is written ... ZIP is an open format, but it is PKware's responsibility to maintain, revise, and officially sanction the format. But look at how the article is written ... its written as though pkware and winzip are equals, both "setting the standards", and that winzips "fork" of .ZIP is somehow viewed as a "split" with pkware. IMHO, the only relevent implementation is WinZIP. Nobody uses PKWARE. They're irrelevant... especially since they can't even keep the .ZIP spec in order!
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
It does ZIP, ACE, RAR, ...
.sit (I love the fact that OS X has tar.gz built in) Hell I never send Mac friends .sit files. tar.gz all the way baby!
tar zxvf
gzip
What else exists?
Oh yea I forgot
Get them into the .arc! Don't people remember what happened previously during this same sort of .arjument?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
various .zip developers start throwing cream pies at each other.
pr0n.tar.gz.pgp has declined to comment
Frankly, with the popularity of Winzip, PKWare is making a grave error. PKZip, while perfectly good, is running a distant second in popularity based on my observations. Making their product produce incompatible ZIP files is a sure way of eroding their market share even further.
.DOC files that Microsoft would not be able to read. The result would be that Corel would lose their remaining six users of their word processor.
You do that sort of thing when you are the industry leader. This would be like Corel deciding that they were going to set a new standard for
Perhaps if you find Winzip annoying, you might like to try a nice OSS alternative zip program without annoying nag screens?
I like 7-zip, it's free, has a context menu, supports tar.gz (which the native WinXP unzipper doesn't do) and it's light-weight.
Never confuse feeling with thinking.
You guys with your "vi!", "emacs!" argument need something new to shout about, well, here ya go....
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
I may be a political midget so correct me if I've missed something. This appears to be a company, which by the way is one company, bringing services here to created training and jobs in Buffalo. Especially with University Buffalo students. I think the goal here is that Hillary doesn't want college drop outs like you sitting around trolling /. all day, and instead have you working for this Indian company bringing water bottles to their meetings.
I think Offshoring is when American companies take their manufacturing plants, like the enema factory your father works at, and move them to cheaper labor elsewhere, like your sister.
"Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
Man . . . one zipper is causing another zipper to get stuck, which in turn could cause the zipper to break.
That's almost about as bad as gettin' it caught in the zipper.
xScruffx
I've been using infozip, www.info-zip.org, for so long now that I'd forgotten about these other two. Check it out.
Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
If it is important, you don't compress it; you encypt it. If you encypt it, you never compress. This is a stupid idea. Encyption is to prevent unauthorized access. Compression makes filesizes smaller. Compression ruins encyption.
I can see zipping a directory structure with files and not compressing it though.
In paragraph 14 of the article, just before the heading "Other Options": "But the spec should not come out until a product is done, says Steve Crawford, PKWare's chief marketing officer."
I'd already been kind of wondering what was up with PKWare not documenting stuff. Now I'm starting to think they're just messed up. Specs should be released first (IMNSHO); then everyone who needs to support the spec can write to it.
We'd scream bloody murder if Microsoft released a new version of IE that implemented some bizarre new HTML or HTTP standard, even if they said they'd publish a spec for it a few months later. And the same goes for Mozilla. We very rightly insist that browser makers build their software to support the already-published specs from the W3C and IETF.
Similar comments apply to Apache and HTTP, CGI, and various other standards; to Sendmail/Postfix/Qmail/etc. and SMTP; to Linux and the POSIX standard... this is what standards and specs are for
Free clue to PKWare's Steve Crawford: you're just a marketing director. Let your CTO worry about specs; you're just making your company look worse.
Kai MacTane: Web developer for hire in San Francisco
You put too much faith in the M2. Fair x10 is how that'll play out :)
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
Oh boy! Yet another form of compression to deal with. (as if 4874.7 weren't enough!) If they're smart, they'll keep their engine compatible with the older ZIP and make the new ZIP 'better enough' to justifiy swtiching to the new engine. If not, it may just be another ACE waiting to happen.
Totally Life!
ALL replies
Windows users rejoice! Use 7-zip (click here) and end the WinZip-PKWare monopoly ;).
Mod away, but remember.. it's open source MWUAHAHA!
what about .arc files? Any one remember the fallout with that one? Seemed liek every bbs changed to .zip in about a week. The unclean masses will decide as usual.
Zipwars - Episode II. (Attack of the ZIPs)
Most people here wont remember, but one of the first software copyrights battle was regarding zip (and pkzip).
But it seems the pk people turn to the dark side.
DNA in your Linux: DNALinux
The whole point of this story is that PKWare is doing some kind of encryption thing that they aren't sharing with others. So only PKWare's zip program will support said encryption. It isn't just WinZip that won't. WinRAR will still support zip the way it has, sure. But it won't support the new encryption deal.
So switching doesn't do a hell of a lot of good unless you switch to theirs. Which is probably the plan, I guess.
I vote we go back to LZH, ARJ, or ARC
I miss the BBS days where you needed about 10 compression programs.
Reliable news sources (possibly an Iraqi Minister of Information, or worse, a White House Official) tell us that due to disagreements between Digital Research and Microsoft, the latest MS-DOS release (11.2a) will no longer be compatible with DR-DOS 11.x.
All five remaining DOS users are likely to be severely complacement. For more information on this stunning development, we asked...
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
why bother with zip anymore, .RAR on windoze is far better
Because practically every windows user uses ZIP (with the exception of you I guess). It's even built into Windows XP. And though this is sort of obvious, just because something is better doesn't mean everyone will use it. I've heard that 7z is better than RAR. Why don't you use that instead?
