Linux Questions

2896 readers

21 users here now

Linux questions Rules (in addition of the Lemmy.zip rules)

stay on topic
be nice (no name calling)
do not post long blocks of text such as logs
do not delete your posts
only post questions (no information posts)

Tips for giving and receiving help

be as clear and specific
say thank you if a solution works
verify your solutions before posting them as facts.

Any rule violations will result in disciplinary actions

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip

[solved] Why is there no .gz.tar? (lemmy.zip)

submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) by MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip to c/linuxquestions@lemmy.zip

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A .tar archive is basically only the files cat'ed together, with a header and index added, right?

And a .tar.gz takes forever to modify, because it needs to first extract the .tar.

So why is there no archive format that just cat'es the compressed files together?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] aarch0x40@piefed.social 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Archiving (catting files together) and compression are two different actions. This is true even in formats and zip or rar where the functions have always been a part of the same utility. They are separated in Unix because the Tape ARchiver wasn't initially intended to produce a file on disk. The tar utility did eventually add compression but that's not always desirable.

An archive of compressed files is just another archive regardless of the format. Compressed files is also a bit vague a term. Most video and music formats are compressed, so compressing them again doesn't really add much value and can sometimes even produce larger sizes.