[HN Gopher] 7-Zip for Linux
___________________________________________________________________
7-Zip for Linux
Author : conductor
Score : 97 points
Date : 2021-03-11 17:48 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (sourceforge.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (sourceforge.net)
| tus89 wrote:
| Here I am thinking I have been using 7zip on Linux for years. So
| p7zip is a third-party port?
| chungy wrote:
| It is, yes.
| [deleted]
| augusto-moura wrote:
| We always had official posix 7zip (aka p7zip)[1] support for
| linux, is this a different version or a new release?
|
| Edit: read the description, so it is a different port, any any
| apparent enhancements though?
|
| [1]: https://www.7-zip.org/download.html
| gruez wrote:
| it's by a different author.
|
| In the site that you linked:
|
| >p7zip is the command line version of 7-Zip for Linux / Unix,
| made by an independent developer.
|
| In the link for this post:
|
| >It's first version of my port of 7-Zip to Linux.
|
| >That port of 7-Zip is similar to p7zip, but it's not identical
| to p7zip.
| augusto-moura wrote:
| Yeah, commented before fully reading the description
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| > And developer of p7zip port didn't show any activity last 4-5
| years.
|
| I guess that would be why. I, too, assumed we had an actively
| maintained Linux port, but if the maintainer isn't doing much
| these days, a version closer to upstream would be great.
|
| The 7zip author by his own admission does not use Linux,
| though, so I'd be curious if p7zip might actually be more
| performant on Linux.
| wnoise wrote:
| > the maintainer isn't doing much these days,
|
| Is there much to do?
| kumarsw wrote:
| Does this fix the issue of 7zip not supporting unix file
| permissions? I recall that was the main issue everyone hated
| the 7zip linux port.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| I don't know the answer to your question, just adding that
| you can work around that by using tar to preserve ownership,
| permissions, extended attributes, selinux contexts, then use
| 7zip on that tar file. This can all be done in pipes in one
| command line.
| chungy wrote:
| At that point, you might as well just use xz and skip 7z
| marcodiego wrote:
| Even considering that this is for linux, I still get pretty sad
| whenever I see windows users running winrar. 7-zip is simpler to
| use, (mostly) as fast and as compressed as rar. I really see no
| reason windows users still use winrar.
| franga2000 wrote:
| WinRAR is much easier to use than 7-zip in my experience.
| PeaZIP is easier than both, but WinRAR still wins on the "you
| don't actually need to know what a zip file is" point. It's
| both a blessing and a curse though - I've had a couple of
| situations where people were running portable programs from zip
| files and promptly losing their work once they closed WinRAR.
| pitaj wrote:
| > WinRAR is much easier to use than 7-zip in my experience.
|
| In what way?
| franga2000 wrote:
| The big icons make way more sense and more things have
| icons, the ".." line is more natural than the dedicated
| "dir up" button, the "create archive" dialog is more
| organized and its options more discoverable...
|
| And when you run an executable from it, it (I think) unzips
| the whole archive, not just the file, so DLLs etc. can be
| loaded properly. Just saves some effort and thinking when
| you need it and doesn't make a difference when you don't
| auganov wrote:
| Never compared archivers at length, cannot speak as to the
| actual features. But 7z has this distinct unfinished open-
| source GUI tool look. That's all I remember about it. It
| may or may not be true that it has poor UX. But the
| aesthetics certainly do signal this. Personally, on Windows
| I used 360Ya Suo which seems to be a better looking winrar
| clone without nag screens. On Linux it's "atool -x" for
| extracting (there's no decent Linux file explorer, so the
| main selling point of archiver guis is moot too).
| moistbar wrote:
| > there's no decent Linux file explorer
|
| Dolphin, PCManFM, and MC would all like a word with you.
|
| Also, 7Zip is no harder to use than the built-in Windows
| zip extractor if you use the context menu.
| devwastaken wrote:
| 7zip does not properly handle japanese character sets on
| Windows. Winrar does, though you have to specify the language.
| pitaj wrote:
| In the UI? In file names? In the file contents?
| fredoralive wrote:
| I have vague memories that things like Shift JIS file names
| get scrambled? IIRC it was a case of it using the users
| default non-Unicode / "ANSI" codepage instead of offering a
| selection like Winzip apparently does.
| hansel_der wrote:
| maybe they want to unpack rar-archives?
| marcodiego wrote:
| AFAIK there're opensource decompressors for rar files. Except
| for RAR6 which are definitely not very common.
| pitaj wrote:
| You can do that with 7zip IIRC
| LinuxBender wrote:
| The only thing that comes to mind is the lack of par files or
| some equivalent construct.
| MikusR wrote:
| Recovery records.
| diarrhea wrote:
| Perhaps they paid for it and it's a sunken cost fallacy.
| marcodiego wrote:
| Most people I see using winrar have not paid for it. And they
| have to deal with the snag screen every time. I think it has
| to do with inertia.
