gzip and zip both use the same algorithm which is called DEFLATE. For a single file they will give exactly the same results. tar.gz has a slight advantage for multiple files because it treats them as one big file. That's called 'solid compression'. However it does mean that in order to do anything with tar.gz, including just seeing what's inside it you have to decompress all of it first. That's a massive disadvantage. Zip is also much more widely supported, and it doesn't suffer from the annoying 'archive with an archive' thing.<div>
<br></div><div>Anyway, I think providing multiple file downloads in a zip is fine - is anyone really complaining?<br><div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 26 February 2010 00:13, Ashley Sheridan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk">ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div>
On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 19:13 -0500, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
<blockquote type="CITE">
<pre>On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Ashley Sheridan
<<a href="mailto:ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk" target="_blank">ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk</a>> wrote:
> Ideally I guess then, the browsers would support .tar.gz files as these give much better compression than .zip.
ZIP and gzip give comparable compression, in my experience. I just
applied both to a random 3.5M text file lying around in /tmp, and got
exactly 170K for both. bzip2, 7-Zip, and xz tend to give better
compression.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'm just going on software I download that's offered as both types of archive. Generally, gz is the smallest. Saying that, bz2 seems to be superior than both of them, but as it's so new, it doesn't have a massive take-up.<br>
<br>
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%">
<tbody><tr>
<td>
Thanks,<br>
Ash<br>
<a href="http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk" target="_blank">http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>