www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Could we use something better than zip for the dmd package?

reply "Trass3r" <un known.com> writes:
The ftp is not the fastest one and 7z reduces the size by 40%.
Dec 20 2011
next sibling parent reply Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:
On 12/20/2011 08:57 PM, Trass3r wrote:
 The ftp is not the fastest one and 7z reduces the size by 40%.

7z is not supported out of the box on most systems.
Dec 20 2011
next sibling parent Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:
On 12/20/2011 09:53 PM, Trass3r wrote:
 7z is not supported out of the box on most systems.

The package is created for devs, not noobs.

The package is created for both devs and noobs.
 btw Ubuntu's fine with 7z.

I had to install package p7zip-full.
Dec 20 2011
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 12/20/2011 3:27 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 Personally, if I were going off of what was available on Linux, I'd be using
 tar.gz or tar.bz2, but that's not very Windows friendly. Pretty much nothing
 other than zip is Windows friendly. Yes, you _can_ install programs that will
 you allow you to decompress the file, but that just raises the barrier of entry
 to downloading and trying out dmd.

I've tried various tar programs for Windows, and they all stink. The bad smells usually emanate from multiple failures to deal with differences in how the file systems work.
Dec 20 2011
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 12/21/2011 1:31 AM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
 I thought the installers were for newbies. 7z is supported by 7zip,
 winrar, and even winzip.

 I really don't see how someone can be smart enough to use a systems
 programming language but not have a clue how to download an archiver.
 Even average people hate the default zip functionality of Windows and
 they install 7zip/winrar/etc.

Because it's annoying. The idea should be to have as few steps as possible to install. Searching the intarnets for a 7z decoder, wondering if the one you're downloading is a virus, etc., is annoying.
Dec 21 2011
next sibling parent reply simendsjo <simendsjo gmail.com> writes:
On 21.12.2011 11:15, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 12/21/2011 1:31 AM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
 I thought the installers were for newbies. 7z is supported by 7zip,
 winrar, and even winzip.

 I really don't see how someone can be smart enough to use a systems
 programming language but not have a clue how to download an archiver.
 Even average people hate the default zip functionality of Windows and
 they install 7zip/winrar/etc.

Because it's annoying. The idea should be to have as few steps as possible to install. Searching the intarnets for a 7z decoder, wondering if the one you're downloading is a virus, etc., is annoying.

In addition, some people don't have rights to install new software on their system or bring it from home on an USB stick. I don't think there's anything wrong in using .zip even if it's larger than .7z. But it can't be hard to change the deploy script to pack both .zip and .7z, and at the same time make archives for specific OSs, right?
Dec 21 2011
parent jerro <nomail nomail.com> writes:
 In addition, some people don't have rights to install new software on 
 their system or bring it from home on an USB stick. 

They can use this: http://portableapps.com/apps/utilities/7-zip_portable , no need to install anything. If they don't have rights to their own executables, they can't use dmd anyway.
 I don't think 
 there's anything wrong in using .zip even if it's larger than .7z.

I agree with that. 20MB is not that much to download.
Dec 21 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Elvis Presley <nottheking baby.com> writes:
How about self extracting 7zip archive? It kick ass.
Or have zip, targz/bz2 and 7zip download archive so chose what you like
(repacking script should be more than 10 lines).
Or making separate packages for each OS (bit more of a work too)
Or making download/upgrade installer (tada!) its fancy and "in"!
Dec 21 2011
parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2011-12-21 13:42, Elvis Presley wrote:
 How about self extracting 7zip archive? It kick ass.
 Or have zip, targz/bz2 and 7zip download archive so chose what you like
(repacking script should be more than 10 lines).
 Or making separate packages for each OS (bit more of a work too)
 Or making download/upgrade installer (tada!) its fancy and "in"!

DVM lets you easily install and switch between multiple compilers. https://bitbucket.org/doob/dvm -- /Jacob Carlborg
Dec 21 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent deadalnix <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:
Le 21/12/2011 11:15, Walter Bright a écrit :
 On 12/21/2011 1:31 AM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
 I thought the installers were for newbies. 7z is supported by 7zip,
 winrar, and even winzip.

 I really don't see how someone can be smart enough to use a systems
 programming language but not have a clue how to download an archiver.
 Even average people hate the default zip functionality of Windows and
 they install 7zip/winrar/etc.

Because it's annoying. The idea should be to have as few steps as possible to install. Searching the intarnets for a 7z decoder, wondering if the one you're downloading is a virus, etc., is annoying.

That is so window :D
Dec 21 2011
prev sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:jcsbja$1pu7$1 digitalmars.com...
 On 12/21/2011 1:31 AM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
 I thought the installers were for newbies. 7z is supported by 7zip,
 winrar, and even winzip.

 I really don't see how someone can be smart enough to use a systems
 programming language but not have a clue how to download an archiver.
 Even average people hate the default zip functionality of Windows and
 they install 7zip/winrar/etc.

Because it's annoying. The idea should be to have as few steps as possible to install. Searching the intarnets for a 7z decoder, wondering if the one you're downloading is a virus, etc., is annoying.

If you're a programmer, or even just a power user, you have absolutely no excuse not to *already* have a 7z-capable program installed. Christ, even the "least-common-denominator" piracy scene has standardized on rar which has *exactly* the same accessibility level as 7z. (All the major rar programs on windows already support 7z, and on unix, getting 7z is a one-liner, no harder than getting rar: On debian-based: "sudo apt-get install p7zip-full" - *if* it isn't already installed by default, which it often is.) I'm normally one of the biggest fans of "don't exclude anyone", but what the hell programmer is limited to whatever archive support just happens to be built into Windows? Seriously, who *doesn't* have at the very least WinRAR, or something akin to it? I'm personally ok with DMD coming in zip, but zip's alleged ubiquity is just not a valid reason.
Dec 21 2011
next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 12/22/11 12:53 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Walter Bright"<newshound2 digitalmars.com>  wrote in message
 news:jcsbja$1pu7$1 digitalmars.com...
 On 12/21/2011 1:31 AM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
 I thought the installers were for newbies. 7z is supported by 7zip,
 winrar, and even winzip.

 I really don't see how someone can be smart enough to use a systems
 programming language but not have a clue how to download an archiver.
 Even average people hate the default zip functionality of Windows and
 they install 7zip/winrar/etc.

Because it's annoying. The idea should be to have as few steps as possible to install. Searching the intarnets for a 7z decoder, wondering if the one you're downloading is a virus, etc., is annoying.

If you're a programmer, or even just a power user, you have absolutely no excuse not to *already* have a 7z-capable program installed.

I didn't have 7z on my Mac until yesterday when I experimented with it. Let's focus on reducing the size of the zip by only including what's used and by using faster servers. Andrei
Dec 22 2011
next sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2011-12-22 17:44, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 12/22/11 12:53 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Walter Bright"<newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:jcsbja$1pu7$1 digitalmars.com...
 On 12/21/2011 1:31 AM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
 I thought the installers were for newbies. 7z is supported by 7zip,
 winrar, and even winzip.

 I really don't see how someone can be smart enough to use a systems
 programming language but not have a clue how to download an archiver.
 Even average people hate the default zip functionality of Windows and
 they install 7zip/winrar/etc.

Because it's annoying. The idea should be to have as few steps as possible to install. Searching the intarnets for a 7z decoder, wondering if the one you're downloading is a virus, etc., is annoying.

If you're a programmer, or even just a power user, you have absolutely no excuse not to *already* have a 7z-capable program installed.

I didn't have 7z on my Mac until yesterday when I experimented with it. Let's focus on reducing the size of the zip by only including what's used and by using faster servers. Andrei

Me neither, unless The Unarchiver can open it. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Dec 22 2011
parent reply a <a a.com> writes:
Jacob Carlborg Wrote:

 On 2011-12-22 17:44, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 12/22/11 12:53 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Walter Bright"<newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:jcsbja$1pu7$1 digitalmars.com...
 On 12/21/2011 1:31 AM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
 I thought the installers were for newbies. 7z is supported by 7zip,
 winrar, and even winzip.

 I really don't see how someone can be smart enough to use a systems
 programming language but not have a clue how to download an archiver.
 Even average people hate the default zip functionality of Windows and
 they install 7zip/winrar/etc.

Because it's annoying. The idea should be to have as few steps as possible to install. Searching the intarnets for a 7z decoder, wondering if the one you're downloading is a virus, etc., is annoying.

If you're a programmer, or even just a power user, you have absolutely no excuse not to *already* have a 7z-capable program installed.

I didn't have 7z on my Mac until yesterday when I experimented with it. Let's focus on reducing the size of the zip by only including what's used and by using faster servers. Andrei

Me neither, unless The Unarchiver can open it. -- /Jacob Carlborg

It can: http://wakaba.c3.cx/s/apps/unarchiver
Dec 22 2011
parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2011-12-23 03:13, a wrote:
 Jacob Carlborg Wrote:

 On 2011-12-22 17:44, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 12/22/11 12:53 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Walter Bright"<newshound2 digitalmars.com>  wrote in message
 news:jcsbja$1pu7$1 digitalmars.com...
 On 12/21/2011 1:31 AM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
 I thought the installers were for newbies. 7z is supported by 7zip,
 winrar, and even winzip.

 I really don't see how someone can be smart enough to use a systems
 programming language but not have a clue how to download an archiver.
 Even average people hate the default zip functionality of Windows and
 they install 7zip/winrar/etc.

Because it's annoying. The idea should be to have as few steps as possible to install. Searching the intarnets for a 7z decoder, wondering if the one you're downloading is a virus, etc., is annoying.

If you're a programmer, or even just a power user, you have absolutely no excuse not to *already* have a 7z-capable program installed.

I didn't have 7z on my Mac until yesterday when I experimented with it. Let's focus on reducing the size of the zip by only including what's used and by using faster servers. Andrei

Me neither, unless The Unarchiver can open it. -- /Jacob Carlborg

It can: http://wakaba.c3.cx/s/apps/unarchiver

Cool. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Dec 23 2011
prev sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2011-12-22 18:13, Sean Kelly wrote:
 I'd like to see a separate package per platform plus a source release. DMD
doesn't even run out of the box on all flavors of Linux, and we can't expect
people to pull the git repo.

The sources are already included. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Dec 22 2011
parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2011-12-23 00:32, Sean Kelly wrote:
 On Dec 22, 2011, at 9:35 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 On 2011-12-22 18:13, Sean Kelly wrote:
 I'd like to see a separate package per platform plus a source release. DMD
doesn't even run out of the box on all flavors of Linux, and we can't expect
people to pull the git repo.

The sources are already included.

For the compiler as well?

Yes, for the compiler, Phobos and druntime. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Dec 22 2011
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Jacob Carlborg" <doob me.com> wrote in message 
news:jd0eu8$i2l$1 digitalmars.com...
 On 2011-12-23 00:32, Sean Kelly wrote:
 On Dec 22, 2011, at 9:35 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 On 2011-12-22 18:13, Sean Kelly wrote:
 I'd like to see a separate package per platform plus a source release. 
 DMD doesn't even run out of the box on all flavors of Linux, and we 
 can't expect people to pull the git repo.

