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.
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!
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
Goodbye PKWare.
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.
switching the locations of the I accept and Quit buttons every time you open it.
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
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.
you would think so from the article, but reality so far has shown differently. I have already run into two instances where someone using the beta copy of winzip9 used the new format by accident and those people using pkware or xp's built in zip readers could not read the file because of some header issue or something like that. Once they rezipped the file with the winzip8 option (aparantly that's what they did as both posts said something to that effect) no one had a problem reading the file. I hope that whatever issue is causing this is removed before the release version.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
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.
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
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.
I vote we go back to LZH, ARJ, or ARC
I miss the BBS days where you needed about 10 compression programs.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe we should just use formats based on open standards. Then the actual software people use is irrelevant.
luckily, most people stopped using pkware when they stopped using dos, so this doesn't present a problem.
Actually the DMCA does NOT allow reverse engineering of security mechanisms... like oh... pkware Encryption algorithms...
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
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)
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 mean like DeCSS lets users decrypt and watch dvd's in the roughly the same manner the licensed technology does?
Ah, there is a big difference between this and DeCSS.
The CSS encryption standard was well known, so one could easily write a functioning DeCSS program without violating the DMCA---with one significant exception: the encryption keys were not made public. Reverse engineering was used to retrieve those keys and thereby make DeCSS a functioning program.
With PKZip, the encryption method is not known and must be reverse-engineered, but the encryption keys are externally supplied by the user. Therefore, you aren't circumventing any copy protection by reverse-engineering PKZip's protection, because you still can't "break" the copy protection of any ZIP file whose key you do not know.
Whichever one is embedded into Windows XP.
Remembering your name in the morning is already a good start...
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.
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)?
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.
*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...
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...
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).