PDA

View Full Version : Graphical RAR program I'm working on



ryanVickers
September 21st, 2007, 11:55 PM
http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/3460/mkrarlogohr8.png


Bulletin board:
I am planning on making a few minor fixes and also adding one more feature soon - the ability to save the archives to a directory of your choice instead of just putting them in the same folder as the source files!
I've decided to re-write my script to a text-based version, if people like that better. I tried to keep as many features as possible, but it is slightly less idiot-proof ;)
How does everyone like the new interface!? If you want the original one, get the "Modified Interface" package (second one) instead - it's the same except it uses the old-style dialogs, but all the 2.1 features are still there!
Current Version Info:
Version 2.1 is done!
The script can be found attached, and instructions for it here:To use it, just download, extract, and click it!
Pick "run in terminal" to run it
If the script requires extra apps, it will install them for you - no need to run about finding them!
After the first launch, you can run it by just typing "mkrar" in the terminal!
If you have downloaded a new version of mkrar, it will not automatically update by just running! Instead, run the included update script to update!Feature list:

Easily create split rar archives
small technical improvements and filesize optimization for 1.9 and beyond
Adjust the priority (nice value) to run at (0 to 19)
Full support for filenames with spaces!
File browser window to pick "to-be-archived" folder/file containing directory
Once location is chosen, all available files are generated into a scrolling list!
Lock, Test, convert filename case, delete original files on completion, auto-exclude empty folders all easily selected from a list of check boxes!
Choose from 5 compression levels (none (just archive) to max. (5))
Easily choose to split into KB, MB, GB, or not at all!
Customized messages for each selection!
Sizes round properly! (10Mb does not equal 10 million bytes, but 10 real MB!)
Interface and order layed out in an intuitive and adapting manner!
Automatically checks if all required sub-scripts/apps are installed, so you don't have to! If one does need to be installed, the process is VERY simple - you simply need to give it permission (and the root password to install) and it will do it all for you! - the RAR command, UNRAR command, and Zenity (used to display dialogs) will all be handled in this release (1.6) and beyond. Zenity is included by default in gnome, but it may not be in other DE, so, don't worry, it takes care of everything!
Numerous, informative conformation dialogs to ensure no mistakes!
And much more! Try it today!
License:

Yes, I've finally decided to license the script under the GPL version 3! *raises hands to calm cheers* ;)Support Policy:

To make things easier, I now supply a little script called "mkrar-GenuineAdvantage" (if any of you has used windows this may sound familiar ;))
The purpose of this is to make sure that you have the latest copy, everything is installed correctly, and it has not been modified
How my support works is this: you run the Genuine Advantage script, email me the code and your problem, and I'll try to the best of my ability to help you solve it! :D
If you are having trouble authenticating your installations of mkrar and/or mkrarTB, that means that your installation(s) of mkrar and/or mkrarTB are corrupt, and if this happens, please verify that they have been installed to /bin, and are named "mkrar" and/or "mkrarTB", with no extension, and also make sure they are genuine from this page, as modified versions will not be supported!*
Please note: If you are having trouble extracting and running the Genuine Advantage script, and instead a text editor is opened with a bunch of gibberish, please do not send me that! Your code is only 8 characters! It should be as simple as download, extract, and run, but if not ask for help!
The Story:

I was always very angry with the fact that there was no tool for making split archives, and the creation of them period was always so difficult because you had to remember this big ugly command with all these options. Well, I decided to make this to help out!
It started as a very technical-person's, basic, non-graphical script with nearly no features, but it grew, because of everyones help and support, not just here but everywhere, into probably the best RAR making tool available for Linux to this day! Why, just look at the features!
I think this is a very useful project, and if you have any suggestions for the script, just leave a comment, send me an email, or whatever you want I guess!Attachment key:

mkrar (2.1) and updater: The always up-to-date, easy to use, and very feature-rich graphical script for split RAR making for dummies :). It also now includes a very simple script that will allow you to update your installation of mkrar with only the knowledge of how to type the root password!
(slightly more user friendly - lists everything as "click-able" entries, virtually no typing required!)
mkrar (2.1) and updater - Old interface: I put this in in case some people still like the old interface - it has all the 2.1 features with the 2.0 look!
(slightly less user friendly, slightly more powerful though - lists everything as drop-down menus, custom entries (typing) allowed), nearly no typing required!) *personal favorite*
mkrarTB (1.0): A text-based version of the now extremely popular "mkrar" for Unix/Linux. And since it doesn't involve Zenity, there's a good chance it might work on a Mac too!
(significantly less idiot proof - everything must be entered by hand, including paths and values that could be mis-typed. Equal in power (ability to type in paths and names) to mkrar 2.1 Old Interface) Footnotes:

(from support section) - I understand if this seems harsh, but I cannot possibly be expected to support modified version of this script, and here is why:

I have 3 version of this, and I know them inside and out, and what should happen, when it should happen, possible problems, etc.; I can pretty much recite the source code from memory ;)
However, as much as I encourage you to build upon this as a base for future projects and endeavors of your own accord, I will not know how your code works, and do not intend to try and solve your programing problems. However, I will and would be perfectly happy to assist in the education of how to do something, as with any problem.
In short, I am glad to help you with a default install thats not working, and as for all you beginner developers out there, I won't fix your code for you, but I will help you to learn how to do things so you an build and test the code for yourself.

slavik
September 21st, 2007, 11:59 PM
umm, one of the packages you install for rar allows file-roller to create/extract rar archives ...

ryanVickers
September 22nd, 2007, 12:01 AM
Does it let you make split archives!?! :p

slavik
September 22nd, 2007, 12:10 AM
hmm, you changed the first post. I never said to stop your project (you can only benefit from writing more code). Maybe you could pass the code onto gnome and kde or whoever maintains file-roller and ark? Personally, I don't see the point for multiple archives anymore because of the relatively high broadband proliferations and stuff like bittorrent.

ryanVickers
September 22nd, 2007, 12:13 AM
Yeah I did change it, sorry! Just so no one else didn't get it like you right away. (yes, that sentence could use come work, but it gets the point across:))