The sources are already included.

For the compiler as well?

Yes, for the compiler, Phobos and druntime.

But not RDMD. That's such an important tool, its source really should be included: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6412
Dec 23 2011
prev sibling parent reply Alvaro <alvaroDotSegura gmail.com> writes:
El 22/12/2011 8:03, Jonathan M Davis escribió:
 On Thursday, December 22, 2011 01:53:00 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 If you're a programmer, or even just a power user, you have absolutely no
 excuse not to *already* have a 7z-capable program installed.

 Christ, even the "least-common-denominator" piracy scene has standardized on
 rar which has *exactly* the same accessibility level as 7z. (All the major
 rar programs on windows already support 7z, and on unix, getting 7z is a
 one-liner, no harder than getting rar: On debian-based: "sudo apt-get
 install p7zip-full" - *if* it isn't already installed by default, which it
 often is.)

 I'm normally one of the biggest fans of "don't exclude anyone", but what the
 hell programmer is limited to whatever archive support just happens to be
 built into Windows? Seriously, who *doesn't* have at the very least WinRAR,
 or something akin to it?

 I'm personally ok with DMD coming in zip, but zip's alleged ubiquity is just
 not a valid reason.

I don't even know the last time that I saw a 7zip file. They're incredibly rare in my experience. I probably have a program installed on my system which will open them, since I'm running Linux, and it would have been easy enough to have that pulled in with the package manager for something-or-other, but I just don't see those kind of files, and it wouldn't surprise me at all to see developers' boxes without the ability to open them - especially Windows boxes, where you'd have to go find such a program and install yourself as opposed to it getting pulled in by the package manager. If you're trying to have an archival format that pretty much any computer can open out of the box, zip is the only option. If you're restricting yourself to Linux computers specifically, there are definitely more options, but Windows can only handle zip files. For all other archival formats, the user has to track down a program which can handle them. No, that's not hard, but it _does_ raise the bar of entry somewhat, and there's really nothing wrong with using zip. The problem is the slow server (though breaking up the package for each OS would help further).l - Jonathan M Davis

I use 7zip everyday and where I work it has become the most common archive format (we use Windows and Linux), 7zip is installed by the IT people as part of the basic software just as an antivirus and an office suite. And compared to WinRar, 7zip and the 7z format are free and open. When packing lots of small files (like in source distributions) 7z is much better than Zip. Other software distributions already switched to 7z from zip (don't remember which now).
Dec 22 2011
parent Somedude <lovelydear mailmetrash.com> writes:
Le 23/12/2011 00:35, Alvaro a écrit :

 I use 7zip everyday and where I work it has become the most common
 archive format (we use Windows and Linux), 7zip is installed by the IT
 people as part of the basic software just as an antivirus and an office
 suite.

Same here. 7zip is becoming ubiquitous.
Dec 23 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Trass3r" <un known.com> writes:
 7z is not supported out of the box on most systems.

The package is created for devs, not noobs. btw Ubuntu's fine with 7z.
Dec 20 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2011 21:53:12 Trass3r wrote:
 7z is not supported out of the box on most systems.

The package is created for devs, not noobs. btw Ubuntu's fine with 7z.

zip is by for the most ubiquitous, so it makes the most sense to use zip. Personally, if I were going off of what was available on Linux, I'd be using tar.gz or tar.bz2, but that's not very Windows friendly. Pretty much nothing other than zip is Windows friendly. Yes, you _can_ install programs that will you allow you to decompress the file, but that just raises the barrier of entry to downloading and trying out dmd. If we really want to improve the download times, what we really should be doing is splitting up the zip file into separate files for each OS, not picking a file format that many people won't be able to decompress without searching for a program to install which is able to process that format. - Jonathan M Davis
Dec 20 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Tuesday, 20 December 2011 at 23:28:03 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
 If we really want to improve the download times, what we really 
 should be doing is

Using mirrors. The DigitalMars server is some of the slowest servers I get to download files from.
Dec 20 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
I thought the installers were for newbies. 7z is supported by 7zip,
winrar, and even winzip.

I really don't see how someone can be smart enough to use a systems
programming language but not have a clue how to download an archiver.
Even average people hate the default zip functionality of Windows and
they install 7zip/winrar/etc.
Dec 21 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Trass3r <un known.com> writes:
Am 21.12.2011, 10:31 Uhr, schrieb Andrej Mitrovic  
<andrej.mitrovich gmail.com>:

 I thought the installers were for newbies. 7z is supported by 7zip,
 winrar, and even winzip.

 I really don't see how someone can be smart enough to use a systems
 programming language but not have a clue how to download an archiver.
 Even average people hate the default zip functionality of Windows and
 they install 7zip/winrar/etc.

Thx!! :D
Dec 21 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent so <so so.so> writes:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 21:57:28 +0200, Trass3r <un known.com> wrote:

 The ftp is not the fastest one and 7z reduces the size by 40%.

Do we have to choose one over another? No, we can have both.
Dec 21 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2011-12-20 20:57, Trass3r wrote:
 The ftp is not the fastest one and 7z reduces the size by 40%.

Switching away from zip could break several installation scripts/tools, it will break DVM. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Dec 21 2011
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 12/21/2011 4:41 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 On 2011-12-20 20:57, Trass3r wrote:
 The ftp is not the fastest one and 7z reduces the size by 40%.

Switching away from zip could break several installation scripts/tools, it will break DVM.

I often wonder why the zip file format doesn't incorporate 7z.
Dec 21 2011
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 12/21/2011 12:58 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 Now, to answer your question: according to their website, WinZip starting with
 version 12 supports creating ZIP archives with LZMA compression - but, of
 course, to unpack them you need an archiving tool that can understand such ZIP
 files. It's likely that such software is even more rare that 7-Zip itself, and
 will result in more confusion ("Why can't I open this ZIP file? I can open any
 other ZIP file but not this one...").

I understand that issue. The idea is to support it, at least for unzipping, in all new versions, and gradually that support will filter out into the community.
Dec 21 2011
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 12/21/11 4:53 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 12/21/2011 12:58 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 Now, to answer your question: according to their website, WinZip
 starting with
 version 12 supports creating ZIP archives with LZMA compression - but, of
 course, to unpack them you need an archiving tool that can understand
 such ZIP
 files. It's likely that such software is even more rare that 7-Zip
 itself, and
 will result in more confusion ("Why can't I open this ZIP file? I can
 open any
 other ZIP file but not this one...").

I understand that issue. The idea is to support it, at least for unzipping, in all new versions, and gradually that support will filter out into the community.

I repeat, this is a communal waste of time. I just downloaded and re-compressed everything with 7zip, the reduction was not spectacular at all - from 21.8MB to 17.3MB. Also I had to take the detour of downloading and installing 7zip for Mac. We need to reduce the files going into the archive and get onto a faster site. Keeping only OSX relevant files and recompressing with zip (which is built-in OSX's contextual menu) creates an archive of 11.2 MB. Doing so with 7zip yields an archive of 8.2 MB. That's more like it. Andrei
Dec 21 2011
next sibling parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 12/21/11 5:37 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 On Wednesday, 21 December 2011 at 23:34:39 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 I just downloaded and re-compressed everything with 7zip, the
 reduction was not spectacular at all - from 21.8MB to 17.3MB.

Bwuh? I'm seeing a reduction to 11.6MB (10.5 with ultra compression).

I used the standard settings. After tweaking stuff, I got 5.5 MB for the OSX necessary files only. The point is a smaller .zip and a faster site will benefit *everyone*. For extra benefit of 7z users, fine, we can add that option. But it shouldn't be the only one and the focus of our initial efforts. Andrei
Dec 21 2011
prev sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote in message 
news:jctqef$1ac2$1 digitalmars.com...
 On 12/21/11 4:53 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 12/21/2011 12:58 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 Now, to answer your question: according to their website, WinZip
 starting with
 version 12 supports creating ZIP archives with LZMA compression - but, 
 of
 course, to unpack them you need an archiving tool that can understand
 such ZIP
 files. It's likely that such software is even more rare that 7-Zip
 itself, and
 will result in more confusion ("Why can't I open this ZIP file? I can
 open any
 other ZIP file but not this one...").

I understand that issue. The idea is to support it, at least for unzipping, in all new versions, and gradually that support will filter out into the community.

I repeat, this is a communal waste of time. I just downloaded and re-compressed everything with 7zip, the reduction was not spectacular at all - from 21.8MB to 17.3MB. Also I had to take the detour of downloading and installing 7zip for Mac.

Those results are all because it's difficult to find good software for Macs. I just downloaded the 2.056 zip (18.8 MB) to both my windows machine and my (k)ubuntu machine[*]. I extracted it, and then recompressed to 7z. With the *default* settings, the default program on kubuntu gave me 10.2 MB. On Windows, 7zip gave me 9.6 MB. So, yea, good luck finding good Mac software. [*] Why not 2.057? Because it's late and I wasn't thinking ;)
 We need to reduce the files going into the archive and get onto a faster 
 site.

I can't disagree with that.
Dec 21 2011
prev sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Jacob Carlborg" <doob me.com> wrote in message 
news:jcsk6i$27tq$2 digitalmars.com...
 On 2011-12-20 20:57, Trass3r wrote:
 The ftp is not the fastest one and 7z reduces the size by 40%.

Switching away from zip could break several installation scripts/tools, it will break DVM.

Yea, so 7z would need to be an option, rather than the only option. The raises a side-point though: It would be great to have 7z support in Phobos. Or at least in Deimos just for starters.
Dec 21 2011
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 12/21/2011 11:37 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 On Thursday, December 22, 2011 02:21:14 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 The raises a side-point though: It would be great to have 7z support in
 Phobos. Or at least in Deimos just for starters.


Yes. And tar, etc.
 One of those things that probably requires that streams be implemented.

No. Ranges. RANGES!!!
Dec 22 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Johannes Pfau <spam example.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Jacob Carlborg" <doob me.com> wrote in message
 news:jcsk6i$27tq$2 digitalmars.com...
 On 2011-12-20 20:57, Trass3r wrote:
 The ftp is not the fastest one and 7z reduces the size by 40%.

Switching away from zip could break several installation scripts/tools, it will break DVM.

Yea, so 7z would need to be an option, rather than the only option. The raises a side-point though: It would be great to have 7z support in Phobos. Or at least in Deimos just for starters.

Not sure if there's a ready to use, cross platform 7z library. LZMA compression is supported by liblzma, but it doesn't support the 7z container (it uses .tar.xz or no container instead) https://github.com/D-Programming-Deimos/liblzma
Dec 22 2011
prev sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2011-12-22 08:21, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Jacob Carlborg"<doob me.com>  wrote in message
 news:jcsk6i$27tq$2 digitalmars.com...
 On 2011-12-20 20:57, Trass3r wrote:
 The ftp is not the fastest one and 7z reduces the size by 40%.