-- Kircle
http://www.7-zip.org/
It works with:
zip
tar
bz2
cap
cpio
gz
rar
rpm
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
Also, memory serves that Philip W. Katz, the late founder of PKWare, worked with IDC to make the ZIP file format public domain, both because it wasn't entirely original to either organization, and also because it would never take off were it not. So here then we have PKWare, in the wake of the death of Katz, trying to "pull a Microsoft" and make their version incompatible with others in the hopes that more people will use their version. For that matter, I think PKWare's main claim to fame for years now has been that they were "the first".
However this has the potential to backfire. PKWare may be trying to "pull a Microsoft" but they are not Microsoft and so now they're in the position where their product now creates the incompatible file. A file made with PKZip may not work with others, a file made with WinZip almost definitely will.
Schnapple
People who break compression standards should be tarred and gzipped... I mean feathered.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Don't make links to individual articles look like links to the root of websites:the PKWare and WinZip links make sense, the IDG.NET link does not. "tells us" would have been much better for linkifying, or, in order to make a bigger link (thus quietly indicating what is the "most imporant" link in the summary) the entire phrase "IDG.NET tells us".
I know these sound like stupid nitpicks, but it's good from a usability standpoint. Many posts have similar bad linking style, making it more time consuming to figure out what the relevant links are.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
Whenever i get on my windows box, i use only WinRAR on there. I wonder what version of the two they will use?
No.
This is something a lot of the GNU hippies don't have to worry about. Since they use gzip and bzip2, and now for Windows monkeys, there is the new 7zip compression that is even better than zip, who cares? Let the open sources flow...
More info at this link.
$ diff real troll
28c28
< "Certificate-based encryption is still a work in progress," says Jim Peterson, PKZip chief technology officer. "We're not publishing it because we still have a number of features to add."
---
> "Certificate-based encryption is still a work in progress," says Jim Peterson, PKZip chief technology officer. "We're not publishing it because we still have a number of features to add to Taco's Backside."
(Well, I doctored the "real" file a little to remove the advertisement from the text. So two differences.)
It should be moderated down anyway because it's a rather blatant copyright violation of a site that isn't really Slashdotted. But ignoring Taco's Backside, it is the original article. (I wonder if the change was made in order to make it a "derivative work" - a "parody?" In that case, it might not be a troll, but someone failing at an attempt to invoke fair use rights. Hint: three words out of 771 do not a parody make.)
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Besides, I seem to remember a while back something about PKWare ceasing to be. Guess I was wrong.
PK has ceased to be, as of a few years ago, but his company lives on, for whatever that's worth.
I prefer to throw my support to WinZip and Nico Mak. I paid for a license to it WAAAYYYY back when, and he's never made me pay for an upgrade (though I would if he did).
-------
Why we have ZIP instead of ARC
Why is zip still so big in the Windows world? Gzip is available for pretty much every platform, completely free and produces smaller files by about 10% from my experiments).
The unfortunate part is that this is even being called "zip" at all. These aren't, they're zip with proprietary extensions for a completely different purpose. Zip is being used as a brand name and being "embraced and extended". Truth be told these should now be called zep or something files, not misrepresented as simply zip compressed files.
What will this all break? Well for the suckers who use the encryption they're locking themselves into that one vendor's proprietary extensions. They won't be able to send their compressed files or archives and reliably assume they'll be readable. With zip now a standard part of many OS's (even WinXP now includes it) these mislabeled files will cause confusion and increased complexity.
What can folks do about this? First reconsider corporate licenses for these increasingly un-zip applications. No need to increase the Help Desk's burden with unnecessary/non-standard extensions. Send out a memo reminding folks about policies regarding encrypting company material, the management of the keys used, and the real quality of the encryption used. Look at the free alternatives to the commercial apps, there's little that these applications do that can't be done just as well with free tools.
Zip's value lies in it being a standard. Don't support inappropriate proprietary extensions to it.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
People still use ZIP? RAR/WinRAR is the wave of the future (it even beats out bz2).
Freezip is my favorite zip program. Simple, to the point and does everything I need.
no one i know uses zip anymore.. It was and probably is still the most common, but everyone I know uses rar, or tar.gz.. zip.. not that often :o
I've left to find myself. If you happen to see me, please, keep me there until I return.
Not all versions of tar support -z.
People still use PKZip? Why?
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
because every new version is incompatible to the old one. I do not want to waste my time by downloading and installing something totally useless and not free because some lamer is using the "latest and greatest" cracked beta version of winrar.
Ever use Windows XP? It has Zip built in, you can zip up files and unzip them with a few mouse clicks.
Plus, most major computer maker ships out Windows XP in the boxen.
The DCMA explicitly allows reverse engineering for interoperability and this is precisely what WinZip would be doing. http://www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf, Page 5, Exception #2. Please read it for yourseld and grab a clue. The tired assertion that the DCMA kills innovation is tired and largely false (at least insofar as it is popularly presented on slashdot)
because every new version is incompatible to the old one. I do not want to waste my time by downloading and installing that crap every time I need to extract something because some lamer hat to use the "latest and greatest" cracked beta version of winrar.
PKWare is still in business?
Long live 2.04g!
Why change the format? I thought that the current standard of Zip could not be improved - Compression wise anyway
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
I use 7zip to make .zip files, they usually happen to be smaller than the .zip files WinZip and WinRAR make. I also use Ken Silverman's kzip and also his zipmix utility to get the best compression from both 7zip and kzip!
Most zip files, sorry to say, are made with WinZip now, so all that PKWare's reticence has accomplished is the balkanization of their own product.