I see the point all the time! Say your uploading to some site and the limit is 50 or 100 or something Mb's? Suppose you want to bring a bunch of files to someone on CD's because they don't have a DVD drive (this is actually plausible :))? Not to be mean, but they're good :)

slavik
September 22nd, 2007, 01:22 AM
well, the only reason why rar took off was because of split archiving and it being better than arj (which was zip but multifile, which was popular on BBS). in any case, rar was used to upload files to the likes of homestead and geocities by warez groups.

although your points are very valid and I still think you should allow multi-part archives, I just don't think that they are as usefull, today (external usb hard drives). and if a computer doesn't have a usb drive, it is very unlikely to have a very high capacity hdd

ryanVickers
September 22nd, 2007, 01:24 AM
Also, It beats any other compression format for level of compression by far! :) Especially over regular old .tar, those were awful :lolflag:

yabbadabbadont
September 22nd, 2007, 01:29 AM
Also, It beats any other compression format for level of compression by far! :) Especially over regular old .tar, those were awful :lolflag:

tar files are not compressed. You have to use (or ask tar to use) an external compression utility to do the actual compression. Just FYI. :)

Also, I thought that 7zip had the best compression these days?

Frak
September 22nd, 2007, 01:31 AM
Great Script, thanx :) Always wanted to find a way to make split archives easier.

ryanVickers
September 22nd, 2007, 01:52 AM
tar files are not compressed. You have to use (or ask tar to use) an external compression utility to do the actual compression. Just FYI. :)...

I know, that's the joke! :KS

ryanVickers
September 22nd, 2007, 01:54 AM
About the 7z being better, yeah, I just did a few checks, your right, it is better! :)

slavik
September 22nd, 2007, 04:01 AM
have you checked bzip2? (-j for tar)

ryanVickers
September 22nd, 2007, 04:07 AM
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.

FuturePilot
September 23rd, 2007, 06:02 AM
Wow. This is great. I was just looking around to see if there was some type of GUI for creating split archives. Great idea!!!:guitar:

mssever
September 23rd, 2007, 05:25 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.

ryanVickers
September 24th, 2007, 12:34 AM
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!

ryanVickers
September 27th, 2007, 02:16 AM
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))!

ryanVickers
September 28th, 2007, 12:25 AM
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! :p 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!!!

yabbadabbadont
September 28th, 2007, 12:28 AM
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.

ryanVickers
September 28th, 2007, 01:26 AM
could you at least look at the code instead of guessing!? :p

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!?!?! :p

ryanVickers
September 28th, 2007, 02:15 AM
Ok, everyone, if you look at the top, I've added another category - the "Coders Release" section :)

There, you can find the most up-to-date release of my script, but it may not be perfect, and may require special "work-arounds" to make it work (but they should be quite simple :))

If you still want the always-perfect, noob proof version of the script, get the one in the attachments section, or the big teal heading one (they are the same :))

ryanVickers
September 28th, 2007, 09:57 PM
I've successfully located and eliminated the problem, while also adding more features! :p Hooray! Version 1.3 is released today!

Vadi
September 29th, 2007, 03:26 AM
Thanks, been needing to make split archives.

1337455 10534
September 30th, 2007, 04:31 PM
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude.
Your script pwn5 but wth r u making like 5 new versions a day!!???
I can't keep up!!!

Oh, btw: I think that using the os mod in python can achieve the exact same effects of BASH script. I tested it with the script you posted on my gnome-terminal thread, and it works (to some degree). The find $ command has to be replaced by a os mod equivalent but it is functionable and will run in the terminal.
Not trying to force you or anything, but you should give python a try since it is a very high level language that is extremely easy to learn. Version 0.4 of my script is waiting stagnant on my Linux desktop, I am talking from my laptop so I cannot upload the newer version yet. However, the prefix "0" is apprpriate since it doesn't work yet :popcorn:. The survery section messes up the main "G-FREAKX' menu commands, but the main menu is extremely functionalble.

ryanVickers
September 30th, 2007, 05:06 PM
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude.
Your script pwn5 but wth r u making like 5 new versions a day!!???
I can't keep up!!!

Yeah, I just am constantly seeing some way to to something better, or make it easier, or fix a minor problem :p

Maybe I should look into python. Just a few questions, is it an interpreted language like java or that, or do you need to compile it like C? Also, doesn't that make it alot slower? In gimp, there are 2 effects that do the exact same thing, and one is "normal", and the other is python, and the python one takes like 3 times longer :p

mssever
September 30th, 2007, 05:29 PM
Yeah, I just am constantly seeing some way to to something better, or make it easier, or fix a minor problem :p

Maybe I should look into python. Just a few questions, is it an interpreted language like java or that, or do you need to compile it like C? Also, doesn't that make it alot slower? In gimp, there are 2 effects that do the exact same thing, and one is "normal", and the other is python, and the python one takes like 3 times longer :p

Python is an interpreted language, but not like Java; it's much better. Type python in a shell and you can run python there interactively.

The reason the Python effects are slower is probably due to the way they're written more than the language. I don't remember what language script-fu is, but it's an interpreted language as well.

Python is the most popular language in Ubuntu, but check out Ruby, as well (http://pine.fm/LearnToProgram/ - http://whytheluckystiff.net/ruby/pickaxe/). Both are excellent languages, but Ruby fits me better than Python. Since I've learned Ruby, bash has seemed more and more primitive.

ryanVickers
September 30th, 2007, 05:37 PM
Edit: wait, I don't need that :p (what I was asking for before:))

Vadi
September 30th, 2007, 09:01 PM
Look into PPA's on launchpad. It would be much easier if we just added your repository and you updated that.

ryanVickers
September 30th, 2007, 09:02 PM
That's what I've been thinking!!! But how should I do that? and how does that work - would it re-download my script to /bin every time I update it (which is going to be much less frequently now - I think I've got every possible feature imaginable :p), or is it more complicated?

ryanVickers
September 30th, 2007, 09:15 PM
Here's a more advanced version of the sub-script that mkrar runs when it starts up to check for installed programs. You can now type in your own program, and within a matter of 0 seconds, you will know if it's installed or not, and if it isn't, it can install it for you!