| tener wrote:
| Companies tend to use it and buy new licenses due to the
| same inertia you mentioned. Although the more cost
| conscious will at some point switch to the free
| alternatives.
| scaladev wrote:
| Educate them if you can. Whenever I see someone using
| crapware like bandicam I give them a link to OBS Studio and
| briefly describe its advantages. Same for winrar and 7zip.
| They usually don't know any better and were using whatever
| everyone else was using.
| smnrchrds wrote:
| Back in the day, one of the selling points of the RAR format
| was that it could partition large files into multiple archives,
| so you could upload it in chunks, or copy it to multiple flash
| drives or CDs. Have other archive formats caught up with this
| feature?
| tener wrote:
| 7zip for sure has. It actually supports it for more than just
| 7z format.
| agurk wrote:
| I was about to reply a little snarkily that I was doing this
| with zip archives on floppy disks back in the 90s. I thought
| I might as well check my facts before posting, and it looks
| like that was a part of WinZip that was not part of the
| standard.
|
| In 2015 ISO published a standard pertaining to zip archives,
| and one of the specifications was (from Wikipedia):
| Archives may not span multiple volumes or be segmented.
|
| There are also multiple forum posts when you search for
| multipart zip archives of Linux users asking how to
| decompress them, suggesting that this is only WinZip
| behaviour and not common to the zip standard.
| marcodiego wrote:
| I remember people using arj exactly because of that
| feature. Compression with arj was worse than zip but people
| used it because you could divide an arj archive in
| floppies. At the time, rar could do it too, but it only got
| popular later.
| diggernet wrote:
| I had the same reaction, but checked a different set of
| facts than you did. PKZIP 2.04g (which at the time _was_
| the standard) supported split archives, in January 1993.
| WinZip added support in version 8.1, in 2001.
|
| Edit: I just found the page where you got your quote. Looks
| like ISO was deliberately defining a subset of ZIP.
| fogihujy wrote:
| ARJ had that feature and it predates RAR by a few years.
| marcodiego wrote:
| I don't know, but I think such feature would be way less
| valuable today.
| tener wrote:
| There are niche uses, mostly with some forms of file
| sharing with limited file size. For example email
| attachments, but not only this.
| sitzkrieg wrote:
| true but its still used heavily on eg usenet binaries, and
| nzb tools run the 100s of unrar for you not unlike the gui
| scaladev wrote:
| Caught up? tar has had this for a few billion years at least:
| $ tar cazf - file1 file2 | split -b 700m - out.tgz
|
| 7zip also natively supports splitting for as long as I can
| remember.
| progval wrote:
| You didn't address this:
|
| > or copy it to multiple flash drives or CDs
|
| How would you use 'split' without either dumping the whole
| archive on disk or pluggin all drives at the same time?
| epmos wrote:
| tar was designed for tape, so you can specify a volume
| size for the output and it will break it's output into
| segments of that size. Using split isn't required.
|
| The options in gnu tar are -L and -M for specifying tape
| length (in KB) and creating multi-volume archives.
|
| The -L version is handy as it can prompt you to change
| the "tape". It has built-in tape handling as well, if you
| are using a real tape that can be controlled via mt.
|
| Apparently (just checked info) it supports an arbitrary
| command to execute at the end of each archive. That would
| be handy for burning CDs, though I don't remember that
| feature from when I used floppies or QIC-40 to move files
| from one machine to another.
|
| Around 1991-ish I would use these options to put archives
| onto stacks of floppy disks. The floppies didn't have a
| filesystem, just blocks of tar archive. In the days of
| 9600 bps modems, this was often the fastest way to move
| stuff to another machine. I had an often-reused stack of
| 3.5in HD floppies labeled with numbers for this purpose.
| Mojave3 wrote:
| I mostly use 7zip but I've had a number of archives in the past
| that would simply not properly extract using 7zip and WinRAR
| had no issues with. 7zip is fine, however I don't see it as
| superior really in any notable way. I don't understand why
| everyone is crazy over it at this point. It's good, but so is
| WinRAR. Why is it sad for people to use one good program over
| the other when they both accomplish the same thing in about the
| same way? There's very little special about 7zip for typical
| day to day use.
| bombcar wrote:
| Does 7-zip support multiple processors like pbzip2 or similar
| tools?
| LinuxBender wrote:
| [Update / Edit] I just spun up a VM with 20 cores and p7zip
| uses all of them without any flags. Version 16.02 from the EPEL
| repo.
|
| No idea how this new build differs.
| sumtechguy wrote:
| I love the 'Some bugs were fixed.' in the changelog
|
| Almost every release.
| ixtli wrote:
| Is there a non-sourceforge mirror? My pi.hole lists block that
| domain, and likely for good reason.
| hansel_der wrote:
| lol
|
| yea, sourceforge went throu a lot of sketchy shit but nothing
| an adblocker and common sense could not defeat.
