ID:133609
 Apr 30 2008, 1:23 pm
|
|
I know when you download a game it will only install it if the zip file is .zip. It would be nice to use .rar instead. They get a better compression then winzip and alot of people do use .rar.
| |
The zip format is more time-tested and open than the rar format. I'm not even sure the rar library is free to use, the zip file one however, is totally free.
| |
The RAR compression format (and rarlib) is distributed under the GPL, which means it could legally be used with BYOND, and BYOND's not-quite-but-mostly free nature will allow it to be included in the system itself.
RAR version 3 files have a LOT of features that zip files don't, and there are compression and decompression programs for all operating systems, DOS, FREEBSD, Linux, Mac, Windows, etc. They support spanning files, a higher rate of compression, error retrieval, and a lot more. Genuinely, the two best archive formats are .7z and RAR. While ZIP may be the most prevalent, it is far from the best. They are bulky, and easily corrupted. They force you to make a single archive if there is only one large file, etc. However, there is a single disadvantage with .RAR and .7z Their compression is much better at the cost of CPU during packing/unpacking. A 600mb zip file decompresses almost instantaneously on my computer, but a .rar file containing only 200mbs of data takes about ten seconds to decompress. Really, it's a much more suitable archiving solution, and with the size of BYOND games, and the type of data being stored, there would be a marginal gain, and almost no loss. In my opinion, it's neither a win or a lose. The only real difference is the work involved in the implementation of this library, which will add to the pile of work the devs have had these last six months, and the number of users who don't have a .rar extraction program. (Most of them aren't completely free). Of course, if BYOND did all the work, it would remove that last problem. Just my two cents. | |
There are options for speed vs. compression rate, too! There are going to be different benchmarks every time when a uniform file for testing isn't in place. RAR files always open quicker for me.
| |
Actually, I take it back, Rarlab does not have a free software license, however, Rarlib does. Rarlib only supports Rar2, so Nadrew may be right about it NOT being an open library.
| |
creators could always just distribute their host files seperately from byond like i do, though i still use zip format, it wouldnt be a problem to rar the files and just have a link to them from your hub info instead of using the built in host files link
| |
Ter13 wrote:
Actually, I take it back, Rarlab does not have a free software license, however, Rarlib does. Rarlib only supports Rar2, so Nadrew may be right about it NOT being an open library. Given the dearth of good free RAR-supporting programs out there, I'd say that's likely. Finding a good extraction utility for those suckers is really more difficult than it ought to be. For this reason, I get pissed off any time I encounter an .rar file. I'm not too keen on running across any archive format that's not widely supported, to be honest. I've seen the research on 7-zip and believe it's the best for compression, and I also know it's free, but to most users a .7z file is useless. I kinda hate having to install a different program for each zip type that's out there, even though I have done so for 7-zip. That said, there might be some value in BYOND supporting .7z archives--the question is how much. I don't see it being valuable enough to spend time working on, because as you said, there's only a "marginal gain". Also, download size typically isn't a problem unless you're joining one of those fan game behemoths whose authors didn't think about file size at all and simply made really bad choices about resources. I doubt any of those would even use .7z, because to do so they'd have to think about the file size issue in the first place. Lummox JR | |
Ter13 wrote:
However, there is a single disadvantage with .RAR and .7z Their compression is much better at the cost of CPU during packing/unpacking. A 600mb zip file decompresses almost instantaneously on my computer, but a .rar file containing only 200mbs of data takes about ten seconds to decompress. Heh. My 1 GB backup RAR takes approximately 3 minutes for each file or batch of files I add to it. I imagine this is because it re-analyses everything within the archive to see if it can achieve a better compression -- when I add 50 KB of data to this monstrosity, it goes through 1,000,000 KB of data just to see if it can squeeze out an extra byte or two (and I imagine it doesn't squeeze out any). Just for some fact-correction, extraction of RARs is open sauce. Compression of RARs is weak sauce -- that is, proprietary. If 7-Zip had come out one year earlier, I'd've never bought WinRAR. ;-) | |
(On a side note, I don't think the .rar is available for all OS's so I think .zip is better.)
But if what I said above is false, then I support this feature.