Frak
September 30th, 2007, 09:19 PM
You create a custom makefile and .sh script that adds a menu entry and a run command, then you compile it into a .deb and upload it. the PPA will recognize the new entry and echo it as an update to all machines subscribing to the repo.

ryanVickers
September 30th, 2007, 09:21 PM
of course! Easy! :p ](*,)

Frak
September 30th, 2007, 09:22 PM
I just noticed, some people may not like your policies.

Your file is technically proprietary.

ryanVickers
September 30th, 2007, 09:30 PM
Yes, it includes the "rar" command, but all that nonsense is handled by the "rar" team. Also, my license is simply a method of control, but not necessarily restriction - if someone did want to use my script for something, good chance is they'd get a yes; I just want to know! :)

Frak
September 30th, 2007, 09:32 PM
Ah, ok. But your aware this is a freeware license right?

ryanVickers
September 30th, 2007, 09:48 PM
yes, it's free, and you can redistribute it but only if you ask me and I say yes.

Fbot1
September 30th, 2007, 10:17 PM
RAR is crap. Your often better off with other tools. If you don't like ark or fileroller then use this : http://peazip.sourceforge.net/

ryanVickers
September 30th, 2007, 10:20 PM
It actually has better compression than anything else (except for 7z) as far as I can see, and it's the only compression/archiving tool that I've found so far that allows split archives, which is the intension of this script; to create split archives, regardless of how good/bad the format itself is (and it actually is good).

Fbot1
September 30th, 2007, 10:29 PM
It actually has better compression than anything else (except for 7z) as far as I can see, and it's the only compression/archiving tool that I've found so far that allows split archives, which is the intension of this script; to create split archives, regardless of how good/bad the format itself is (and it actually is good).

The best compression is PWCM then the PAQ algorithms. Peazip allows split archives.

ryanVickers
September 30th, 2007, 10:36 PM
ok then, you should have said that in the first place :)

Also, what exactly do you mean by "your often better off with other tools"?

Fbot1
September 30th, 2007, 10:44 PM
ok then, you should have said that in the first place :)

Also, what exactly do you mean by "your often better off with other tools"?

you're

ryanVickers
September 30th, 2007, 10:46 PM
yes, that's correct, but what do you mean! :p

Fbot1
September 30th, 2007, 11:02 PM
yes, that's correct, but what do you mean! :p

Oh, I thought you were pointing out my spelling mistake. I mean that there are better things out there than RAR. Try Peazip out and maybe you'll see what I mean.

ryanVickers
September 30th, 2007, 11:13 PM
I knew there were slightly better things (like 7z :)) but I hadn't heard of that or I wouldn't have made this! :p

Oh well, I don't regret it one bit - it's been a valuable learning experience, and for anyone who still wants rars, and something easier to install :p, this will do! :)

mssever
October 1st, 2007, 12:47 AM
By the way, another reason why RAR is unnecessary is because with Linux you can split ANY file. Just use the split command, and use cat to put the file back together. I've done this before when I had to rescue files off of a severely messed up system and didn't have a large enough flash drive for the job.

Also, given the discussion of different compression formats, are there any such formats that do the Right Thing and only compress a single file while performing better than gzip and bzip2? 7zip does the Wrong Thing by being both an archive program and a compression program. Zip is wrong here, to. Tar is a good archive program, and there may be others, but if a program does both functions, then what do you do when you only need one?

ryanVickers
October 1st, 2007, 01:07 AM
I don't know!? I've never seen anything wrong with it being an archive and compression format - is there a downside to this? If you want, you could just turn the compression on rar down to 0, and then wouldn't it be just an archive?

mssever
October 1st, 2007, 01:46 AM
I don't know!? I've never seen anything wrong with it being an archive and compression format - is there a downside to this? If you want, you could just turn the compression on rar down to 0, and then wouldn't it be just an archive?

If you turned RAR's compression down to 0, RAR would cease to have a reason to exist in the Linux world. As I mentioned before, you can split a file of any format into arbitrarily-sized chunks using the split command, which is available on every Linux system. And as an archive format goes, I've never used RAR, but it clearly had its beginning on a Microsoft platform (because there would have been no need for it in the *nix world). Because of that, I'm sure it doesn't support *nix file permissions or symlinks.

As far as separating functions goes, you should read Eric S. Raymond's book The Art of Unix Programming (http://www.catb.org/%7Eesr/writings/taoup/html/index.html), which is available free on the web. He explains why the *nix maxim that programs should do one thing well is a great idea. Basically, because I have the split command, I can split any file. If it's built into an archive format, I can only split RAR archives. Or, if I have gzip, I can compress any file (type locate .gz | less to see how common this really is), but if I only have zip, I can only compress Zip archives. If I have a tar archive, I can choose how I want to compress it (or I can choose not to compress it). If I have zip or RAR, I don't have that choice.

EDIT: The *nix maxim I mentioned is one reason why you were able to write your script in bash in the first place. Bash doesn't do much on its own; most of what it does is calling other programs. And if all those programs were monolithic behemoths, it would be very difficult to write a script to do exactly what you want to do.

Fbot1
October 1st, 2007, 02:39 AM
Also, given the discussion of different compression formats, are there any such formats that do the Right Thing and only compress a single file while performing better than gzip and bzip2? 7zip does the Wrong Thing by being both an archive program and a compression program. Zip is wrong here, to. Tar is a good archive program, and there may be others, but if a program does both functions, then what do you do when you only need one?

If you want a compressor/archiver to archive you set it to "store" or "0". If you want a compressor/archiver to compress you just do what you normally do. If you really want to follow your religion then just tar first. Here are some compressor-only suggestions:
http://tukaani.org/lzma/
http://www.cs.fit.edu/~mmahoney/compression/#lpaq (lpaq)

ryanVickers
October 1st, 2007, 02:40 AM
Exactly!

and you can do that with my rar maker - just set the compression to 0!

mssever
October 1st, 2007, 05:43 AM
If you want a compressor/archiver to archive you set it to "store" or "0". If you want a compressor/archiver to compress you just do what you normally do. If you really want to follow your religion then just tar first. Here are some compressor-only suggestions:
http://tukaani.org/lzma/
http://www.cs.fit.edu/~mmahoney/compression/#lpaq (http://www.cs.fit.edu/%7Emmahoney/compression/#lpaq) (lpaq)

Thanks for those links. But your comments suggest that you missed my point. I already explained why setting the compression factor to 0 isn't a good solution.