Switching away from zip could break several installation scripts/tools, it will break DVM.

Yea, so 7z would need to be an option, rather than the only option. The raises a side-point though: It would be great to have 7z support in Phobos. Or at least in Deimos just for starters.

Yeah, that wouldn't hurt. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Dec 22 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Robert Clipsham <robert octarineparrot.com> writes:
On 20/12/2011 19:57, Trass3r wrote:
 The ftp is not the fastest one and 7z reduces the size by 40%.

The size doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me is how long it takes to download... The digitalmars server is incredibly slow. There's no excuse for that, there are quite literally hundreds of sites that will host packages for you, including github. -- Robert http://octarineparrot.com/
Dec 21 2011
next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2011-12-21 14:22, Robert Clipsham wrote:
 On 20/12/2011 19:57, Trass3r wrote:
 The ftp is not the fastest one and 7z reduces the size by 40%.

The size doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me is how long it takes to download... The digitalmars server is incredibly slow. There's no excuse for that, there are quite literally hundreds of sites that will host packages for you, including github.

I completely agree with that. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Dec 21 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 12/21/11 7:22 AM, Robert Clipsham wrote:
 On 20/12/2011 19:57, Trass3r wrote:
 The ftp is not the fastest one and 7z reduces the size by 40%.

The size doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me is how long it takes to download... The digitalmars server is incredibly slow. There's no excuse for that, there are quite literally hundreds of sites that will host packages for you, including github.

This. The whole discussion has unnecessarily been derailed on one aspect, and most likely not the most important. We need to reduce the distribution size, e.g. not distribute binaries for all OSs. This will slash download size much more than any compressor. We need to use a faster site. Changing the compressor is a distant third... yet everybody's latched on that. Andrei
Dec 21 2011
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Andrej Mitrovic" <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.1799.1324487482.24802.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 Everybody is latched on to that because Walter can't get a move on.
 Didn't we say a million times already to not pack everything into a
 giant zip file? Also, DMD is not distributable

 by anyone but Walter,
 so again we have to wait for his move to host DMD+Phobos binaries
 somewhere else.

Fixed
Dec 21 2011
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 12/21/2011 5:22 AM, Robert Clipsham wrote:
 There's no excuse for that, there are quite literally hundreds of sites that
 will host packages for you, including github.

Hmm, can you explain more about hosting the zip files on github?
Dec 21 2011
next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 12/21/11 5:45 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 On Wednesday, 21 December 2011 at 23:38:22 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 12/21/2011 5:22 AM, Robert Clipsham wrote:
 There's no excuse for that, there are quite literally hundreds of
 sites that
 will host packages for you, including github.

Hmm, can you explain more about hosting the zip files on github?

1) Go to a GitHub project 2) Open the Downloads tab 3) Click "Choose a new file" 4) Enter a short description 5) Click "Start Upload" That's all. You can even link directly to GitHub downloads.

1. How do we do that programmatically? 2. Disk usage seems to be at 50% already... Andrei
Dec 21 2011
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 12/21/11 5:52 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 On Wednesday, 21 December 2011 at 23:48:57 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 12/21/11 5:45 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 On Wednesday, 21 December 2011 at 23:38:22 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 Hmm, can you explain more about hosting the zip files on github?

1) Go to a GitHub project 2) Open the Downloads tab 3) Click "Choose a new file" 4) Enter a short description 5) Click "Start Upload" That's all. You can even link directly to GitHub downloads.

1. How do we do that programmatically?

Downloads are programmable with GitHub's API. They have an easy-to-use script, too: https://github.com/github/upload

I got the uploading script, and now I'm trying: ./github_upload test andralex/phobos where test is a zero-bytes file. The script yields: ERROR: Target file does not exist Does anyone know what I'm doing wrong? Thanks, Andrei
Dec 23 2011
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 12/23/11 2:48 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 12/21/11 5:52 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 On Wednesday, 21 December 2011 at 23:48:57 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
 wrote:
 On 12/21/11 5:45 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 On Wednesday, 21 December 2011 at 23:38:22 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 Hmm, can you explain more about hosting the zip files on github?

1) Go to a GitHub project 2) Open the Downloads tab 3) Click "Choose a new file" 4) Enter a short description 5) Click "Start Upload" That's all. You can even link directly to GitHub downloads.

1. How do we do that programmatically?

Downloads are programmable with GitHub's API. They have an easy-to-use script, too: https://github.com/github/upload

I got the uploading script, and now I'm trying: ../github_upload test andralex/phobos where test is a zero-bytes file. The script yields: ERROR: Target file does not exist

Oops, the code emits that error for files of size zero. Now I wrote a few bytes to the file, and now the script says: /Users/aalexandre/.gem/ruby/1.8/gems/xml-simple-1.1.1/lib/xmlsimple.rb:990:in `find_xml_file': File does not exist: {"policy":"ewogICAgJ2V4cGlyYXRpb24nOiAnMjExMS0xMi0yM1QwODo1NDowOC4wMDBaJywKICAgICdjb25kaXRpb25zJzogWwogICAgICAgIHsnYnVja2V0JzogJ2dpdGh1Yid9LAogICAgICAgIHsna2V5JzogJ2Rvd25sb2Fkcy9hbmRyYWxleC9waG9ib3MvdGVzdCd9LAogICAgICAgIHsnYWNsJzogJ3B1YmxpYy1yZWFkJ30sCiAgICAgICAgeydzdWNjZXNzX2FjdGlvbl9zdGF0dXMnOiAnMjAxJ30sCiAgICAgICAgWydzdGFydHMtd2l0aCcsICckRmlsZW5hbWUnLCAnJ10sCiAgICAgICAgWydzdGFydHMtd2l0aCcsICckQ29udGVudC1UeXBlJywgJyddCiAgICBdCn0=","redirect":false,"accesskeyid":"1DWESVTPGHQVTX38V182","signature":"lJ03J9S8YTrKnMC9ugK3IRXynM8=","prefix":"downloads/andralex/phobos","mime_type":"application/octet-stream","bucket":"github","expirationdate":"2111-12-23T08:54:08.000Z","acl":"public-read","path":"downloads/and alex/phobos/test"}. (ArgumentError) from /Users/aalexandre/.gem/ruby/1.8/gems/xml-simple-1.1.1/lib/xmlsimple.rb:168:in `xml_in' from /Users/aalexandre/.gem/ruby/1.8/gems/xml-simple-1.1.1/lib/xmlsimple.rb:203:in `xml_in' from ./github_upload:102 What am I doing wrong? Thanks, Andrei
Dec 23 2011
parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 12/23/11 3:49 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 On Friday, 23 December 2011 at 08:56:09 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 What am I doing wrong?

The script suffered some bitrot. The version I posted in IRC works for me on both Ruby 1.8 and 1.9: http://dump.thecybershadow.net/7f0b3e4b56df6bf78382f6161115f7e1/github_upload.rb Prodded GitHub support to have a look at the pull requests, too...

Works, thanks! One problem remains, we need the script to also remove the old file... right now the second attempt to upload fails with /Users/aalexandre/.gem/ruby/1.8/gems/json-1.6.3/lib/json/common.rb:148:in `parse': 751: unexpected token at 'Filename has already been taken' (JSON::ParserError) from /Users/aalexandre/.gem/ruby/1.8/gems/json-1.6.3/lib/json/common.rb:148:in `parse' from ./github_upload:102 In fact in an ideal world the script would upload to a temporary file and then move the temporary file into the target file atomically, so as to not disrupt downloads for the duration of the upload. Andrei
Dec 23 2011
prev sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 12/21/2011 3:45 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 On Wednesday, 21 December 2011 at 23:38:22 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 12/21/2011 5:22 AM, Robert Clipsham wrote:
 There's no excuse for that, there are quite literally hundreds of sites that
 will host packages for you, including github.

Hmm, can you explain more about hosting the zip files on github?

1) Go to a GitHub project 2) Open the Downloads tab 3) Click "Choose a new file" 4) Enter a short description 5) Click "Start Upload" That's all. You can even link directly to GitHub downloads.

Thank you. I will investigate.
Dec 21 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
On 20/12/2011 19:57, Trass3r wrote:
 The ftp is not the fastest one and 7z reduces the size by 40%.

Moreover, what zip compressor is being used? Some are stronger than others. 7-zip claims to compress zips better than WinZip/PKZIP. The website http://www.7-zip.org/ gives benchmarks, but it isn't clear which compression formats the WinRAR and CABARC figures are actually on about. And 7-zip is free. I second the idea of having both 7z and zip available. Stewart.
Dec 21 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:
 Pretty much nothing other than zip is Windows friendly.

In fact, software support is where linux sucks badly and can only dream about windows level support. If people can live without an archiver, a browser and a cellular, they can live without a computer as well.
Dec 21 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
Everybody is latched on to that because Walter can't get a move on.
Didn't we say a million times already to not pack everything into a
giant zip file? Also, DMD is not distributable by anyone but Walter,
so again we have to wait for his move to host DMD+Phobos binaries
somewhere else.
Dec 21 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Wednesday, 21 December 2011 at 19:30:55 UTC, Walter Bright 
wrote:
 I often wonder why the zip file format doesn't incorporate 7z.

ZIP and 7z are nothing more than a container. The default and usually only supported compression method in .zip files is deflate - the very same one used in gzip and usually created/decoded with the zlib library. 7z can contain data packed in many formats (as supported by 7-Zip, the standard implementation), but the most common one is LZMA. LZMA (the Lempel–Ziv–Markov chain algorithm) has been developed by Igor Pavlov (7-Zip's creator) since 1998. LZMA is frequently used outside 7-Zip (e.g. there are *nix LZMA tools, similar to gzip, with which you can easily create .tar.lzma archives). Now, to answer your question: according to their website, WinZip starting with version 12 supports creating ZIP archives with LZMA compression - but, of course, to unpack them you need an archiving tool that can understand such ZIP files. It's likely that such software is even more rare that 7-Zip itself, and will result in more confusion ("Why can't I open this ZIP file? I can open any other ZIP file but not this one...").
Dec 21 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Wednesday, 21 December 2011 at 22:53:06 UTC, Walter Bright 
wrote:
 I understand that issue. The idea is to support it, at least 
 for unzipping, in all new versions, and gradually that support 
 will filter out into the community.

All new versions of what? There is no "standard" implementation, like there is with 7-Zip. PK-WARE, the creator of the ZIP format, has practically no share on the desktop. The thought makes about as much sense as expecting new features in tar or JPEG. A correction to my previous post: WinZip 12 uses a new file extension (.zipx) for its new features, including LZMA compression.
Dec 21 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Wednesday, 21 December 2011 at 23:34:39 UTC, Andrei 
Alexandrescu wrote:
 I just downloaded and re-compressed everything with 7zip, the 
 reduction was not spectacular at all - from 21.8MB to 17.3MB.

