1. 17
  1. 5

    p7zip [fork] has worked fine since forever (and comes with the modern codecs like zstd that you need to manually install on windoze)

    Shout out to Modern7z though

    1. 3

      Does 7-Zip offer anything more than I have typing unzip or tar, or using whatever comes along with my DE/file manager? I’ve always throught that 7-Zip existed just to make up for a lack of support for working with archives in Windows.

      1. 1

        It offers 7z format plus an UI that is workable on Windows.

        1. 1

          Ah, I didn’t realise there was an associated additional format. Not sure I’ve ever seen it in the wild, any good?

          1. 2

            Well, at least I haven’t heard of an article like this one for xz about 7z… but 7z does not store file permissions at all, sooo :/

            Anyway, tar supports that format too:

            % tar tvf ~/Downloads/7z1900-extra.7z | head -n1
            -rw-rw-rw-  0 0      0        2366 Feb 21  2019 Far/7-ZipEng.hlf

            By which I mean the libarchive tar, which is FreeBSD’s default tar, which is also known as bsdtar in various Linux distributions.

            1. 2

              It is a bit better than raw zip. But I only use for personal purposes, so it fits my needs.

        2. 3

          I love 7-zip for Windows, currently on Mac I use Keka and on Linux there was no nice alternative for 7z files. This is great news for the community!

          1. 4

            On Linux I have been getting by really nicely with file-roller (and its p7zip backend) – Is it inadequate for you in any way?

            1. 2

              It is worth noting that a first-party official GUI front-end for the CLI version isn’t available yet.

              I find that a) p7zip works just fine for working with *.7z archives b) GUI frontends for multiple independent backends work well and suit the Linux philosophy much better than GUI monoliths bundled with archive format support libs.

              Having the same GUI app for working with archived on Linux arguably could help more people migrate to Linux, but I find it hard to come up with a reason to care about an official tool for an open format when there are other tools already that work just fine.

              Don’t get me wrong, I’m by no means against original 7zip authors porting their code to Linux, but as a user and a packager, I see no reason to install or package it.

              1. 1

                never tried it, I will download imediately! Thanks for the hint.

                1. 1

                  and its p7zip backend

                  You don’t even need p7zip, the libarchive backend supports 7z just fine.

              2. 1

                I think what you really want to use is lzip: https://www.nongnu.org/lzip/ A lot of effort went into the design of lzip to achieve a robust compressible archive format.

                1. 1

                  zstd really makes any “better format for LZMA compression” project obsolete. Everyone is switching to zstd. (Well, except Apple :D)

                  LZMA is just too slow.

                  1. 1

                    It depends on the use case. xz -9 still gives smaller files than zstd -19 (which uses about the same amount of CPU). If you care about size above all else, xz is still better. If you want faster speed or you want something with a more balanced trade-off between speed and compression, zstd is better.

                    1. 0

                      I think that depends on the use case. For example, for one-time compression, many-times decompression, with long term archival as secondary goal, cases lzip would be a viable choice. See https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lzip-bug/2016-10/msg00005.html for a robustness comparison of zstd with lzip. Buy note that it is done by the author of lzip and from 2016.