By the way, before labeling this a religious issue, it would be good to see whether or not there's any technical merit to what I've said. I've given technical reasons for why I believe that having separate programs is better. If my reasons are wrong, or simply unimportant, fine; give me a technical reason why. Calling it a religious issue without giving solid reasons makes it appear that you don't know what you're talking about.

papatrpt89
October 1st, 2007, 03:14 PM
Thanks very much for this script! Well written and useful. I have an mp3 that I need to split and upload to the web in 100MB chunks, and this has made it very easy. Thanks again for the script! :)

ryanVickers
October 2nd, 2007, 12:40 AM
Thanks for those links. But your comments suggest that you missed my point. I already explained why setting the compression factor to 0 isn't a good solution.

By the way, before labeling this a religious issue, it would be good to see whether or not there's any technical merit to what I've said. I've given technical reasons for why I believe that having separate programs is better. If my reasons are wrong, or simply unimportant, fine; give me a technical reason why. Calling it a religious issue without giving solid reasons makes it appear that you don't know what you're talking about.

True. But could you then explain in very non-technical, or at least simple as possible, terms why this is a good idea (archiveing and compression being seperte)? :) Just wondering myself...

Fbot1
October 2nd, 2007, 09:40 PM
I already explained why setting the compression factor to 0 isn't a good solution.

Not really...

mssever
October 3rd, 2007, 12:19 AM
I briefly explained it in post 47. See http://www.catb.org/%7Eesr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s06.html for a bit more. (The whole book is a fascinating read, but this chapter is an overview.) The idea is that programs should do one thing well. Fbot1 pointed me to a separate lzma program, which is what I was hoping existed.

I want to clarify that I'm not at all criticizing your program. Building a graphical frontend for RAR is a very reasonable thing to do, if you're going to use RAR. But RAR is a MS-like solution, not a Linux-like one. I've never used RAR, but I'm guessing that its archive format wasn't designed for *nix, and doesn't support *nix permissions or symlinks. If I'm correct in that assumption, then RAR would be an inappropriate format for a lot of *nix stuff, because it would mangle important data. (ZIP falls in this category.) This is where tar is a better archive format for *nix users.

Now, most people, when they create archives, want to compress them. So, it makes sense to allow the archive program to also compress. Tar does this via the -z and -j switches, for gzip and bzip2 compression respectively. But those switches are more or less there for convenience (convenience is a good thing). The archive is tar, and the compression is whatever you choose. I usually choose which compression algorithm to use based on which one works better for some particular file; I choose by trying one then the other. Sometimes one wins, sometimes the other wins.

So, following *nix best practices, you would have an assembly of tools to create split archives: tar or something similar, a compression program (gzip, bzip2, lzma, etc.), and a file splitting program (split). You then combine them as appropriate to get just the result you need. Of course, you would likely want to add convenience by writing a script that hooks them together in some way--such as your program. But underneath, there's still the flexibility to use the best tool for the job.

Again, this isn't a criticism of you, it's a criticism of RAR. Even then, Windows design patterns make it very difficult to use a bunch of tools that "do one thing well," so a program like RAR makes sense on Windows. And, of course some Linux users will want to be able to extract RAR archives that come from Windows sources, so having a rar program makes sense on Linux. But not for making native archives.

Fbot1
October 3rd, 2007, 03:26 AM
I briefly explained it in post 47. See http://www.catb.org/%7Eesr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s06.html for a bit more. (The whole book is a fascinating read, but this chapter is an overview.) The idea is that programs should do one thing well.
...
I've never used RAR, but I'm guessing that its archive format wasn't designed for *nix, and doesn't support *nix permissions or symlinks. If I'm correct in that assumption, then RAR would be an inappropriate format for a lot of *nix stuff, because it would mangle important data. (ZIP falls in this category.) This is where tar is a better archive format for *nix users.

Now, most people, when they create archives, want to compress them. So, it makes sense to allow the archive program to also compress. Tar does this via the -z and -j switches, for gzip and bzip2 compression respectively. But those switches are more or less there for convenience (convenience is a good thing). The archive is tar, and the compression is whatever you choose. I usually choose which compression algorithm to use based on which one works better for some particular file; I choose by trying one then the other. Sometimes one wins, sometimes the other wins.

So, following *nix best practices, you would have an assembly of tools to create split archives: tar or something similar, a compression program (gzip, bzip2, lzma, etc.), and a file splitting program (split). You then combine them as appropriate to get just the result you need. Of course, you would likely want to add convenience by writing a script that hooks them together in some way--such as your program. But underneath, there's still the flexibility to use the best tool for the job.
...

Using one archiver is a bad idea. Take tar's and PAQ8's method of archiving and gzip's and PAQ8's method of compressing.Archiving with tar and compressing with PAQ8 would be stupid because it would render a lot of PAQ8's models useless (hurting performance). Archiving with PAQ8's method and compressing with gzip would be stupid because gzip doesn't correctly utilize PAQ8's method (wasting space).

ryanVickers
October 3rd, 2007, 03:37 AM
Also, I curse .gz compression (and probably bz2 as well) and all who enjoy it because it corrupts anything over 2Gb, and if it didn't then your very lucky!!! - more here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=478932)

Although, now that I re-visit that site, I think it's kind of ironic - all of you who like this script should thank .gx for being so crappy because if it wasn't I'd never have began my journey into the world of scripting! :p (if your confused, then read the posts! :))

mssever
October 3rd, 2007, 04:32 AM
Using one archiver is a bad idea. Take tar's and PAQ8's method of archiving and gzip's and PAQ8's method of compressing.Archiving with tar and compressing with PAQ8 would be stupid because it would render a lot of PAQ8's models useless (hurting performance). Archiving with PAQ8's method and compressing with gzip would be stupid because gzip doesn't correctly utilize PAQ8's method (wasting space).
I've never argued for One True Archiver. I've said that the archiver and compressor should be separate programs, but could be used together or glued together with a script for convenience. tar is the only standalone archive format I know of, so naturally I've used it in the examples I've given. So far, I haven't found a need for another archiver, but that doesn't mean that I never will have a need for something different.

