The reason I'm a RAR fan is because TAR failed me multiple times! (The first one was ~21 years ago. Tar is a bit over engineered for the simple use cases. It's the reason zip is so popular, it doesn't support that at all. Where it gets weird of course is with things like file permissions and other linux specific stuff like user and group ids. Of course most of the archive/zip ui tools out there would support tar files anyway.
The main downside is that tar files are less common on windows and the whole double file extension thing confuses people with file managers that hide them (i.e. It supports a few more compression algorithms of course. I'd probably use tar with bzip2, 7zip, or even gzip compression. I'm old enough to remember PKZip being a new thing :-).įor as an actual backup format, tar is a common alternative. With zip files this also used to be a thing that some tools supported. Less of an issue these days but of course browsers don't support this.
#Rar for mac reddit how to
That is convenient when downloading over a slow/unstable connection (or if you don't know how to resume an aborted download with wget or ftp). This used to be common with rar and I think 7zip also supports this. Where things get tricky is splitting the resulting archive in multiple files. I think for the common use case of distributing giga bytes of data in a reasonably efficient way, 7zip is fine (e.g.
0 kommentar(er)