PKWARE are the CREATORS of ZIP. WinZIP is simply a Windows GUI front-end for ZIP. Imagine if everybody loved the .DOC file format, but WordPerfect was far more popular than MS Office? Then people like you would criticise Microsoft for upgrading the .DOC format they invented because it wasn't compatible with WordPerfect!
Maybe we should just use formats based on open standards. Then the actual software people use is irrelevant.
Info-ZIP and WinRAR, but I guess that's just me...
Heck, I didn't even know PKWare was still in existance, and WinRAR beats WinZIP in every way.
luckily, most people stopped using pkware when they stopped using dos, so this doesn't present a problem.
who cares? I always use ICEOWS (formally arjfolder) its free, and does
ICE,ARJ, ZIP, GZIP, TAR, MS-CAB, RAR, ACE, Quake 3 compressed files, Internet Mail files (Mime, UUE, XXE, B64, HQX), Java Archive (JAR, EAR, WAR), LZS, LZH, LHA, IMP, BZ2
again, its freaking free, winzip is just annoying, who the hell wants a tutorial/wizard for EVERYTHING?
the superb HandyBits Zip'ngo?
It ROCKS!
- This can't be... - Be what? Be real?
One good way to piss away a standard is to be greedy and close fisted with it. In about 5 years, people will be asking 'What's a .zip file'?
--Aslan
That's a real shame. I thought the zip specification was open to anyone who wanted to use it? I stopped using Zips about three months ago in favor of the 7zip format. 7zips are smaller and more secure. The best part about 7z's is that it's an open source format. Fully documented, and entirely free. They also tend to be a lot smaller than standard .zip archives. Just an opinion.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
I haven't used .zip in a long time. There's, quite simply, much better stuff out there. My overall favorite solution is .tar.gz, but there are always times on Windows machines I want to split a file into multiple parts (like to post it on a newsgroup), so then I use WinRAR. Everything I've mentioned has better compression algorithms than Win/PK Zip, and I just can't imagine going back.
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
It's obvious to anyone vi is far superior. The primary reason for the lack of debate on this issue is that all the emacs users are too busy trying to convince their editor to mow thier lawn for them to argue.
many of you have already mentioned, I personally would rather stick with .tar.gz and .tar.bz2, while not touching the .zip so called "standard" with a mile long stick.
If (by which I mean IF)
this .zip thing was a standard,
it would not be going to "fragment,"
period.
I think everyone will agree with me.
Gzip is a standard. Bzip2 is a standard.
Tar is a standard. Zip is NOT
a standard. And I see absolutely no reason to
use slower, compression-ratio-wise poorer,
proprietary,
as well as otherwise inferior "standard"
(notice the quote marks), when we have
real standards available.
I frankly agree with most of people
about this subject.
It's a good thing, that this news has been posted
on Slashdot.
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
How's this news? From the Help in the Winzip Beta that I have been using for a while:
Note that the Zip file format extension used by WinZip to store AES-encrypted files is not supported by earlier versions of WinZip and is not yet supported by most other Zip file utilities. In order to extract a file encrypted with AES, WinZip 9.0 is required. Because the technical specification for WinZip's AES format extension is available on the WinZip web site, we anticipate that other Zip file utilities will add support for this format extension.
What I find funny is that PKWARE will basically die off from this, no one I know from the workplace, friends, or even home users use anything PKWARE related. They all use Winzip or another windows tool. Hell it's been 10 year's since I even used PKZIP from PKWARE, and back then I was on a 486 machine with DOS 5.
It's also funny how people are still using a archiving format thats been around since 1988 at least, it's OLD and compresses like crap. Especially when there are SUPERIOR and much better compression formats out there such as
ARJ
JAR
RAR
UC2
ACE
All of these formats compress better then ZIP, yet you are hard pressed to find ARJ/ACE/JAR/UC2 files on the net, RAR files you may find here and there.
You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.
Kudos to you, my good man.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Ever heard of the internet?
Well if it wasn't for our little hobby OSes, it probably wouldn't have happened quite as quickly, or ever worked quite as well, or expanded as far as it has.
First of all ... No matter what we all think about the multi-billion dollar making machine back in Redmond ... .Zip is included in their latest making "XP" and will probably be supported for as long as they ever wish.
.zip application they have used as long as they use the built-in compression stuff (they could even use a Markov algorithm and call it .zip, 99% would ever know).
... Who cares? I'm not interested, just pack those files into one archive and I'm satisfied - no matter what the compression ratio is.
... The .PNG format. A viable option? Already handled, let's call it .CNG (or something similar). Same procedure, just different views.
No one will ever need to fuzz about what
WinZip and PK are dying and they probably need some cash, that's why they're starting this. But
Lempel-Ziv (Welch) and Huffman codes are taught to every CS undergrad so why bother?
One interesteing this was mentioned, though
Interesting page that show comparison of programs/formats/compatibilities(somewhat) and compression ability.
However, it might be old, so program versions might be off, but an interesting look to see if you really want to stick with a format or go to one that is or isn't just as good in "compression".
archives I'd really like to see a better, up-to-date one if anyone has it.
apologise to Software Enhancement Associates? Nope, fuck Phil Katz and the place where he rests.
I think the reality is that PKZip is running far behind. I'll go so far to say that RAR is ahead of them. I use RAR over ZIP any chance I can; if it werent for compatibility with "administrative assistant" types, I would do everything in RAR. Better compression, better features.
Of course I'll stick with Winzip because I'm a Windows user.
Ok, yes I'm kidding but wouldn't that be the assumption of the general public?
Well if it wasn't for our little hobby OSes, it probably wouldn't have happened quite as quickly, or ever worked quite as well, or expanded as far as it has.I doubt it. The Internet was created long before hobby OSes were mainstream; the first Web browsers were designed on non-hobby platforms; and the vast majority of Internet users are on Windows.