Bwuh? I'm seeing a reduction to 11.6MB (10.5 with ultra compression).
Dec 21 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Wednesday, 21 December 2011 at 23:38:22 UTC, Walter Bright 
wrote:
 On 12/21/2011 5:22 AM, Robert Clipsham wrote:
 There's no excuse for that, there are quite literally hundreds 
 of sites that
 will host packages for you, including github.

Hmm, can you explain more about hosting the zip files on github?

1) Go to a GitHub project 2) Open the Downloads tab 3) Click "Choose a new file" 4) Enter a short description 5) Click "Start Upload" That's all. You can even link directly to GitHub downloads.
Dec 21 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Wednesday, 21 December 2011 at 23:46:12 UTC, Andrei 
Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 12/21/11 5:37 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 On Wednesday, 21 December 2011 at 23:34:39 UTC, Andrei 
 Alexandrescu wrote:
 I just downloaded and re-compressed everything with 7zip, the
 reduction was not spectacular at all - from 21.8MB to 17.3MB.

Bwuh? I'm seeing a reduction to 11.6MB (10.5 with ultra compression).

I used the standard settings. After tweaking stuff, I got 5.5 MB for the OSX necessary files only. The point is a smaller .zip and a faster site will benefit *everyone*. For extra benefit of 7z users, fine, we can add that option. But it shouldn't be the only one and the focus of our initial efforts.

That's true. 7-Zip reduces the download size (and thus, speed) by at most one half. From a quick test just now, ftp.digitalmars.com is FIFTY times slower than Ubuntu's download servers for me.
Dec 21 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Wednesday, 21 December 2011 at 23:48:57 UTC, Andrei 
Alexandrescu wrote:
 On 12/21/11 5:45 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 On Wednesday, 21 December 2011 at 23:38:22 UTC, Walter Bright 
 wrote:
 Hmm, can you explain more about hosting the zip files on 
 github?

1) Go to a GitHub project 2) Open the Downloads tab 3) Click "Choose a new file" 4) Enter a short description 5) Click "Start Upload" That's all. You can even link directly to GitHub downloads.

1. How do we do that programmatically?

Downloads are programmable with GitHub's API. They have an easy-to-use script, too: https://github.com/github/upload
 2. Disk usage seems to be at 50% already...

You can get more disk space by asking (it's a soft limit, they usually expand it for open-source projects - not sure if DMD qualifies, though), or by getting a paid account.
Dec 21 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Thursday, December 22, 2011 01:53:00 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 If you're a programmer, or even just a power user, you have absolutely no
 excuse not to *already* have a 7z-capable program installed.
 
 Christ, even the "least-common-denominator" piracy scene has standardized on
 rar which has *exactly* the same accessibility level as 7z. (All the major
 rar programs on windows already support 7z, and on unix, getting 7z is a
 one-liner, no harder than getting rar: On debian-based: "sudo apt-get
 install p7zip-full" - *if* it isn't already installed by default, which it
 often is.)
 
 I'm normally one of the biggest fans of "don't exclude anyone", but what the
 hell programmer is limited to whatever archive support just happens to be
 built into Windows? Seriously, who *doesn't* have at the very least WinRAR,
 or something akin to it?
 
 I'm personally ok with DMD coming in zip, but zip's alleged ubiquity is just
 not a valid reason.

I don't even know the last time that I saw a 7zip file. They're incredibly rare in my experience. I probably have a program installed on my system which will open them, since I'm running Linux, and it would have been easy enough to have that pulled in with the package manager for something-or-other, but I just don't see those kind of files, and it wouldn't surprise me at all to see developers' boxes without the ability to open them - especially Windows boxes, where you'd have to go find such a program and install yourself as opposed to it getting pulled in by the package manager. If you're trying to have an archival format that pretty much any computer can open out of the box, zip is the only option. If you're restricting yourself to Linux computers specifically, there are definitely more options, but Windows can only handle zip files. For all other archival formats, the user has to track down a program which can handle them. No, that's not hard, but it _does_ raise the bar of entry somewhat, and there's really nothing wrong with using zip. The problem is the slow server (though breaking up the package for each OS would help further).l - Jonathan M Davis
Dec 21 2011
parent reply a <a a.com> writes:
Jonathan M Davis Wrote:

 On Thursday, December 22, 2011 01:53:00 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 If you're a programmer, or even just a power user, you have absolutely no
 excuse not to *already* have a 7z-capable program installed.
 
 Christ, even the "least-common-denominator" piracy scene has standardized on
 rar which has *exactly* the same accessibility level as 7z. (All the major
 rar programs on windows already support 7z, and on unix, getting 7z is a
 one-liner, no harder than getting rar: On debian-based: "sudo apt-get
 install p7zip-full" - *if* it isn't already installed by default, which it
 often is.)
 
 I'm normally one of the biggest fans of "don't exclude anyone", but what the
 hell programmer is limited to whatever archive support just happens to be
 built into Windows? Seriously, who *doesn't* have at the very least WinRAR,
 or something akin to it?
 
 I'm personally ok with DMD coming in zip, but zip's alleged ubiquity is just
 not a valid reason.

I don't even know the last time that I saw a 7zip file. They're incredibly rare in my experience. I probably have a program installed on my system which will open them, since I'm running Linux, and it would have been easy enough to have that pulled in with the package manager for something-or-other, but I just don't see those kind of files, and it wouldn't surprise me at all to see developers' boxes without the ability to open them - especially Windows boxes, where you'd have to go find such a program and install yourself as opposed to it getting pulled in by the package manager. If you're trying to have an archival format that pretty much any computer can open out of the box, zip is the only option. If you're restricting yourself to Linux computers specifically, there are definitely more options, but Windows can only handle zip files. For all other archival formats, the user has to track down a program which can handle them. No, that's not hard, but it _does_ raise the bar of entry somewhat, and there's really nothing wrong with using zip. The problem is the slow server (though breaking up the package for each OS would help further).l - Jonathan M Davis

Why are you ignoring the statement about 7z having the same accessibility level as rar? Rar files are not rare and users who can open rar files (on Windows usually with WinRAR or 7zip) can also open 7z files.
Dec 22 2011
next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 12/22/11 6:43 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 On Thursday, 22 December 2011 at 17:35:09 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Ok then, if you're claiming that I'm wrong and a programmer *does*
 have a
 legitimate excuse for not having a 7z-capable program, perhaps you could
 state what that legitimate excuse is instead of merely being
 contradictory?

There are some funny consequences to this. If something completely pisses you off, it might actually be an indication we're doing something right. And if you say something is perfect for you, that's almost always a reason to worry.

Oof, I think saying that here was uncalled for.

Well Nick is not one to mince words so he probably won't be offended by the converse. I didn't mean my comment to be inflammatory at all.
 I know Nick uses Windows, same as myself, and from last I heard Andrei
 uses a Mac. So, it's no wonder that there's such a huge disconnect of
 opinion - the Mac software ecosystem lived (and still lives, to some
 extent) in its own different world.

I use Mac and a couple of Unixen. The important part here is that we should be neither provincial nor blandly generic. Clearly we agree offering only 7z is not an option. The next question is whether we should offer it same placement as the .zip file or the native installer, and how to design the downloads page to avoid it being overcrowded. Andrei
Dec 22 2011
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 12/22/2011 5:31 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 On Friday, 23 December 2011 at 01:18:22 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 The next question is whether we should offer it same placement as the .zip
 file or the native installer, and how to design the downloads page to avoid it
 being overcrowded.

That's hardly a problem: http://thecybershadow.net/d/download/download.html

Eh, good point! Touche'
 Alternative:

 http://thecybershadow.net/d/download/download2.html

Ug.
Dec 22 2011
prev sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> wrote in message 
news:hqqcksmduiecpiqtfztt dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
 On Friday, 23 December 2011 at 01:18:22 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 The next question is whether we should offer it same placement as the 
 .zip file or the native installer, and how to design the downloads page 
 to avoid it being overcrowded.

That's hardly a problem: http://thecybershadow.net/d/download/download.html Alternative: http://thecybershadow.net/d/download/download2.html

Both are very nice. Maybe I'm biased from having read Walter's coment first, but I agree with him that the first one is nicer.
Dec 23 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
On 22/12/2011 17:13, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
 On Thursday, 22 December 2011 at 17:09:23 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Ok then, if you're claiming that I'm wrong and a programmer *does* have a
legitimate
 excuse for not having a 7z-capable program, perhaps you could state what that
legitimate
 excuse is instead of merely being contradictory?

There's simply no need for it.

That an individual just hasn't needed it *yet* isn't a valid argument either. A lot of technology would never have taken off if we used that excuse all the time. Stewart.
Dec 22 2011
prev sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> wrote in message 
news:ejdbowcqhddtfrnxihzv dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
 By this follows that the major OSes had their own established software 
 packaging methods - installers and archives of various sorts on Windows, 
 .dmg / .pkg / .sit for OS X, and tarballs for POSIX. Windows inherits much 
 of its user base (and thus, user mannerisms) from the DOS days, back when 
 there were dozens of archivers in common use (anyone remembers ARC, ARJ, 
 LHA?). RAR and ZIP survived the test of time, with 7-Zip quickly gaining 
 traction after its appearance due to improved compression algorithms.

Interestingly, in my experience, 7z seems to even beat .tar.bz2 by a non-trivial amount. That's why I've completely replaced all the of zips and tarballs for Goldie's packaged releases with 7z (and provided explanation/instructions in the docs: https://www.semitwist.com/goldie/Start/Install/#7z ).
 I know Nick uses Windows, same as myself, and from last I heard Andrei 
 uses a Mac. So, it's no wonder that there's such a huge disconnect of 
 opinion - the Mac software ecosystem lived (and still lives, to some 
 extent) in its own different world.

I'm actually inching closer to being a linux guy. Being able to easily script just about everything is pretty nice, and after Vista, Win7, and what I've seen of Win8, I've been loosing the loyalty I've had in windows since 3.1. (YMMV, of course). Don't know when I'll actually make the switch though, there's a few things I'd like to find/make for linux before I'd feel comfortable using it full time.
Dec 23 2011
parent reply Somedude <lovelydear mailmetrash.com> writes:
Le 23/12/2011 18:11, Nick Sabalausky a écrit :
 
 I'm actually inching closer to being a linux guy. Being able to easily 
 script just about everything is pretty nice, and after Vista, Win7, and what 
 I've seen of Win8, I've been loosing the loyalty I've had in windows since 
 3.1. (YMMV, of course). Don't know when I'll actually make the switch 
 though, there's a few things I'd like to find/make for linux before I'd feel 
 comfortable using it full time.
 