Also, I curse .gz compression (and probably bz2 as well) and all who enjoy it because it corrupts anything over 2Gb, and if it didn't then your very lucky!!! - more here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=478932)
Do you have any evidence that gzip corrupts large files? That seems to be highly unlikely, and I didn't find anything to that effect on Wikipedia--however (un)reliable that may be. Theoretically, the maximum file size that gzip can compress should be limited only by available memory.

You seem to be basing your assertion on the thread you linked to which contained no evidence that gzip was to blame. Tar was more likely at fault. Even then, though, it appears that tar can handle archives of at least 8 GiB, depending on the version.

While gzip isn't the best compression algorithm out there, making unfounded allegations doesn't help any.

By the way, while I'm glad to know about lzma, I can't imagine using it very often. The main reason I create compressed archives is to distribute files, so I have to choose compression methods that can be decompressed on any target machine. Requiring users to install special decompression software would be crazy. That means that if the intended audience is using *nix, my only two reasonable format options are .tar.gz and .tar.bz2 (I usually compare both to see which performs best for a given archive). On Windows, there's only one reasonable option: Zip.

Fbot1
October 3rd, 2007, 09:28 PM
I've never argued for One True Archiver. I've said that the archiver and compressor should be separate programs, but could be used together or glued together with a script for convenience. tar is the only standalone archive format I know of, so naturally I've used it in the examples I've given. So far, I haven't found a need for another archiver, but that doesn't mean that I never will have a need for something different.


The problem with that is it hurts performance and uselessly adds complexity. There's just no point in making the archive separate (especially when only one compressor uses it).

ryanVickers
October 3rd, 2007, 10:54 PM
I've never argued for One True Archiver. I've said that the archiver and compressor should be separate programs, but could be used together or glued together with a script for convenience. tar is the only standalone archive format I know of, so naturally I've used it in the examples I've given. So far, I haven't found a need for another archiver, but that doesn't mean that I never will have a need for something different.

Do you have any evidence that gzip corrupts large files? That seems to be highly unlikely, and I didn't find anything to that effect on Wikipedia--however (un)reliable that may be. Theoretically, the maximum file size that gzip can compress should be limited only by available memory.

You seem to be basing your assertion on the thread you linked to which contained no evidence that gzip was to blame. Tar was more likely at fault. Even then, though, it appears that tar can handle archives of at least 8 GiB, depending on the version.

While gzip isn't the best compression algorithm out there, making unfounded allegations doesn't help any.

By the way, while I'm glad to know about lzma, I can't imagine using it very often. The main reason I create compressed archives is to distribute files, so I have to choose compression methods that can be decompressed on any target machine. Requiring users to install special decompression software would be crazy. That means that if the intended audience is using *nix, my only two reasonable format options are .tar.gz and .tar.bz2 (I usually compare both to see which performs best for a given archive). On Windows, there's only one reasonable option: Zip.

Hey, if you know for a fact otherwise, and can prove me wrong, power to you, but that's just my encounter, twice, and I read it somewhere that they are not designed for stuff bigger than 2Gb! I just had to warn people...

mssever
October 4th, 2007, 03:39 AM
The problem with that is it hurts performance and uselessly adds complexity. There's just no point in making the archive separate (especially when only one compressor uses it).

Generally speaking, one program is more complex than two, because that single program has to do more. If you can write two completely separate programs, then each program keeps its own complexity, but can't mess with the other's internals, thus driving down complexity. Also, because each program is separate, a bug in one doesn't affect the other.

Whether one program or two makes sense depends on the intended use. Most of the time, compressed archives are used for one of two purposes:
1) Storing little-used data, such as backups; or 2) transferring files over a network. For such purposes, programs that are safe and bug-free are more desirable than those that perform 1% faster. Segregating the tools into separate programs lowers total complexity and promotes better code overall. (If one piece is sub-par, someone else can come along and replace it without having to reinvent the wheel.) Beware of premature optimization.

In areas where the archived data is expected to be accessed regularly, especially if random access is expected, tar is clearly inadequate for the job. For example, OpenOffice files are really Zip archives containing a number of XML files. Because Zip compresses each file individually, it's much better than tar for random access and so is an appropriate choice. An archive format such as Zip that compresses files individually would be harder to implement as two separate programs.

Overall, though, it's best not to add complexity unless you can prove by implementation that no simpler solution works. In the *nix world, that usually means small programs that do one thing well.

ryanVickers
October 4th, 2007, 05:23 AM
Ok, you've made your point, and I agree (I think :))

Just one question - is a "true" archiving format, like .tar, faster to create or read than a compression format like, rar, say, set to zero compression?
I'll let you answer while I run my own tests... :)

ryanVickers
October 4th, 2007, 05:28 AM
Well, I was actually expecting tar to win, but rar bets it for speed in a "just archiving" contest!

mssever
October 4th, 2007, 05:56 AM
Interesting test. I'm curious; did you test creation speed or extraction speed? I know that tar performs terribly if you want to extract a single file that just happens to be at the end of the archive since it doesn't really support random access. I presume that rar is better there. I'm also curious as to how much difference there was.

For example, I've been doing a little comparison between lzma and bz2. Lzma takes a lot longer to compress, but decompresses much faster. (I always use maximum compression. If I'm going to compress a file, why not go all the way?) While lzma produces smaller files than bz2, they aren't a whole lot smaller.

I'm also thinking about finding or generating a large (<2Gib) file and seeing if I can corrupt it with gz and tar. :)

EDIT: By the way, I miss your old avatar :)

Fbot1
October 4th, 2007, 09:50 PM
Generally speaking, one program is more complex than two, because that single program has to do more. If you can write two completely separate programs, then each program keeps its own complexity, but can't mess with the other's internals, thus driving down complexity. Also, because each program is separate, a bug in one doesn't affect the other.