OK, so there will be some encryption incompatibility in future versions of whatever proprietary Zip-compression applications? Who cares I say.
It's time for Zip to die. tar+gzip compresses better, and tar+bzip2 still better. Guess the only reason it lives is because of the network effect -- because "everyone" has it, even project admins who realize Zip is crappy make zip packages alongside their tar.{gz,bz2} packages.
diediedie(COMPRESSION_ZIP) is all I say
...since the days of MS-DOG^HS passing into oblivion.
Sure you can probably point to some obscure website somewhere that shows a Windows GUI version of PKWare, but I've *never* seen such version and nobody else I know really cares either. WinZip is the de-facto standard and has displaced it just like MS Excel has displaced Lotus 123
Didn't Winzip used to require a pkzip executable in its path back in the early win31 days?
winrar is a Much better utility for windows users. It handles multiple archive formats and gets much better compression rates using its native rar archive. Just my $.02
Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
works pretty good for me
it accepts windows extended characters in passwords
(so a password could be "can't#cRaCk;me[alt+0233]!")
the 'advanced zip recovery' tool from elcomsoft didn't deal with those by default
and it (used to) take forever to crack a 255^20 complexity password.
(just don't get stuck entering the password in unix or dos!)
then i switched to gpg.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
No, gzip is very nice thank you. It's a tool that does what it says it will, compress files. The way you use it might be at fault. Don't make giant archives of unrelated work. That may be the unix way, but it's not the efficient way.
Who made you SCO this week? ;-)
The unix way is to break your work up into reasonable chunks. Try making tarballs of related work, then a tarball of tarballs, then compress the biggie to get it from your place to someone elses. That way you get your data to the other side in a usable form. If you need to compress the smaller archives for storage, go ahead. To keep the other side up to date, just send the files you modify. Tar can append and replace files in archives.
You can probably extend the same methods to a graphical client like winzip. Make zips of zips and all that.
The big story here is that PKware is not sharing information. That means that people who don't have pkware eventually won't be able to work with archives sent by pk users. It's obnoxious, the same way WORD.DOC is. Free software might be able to keep up, but Winzip won't want to. Oh, the wonders of closed source develpment. Make it stop.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Whichever one is embedded into Windows XP.
Remembering your name in the morning is already a good start...
Goodbye PKWare.
I think you can say goodbye to both PKWare and WinZip, since the zip format is supported natively by Windows XP.
(Unless, of course, if Microsoft is licensing the technology from one of them, or if PKWare actually can make money on their enterprise solutions.)
You just told Microsoft they need to create their own incompatible Zip format!
Anyone who assumes that the way a law is written is the same as its implementation, or better yet, its ability to be used as a legal bludgeon, REALLY needs to get a clue.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
ah, troll responders
My university apparently decided to go legit and installed some FreeZip crap on the computers in the library. Just great. The only problem was that I was unable to unpack the files using WinZip, pkunzip or WinRAR (it has zip support). The archive wasn't corrupted, it was just not compatible.
When I also found out that WinRAR 2 is not compatible with WinRAR 3 archives I decided that I am tired of this shit. I will only use 5+ year old versions, preferably making SFX-archives and avoid using archives at all if possible.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Pkzip? Winzip? Why would anyone want to use either of these when there's ICEOWS? Once I discovered it, I forgot Pkzip and Winzip even existed.
It does when the company in question starts dumping product and people start using it. Just let them promote the useless feature and wait for the ass pains to set in. If they are dumping a "client" ala Adobe PDF, people can say, "Don't complain, the client is free." Ugh, at least Adobe released file specs.
If a company decides to go 20 years retro and create a new non free file format, that's just one more dumb format to get in the way. You would hope that people knew better by now, but they don't. Witness the growing popularity of M$.DOC, the dumbest way to exchange text ever.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The list is endless.. Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia, Morocco, Pakistan, Indonesia .....
It's double ROT13. Works great. I use it on all my files, but I'm thinking about upgrading to quad ROT13. That is assuming Amazon doesn't have a patent on it.
wow, i always assumed 7-zip had a command-line interface for linux and cygwin.
.7z format has the highest general compression algorithm out there.
it does not.
in fact, it only has a distribution for windows.
website claims it works with wine, though.
if i still used win2k, i'd be on this in seconds;
the interface looks very usable, better than winzip or power archiver (imho).
the parent post forgot to mention:
the
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
I remember calling him in Brown Deer way back (about results of the S.E.A. lawsuit and such)- just to tell him how cool it was that he created the Zip algorithms and published them in a show of spite ;-).
IIRC, the algorithms were placed in the Public Domain? I think if he were alive today, efforts for compatibility would prevail...
db
Cig:
ôô
If I M2 your mod (if in fact you did mod it) I will M2 it as unfair, because I will have read the whole thing.
Lasers Controlled Games!
You can stick with the tape archiver if you want. You'll have the pleasure of waiting for your massive single file to finish decompressing, so you can then sequentially search the resulting decompressed archive for the files you actually wanted.
In the meantime, I'll be plucking decompressed files right out of the middle of my zip archives, in a fraction of the time.
Incidentally, if you're so anal about your compression ratio, why not compress with a good compressor (like bzip2) and archive with a good archiver (like zip)?
time to get a cofortable way to use tar/gzip on windows... any projects like this besides the ports using cygwin?
What did MS use for their zip-extraction in WindowsXP? PK, Winzip, their own? Does this fractioning mean that MS will also make their own new standard? Someone lemme know...