 

I find virtualization gives the best of both worlds.
Dec 23 2011
next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Somedude" <lovelydear mailmetrash.com> wrote in message 
news:jd2sci$9i8$1 digitalmars.com...
 Le 23/12/2011 18:11, Nick Sabalausky a écrit :
 I'm actually inching closer to being a linux guy. Being able to easily
 script just about everything is pretty nice, and after Vista, Win7, and 
 what
 I've seen of Win8, I've been loosing the loyalty I've had in windows 
 since
 3.1. (YMMV, of course). Don't know when I'll actually make the switch
 though, there's a few things I'd like to find/make for linux before I'd 
 feel
 comfortable using it full time.

I find virtualization gives the best of both worlds.

Yea, VirtualBox is awesome. I've been making a lot of use of it. I do have a physical linux box too though, it's just not my primary system.
Dec 23 2011
prev sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2011-12-23 22:38, Somedude wrote:
 Le 23/12/2011 18:11, Nick Sabalausky a écrit :
 I'm actually inching closer to being a linux guy. Being able to easily
 script just about everything is pretty nice, and after Vista, Win7, and what
 I've seen of Win8, I've been loosing the loyalty I've had in windows since
 3.1. (YMMV, of course). Don't know when I'll actually make the switch
 though, there's a few things I'd like to find/make for linux before I'd feel
 comfortable using it full time.

I find virtualization gives the best of both worlds.

If one wants to use both Windows and Linux, running one native and one virtualized. Which one is best to run native and which one is best to run virtualized? -- /Jacob Carlborg
Dec 24 2011
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Jacob Carlborg" <doob me.com> wrote in message 
news:jd4qg2$9r5$1 digitalmars.com...
 On 2011-12-23 22:38, Somedude wrote:
 Le 23/12/2011 18:11, Nick Sabalausky a écrit :
 I'm actually inching closer to being a linux guy. Being able to easily
 script just about everything is pretty nice, and after Vista, Win7, and 
 what
 I've seen of Win8, I've been loosing the loyalty I've had in windows 
 since
 3.1. (YMMV, of course). Don't know when I'll actually make the switch
 though, there's a few things I'd like to find/make for linux before I'd 
 feel
 comfortable using it full time.

I find virtualization gives the best of both worlds.

If one wants to use both Windows and Linux, running one native and one virtualized. Which one is best to run native

Dosn't really matter as far as I've ever been able to tell. I'd say whichever one you use more.
 and which one is best to run virtualized?

The other one. :)
Dec 25 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Thursday, December 22, 2011 02:21:14 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Jacob Carlborg" <doob me.com> wrote in message
 news:jcsk6i$27tq$2 digitalmars.com...
 
 On 2011-12-20 20:57, Trass3r wrote:
 The ftp is not the fastest one and 7z reduces the size by 40%.

Switching away from zip could break several installation scripts/tools, it will break DVM.

Yea, so 7z would need to be an option, rather than the only option. The raises a side-point though: It would be great to have 7z support in Phobos. Or at least in Deimos just for starters.

One of those things that probably requires that streams be implemented. Once that's done, we should be able to make Phobos support a variety of archival formats. - Jonathan M Davis
Dec 21 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Thursday, December 22, 2011 00:08:59 Walter Bright wrote:
 One of those things that probably requires that streams be implemented.

No. Ranges. RANGES!!!

Yes, they'll be ranges, but we need the buffered stream support in order to properly implement those ranges. - Jonathan M Davis
Dec 22 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:
 If you're trying to have an archival format that pretty much 
 any computer can open out of the box, zip is the only option. 
 If you're restricting yourself to Linux computers specifically, 
 there are definitely more options, but Windows can only handle 
 zip files. For all other archival formats, the user has to 
 track down a program which can handle them. No, that's not 
 hard, but it _does_ raise the bar of entry somewhat, and 
 there's really nothing wrong with using zip.

Only Linux and Mac users complain here about lack of 7z support in their oses.
Dec 22 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Thursday, December 22, 2011 06:25:42 a wrote:
 Why are you ignoring the statement about 7z having  the same accessibility
 level as rar? Rar files are not rare and users who can open rar files (on
 Windows usually with WinRAR or 7zip) can also open 7z files.

But not without installing 3rd party software. Windows can handle zip files out of the box. It can't handle the others. rar would have exactly the same problem as 7z files (though from what I've see rar files are much more commonly used). We _could_ use a file format other than zip, but then we'd be requiring that the user download a 3rd party app just to be able to open the file, which is _not_ the case with zip. - Jonathan M Davis
Dec 22 2011
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.1834.1324571496.24802.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 On Thursday, December 22, 2011 06:25:42 a wrote:
 Why are you ignoring the statement about 7z having  the same 
 accessibility
 level as rar? Rar files are not rare and users who can open rar files (on
 Windows usually with WinRAR or 7zip) can also open 7z files.

But not without installing 3rd party software. Windows can handle zip files out of the box. It can't handle the others. rar would have exactly the same problem as 7z files (though from what I've see rar files are much more commonly used). We _could_ use a file format other than zip, but then we'd be requiring that the user download a 3rd party app just to be able to open the file, which is _not_ the case with zip.

Once again: 1. "If you're a programmer, or even just a power user, you have absolutely no excuse not to *already* have a 7z-capable program [EDIT: such as WinRAR, for instance] installed." 2. "What the hell programmer is limited to whatever archive support just happens to be built into Windows?" Even *in addition* to all of that, the built-in windows support for zip is *extremely* dummy^H^H^H^H^Haverage-Joe -oriented. Page after page of hand-holding "wizard" *just* to "extract here"? I can't imagine any programmer or power user even being capable of putting up with that for more than a few days before finally just grabbing WinRAR, etc. And I'm not just speculating: Honestly, I've never even known *one* programmer or power user who actually used Windows's built-in zip support.
Dec 22 2011
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message 
news:jcvmud$2d2h$1 digitalmars.com...
 "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> wrote in message 
 news:mailman.1834.1324571496.24802.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 On Thursday, December 22, 2011 06:25:42 a wrote:
 Why are you ignoring the statement about 7z having  the same 
 accessibility
 level as rar? Rar files are not rare and users who can open rar files 
 (on
 Windows usually with WinRAR or 7zip) can also open 7z files.

But not without installing 3rd party software. Windows can handle zip files out of the box. It can't handle the others. rar would have exactly the same problem as 7z files (though from what I've see rar files are much more commonly used). We _could_ use a file format other than zip, but then we'd be requiring that the user download a 3rd party app just to be able to open the file, which is _not_ the case with zip.

Once again: 1. "If you're a programmer, or even just a power user, you have absolutely no excuse not to *already* have a 7z-capable program [EDIT: such as WinRAR, for instance] installed." 2. "What the hell programmer is limited to whatever archive support just happens to be built into Windows?" Even *in addition* to all of that, the built-in windows support for zip is *extremely* dummy^H^H^H^H^Haverage-Joe -oriented. Page after page of hand-holding "wizard" *just* to "extract here"? I can't imagine any programmer or power user even being capable of putting up with that for more than a few days before finally just grabbing WinRAR, etc. And I'm not just speculating: Honestly, I've never even known *one* programmer or power user who actually used Windows's built-in zip support.

Additionally, sticking with zip-only is like sticking with mp3 for audio. Just let them die already! But that's never going to happen if people keep offering things in *just* zip or mp3. You know what gets me about this stuff? People have *no* problem expecting others to use multi-core, 64-bit, gobs of RAM, etc., all stuff you have to actually go out and buy, and sure, one could perhaps make an argument for that (that's completely beside my point here), BUT then expecting people (and not just ordinary people, but *programmers*) to upgrade from downright ancient *file formats* (ie, software-only) and suddenly there's a bunch of "Oh hell no!"
Dec 22 2011
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message 
news:jcvnmn$2ea8$1 digitalmars.com...
 "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message 
 news:jcvmud$2d2h$1 digitalmars.com...
 "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> wrote in message 
 news:mailman.1834.1324571496.24802.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 On Thursday, December 22, 2011 06:25:42 a wrote:
 Why are you ignoring the statement about 7z having  the same 
 accessibility
 level as rar? Rar files are not rare and users who can open rar files 
 (on
 Windows usually with WinRAR or 7zip) can also open 7z files.

But not without installing 3rd party software. Windows can handle zip files out of the box. It can't handle the others. rar would have exactly the same problem as 7z files (though from what I've see rar files are much more commonly used). We _could_ use a file format other than zip, but then we'd be requiring that the user download a 3rd party app just to be able to open the file, which is _not_ the case with zip.

Once again: 1. "If you're a programmer, or even just a power user, you have absolutely no excuse not to *already* have a 7z-capable program [EDIT: such as WinRAR, for instance] installed." 2. "What the hell programmer is limited to whatever archive support just happens to be built into Windows?" Even *in addition* to all of that, the built-in windows support for zip is *extremely* dummy^H^H^H^H^Haverage-Joe -oriented. Page after page of hand-holding "wizard" *just* to "extract here"? I can't imagine any programmer or power user even being capable of putting up with that for more than a few days before finally just grabbing WinRAR, etc. And I'm not just speculating: Honestly, I've never even known *one* programmer or power user who actually used Windows's built-in zip support.

Additionally, sticking with zip-only is like sticking with mp3 for audio. Just let them die already! But that's never going to happen if people keep offering things in *just* zip or mp3. You know what gets me about this stuff? People have *no* problem expecting others to have multi-core, 64-bit, gobs of RAM, etc., all stuff you have to actually go out and buy, and sure, one could perhaps make an argument for that (that's completely beside my point here), BUT then expecting people (and not just ordinary people, but *programmers*) to upgrade from downright ancient *file formats* (ie, software-only) and suddenly there's a bunch of "Oh hell no!"

Yet one more thing: The idea is to offer 7z as an alternative to zip, not a replacement. So with even that one point alone, the whole "access to a 7z program" issue goes away *completely*. Honestly, I don't see why there's even still a debate.
Dec 22 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 12/22/11 10:45 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 1. "If you're a programmer, or even just a power user, you have
 absolutely no excuse not to *already* have a 7z-capable program
 [EDIT: such as WinRAR, for instance] installed."

Wrong. Andrei
Dec 22 2011
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote in message 
news:jcvnrs$2e3f$2 digitalmars.com...
 On 12/22/11 10:45 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 1. "If you're a programmer, or even just a power user, you have
 absolutely no excuse not to *already* have a 7z-capable program
 [EDIT: such as WinRAR, for instance] installed."

Wrong.

Ok then, if you're claiming that I'm wrong and a programmer *does* have a legitimate excuse for not having a 7z-capable program, perhaps you could state what that legitimate excuse is instead of merely being contradictory?
Dec 22 2011
parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 12/22/11 11:07 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Andrei Alexandrescu"<SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org>  wrote in message
 news:jcvnrs$2e3f$2 digitalmars.com...
 On 12/22/11 10:45 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 1. "If you're a programmer, or even just a power user, you have
 absolutely no excuse not to *already* have a 7z-capable program
 [EDIT: such as WinRAR, for instance] installed."

Wrong.

Ok then, if you're claiming that I'm wrong and a programmer *does* have a legitimate excuse for not having a 7z-capable program, perhaps you could state what that legitimate excuse is instead of merely being contradictory?