Whether one program or two makes sense depends on the intended use. Most of the time, compressed archives are used for one of two purposes:
1) Storing little-used data, such as backups; or 2) transferring files over a network. For such purposes, programs that are safe and bug-free are more desirable than those that perform 1% faster. Segregating the tools into separate programs lowers total complexity and promotes better code overall. (If one piece is sub-par, someone else can come along and replace it without having to reinvent the wheel.) Beware of premature optimization.

In areas where the archived data is expected to be accessed regularly, especially if random access is expected, tar is clearly inadequate for the job. For example, OpenOffice files are really Zip archives containing a number of XML files. Because Zip compresses each file individually, it's much better than tar for random access and so is an appropriate choice. An archive format such as Zip that compresses files individually would be harder to implement as two separate programs.

Overall, though, it's best not to add complexity unless you can prove by implementation that no simpler solution works. In the *nix world, that usually means small programs that do one thing well.

Isolating it would just hinder it. You have to make sure tar tars and gzip gzips. Generally with bugs in compressors are very obvious, they generally never make it into a release. A bug in one still affects the other anyway; there mostly useless without each other (again especially PAQ ). By performance I meant how well it compresses. It is easy to implement individually compressing files.

ryanVickers
October 5th, 2007, 04:35 AM
Interesting test. I'm curious; did you test creation speed or extraction speed? I know that tar performs terribly if you want to extract a single file that just happens to be at the end of the archive since it doesn't really support random access. I presume that rar is better there. I'm also curious as to how much difference there was.

For example, I've been doing a little comparison between lzma and bz2. Lzma takes a lot longer to compress, but decompresses much faster. (I always use maximum compression. If I'm going to compress a file, why not go all the way?) While lzma produces smaller files than bz2, they aren't a whole lot smaller.

I'm also thinking about finding or generating a large (<2Gib) file and seeing if I can corrupt it with gz and tar. :)

EDIT: By the way, I miss your old avatar :)

Well, I tested creating, and then just clicking and opening (temporary extract to somewhere :)), and if I remember correctly, the tar was about 14 seconds and the rar was about 11 on a ~200Mb folder I believe. the reading was instant for rar and about 1 to 2 seconds for tar.

Edit: about the avatar, I needed a change :) I always liked this (http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/thumbs/small/452325_lpoah/tux_Gandalf.png) one, but you know... in use ;)

mssever
October 5th, 2007, 05:40 AM
I'm also thinking about finding or generating a large (<2Gib) file and seeing if I can corrupt it with gz and tar. :)
Well, I made myself a 3.2 GB tarball and copied it. I used md5sum to verify that the two copies were identical. I gzipped it and ungzipped it several times, and didn't succeed in corrupting it. I would have used a larger file, but I don't have the disk space.

ryanVickers
October 5th, 2007, 05:42 AM
Interesting. Well, I just don't trust them anymore - and to think I switched to it because I thought it would be better just because it was a Linux format :p Oh well. Most of that fiasco is resolved now...

Anyways, I've done some more tests and documented them rather well I think :) Have a look!

As you can see, RAR is better at just archiving, but when it comes to compression, it's MUCH slower, but compresses way better! You decide which is more important - size or speed, and of course knowing it won't corrupt randomly :p

mssever
October 5th, 2007, 05:58 AM
Your results look comparable to my tests of lzma vs bzip2, though yours are more detailed. Rar produces somewhat smaller file sizes (but not hugely smaller). It takes quite a bit longer to compress, and in my tests--which aren't so much borne out in yours--lzma uncomprressed considerably faster. If lzma were standard on Linux machines, I think I'd start using it for distributing files.

One question about rar, though. I've speculated several times that rar doesn't preserve Linux permissions or support symlinks. Am I correct? If I'm wrong, I just might have to eat a bite or two of crow. :)

mssever
October 5th, 2007, 06:00 AM
Just caught your edit. I think that size vs speed depends on the application. If I'm backing up files or releasing a new version of a program I wrote, size is probably most important. If I'm writing my own open document format based on ODF, :) then speed is more important.

ryanVickers
October 6th, 2007, 02:38 AM
Your results look comparable to my tests of lzma vs bzip2, though yours are more detailed. Rar produces somewhat smaller file sizes (but not hugely smaller). It takes quite a bit longer to compress, and in my tests--which aren't so much borne out in yours--lzma uncomprressed considerably faster. If lzma were standard on Linux machines, I think I'd start using it for distributing files.

One question about rar, though. I've speculated several times that rar doesn't preserve Linux permissions or support symlinks. Am I correct? If I'm wrong, I just might have to eat a bite or two of crow. :)

I don't know about symbolic links, but it does save the permissions quite nicely (I just tested it :))

mssever
October 7th, 2007, 09:46 PM
I don't know about symbolic links, but it does save the permissions quite nicely (I just tested it :))


meal = crow.shoot()
meal.cook()
me.eat(meal)
:)

ryanVickers
October 7th, 2007, 09:51 PM
meal = crow.shoot()
meal.cook()
me.eat(meal):)
:-k

mssever
October 7th, 2007, 09:54 PM
:-k
Pseudocode for "I'm eating crow."

ryanVickers
October 7th, 2007, 09:58 PM
why? :p

in flash that would be '_root.crow.eat'
(location, instance name, and action ;))

or if you wanted to make it "eaten" when it comes near you (if you want all of it):

onClipEvent(load)
{
if (_root.crow._x && _root.crow._y == _root.you._x && _root.you._y)
{_root.crow._visible = false}
}

ryanVickers
October 15th, 2007, 01:06 AM
I am looking for someone to help with getting this thing to accept names with spaces in them - ex. right now, you cannot archive a folder names "my File", but I'm hoping to be able to in version 2.0. Anyone up to the task? :p

Frak
October 15th, 2007, 01:15 AM
What ever happened to the handy "_"

ryanVickers
October 15th, 2007, 01:17 AM
yeah, but people aren't getting any smarter - why do you think I made this script graphical?! :p If the general population knew about the advantages of _ over , then they probably wouldn't be terrified of a command line either! ;)

ryanVickers
October 15th, 2007, 04:31 AM
wait - I'm on the verge of solving it! :) :) :)

ryanVickers
October 15th, 2007, 04:44 AM
nope - thought I had it, but no. I do have a solution (I think), but it would mean the loss of a couple great features (it's adapting technology ;)) :(


you would have to do more typing and less picking from a nice auto-generated list, but it would archive stuff with spaces!...