| moistbar wrote:
| For a while they were bundling in spyware with popular
| downloads, which would not have been stopped by an adblocker,
| and common sense would have dictated it wasn't there to begin
| with. They've since stopped now that the site has changed
| hands again, as far as I know.
| 1MachineElf wrote:
| About a month ago, the cross-platform product I support had a
| group of developers considering standardizing on 7-Zip, only to
| realize that p7zip - what most Linux users consider 7-Zip - is
| actually a 3rd party project. Had this come out a month ago, it
| might have actually swayed their decision.
| qalmakka wrote:
| I hope 7-Zip will support Zstandard someday, .tar.zst is getting
| more and more common and having to point people on Windows to
| install either modern7z (7z plugin for several new compression
| algorithms) or use zstd from the CLI is complicated.
| omgtehlion wrote:
| https://www.tc4shell.com/en/7zip/modern7z/
|
| windows-only, though (and 3rd-party)...
| qalmakka wrote:
| That's exactly what I quoted in my comment. It's not
| necessary on Linux though, given that every environment ships
| a good archiving program (like Ark or File Roller) that
| supports zstandard.
| sigzero wrote:
| I have never seen a .zst file. Just a comment.
| chungy wrote:
| They're becoming increasingly common, especially if you ever
| pay attention to Linux packaging.
| moistbar wrote:
| The majority that I've seen have been .tar.xz
| kiririn wrote:
| I've always been confused by the popular choice of compression
| on tar archives. If a small portion of a gz, xz, zst, etc
| archive is corrupted you lose everything after it, defeating
| the purpose of using a stream format like Tar.
|
| The algorithms that can recover data after the corruption like
| bzip2 and lzip don't see much use these days
| dTal wrote:
| 99.9% of the time, if a .tar.gz archive is corrupted, I don't
| _want_ to recover the data - I want to redownload it from a
| different mirror because it 's source code and it probably
| won't work with any corruption at all.
| __s wrote:
| Two reasons:
|
| - if you know tar supports your directory / metadata, you
| don't have to lookup if zst will preserve that info
|
| - interfile compression
|
| I don't think people would say they use tar because it's a
| stream format. They use it because it packages
| files/directories into a file
| foobarbecue wrote:
| By the way, do people use unar? It's a great solution I stumbled
| upon for when you want to be like "I don't know or care how this
| was compressed, just extract it for me"
| chenxiaolong wrote:
| I use bsdtar for a similar purpose. It's part of the fantastic
| libarchive[1] project and supports every format I've thrown at
| it so far.
|
| [1] https://www.libarchive.org/
| Koshkin wrote:
| 7-Zip is the first of the three programs I install on Windows
| before anything else (the other two being VLC and Sumatra PDF; I
| wish Sumatra were available on Linux, but evince is not bad as a
| replacement).
| ziml77 wrote:
| 7-Zip is the first thing I install alongside Firefox and
| Everything Search. Firefox is less of an absolute requirement
| with Chromium Edge but I need 7-Zip and Everything Search.
| ducktective wrote:
| Take a look at Zathura.
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V_Iz4zdyRM4
| kd913 wrote:
| Why though? There are already plenty of free tools to do this.
|
| unzip,zip,tar,gunzip,ark
| Theodores wrote:
| Brotli. My new goto.
| compressedgas wrote:
| Those don't use LZMA. For LZMA there is 7z, xz, and lzip.
| usefulcat wrote:
| Also pixz, which can use multiple threads for decompression.
| biglost wrote:
| lrzip :-D
| I_Byte wrote:
| I have noticed that 7-zip offers the best compression ratio out
| of the options you listed above when set for maximum
| compression. I personally am happy to hear this news.
| krzyk wrote:
| Better than xz?
|
| And what's the difference? I alwasy though 7zip was a bit
| sketchy like rar archives, zips are more common on windows
| and on linux everywhere I see there are either gz, bz2 or xz.
| fanatic2pope wrote:
| Keeping the options for those straight is why one of my most
| used command line programs seems to be atool.
|
| https://www.nongnu.org/atool/
| JonathonW wrote:
| I like the current bsdtar-- it's libarchive [1] based, and
| supports a bunch of formats (including your typical tarball
| formats, but also zip, 7zip, and rar archives, amongst
| others).
|
| [1] https://www.libarchive.org/
| harshreality wrote:
| tar supports xz and even zstd now, but it's not clear those are
| better for all purposes than 7zip, especially since .7z is more
| likely to work on other OSes than .tar.compressionextension
| LinuxBender wrote:
| xz is almost identical compression _depending on flags used_
| but lacks encryption. Some people use 7zip to also encrypt
| their files.
| kumarsw wrote:
| I'm assuming it's because 7-zip (1) has widespread use on other
| platforms (2) supports solid compression and (3) is efficient
| for randomly access. There is DAR which does (2) and (3) but
| not cross-platform and is already esoteric on *nix platforms.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-11 23:02 UTC)