I think it's sheer statistics, as odd as that might sound. I quite enjoy your rants, but after having seen a lot of them it seems to me (though I may be quite wrong) that your opinions and preferences are a couple of standard deviations away from the median. That is of course not bad. The most entertaining part is that this comes bundled with the firm conviction (or even unstated assumption) that everybody should hold, or already holds, the same belief as yours. There are some funny consequences to this. If something completely pisses you off, it might actually be an indication we're doing something right. And if you say something is perfect for you, that's almost always a reason to worry. Andrei
Dec 22 2011
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote in message 
news:jcvpod$2hcl$1 digitalmars.com...
The most entertaining part is that this comes bundled with the firm 
conviction (or even unstated assumption) that everybody should hold, or 
already holds, the same belief as yours.

Seriously? I don't mean this as an insult, but don't tell me this is as opposed to you?
 There are some funny consequences to this. If something completely pisses 
 you off, it might actually be an indication we're doing something right. 
 And if you say something is perfect for you, that's almost always a reason 
 to worry.

Wow, way to be an ass.
Dec 23 2011
parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 12/23/11 10:49 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Andrei Alexandrescu"<SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org>  wrote in message
 news:jcvpod$2hcl$1 digitalmars.com...
 The most entertaining part is that this comes bundled with the firm
 conviction (or even unstated assumption) that everybody should hold, or
 already holds, the same belief as yours.

Seriously? I don't mean this as an insult, but don't tell me this is as opposed to you?
 There are some funny consequences to this. If something completely pisses
 you off, it might actually be an indication we're doing something right.
 And if you say something is perfect for you, that's almost always a reason
 to worry.

Wow, way to be an ass.

That came out the wrong way. Please accept my apologies. Thanks, Andrei
Dec 23 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Elvis Presley <nottheking baby.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:

 "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> wrote in message 
 news:mailman.1834.1324571496.24802.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 On Thursday, December 22, 2011 06:25:42 a wrote:
 Why are you ignoring the statement about 7z having  the same 
 accessibility
 level as rar? Rar files are not rare and users who can open rar files (on
 Windows usually with WinRAR or 7zip) can also open 7z files.

But not without installing 3rd party software. Windows can handle zip files out of the box. It can't handle the others. rar would have exactly the same problem as 7z files (though from what I've see rar files are much more commonly used). We _could_ use a file format other than zip, but then we'd be requiring that the user download a 3rd party app just to be able to open the file, which is _not_ the case with zip.

Once again: 1. "If you're a programmer, or even just a power user, you have absolutely no excuse not to *already* have a 7z-capable program [EDIT: such as WinRAR, for instance] installed." 2. "What the hell programmer is limited to whatever archive support just happens to be built into Windows?" Even *in addition* to all of that, the built-in windows support for zip is *extremely* dummy^H^H^H^H^Haverage-Joe -oriented. Page after page of hand-holding "wizard" *just* to "extract here"? I can't imagine any programmer or power user even being capable of putting up with that for more than a few days before finally just grabbing WinRAR, etc. And I'm not just speculating: Honestly, I've never even known *one* programmer or power user who actually used Windows's built-in zip support.

I like Nicks rant. I'll add my own: Fucking self extracting 7-zip! Easier than dumb zip on windows. Or it is not kosher by D's way ?
Dec 22 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2011-12-22 17:45, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 Once again:

 1. "If you're a programmer, or even just a power user, you have absolutely
 no
 excuse not to *already* have a 7z-capable program [EDIT: such as WinRAR, for
 instance] installed."

 2. "What the hell programmer is limited to whatever archive support just
 happens to be
 built into Windows?"

 Even *in addition* to all of that, the built-in windows support for zip is
 *extremely* dummy^H^H^H^H^Haverage-Joe -oriented. Page after page of
 hand-holding "wizard" *just* to "extract here"? I can't imagine any
 programmer or power user even being capable of putting up with that for more
 than a few days before finally just grabbing WinRAR, etc. And I'm not just
 speculating: Honestly, I've never even known *one* programmer or power user
 who actually used Windows's built-in zip support.

IIRC it's possible to just open the ZIP archive as a regular folder with the built-in support. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Dec 22 2011
parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
On 22/12/2011 17:27, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
<snip>
 IIRC it's possible to just open the ZIP archive as a regular folder with the
built-in
 support.

It's possible to open the zip so that it looks superficially like a regular folder. And in doing so you can browse the files in the zip, copy them to somewhere else like regular files, and put files into the zip as if it's a folder. But IIRC you can't open and re-save files within the zip in-place. Nor can you view the zip in arbitrary apps as a regular folder, because this zip support is part of Explorer and not of the OS's implementation of the overall file system. And I've found it to be very slow. People are bound to look for something faster. And in doing so, might get 7z support as a bonus, thereby increasing the time saving further if only we added a 7z format DMD package. Indeed, it's probably for the better that the system doesn't try too hard to make zips behave like regular folders, as to do so would cause frustration when people try to use them as such and realise how slow it is. Disk compression utilities (such as Stacker and DriveSpace - what happened to these?) differ in a number of ways to compensate, which makes them unusable for packaging software for distribution. And even when used for what they're for, these utilities have their drawbacks. Any implementation of data compression that tries to make a compressed volume look like a regular disk, or an archive look like a regular folder, is an abstraction. And abstractions leak. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.html OK, I know programming languages are abstractions too.... Stewart.
Dec 22 2011
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:jd0q1h$12pu$1 digitalmars.com...
 On 22/12/2011 17:27, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 <snip>
 IIRC it's possible to just open the ZIP archive as a regular folder with 
 the built-in
 support.

It's possible to open the zip so that it looks superficially like a regular folder. And in doing so you can browse the files in the zip, copy them to somewhere else like regular files, and put files into the zip as if it's a folder. But IIRC you can't open and re-save files within the zip in-place. Nor can you view the zip in arbitrary apps as a regular folder, because this zip support is part of Explorer and not of the OS's implementation of the overall file system. And I've found it to be very slow. People are bound to look for something faster. And in doing so, might get 7z support as a bonus, thereby increasing the time saving further if only we added a 7z format DMD package.

Yea, it is better than the wizard, but it still doesn't compare to the "Right-Click"->"Extract"->Done that every other windows archiver on the planet supports (and some Linux file managers, too).
Dec 23 2011
prev sibling parent Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
On 22.12.2011 17:45, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Jonathan M Davis"<jmdavisProg gmx.com>  wrote in message
 news:mailman.1834.1324571496.24802.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 On Thursday, December 22, 2011 06:25:42 a wrote:
 Why are you ignoring the statement about 7z having  the same
 accessibility
 level as rar? Rar files are not rare and users who can open rar files (on
 Windows usually with WinRAR or 7zip) can also open 7z files.

But not without installing 3rd party software. Windows can handle zip files out of the box. It can't handle the others. rar would have exactly the same problem as 7z files (though from what I've see rar files are much more commonly used). We _could_ use a file format other than zip, but then we'd be requiring that the user download a 3rd party app just to be able to open the file, which is _not_ the case with zip.

Once again: 1. "If you're a programmer, or even just a power user, you have absolutely no excuse not to *already* have a 7z-capable program [EDIT: such as WinRAR, for instance] installed." 2. "What the hell programmer is limited to whatever archive support just happens to be built into Windows?" Even *in addition* to all of that, the built-in windows support for zip is *extremely* dummy^H^H^H^H^Haverage-Joe -oriented. Page after page of hand-holding "wizard" *just* to "extract here"? I can't imagine any programmer or power user even being capable of putting up with that for more than a few days before finally just grabbing WinRAR, etc. And I'm not just speculating: Honestly, I've never even known *one* programmer or power user who actually used Windows's built-in zip support.

According to sourceforge, 7zip for Windows was downloaded 100 million times last year. WinRAR is probably a lot more popular than 7zip. There are about 1000 million PCs in use worldwide, so it sounds like > 25% of all Windows users have 7z support. Among developers it must be much higher - maybe 90% ?
Dec 24 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Thursday, December 22, 2011 10:44:08 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Let's focus on reducing the size of the zip by only including what's
 used and by using faster servers.

Agreed. - Jonathan M Davis
Dec 22 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Adam Wilson" <flyboynw gmail.com> writes:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 08:44:08 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu  
<SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:

 On 12/22/11 12:53 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Walter Bright"<newshound2 digitalmars.com>  wrote in message
 news:jcsbja$1pu7$1 digitalmars.com...
 On 12/21/2011 1:31 AM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
 I thought the installers were for newbies. 7z is supported by 7zip,
 winrar, and even winzip.

 I really don't see how someone can be smart enough to use a systems
 programming language but not have a clue how to download an archiver.
 Even average people hate the default zip functionality of Windows and
 they install 7zip/winrar/etc.

Because it's annoying. The idea should be to have as few steps as possible to install. Searching the intarnets for a 7z decoder, wondering if the one you're downloading is a virus, etc., is annoying.

If you're a programmer, or even just a power user, you have absolutely no excuse not to *already* have a 7z-capable program installed.

I didn't have 7z on my Mac until yesterday when I experimented with it. Let's focus on reducing the size of the zip by only including what's used and by using faster servers. Andrei

In the faster servers department I agree. I have a 25Mbps fiber connection and the download tops out around 300Kbps. Have you considered Amazon S3 for storing your larger files? It's plenty fast and quite cheap, we use it at work because for large files versus delivery costs, it beats everything else on the planet. If you want you can even setup multiple zones so that Europeans can contact a server that is close to them and Staters can contact one in the US. Just my 0.02$. -- Adam Wilson Project Coordinator The Horizon Project http://www.thehorizonproject.org/
Dec 22 2011
parent a <a a.com> writes:
 for storing your larger files? It's plenty fast and quite cheap, we use it  
 at work because for large files versus delivery costs, it beats everything  
 else on the planet.

Are you serious? Data transfer prices at Amazon are *very* high. According to http://aws.amazon.com/s3/pricing/ the price is 0.12$/GB (for up to 10TB/month). I don't know about US, but at EU vps hosts prices are closer to 0.01$/GB (see for example http://www.hetzner.de/en/hosting/produkte_vserver/vq7 )
Dec 22 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
I'd like to see a separate package per platform plus a source release. DMD d=
oesn't even run out of the box on all flavors of Linux, and we can't expect p=
eople to pull the git repo.=20

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 22, 2011, at 8:44 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.=
org> wrote:

 On 12/22/11 12:53 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Walter Bright"<newshound2 digitalmars.com>  wrote in message
 news:jcsbja$1pu7$1 digitalmars.com...
 On 12/21/2011 1:31 AM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
 I thought the installers were for newbies. 7z is supported by 7zip,
 winrar, and even winzip.
=20
 I really don't see how someone can be smart enough to use a systems
 programming language but not have a clue how to download an archiver.
 Even average people hate the default zip functionality of Windows and
 they install 7zip/winrar/etc.