Go here for teh [sic] funny.
... and now this. Just one more reason to go with RAR.
Besides, who needs file compatibility when, for about 10-20k you can make the archive self-extracting.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Now that Phil Katz is gone, PKware is obviously just another corporate scumbag trying to milk money from something they wouldn't be able to create.
For Windows compression, I highly recommend WinACE: http://www.winace.com.
It supports pretty much every compression format in existence, and its own ACE compressor can really crunch files. It also allows you span across media (like CD-Rs, and you can specify the size, just in case you have some of those rare 90 minute discs). It works great for making, erhm⦠âoebackup copiesâ of PC games that Iâ(TM)ve âoelostâ the disc for but still have installed⦠Heh.
And in an effort to remain at least somewhat on topic, Iâ(TM)d like to throw in my two bits here: Isnâ(TM)t this a good thing? I mean, if there are two different, competing standards, wonâ(TM)t that drive the development forward more than if things stayed the same? Look at what competition between ATI and nVidia did for end users. Now graphics cards are so insanely overpowered that they can double as leaf blowers. Look at what competition between Intel and AMD did for the end user. Now we have CPUs that are faster than a speeding bullet, and just about as hot as the sun. Heh⦠I guess my examples are showing the bad side of competitionâ¦. Woopsâ¦
"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking
i hope this does not break compatibility with the lossy zip (lzip) compression format.
in other compression news, i just upgraded my system from dos 6.2 to dos 6.22, so i can test the theory of whether you can gain infinite storage space from your harddrive if you 'doublespace' it repeatedly. wish me luck.
Knock it off with that plural "you" bullshit - I wrote that post, not the rest of the idiots on this site. I fully understand the Napster decision, having read it and the Kazaa decision, and the Napster idiots got what they deserved. I understand this. So your generalities don't fit here, try them on someone else.
You seem to have me confused with someone else you met on here.
If you read the actual wording of the DCMA it is quite worthwhile, reasonable, clear and precise.
That may be, but as in most cases, that's fully irrelevant.
Just because someone might attempt to pervert it and just because it _might_ concievably cause some harm with it does not mean that it is not a very good thing.
Um, yes, it does. I don't give a rat's ass how beautiful a piece of legislation it is, I only care how it impacts me. And our Congresscritters need to be a little smarter about seeing the ultimate effects of the laws they pass, because a law in vacuum is pointless.
You can take just about any law, even good laws, and do much the same with them.
I would say that good laws are those skillfully and cleverly designed to exclude that sort of abuse. That's what makes them good. That's why the DMCA isn't a good law, because of the potential for (particularly) unintentional abuse. I would say that any law that, as written or through effects, precludes me from playing DVD's I OWN or using competitors' ink cartridges in MY printer, is certainly a bad law.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
You're the kind of person that probably thinks the autoconf/automake fiasco is a good design.
Why use one tool when you can use 20, huh?
I think you can say goodbye to both PKWare and WinZip, since the zip format is supported natively by Windows XP
True, it is supported in XP, but the support is horridly basic. For most purposes, I find the XP Zip support to be useless. I still use a 3rd party ZIP program (BitZipper). However, give Windows a couple more versions, and I'm sure it will have much better ZIP support that can rival most of the 3rd party tools.
By your logic, Saddom never existed either, since there is no sign of him either.
The main features of 7-Zip:
is 2-10 % better than ratio provided by PKZip and WinZip.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
One word answer: RAR.
My
Limekiller
From the article:
... we don't need any pushing and shoving. You'll be issued a standard wooden stick, and you'll each get one whack at the PkWare piñata.
... to the benefit of everyone else.
"Certificate-based encryption is still a work in progress," says Jim Peterson, PKZip chief technology officer. "We're not publishing it because we still have a number of features to add."
Sing it, brother. So essentially, cert-based encryption in the zip format is too much of a moving target to bother posting a complete spec, even a preliminary one, but not enough to prevent you from introducing the feature into your product almost a year ago? Solid.
But is this simply one man's poor choice of words? Maybe he's being quoted out of context. Luckily, another suit quickly steps in to disabuse us of that notion:
But the spec should not come out until a product is done, says Steve Crawford, PKWare's chief marketing officer.
Read: "We can't publish the full details of changes to our open format until our own commercial implementation has gone through a few revs."
Okay, I need everyone who loves to bash Sun's handling of Java to line up on the left over here. Please proceed in an orderly fashion
Giving Sun a little credit, for at least having the good sense to provide some form of community review process on proposed specifications, is optional, but highly recommended.
Those who wish to play the role of PkWare apologists should instead use the wooden stick to beat themselves unconscious
/* Pleurez, pleurez, mes yeux, et fondez vous en eau! La moitie de ma vie a mis l'autre au tombeau. - Corneille */
You should forget WinZip, and use PKWare, instead. Because the bio of Phil Katz is sad.
And the icons of WinZip are cheezy and FisherPrice, and that, well.
Just, forget WinZip, and use PKWare, instead.
And everything will be cool.
I believe with .zips popularity is like that of VHS versus BETA. Sure, beta's better, but everyone adpoted VHS. Same case here.
.ARC and .ZOO(which I think was more popular on Amiga)
Old school points if you remember
I do remember back in the day using pkzip and pkunzip as well, and then ARJ was the new kid on the block, and some warez boards went over to that.
It reminds me of the excessive amounts of mailto links everywhere on the web. Like I want to email that many people.
It ticks me off with the quickies, since every other link is a mailto: link. How often do people use that, and would you want a slashdot effect directly to your inbox?
I hope all you Winders users know that PowerArchiver blows the doors off of the WinZip and PK offerings, despite what your IT department installed on your company-issued machine.
