About the 7z being better, yeah, I just did a few checks, your right, it is better!
Yes, make a grahpical RAR maker!
No, this is a waste of time!
Maybe; the script is great, thanks, but a GUI is unnecessary
About the 7z being better, yeah, I just did a few checks, your right, it is better!
have you checked bzip2? (-j for tar)
I am infallible, you should know that by now.
"My favorite language is call STAR. It's extremely concise. It has exactly one verb '*', which does exactly what I want at the moment." --Larry Wall
(02:15:31 PM) ***TimToady and snake oil go way back...
42 lines of Perl - SHI - Home Site
Yeah, it's not great. Just another average format like .tar.gz as far as I'm concerned. The only reason I actually use it (gz and bz2) frequently is because all Linux comes with unzipping tools for it by default, where as 7z and that may be slightly less popular.
Wow. This is great. I was just looking around to see if there was some type of GUI for creating split archives. Great idea!!!
Blog | Ubuntu User #15350 | Zsh FTW | Ubuntu Security | Nothing to hide?
AMD Phenom II X6 1075T @ 3GHz, Nvidia GTX 650, 8GB DDR3 RAM, 1 X 1TB, 2 X 3TB HDD
Please don't request support via PM
There are a couple of problems with using 7z on Linux, which stem from the fact that, like zip and unlike gzip or bzip2, 7z was designed for Windows:
- It doesn't preserve file permissions, etc. Any program that can't handle permissions is automatically useless except for cross-platform purposes.
- It violates the *nix design principle, "Do one thing well." 7z is both an archive format and a compression format. If it could be reduced to a just a compression format it would be much more useful, the previous problem would be solved, and 7z would have a chance at widespread adoption in the Linux world.
Here's an example of how a compression-only format is useful: many text files, such as log files, man pages, changelogs, etc., are compressed with gzip. If you want to read them, you just do less filename and less knows how to uncompress them. The situation would be complicated considerably if you had to create an archive before compressing a file, or extract a file from an archive before reading it.
ok, I've updated the first post to include the "finished" script. It's 'graphical, but it still runs in the terminal, although it's very easy!:
simply click the script and pick "run in terminal" to begin, and the graphical text boxes will guide you through it!
I've added a new feature - thanks to "bodhi.zazen" for lots of help with this - you can now set the pripority the "raring" command will run at (between default 0 and the lowest (19))!
I didn't want to post this until it was completely done, but I need some help! I'm working on version 1.2, and it's got some cool new features - I've decided to exploit the command a little more, so now you can pick if you want the archive size to be in KB, MB, or GB! Also, a resorted a couple of things and made it more adapting and intuitive.
here's a link to the Beta code for 1.2 (*link removed - old code) - if anyone one wants it for use, go ahead, but I will not guarantee the best results as I will with the one at the top of the page!
P.S. Oh, I guess I've completely forgotten to actually say what the problem is! well,
when I open a terminal and navigate to the script with cd and then run it with ./, it works fine, but when I simply click it and "run it in terminal" it tends to run into problems along the way and crash! What's wrong!!!
Last edited by ryanVickers; September 28th, 2007 at 09:58 PM.
Probably your script expects the current working directory to be the same as the directory in which the script resides. (or something like that) That is just a guess though.
could you at least look at the code instead of guessing!?
sorry, don't mean to be rude, but it's just kind of funny...
BTW I've updated the code to include a feature for setting the compression level
also, I kind of doubt that's the problem because it doesn't have any static paths in it - it does call the "$HOME" variable, but that's not really static
From what I've been able to gather, when I run it by clicking it, it seems to not like the "==" thing in the if statements, but if I change it to be "-eq", it wants a number of course and it doesn't involve numbers, just text. The strange part is, I don't know why this has anything to do with how I run it!?!?!
Bookmarks