I see images, audio, or video files distributed in zips far too often. You’re getting maybe a percent of compression if you’re lucky; just distribute the raw files or use a non-compressed bundle format like tar.
Not sure what the original point was but curiously I happened to use file on a an Apple .numbers file recently and found that it was a .zip file in disguise with zero compression.
So maybe the point was that it’s used often as a container format more often than it’s used for compression? Just my (unrelated) general computer work would also suggest this.
AKA “Why zip doesn’t compress things much any more”.
My 1.5gb log folders disagrees. But I never tried opening a .txt in 7-zip.
I see images, audio, or video files distributed in zips far too often. You’re getting maybe a percent of compression if you’re lucky; just distribute the raw files or use a non-compressed bundle format like tar.
But then,
tar -xzvf filename
With a bad pretend accent:
Xtract
Zee
Vucking
File
The cheeky option:
Or is it
tar --help
? Oh no…tar -cf stop-nuke.tar
?
Zipping a file repeatedly typically doesn’t reduce the size further after the first time.
Yeah duoy you [realistically] can’t compress compressed data…
Not sure what the original point was but curiously I happened to use
file
on a an Apple.numbers
file recently and found that it was a.zip
file in disguise with zero compression.So maybe the point was that it’s used often as a container format more often than it’s used for compression? Just my (unrelated) general computer work would also suggest this.