Zip is an aging format, and it badly needs to be reinvented. Not mindlessly extended, but respecified openly to remove the accumulated cruft. I remember reading about some guy doing this a while ago; however AFAIK the project never really got off the ground. But the format does have severe limitations which need to be addressed, and a new open specification (and preferably implementation) would save a lot of headaches.
And to those claiming we should just use tar variants instead: they're two separate formats to perform separate jobs. Zip is fast for random access of given files; tar variants are a pig for that. See OpenOffice formats and JAR for previous examples.
You look beautiful! Incidentally, my favourite artist is Picasso.
rar ...
...
arj
arc
zoo
lha
zip
bz2
tar.gz
ace
Wouldn't it be cool to get a small file that lots of people really wanted and then to write a script to compress it again and again and again with different types of compression in a random order?
Imagine a file that was compressed a million times and what a laugh you could have watching a GUI-only user opening the archive again and again and again
graspee
So why use either of them? That copy you downloaded and spread all over your organisation is illegal. Go on, read the licences, I dare you to ;-) Then uninstall both of them and install either 7-zip or IZArc instead. You know you should!
I AM JUST GOING TO USE WIN-RAR
Oops
-1 redundant for me
hanh hanh
i just started using 7-zip and love it. it makes zip files but also tar.gz and tar which is something that winzip cannot do.
Then maybe you should stop warezing, because that's the sort of people who are stupid enough to use solid mode on a series of already packed files.
Maybe there should be a .ZIE extension, for .ZIP encrypted.
If you look at the volume of archives posted to usenet (and elsewhere) it's pretty obvious that both these are simply trying to catch up to RAR. The only thing I use winzip for now is opening windows CAB files. And I'm pretty sure winrar does that, now, too.
better compression, it will read gzip, tar, winzip and just about everything else...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
no if either side would be big enough assholes to try it, but why couldn't you use DMCA there?
Dude, you are so stupid it hurts. The DMCA only applies to copy-protection schemes. It also spesificaly allows reverse engineering for interoperability.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
AFAIK, zip fragmentation is w/ the filename and allows for a ZIP to be broken simply by binary file-splitting. Example, you could split an existing ZIP w/ a binary spitter at, say 1.44M for floppies, and copy /b a+b the files back together and it would still work. In fact, who cares? Use binary splitting and DIY. Windoze winzip is for the lazy anyhow, let them screw it up.
The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
I wunder wut version of the ZIp format windows will natively support after they make the split?
C:\earth\humans\del *.m0ronz
zip is a verry old format i think the only thing that compreses worse then a zip archive is a cab file or a tar(no compression)
go with rar if your useing windows and a bzip2 if your useing linux or mac?(since its basicly unix) i think even a gzip archive does better then what winzip does
gzip on linux: tar -czvf archive.tar.gz files
bzip on linux: tar -cjvf atchive.tar.bz2 files
to extract replace c with x
winrar can open linux format files so dont worry about windows compatibility and i imagine mac comes with tar anyway and bzip/gzip
yes, even the Windows world experiences fragmentation - although nothing quite like each GCC version breaking binary compatibility in sundry subtle ways, or KDE vs. GNOME, or those horrible libraries (GLIBC, et al) that can't seem to cooperate/coexist, or even Xfree itself (though i'll sidestep that landmine for now, thanks).
don't laugh so hard that you shit in your own pool next time, sonny.
There's a little hobby OS I saw once, what was it? Something like Yuniks? A couple of bored guys at AT&T made it, and they gave it to schools for about the cost of the tape.
I use UltimateZip. It's free, fast, and compatible. Very nice software.
UltimateZip Web Site
why not just: tar xvzf foo.tar.gz ?
less to type
usage: mv [-f | -i] [-v] source target ... directory
mv [-f | -i] [-v] source
Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
ARJ was a competitor to ARC, the precursor to ZIP.
Also, ZIP has many new and better compression schemes than it did when it was invented. So don't go judging it based upon the date that it was created.
Yes, ACE files seem smaller than ZIPs. RARs often are too.
heh. right. originally I was doing an echo or a cat. thanks.
I do not have a signature
How about just rm(1)? Moving to /dev/null looks like abuse. :)
Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
Me abuse an AC? Never! ;)
I do not have a signature
*sigh* computer people don't know history.
Back in the DOS days (1986?) there was a format called ARC used by the program arc. Everyone used it on the BBSes. Phil Katz came up with his own programs, pkarc and pkxarc. One created, one extracted. He added a new compression scheme and his apps were *much* faster.
BBSes converted. When everyone is on 8088s and 2400 baud, every bit and cpu cycle counts.
arc sued PK and won. PK had some arc code in pkarc/pkxarc or something. PK vowed neither he nor anyone else would be in that position and released the zip format.
At the time, there was zoo, lha also competing. zoo was cross platform (DOS, Unix, VMS). lha was small and fast, producing small archives. zip aimed to be both.
BBSes converted overnight. The arc format disappeared. Other formats persisted for awhile, but zip stayed mainstream.
It's sad that PKware is on the other side of this...
From the article:
...or maybe Bush's speech writer is taking on external contracts.
"We think there's a legitimate claim that they're going against their stated claim to keep an open standard," Kearney says.
This very same simplicity is exactly why I use things like a little z switch of tar. *sigh* Next time please check your "facts" before you start to spread such a misinformation. Thank you. The tar manual might help you with that.
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
I doubt it will be made into "the perfect solution". But I hate it that Windows XP even tries to handle zip files. Leave them alone! Frequently, I find it doing all the wrong things. WinZip does what I tell it to do, where as Windows XP does not.
