> tar is not compression, it's an archive (tar = Tape ARchive). You generally > zip tarballs with either bzip (*.tar.bz) or gzip (*.tar.gz or *.tgz). I > don't know if KDE defaults to one of these. >
The file manager entry says Compress -> As Zip/Tar so I suppose that the tarballs are compressed with Zip. The other tow entries are "As Zip" and "As Rar" so I cannot imagine what benefit Zip/Tar has over Zip. > If you're sending files to people, in general, a *nixy user will be > expecting a zipped tarball, most Windows Users will be expecting a zip > archive. More 'power' windows users will be expecting .rars. > These are backup directories for my own use. Why is Rar considered a power user tool? Is it superior (more compressed, faster, less prone to corruption)? > Zip is probably the most widely-supported, but not always installed by > default on Linux distros. I've never found a [b|g]zipped tarball to be > particularly lacking. > I don't think that any of them are lacking, but I would like to know each format's features and benefits. Thanks. -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org