Frak
October 15th, 2007, 05:04 AM
Then why don't you take a different approach to achieve the same goal?

ryanVickers
October 15th, 2007, 10:57 PM
I have a few tweaking ideas, but yes, I'm on it! :)

ryanVickers
October 16th, 2007, 03:01 AM
I've cracked it! I've solved the mystery! It's done, and with a few minor tweaks to make it work perfectly, it's ready for release!!! :)

Frak
October 16th, 2007, 03:04 AM
Yay :)

ryanVickers
October 16th, 2007, 04:31 AM
well, I still secretly nickname it version 1.9.9.9.9.9, but it's done! ;)

Frak
October 16th, 2007, 04:32 AM
well, I still secretly nickname it version 1.9.9.9.9.9, but it's done! ;)
:lolflag:

ryanVickers
October 16th, 2007, 04:39 AM
WELL, I didn't exactly get in the feature I was hoping for, but I made some other improvements, changed the license, and seeing as what I wanted to do is actually impossible ;), I say it's done! :p

Frak
October 16th, 2007, 04:42 AM
Give me a couple of days and I'll whip up a Debian Package of this.

ryanVickers
October 16th, 2007, 04:45 AM
wow, thanks a lot! That would mean no more updater script ;)

Do think I could get it into the repos? We could work together on this and of course you'd get credit for creating the package, help with getting it entered, ... Basically, I write the script, and you do the packaging, uploading, etc. and we get credit for whichever work is done obviously ;)

Frak
October 16th, 2007, 04:50 AM
wow, thanks a lot! That would mean no more updater script ;)

Do think I could get it into the repos? We could work together on this and of course you'd get credit for creating the package, help with getting it entered, ... Basically, I write the script, and you do the packaging, uploading, etc. and we get credit for whichever work is done obviously ;)
Sure, I could upload it to the REVU (http://revu.tauware.de/) for review from the MOTU and Debian Packagers into the repositories.

All I have to do is fix the mysterious GPG "Could not sign .dsc file" problem. Which nobody has a clue about apparently.

EDIT
Think I fixed it ;)

ryanVickers
October 16th, 2007, 04:55 AM
...All I have to do is fix the mysterious GPG "Could not sign .dsc file" problem. Which nobody has a clue about appearantly.

yeah, sounds about right! ;)

From what I could dig up, it looks like it's some file that deals with the authenticity, and all that that implies to any problem with it... :p

Yeah, I don't know...? :-k

ryanVickers
October 16th, 2007, 04:56 AM
...EDIT
Think I fixed it ;)

that was fast! I was expecting that is was some long-held inexplainable defect with your install, but that good then ;)

Frak
October 16th, 2007, 04:56 AM
yeah, sounds about right! ;)

From what I could dig up, it looks like it's some file that deals with the authenticity, and all that that implies to any problem with it... :p

Yeah, I don't know...? :-k
I think I forgot to re-source by ~/.bashrc file, I think I fixed it, but I'll wait till tomorrow to try something else if that doesn't work.

ryanVickers
October 16th, 2007, 04:57 AM
whenever ;)

mysurface
October 17th, 2007, 05:07 AM
I see you have done a wonderful job using zenity. I got a suggestion on the file selection at the end of the dialog, you can use

zenity --file-selection, that will allow users to browse the file instead of having to type themselves.

Check out zenity examples here (http://linux.byexamples.com/archives/259/a-complete-zenity-dialog-examples-1/).

You can always use rar command line to split files, although with GUI is handy :P
rar command line split examples here (http://linux.byexamples.com/archives/226/compress-to-multiple-volume-rar/).

ryanVickers
October 17th, 2007, 05:21 AM
I was thinking of doing the file selection dialog, but it doesn't let you pick folder, does it!? ;) Only opens them to select a file unfortunately - would save me a lot of headaches... :p

oct 31 edit: I guess it does ;) You can find this feature in the "new interface/normal" version of 2.1 or higher...

slavik
October 22nd, 2007, 05:50 AM
Well, I have to critisize some things ...

1. Running as a command or not ... what's the point of checking that???
2. Installing the script ... why does this give me a windowsy feel? If you want people to install your script into /usr/bin, then provide a package
3. This script installs into /bin?! WTF?! /bin is for things like ls and cd, not for your script. Your script is not something an admin uses in an emergency when the /usr filesystem is unavailable.
4. Why do you install packages on behalf of the user? This also has a windowsy "press next to continue" install routines. Instead you should tell them to install the stuff and run the script again.
5. #4 but for unrar and dpkg
6. You assume that dpkg will succeed which is not always the case
7. Please use either Zenity for user interaction or the terminal, not both.

Suggestion:
Make a GTK utility to build the command line for rar. Single screen to select all the options and a button to run it (and a text display for the command).

Frak
October 22nd, 2007, 06:06 AM
Well, I have to critisize some things ...

1. Running as a command or not ... what's the point of checking that???
2. Installing the script ... why does this give me a windowsy feel? If you want people to install your script into /usr/bin, then provide a package
3. This script installs into /bin?! WTF?! /bin is for things like ls and cd, not for your script. Your script is not something an admin uses in an emergency when the /usr filesystem is unavailable.
4. Why do you install packages on behalf of the user? This also has a windowsy "press next to continue" install routines. Instead you should tell them to install the stuff and run the script again.
5. #4 but for unrar and dpkg
6. You assume that dpkg will succeed which is not always the case
7. Please use either Zenity for user interaction or the terminal, not both.

Suggestion:
Make a GTK utility to build the command line for rar. Single screen to select all the options and a button to run it (and a text display for the command).
Then modify it, no need to yell at the author to do something, you seem competent enough.

ryanVickers
October 22nd, 2007, 10:57 PM
yeah, if you know enough to have complaints about where it goes, like /bin or /usr/bin, chances are you know enough to tweak it to your liking ;)

ryanVickers
October 22nd, 2007, 10:59 PM
Suggestion:
Make a GTK utility to build the command line for rar. Single screen to select all the options and a button to run it (and a text display for the command).