Clever signature text goes here.
You also forgot to mention that in the 90's PKZIP was the target of many a fake trojan and virus infected release, often with fake version numbers and warnings galore on lots of BBS's to not download the fake versions.
You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
I haven't actually zipped a file in years, RAR I found to be a much better archive format, more compact and faster. WinRAR has much better options too, like solid-compression and in archive comments.
.zip.
Recently I was trying to hack an protected RAR, not for illegal purposes, just that I forgot my pw and it was pretty old. Doing the research into how to actually crack it, I discovered that there is a whole array of tool to hack ANY archive, ussually by using rule based attacks, but the newer RARs are only hackable with brute force and dictionary attacks. Much more secure than
I really doubt that breaking the standard is going to help either company. Back in the day, when WinZip first came out it would have MASSIVELY helped PKware, since every user was used to typing out "c:\telix\down\> pkunzip -e doom2v159.zip", meaning they had mad brand recognition. But now I don't think that the average user knows that WinZip and PKZip are different entities, actually I doubt that most users have ever heard of PKware. So this might actually HURT PKware. How many little banners have you seen saying "GET PKZIP!"?
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Why not just zip something or tar something and then whip a little PGP on it? Seems like that would be easier and it's a pretty well proven technology.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Although in recent years PKWARE has been making windows versions of PKZIP, but it doesn't seem very popular next to Winzip.
You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
Stuffin...Stuffout...Stuffin...Stuffout
You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
Aside from some differences in ordering, rar's 'solid archive' option does exactly the same thing as tar: it concatenates the files into a single stream that can then be compressed. Extracting a single file from a solid rar archive requires decompressing the whole shebang, just like a tarball.
The clods at work that set up my laptop before I got it disabled that feature and installed winZip instead. Grrr.... I hate that fscking piece of shite.
--JoeProgram Intellivision!
What are you talking about?
If you go to PkWare's web site there is a link on their front page which says they have published the file format changes so everyone can play nice. This page then links to another application note with the actual format spec inside.
Note also, Pkware actually added their new encryption, authentication, and extra compression options in V5.0 last year. Their newest release is V6.0. To be fair, I dont know when they published the spec?
$ touch file1 file2 file3 ../files.tar.gz . ./file2
$ tar cvvzf
$ tar -tzf files.tar.gz
./
./file1
./file2
./file3
$ ls
files.tar.gz
$ tar xvzf files.tar.gz
./file2
$ ls
file2 files.tar.gz
Thankfully there's still some great Windows software around, like NSIS (by Nullsoft). It doesn't bother unzipping itself first (single EXE), it is small, it is powerful, open-source, .... The only thing that sucks is how you create an installer, you have to write a script in a language that's a mix between assembly, PHP and C. It's not at all hard if you're a programmer, but this is the reason why NSIS will never reach those stupid companies that put their Installer in an EXE in an EXE in a ZIP.
If someone were to make an NSIS-script wizard (for people who can't use the script-system) for basic actions and commonly used stuff, it would put InstallShield and friends to eternal shame.
I think know is a good time to ask. If you're using a commerical Zip program, have you registered it? Or are you on day 1290 of your free trial?
First of all, I will be really grateful, if you start using at least whole sentences while quoting me. Thank you.
There is nothing like a mature argument between two intelligent, adult human beings... *sigh*
No. *sigh* (Please take no offense, but your logic is quite irrational, to say the very least, so don't mind if I get somehow annoyed.)
"By [my] definition," if you insist calling the pure reason that way, such an incompatible derivative work would not be standard, while the original standard versions would still be standard versions.
Once again, No. I could design my own format, totally incompatible with everything in use, publish the specification and call it a "standard." But would it instantly become a standard? By all means, no, not at all.
For God's sake... No. (You are just not going to stop, are you?) Please read my words once again. I was talking about compression-ratio, as well as about speed and the software legal status.
I'm sure now you can clearly see, that compression-ratio is not "all that matters" for me.
Both gzip and bzip2 are open standards with standard implementation available as free software.
Gzip is faster.
Bzip2 has better compression ratio.
I always use the one, which is better for a given situation.
Sometimes computational complexity is the most important factor and "gzip -1" is the best choice. Sometimes output size is the most important factor and then "bzip2 -9" is optimal.
I have no idea why on Earth do you think data compression methods could only have one important characteristic, and I am insulted by you implying, that I have said that, while in fact, I certainly have not said anything like that.
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
While people care about the future of ZIP, today I downloaded some file from Japan and it was in LZH.
Seeing the Japanese cling to this older format, I guess that it's more a thing of network effect than actual performance of the program.
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
If you use GnuPG(GPG) or PGP to encrypt your files, you get compression too. There is absolutely NO reason to use a nonstandard compression utility to do low quality encryption.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
If you don't belive me, go ahead and try it. (although, it will work with disks that are not protected with CSS, obviously)
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Anyone else use Aladdin's Stuffit. The expander is free, runs on Mac or Win, and has opened just about anything i've thrown at it including parts of defective installers,and a variety of other things that do not belong near your archive program. It also compresses to just about any format, so you can get files to anything, from idiotboy's PC, all the way down to to that apple2 sitting in the corner slowly roting (remember Shrinkit?)
I just use RAR compression for everything I compress just because it gets such better compression rates than .ZIP. After a little testing with various file types, I found that RAR won all contests for compression size. I tried compressing executables, small plain text files, spreadsheets, databases, raw music, compressed music, large, structured text files, images, etc. etc. just about everything I could get my hands on and RAR was smaller (albeit, sometimes only by a few bytes as in the case with small text files. However differences were huge in the case of some such as a ~500MB MSAccess database compressed down to 32MB with RAR and 120MB with .ZIP).