Because it's annoying. =20 The idea should be to have as few steps as possible to install. Searchin=



 the intarnets for a 7z decoder, wondering if the one you're downloading i=



 a virus, etc., is annoying.

If you're a programmer, or even just a power user, you have absolutely no=


 excuse not to *already* have a 7z-capable program installed.

I didn't have 7z on my Mac until yesterday when I experimented with it. =20 Let's focus on reducing the size of the zip by only including what's used a=

=20
=20
 Andrei
=20
=20

Dec 22 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 22 December 2011 at 17:09:23 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:
 Ok then, if you're claiming that I'm wrong and a programmer 
 *does* have a legitimate excuse for not having a 7z-capable 
 program, perhaps you could state what that legitimate excuse is 
 instead of merely being contradictory?

There's simply no need for it.
Dec 22 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent so <so so.so> writes:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:07:30 +0200, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 Ok then, if you're claiming that I'm wrong and a programmer *does* have a
 legitimate excuse for not having a 7z-capable program, perhaps you could
 state what that legitimate excuse is instead of merely being  
 contradictory?

How about... if you are a programmer of another compressing product?
Dec 22 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Mirko Pilger <mirko.pilger gmail.com> writes:
 The ftp is not the fastest one and 7z reduces the size by 40%.

*+1* on desktop i'm mostly a windows guy and since the days of windows 95 my first step after a clean system setup has been always to install a 3rd party file archiver utility. i remember it was winzip in the beginning, shortly after replaced by winrar. i used those archivers until i discovered a file manager (and norton commander clone) named total commander which supports most common compression formats. instead of the windows explorer i use this piece of software for about a decade now. i haven't known that windows supports the zip format out of the box until i read about it here today! when i take a look at my "downloads/dev/" folder (which contains mostly compressed source code) i see a majority of zip archives, followed by tar.gz, bz2 and then 7z. the rar format was once known as the optimum for compressing multimedia files and was and is still used a lot for (illegal) file sharing. however rar is starting to become replaced by 7z in the latter use case and will be the de facto standard for compressing big files (GB) in the near future. i use 7z myself for backups for a couple of years now and if i have the choice i will always download 7z first, in absence look for tgz and choose zip always last if there's nothing else available. yes, i might be old fashioned and i'm pretty aware that both ram and disk space is cheap but shouldn't we (developers and engineers) also be at the forefront to push and introduce new technologies? isn't this even our collective responsibility? choice is good. let's make as much formats as download available as possible and let the user decide. the download statistics might be a surprise for some people. </rant>
Dec 22 2011
next sibling parent torhu <no spam.invalid> writes:
On 22.12.2011 20:27, Mirko Pilger wrote:
  The ftp is not the fastest one and 7z reduces the size by 40%.

*+1* on desktop i'm mostly a windows guy and since the days of windows 95 my first step after a clean system setup has been always to install a 3rd party file archiver utility. i remember it was winzip in the beginning, shortly after replaced by winrar. i used those archivers until i discovered a file manager (and norton commander clone) named total commander which supports most common compression formats. instead of the windows explorer i use this piece of software for about a decade now. i haven't known that windows supports the zip format out of the box until i read about it here today! when i take a look at my "downloads/dev/" folder (which contains mostly compressed source code) i see a majority of zip archives, followed by tar.gz, bz2 and then 7z. the rar format was once known as the optimum for compressing multimedia files and was and is still used a lot for (illegal) file sharing. however rar is starting to become replaced by 7z in the latter use case and will be the de facto standard for compressing big files (GB) in the near future. i use 7z myself for backups for a couple of years now and if i have the choice i will always download 7z first, in absence look for tgz and choose zip always last if there's nothing else available. yes, i might be old fashioned and i'm pretty aware that both ram and disk space is cheap but shouldn't we (developers and engineers) also be at the forefront to push and introduce new technologies? isn't this even our collective responsibility? choice is good. let's make as much formats as download available as possible and let the user decide. the download statistics might be a surprise for some people. </rant>

Don't the keyboards on your planet have Shift keys?
Dec 22 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 12/22/2011 11:27 AM, Mirko Pilger wrote:
 i use 7z myself for backups for a couple of years now

I quit using compression for backups. The problem was that if the backup media lost even one bit, you lose the entirety of the compressed file(s). Yes, this happened. It's also a problem because my file searching programs don't look inside compressed files.
Dec 22 2011
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 12/22/2011 7:30 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 RAR (and some others) supports "recovery records" and "recovery volumes"
 (redundant data). The cool thing about them is that with a recovery record of
 10%, ANY 10% of the archive's blocks may be lost and the entire archive can be
 recovered. It was a life-saver back in the days of floppies.

I also worried about not having the right uncompressor when I needed it.
Dec 22 2011
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 12/22/2011 7:50 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 On Friday, 23 December 2011 at 03:46:14 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 12/22/2011 7:30 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 RAR (and some others) supports "recovery records" and "recovery volumes"
 (redundant data). The cool thing about them is that with a recovery record of
 10%, ANY 10% of the archive's blocks may be lost and the entire archive can be
 recovered. It was a life-saver back in the days of floppies.

I also worried about not having the right uncompressor when I needed it.

Easily mitigated by putting decompression software on the same media, or by creating self-extracting archives. Then you only need to worry about having the right platform/architecture :)

Not that easy, because will you really have the right platform 30 years from now? One of the reasons I switched from Outlook Express to Thunderbird for email was the latter stored the messages in plaintext, while the former in some secret encrypted/compressed format. What are the odds you'll be able to get OE to run 30 years from now?
 I've burned about 100 DVDs back when hard drives were in the 10s and 100s of
 GBs. Another useful trick was storing a full catalog (file listings) of all
past
 burned DVDs on each disc.

Fortunately, because of the growth in capacity, carrying forward my media gets easier and easier. In the beginning of the world, when we were all worried about the coming ice age, I had punch card decks. They're all gone, I have no recollection of what I did with them. Then, I had paper tape. None of them survived. Then, I had DECtapes. None of them survived. I had a DEC magtape, but the tape drive was so out of spec that it was the only machine that could read them. That drive was long gone, so I throw my magtape in the trash. I had a couple paper code listings I used as desperation backups. I did use a phone line and dumped my code to the screen, and captured the output and wrote them to 8" floppies. These actually did survive until last year, when a friend fired up his old PDP-11 which hadn't been run for years, and copied all the floppies and emailed me the files. Whew! (I threw away the floppies after that.) Then, the era of the 5.25 floppy began. I still have boxes full of them. I copied the floppies to a CD. They all fit on one CD. Then copied the CDs to DVDs. Then the DVDs to hard disks. Then the hard disks to Amazon S3, and that's where I'm at now. My oldest file I still have is from 1977. The floppy data all sit in a tiny corner of my hard disk.
Dec 22 2011
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 12/22/2011 9:53 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 On Friday, 23 December 2011 at 05:18:30 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 Not that easy, because will you really have the right platform 30 years from
now?

Enthusiasts have created portable open-source software emulators for many old platforms. Hell, you can boot Linux[1] (and UNIX V6 on a PDP-11, for the other side of the spectrum[2]) in your web browser these days! I would say that today's hardware architectures (and those from the past two decades) have acquired enough mass that they'll be accessible for the foreseeable future (our lifespans), mainly thanks to open-source emulators. The main problem is with copyrighted software: you can't buy a new copy of Windows 95, but you can't download it legally either.

That's why I mentioned Outlook Express. I used to use a wave editor. My disk crashed, and I reformatted and reinstalled Windows. I installed the wave editor, but had lost the password to unlock it. The company that made it had gone bust. I eventually did find the password, but I was s.o.l. with its data files without it.
 Indeed, proprietary file formats are the bane of archival. It doesn't seem to
 stop other software from importing data from them, though. Didn't Thunderbird
 have a feature to import data from Outlook Express?

Yup. Would you know that 30 years from now?
Dec 22 2011
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:jd16vm$1oos$1 digitalmars.com...
 I used to use a wave editor. My disk crashed, and I reformatted and 
 reinstalled Windows. I installed the wave editor, but had lost the 
 password to unlock it. The company that made it had gone bust.

Yup, that's one of the reasons I try to steer clear of any DRMed or proprietary anything.
Dec 23 2011
prev sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Mirko Pilger" <mirko.pilger gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:jd005s$2kp3$1 digitalmars.com...
 The ftp is not the fastest one and 7z reduces the size by 40%.

*+1* on desktop i'm mostly a windows guy and since the days of windows 95 my first step after a clean system setup has been always to install a 3rd party file archiver utility. i remember it was winzip in the beginning, shortly after replaced by winrar. i used those archivers until i discovered a file manager (and norton commander clone) named total commander which supports most common compression formats. instead of the windows explorer i use this piece of software for about a decade now.

I've had Total Commander on my computer for at least a year or two. Personally, I find it awkward, but I *love* the multi-rename feature.
 i use 7z myself for backups for a couple of years now and if i have the 
 choice i will always download 7z first, in absence look for tgz and choose 
 zip always last if there's nothing else available.

 yes, i might be old fashioned and i'm pretty aware that both ram and disk 
 space is cheap but shouldn't we (developers and engineers) also be at the 
 forefront to push and introduce new technologies? isn't this even our 
 collective responsibility?

Yea, this is exactly how I feel about it, too.
Dec 23 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
On Dec 22, 2011, at 9:35 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 On 2011-12-22 18:13, Sean Kelly wrote:
 I'd like to see a separate package per platform plus a source =


and we can't expect people to pull the git repo.
=20
 The sources are already included.

For the compiler as well?=
Dec 22 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
On Dec 22, 2011, at 3:32 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:

 On Dec 22, 2011, at 9:35 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
=20
 On 2011-12-22 18:13, Sean Kelly wrote:
 I'd like to see a separate package per platform plus a source =



and we can't expect people to pull the git repo.
=20
 The sources are already included.

For the compiler as well?

You're right. Goes to show how often I look at the zip file contents. = My bad.
Dec 22 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Thursday, 22 December 2011 at 17:35:09 UTC, Andrei 
Alexandrescu wrote:
 Ok then, if you're claiming that I'm wrong and a programmer 
 *does* have a
 legitimate excuse for not having a 7z-capable program, perhaps 
 you could
 state what that legitimate excuse is instead of merely being 
 contradictory?

There are some funny consequences to this. If something completely pisses you off, it might actually be an indication we're doing something right. And if you say something is perfect for you, that's almost always a reason to worry.

