• lokalhorst@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days ago

      Maybe enterprise support? It know this is important for many companies or governmental agencies.

    • WolvenSpectre@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days ago

      While both are Archive Programs, WinRAR does a bunch of things that 7Zip does not and some things 7Zip does better, as 7Zip does a couple of things that WinRAR doesn’t and a few things that WinRAR doesn’t do as well as 7Zip.

      Also depending on what you are archiving WinRAR does it better for various things, where 7Zip tends to work better at Raw Data and certain Data Structures.

      • MrKoyun@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        19 days ago

        I really dont think there are that many people out there who are going out and making consciously decided choices between winrar and 7zip based on stuff like this

      • Delilah (She/Her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        19 days ago

        tar doesn’t even provide compression. Which may be what you want. If you have a weak CPU and a big storage device why would you waste the cpu cycles? I know I’ve removed the compression step in AUR builds for example. But if you don’t know what it does, maybe an all in one solution like 7zip or winrar might be a more attractive prospect.

        • bus_factor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          19 days ago

          The tar format doesn’t, but the tar command has command line flags for a number of compression algorithms, and if your algorithm of choice doesn’t have a flag, you can just pipe it to the compression program.

        • deadcream@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          19 days ago

          Compressed tars suck anyway since you need to decompress them in order to get the list of files inside, unlike in any other sane archive format.

          • tal@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            19 days ago

            The pixz compressor provides parallized compression/decompression (desirable on modern CPUs), uses LZMA (like 7zip or xz), and provides indexed access when used as tar's compressor. The last of these is what you want.

            https://github.com/vasi/pixz

            $ tar cvf foo.tar.pixz -Ipixz foo/
            

            pixz is packaged in Debian-family distros.

          • bus_factor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            19 days ago

            I very rarely list the content of compressed files, so that doesn’t bother me much.

            Back in the day the trick to get better compression on zip files was to first make an uncompressed zip file, and then put that in a compressed zip file. tar did that all by itself!

            • deadcream@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              19 days ago

              I mean that’s what GUI archivers do when you open the file.

              So tar is only useful for some kind of automatic workflows where archives are processed automatically. Like what package managers do.

    • Tibi@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days ago

      I found one explanation in that winrar is developed by germans and 7zip by a russian guy. Maybe some people dont want to support russian stuff? But thats pretty far fetched imo…