The only time I use PkZip or WinZip is when I'm opening something that someone else has compressed, and even then, if I save the archive onto a backup, I usually like to uncompress it then recompress it as a RAR file. Personally, I'm not very worried about the change.
Our greatest enemy is neither a single man, nor is it a nation, it is, as it has always been, our own greed.
my question is - if you try to open an incompatible zip file, can you tell if its incompatible, or is there just a general error?
I worked with Nico Mac at a big Hartford insurance company briefly in 1980; the guy was a genius. He was the tech lead on a joint project with AT&T & IBM to allow VM users to submit jobs to an array of MVS hosts scattered around central Connecticut. This was beyond leading edge in 1980. The guy always started his day playing Asteroids and smoking at a drug store across the street and that's how he spent his lunch hour too. We junior right-out-of-college COBOL programmers didn't have a clue about what he did, but we did know the people we worshipped all worshipped at his feet. When I realized WinZip was his I bought it in an instant, and I've never regretted it. Now that it's no longer Nico Mac Computing I wonder if it still has his purity.
I've used WinZip, and it's nice and all, but I just have a hard time using a product from a company with that name (third entry from the top).
That is I think the best flamebait response that I have seen in a while.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
NT/2000/XP's Win32 subsystem is not POSIX compliant. Its POSIX subsystem is.
.gov!
Yeah, right, POSIX my arse! When was the last time you compiled a POSIX code under Windows with MS tools, without Cygwin? I thought so! This "sybsystem" doesn't even work and the only reason MS has introduced it was because they wanted to sell their crap to the
I'm going to stick with WinZip. PkWare was out of the game for way too long... it seemed forever that their 2.04g MS-DOS compressor was their last release. Then they finally released a lackluster Windows version which really sucked.
WinZip is way more polished and anybody can use it.
As to why would anybody use WinZip to encrypt their files - well, everybody already has it! Must be one of the most widely distributed pieces of software in the world.
What's much more important for personal backup purposes is that it supports its own format, .7z, which provides vastly superior compression ratios in most of the cases.
May be you should change your nick from TheNumberSix to TheNumberSeven. ;)
Though I contribute to open source (gzip and zlib), I am not religious about open source. However I am religious about open standards. There should be a movement to cease support of closed formats to encourage both open-source and commercial competition, better products, and better prices.
enough said
Unlike the tar and bzip and gzip combinations, zip allows you to compress and archive in one step, this simplicity is why windows users (the vast majority of computer users) use it instead of some combination of unix programs.
This very same simplicity is exactly why I use things like a little z switch of tar. *sigh* Next time please check your "facts" before you start to spread such a misinformation. Thank you. The tar manual might help you with that.
The z switch of tar is not posix compliant and is only present in the gnu version of tar, people who use real unix don't have that option.
This post had me busting up from the very beginning, which I only came across because I was asked to meta-moderate it. I then went and read djNocturne's other posts, which were equally amusing. I wanted to drop him a note to encourage him to keep posting, but unfortunately there's no contact info in his profile. So djNocturne, if you're out there, keep posting! I only wish I could be notified via email when you do.
One of your fans,
Shinzaburo
i'm not sure why this was modded down as a troll (i'll probably be modded down as well for replying to this), but this works for registering winzip and getting rid of that opening screen. it makes winzip so much more useful... and i've never paid for it btw, no reason to. it's just stupid to pay $30 to get rid of that screen when you can get a crack for free...
Omission: The ARC source code that Katz worked from was publically available. SEA released it so their competitors could write compatible software. The had the high-minded notion that they could make their format a defacto standard that way. Not that they weren't out to make a buck. They just figured that sharing a big market would be more profitable than monopolizing a small market. As for piracy, they assumed the copyright laws would protect them. Which turned out to be true, but useless. More on that below.
Error: It's true PKARC and PKXARC were drastically faster (10 to 1? 100 to 1? it was pretty extreme). But this had nothing to do with changes in compression formats. The problem was that SEA had this naive notion of C portability. They wanted source that would compile on every machine in existence. What they didn't count on was some fucked-up buffering in the C library that they used for the DOS version. Easy to work around with a simple buffering routine -- but that would have broken portability!
So Phil Katz, in typical hacker fashion, jumped in and "fixed" ARC. Like most hackers, he considered himself an expert on computing law, and convinced himself that any IP claims by SEA were bogus. Which left him free to sell his modified ARC software as shareware. Which was quickly adopted by 99% of the DOS BBS community because of the speed difference. It might have ended there, given SEA's laid-back attitude, except, Katz indulged in another classic hacker blunder: he started tweaking the format.
The result was a fractional gain in compression speed and quality, at the expense of incompatibility with the original format. But since when do hackers care about that kind of issue? Problem is, the BBS's were soon flooded with ARC archives the original software couldn't grok. Now SEA started paying attention.
Neither side behaved maturely. SEA had every right to sue, of course, but they still refused to admit what every BBS user knew -- that the DOS version of their software was so slow as to be unusable. Instead, they insisted that people were switching to the PK products because of the incompatibilities that Katz "maliciously" introduced. For his part, Katz refused to admit that he'd done anything wrong by pirating the code. He was self righteous about the whole thing to the very end. (He died in 2000 at 37.) When the courts made him hand over all the rights to and income from his software, he went out and published his own archive format, accompanied by rants that would have made Stallman blush.
He did do one thing right: in his burst of self-righteousness, he renounced any control over his format, and documented it in nit-picking detail. A far more effective way to popularize a format than publishing source code.