Oof, I think saying that here was uncalled for. But seriously, I think this discussion is neglecting to account for the subjective aspects, mainly segmentation by operating system. This decade cross-platform software is becoming more ubiquitous, but it wasn't that long ago that GUI applications (the only kind regular users care about) that worked on different major platforms were exceedingly rare - and when you switched operating systems, you practically always had to simply look for analogies for the software you used on the old system. By this follows that the major OSes had their own established software packaging methods - installers and archives of various sorts on Windows, .dmg / .pkg / .sit for OS X, and tarballs for POSIX. Windows inherits much of its user base (and thus, user mannerisms) from the DOS days, back when there were dozens of archivers in common use (anyone remembers ARC, ARJ, LHA?). RAR and ZIP survived the test of time, with 7-Zip quickly gaining traction after its appearance due to improved compression algorithms. I know Nick uses Windows, same as myself, and from last I heard Andrei uses a Mac. So, it's no wonder that there's such a huge disconnect of opinion - the Mac software ecosystem lived (and still lives, to some extent) in its own different world.
Dec 22 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Friday, 23 December 2011 at 01:18:22 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
 The next question is whether we should offer it same placement 
 as the .zip file or the native installer, and how to design the 
 downloads page to avoid it being overcrowded.

That's hardly a problem: http://thecybershadow.net/d/download/download.html Alternative: http://thecybershadow.net/d/download/download2.html
Dec 22 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Adam Wilson" <flyboynw gmail.com> writes:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 18:00:59 -0800, a <a a.com> wrote:

 for storing your larger files? It's plenty fast and quite cheap, we use  
 it
 at work because for large files versus delivery costs, it beats  
 everything
 else on the planet.

Are you serious? Data transfer prices at Amazon are *very* high. According to http://aws.amazon.com/s3/pricing/ the price is 0.12$/GB (for up to 10TB/month). I don't know about US, but at EU vps hosts prices are closer to 0.01$/GB (see for example http://www.hetzner.de/en/hosting/produkte_vserver/vq7 )

I guess it's all about point-of-view. Compartively, in the US, Amazon's prices are dirt cheap per GB. And I would point at that hosting all of the D downloads in Europe would be a less than ideal plan due to the limited bandwidth across the Atlantic. Also Amazon has significantly faster connections than are typically available with VPS hosting. And also consider the ability of Amazon to store the files in multiple regional datacenters, this would allow Europeans, such as yourself, to download D without having to traverse the Atlantic as you do today, and would allow Staters to continue to enjoy their direct access without the intervening Atlantic. In the end, my argument would be that you get what you pay for, and Amazon's services and guarantees far exceed what your typical VPS host offers. *Shrug* Personally, I have no dog in this fight, but the Amazon solution is technically better, if slightly more expensive. But then again, I don't see 1.20$ as too much for 10GB/month. -- Adam Wilson Project Coordinator The Horizon Project http://www.thehorizonproject.org/
Dec 22 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Friday, 23 December 2011 at 03:24:27 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 12/22/2011 11:27 AM, Mirko Pilger wrote:
 i use 7z myself for backups for a couple of years now

I quit using compression for backups. The problem was that if the backup media lost even one bit, you lose the entirety of the compressed file(s). Yes, this happened. It's also a problem because my file searching programs don't look inside compressed files.

RAR (and some others) supports "recovery records" and "recovery volumes" (redundant data). The cool thing about them is that with a recovery record of 10%, ANY 10% of the archive's blocks may be lost and the entire archive can be recovered. It was a life-saver back in the days of floppies.
Dec 22 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Friday, 23 December 2011 at 03:46:14 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 12/22/2011 7:30 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 RAR (and some others) supports "recovery records" and 
 "recovery volumes"
 (redundant data). The cool thing about them is that with a 
 recovery record of
 10%, ANY 10% of the archive's blocks may be lost and the 
 entire archive can be
 recovered. It was a life-saver back in the days of floppies.

I also worried about not having the right uncompressor when I needed it.

Easily mitigated by putting decompression software on the same media, or by creating self-extracting archives. Then you only need to worry about having the right platform/architecture :) I've burned about 100 DVDs back when hard drives were in the 10s and 100s of GBs. Another useful trick was storing a full catalog (file listings) of all past burned DVDs on each disc.
Dec 22 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Friday, 23 December 2011 at 05:18:30 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 Not that easy, because will you really have the right platform 
 30 years from now?

Enthusiasts have created portable open-source software emulators for many old platforms. Hell, you can boot Linux[1] (and UNIX V6 on a PDP-11, for the other side of the spectrum[2]) in your web browser these days! I would say that today's hardware architectures (and those from the past two decades) have acquired enough mass that they'll be accessible for the foreseeable future (our lifespans), mainly thanks to open-source emulators. The main problem is with copyrighted software: you can't buy a new copy of Windows 95, but you can't download it legally either. Of course, storage media is a different matter.
 One of the reasons I switched from Outlook Express to 
 Thunderbird for email was the latter stored the messages in 
 plaintext, while the former in some secret encrypted/compressed 
 format. What are the odds you'll be able to get OE to run 30 
 years from now?

Indeed, proprietary file formats are the bane of archival. It doesn't seem to stop other software from importing data from them, though. Didn't Thunderbird have a feature to import data from Outlook Express? Even using open-source software that stores data in simple formats may not be very futureproof. Future versions of Thunderbird may convert the data to another format, without even notifying the user (after all, the great majority of users don't care about such things). Remaining on an old version is risky due to discovered security vulnerabilities.
 My oldest file I still have is from 1977. The floppy data all 
 sit in a tiny corner of my hard disk.

Wow :) [1]: http://bellard.org/jslinux/ [2]: http://pdp11.aiju.de/
Dec 22 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Somedude <lovelydear mailmetrash.com> writes:
Le 20/12/2011 20:57, Trass3r a écrit :
 The ftp is not the fastest one and 7z reduces the size by 40%.

Wow, this thread sounds to me like a lot of noise for nothing. Meanwhile, Andrew Wiley received no response for his thread "Some Issues with Synchronized".
Dec 23 2011
parent Elvis Presley <nottheking baby.com> writes:
Somedude Wrote:

 Le 20/12/2011 20:57, Trass3r a écrit :
 The ftp is not the fastest one and 7z reduces the size by 40%.

Wow, this thread sounds to me like a lot of noise for nothing. Meanwhile, Andrew Wiley received no response for his thread "Some Issues with Synchronized".

It's a taboo topic. They will look into it after they discontinue D1 and find that D2 isn't ready yet.
Dec 23 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Friday, 23 December 2011 at 08:56:09 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
 What am I doing wrong?

The script suffered some bitrot. The version I posted in IRC works for me on both Ruby 1.8 and 1.9: http://dump.thecybershadow.net/7f0b3e4b56df6bf78382f6161115f7e1/github_upload.rb Prodded GitHub support to have a look at the pull requests, too...
Dec 23 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 23 December 2011 at 17:13:25 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:
 Interestingly, in my experience, 7z seems to even beat .tar.bz2 
 by a non-trivial amount.

Slackware Linux recently changed from the old .tar.gz for it's distribution to .tar.xz - .xz uses the same algorithm as 7zip. I never cared much for bz2 myself. It's slightly better than gzip, but it comes at the cost of being slow as crap. xz seems ok on speed and pretty good at compressing though.
 I'm actually inching closer to being a linux guy.

My condolences.
Dec 23 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Friday, December 23, 2011 18:24:09 Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
 On Friday, 23 December 2011 at 17:13:25 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
 
 wrote:
 Interestingly, in my experience, 7z seems to even beat .tar.bz2
 by a non-trivial amount.

Slackware Linux recently changed from the old .tar.gz for it's distribution to .tar.xz - .xz uses the same algorithm as 7zip. I never cared much for bz2 myself. It's slightly better than gzip, but it comes at the cost of being slow as crap. xz seems ok on speed and pretty good at compressing though.

In my experince, bzip2 gives comparable or better compression on smaller files (a few MB) but xz gives better compression on larger ones (e.g. your whole Linux install). However, I've also found xz to be _way_ worse on speed. Arch also switched from tar.gz to tar.xz not terribly long ago, and I really think that they should have juts been using tar.bz2, since unless the results that I've seen are abnormal, they're not getting any real benefit out of xz over bzip2 in terms of size (if anything, it's probably worse given the small size of most packages) and it's way worse in speed. - Jonathan M Davis
Dec 23 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Friday, 23 December 2011 at 17:24:10 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
 On Friday, 23 December 2011 at 17:13:25 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
 wrote:
 Interestingly, in my experience, 7z seems to even beat 
 .tar.bz2 by a non-trivial amount.

Slackware Linux recently changed from the old .tar.gz for it's distribution to .tar.xz - .xz uses the same algorithm as 7zip. I never cared much for bz2 myself. It's slightly better than gzip, but it comes at the cost of being slow as crap.

The great thing about bzip2 is that it parallelizes much better than LZMA. http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/02/file-compression-in-the-multi-core-era.html LZMA2 (available starting with 7-Zip 9.20) was created with parallelization in mind.
Dec 23 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Saturday, December 24, 2011 01:24:38 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Yea, VirtualBox is awesome. I've been making a lot of use of it. I do have a
 physical linux box too though, it's just not my primary system.

VirtualBox is pretty much the only way that I use Windows these days, and even that isn't much. I need it for a few programs at work that I use sometimes, but about the only reason that I use Windows at home at this point is to verify that my changes to Phobos work in Windows. VirtualBox makes that much more pleasant. - Jonathan M Davis
Dec 23 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Andrew Wiley <wiley.andrew.j gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> wrote:
 On 2011-12-23 22:38, Somedude wrote:
 Le 23/12/2011 18:11, Nick Sabalausky a =E9crit :
 I'm actually inching closer to being a linux guy. Being able to easily
 script just about everything is pretty nice, and after Vista, Win7, and
 what
 I've seen of Win8, I've been loosing the loyalty I've had in windows
 since
 3.1. (YMMV, of course). Don't know when I'll actually make the switch
 though, there's a few things I'd like to find/make for linux before I'd
 feel
 comfortable using it full time.

I find virtualization gives the best of both worlds.

If one wants to use both Windows and Linux, running one native and one virtualized. Which one is best to run native and which one is best to run virtualized?

It depends on how much you like Starcraft II.
Dec 24 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:
 But not without installing 3rd party software. Windows can 
 handle zip files out of the box. It can't handle the others. 
 rar would have exactly the same problem as 7z files (though 
 from what I've see rar files are much more commonly used). We 
 _could_ use a file format other than zip, but then we'd be 
 requiring that the user download a 3rd party app just to be 
 able to open the file, which is _not_ the case with zip.

Availability is achieved by native installers, and AFAIK we have them - installers for Mac, Win, and a bunch for Lin. Copy-deployment is an advanced format, and I think it's pretty ok for it to be 7z. It's not very easy to begin with: you have to figure out how to install it - it's a matter of convention which is yet to get, where to install it, cope with privilege restrictions etc.
Dec 25 2011
parent bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Kagamin:

 Copy-deployment is an advanced format, and I think it's pretty ok 
 for it to be 7z.

I suggest to just offer both zip and 7zip files. Bye, bearophile
Dec 25 2011
prev sibling parent "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:
 I suggest to just offer both zip and 7zip files.

Sure it can be done, but I doubt zip helps availability a lot.
Dec 25 2011