I have to say, I would very much like it to be one window with all the options, but Zenity is not yet* capable of that, and using any other tools, I just couldn't do ;)
*I saw a list of things they are hoping to change/add - multiple "things" in one big window was one of them ;)

slavik
October 23rd, 2007, 01:05 AM
Perl + GTK :)

ryanVickers
October 23rd, 2007, 01:06 AM
your in luck! I just happen to not know either! ;) :p

slavik
October 23rd, 2007, 01:16 AM
http://www.gnome.org/~newren/tutorials/developing-with-gnome/html/apc.html

:) has 4 languages.

ryanVickers
October 23rd, 2007, 01:18 AM
I may consider re-writing it at some later date, but in the mean time if you wish to re-write it yourself in whatever language you see fit and republish it... ;)

ryanVickers
November 1st, 2007, 03:26 AM
I've added a text-based version that I've been wanting to do for some time, and never did for some reason that remains unknown to this day... :D check it out! I'm always open to ideas! ;) ('unfortunately', it's still in bash, installs to /bin, and requires itself to be a command and have rar installed :p)

go_beep_yourself
November 17th, 2007, 07:25 PM
I get better compression by using p7zip and the split command.

ryanVickers
November 17th, 2007, 07:27 PM
yes, 7z is probably the best compression, but RAR is very close behind and I knew the commands to create this program working with RAR, not 7z. If you care to re-work it using 7z, be my guest! Seriously!! :p

ryanVickers
November 24th, 2007, 09:09 PM
well, this marks the 64th day anniversary since the first text based version was released on September 24th, and I'm not talking about the mkrarTB version 1.0 we have now - that's a port of 2.1. I'm talking about the very first release when this project got started! In honour of this, I would like to provide a copy of the original version 1 source so everyone can see how far it's came! In addition to this, I am happy to report that there has been only 1 report to me of any problems, out of the ~100+ people that now have at least one or another copy/version of this script, and furthermore, the problem wasn't necessary with the script, but with the sub-script that checks if you have all the necessary sub-apps installed!

Now, this is truly version 1:

echo -n "cd to where?: "
read goto
echo -n "enter size of archive(s) (in millions of bytes): "
read size
echo -n "enter file/folder to archive (NOT path): "
read folder
echo -n "enter archive name: "
read name
cd $goto
rar a -v$size"M" $name.rar $folder

If you thought I meant version 1 of the graphical line after this really got on track, then here's that:


#!/bin/bash
zenity --info --text "At anytime, or now, if you wish to exit, simply close the terminal, or click cancel on one of the dialogs. Of course, if this is done in the middle of the archiving process, there is a chance that the already completed archives will be useless or corrupt.";

where=$(zenity --entry --text "Where is the file/folder you wish to archive?" --entry-text $HOME);

if [ "$?" -eq "0" ]
then

size=$(zenity --entry --text "Please enter the maximum size for the archive (in millions of bytes) (will split to this size if necessary):" --entry-text "50");

if [ "$?" -eq "0" ]
then

folder=$(zenity --entry --text "What is the folder/file you wish to archive called?" --entry-text "Images");

if [ "$?" -eq "0" ]
then

name=$(zenity --entry --text "What should we call the archive(s)?" --entry-text $folder"-splitRAR");

if [ "$?" -eq "0" ]
then

cd $where
zenity --info --text "Note: This may take several minutes depending on the quantity and size of the files"
zenity --question --text "So, you want to make a RAR of the folder/file called '"$folder"', put it in "$where", call the archive(s) '"$name"', and split them (if necessary) into "$size" million byte pieces?"
if [ "$?" -eq "0" ]
then
rar a -v$size"M" $name.rar $folder
exit 0
else
exit 0
fi
exit 0
else
exit 0
fi
exit 0
else
exit 0
fi
exit 0
else
exit 0
fi
else
exit 0
fi

rasmusbp
November 26th, 2007, 11:56 PM
Great project, thanks! I have a noob question: I can't install. There's no "run in terminal" option in my nautilus. And I don't know enough about terminal commands to make it work the old-fashioned way. Can you help?
Also, which version is the newest one - the one with the modified interface, or the "other one"?

Thanks a lot!

Best,
Rasmus

ryanVickers
November 27th, 2007, 01:40 AM
when you save, download, or in any way make a text file, you need to save it and then right-click and go into the properties --> permissions, and make it executable. Then, you should be able to pick on click view, run, or run in terminal (or cancel).

If there is no choice, I believe you can pick what to do when opening a text file in the file browsing options

oh, and sorry I didn't answer the other question - the modified interface and the normal one are both version 2.1, but technically, the non-modified one is newer because I invented it when I came out with 2.1. In worry that some people may not like it, I decided to provide version 2.1 with the new and old interface, so its your pick :D

BoardDWorld
November 28th, 2007, 11:58 AM
This is quite cool. After 40 days when RAR expires will it continue to work? Thanks a mill!

ryanVickers
November 28th, 2007, 04:26 PM
yeah, since it never expires :lolflag:
seriously, they say it's like a 30 day trial or something, but mines been working for numerous months now... :p

ashmew2
January 5th, 2008, 06:40 AM
Vickers , ur the man !
Great job :D

ryanVickers
January 6th, 2008, 07:31 AM
Glad to have satisfied another valued user :D

ryanVickers
January 10th, 2008, 12:57 AM
uh oh! I just noticed there's one download on the Genuine Advantage script... I haven't had 1 bug report since version 1.8.7 back in November!... or whenever that was... along time ago, and there was only ever 1 report of a problem!! *bites nails anxiously* :p

Sionide
January 26th, 2008, 12:58 PM
This is brilliant stuff! Can't you merge code with file roller though? So file roller can make split part archives...? Then it's all in one app..

Still, excellent script.. took one google to find it. Thanks a bunch.

Sockerdrickan
January 26th, 2008, 02:33 PM
It didn't work and the process of creating an archive is way too advanced. Make something like winrar.exe

ryanVickers
January 26th, 2008, 05:54 PM
It didn't work and the process of creating an archive is way too advanced. Make something like winrar.exe
That is what I tried to do - to do what this script does (by simply asking for input) on the command line, you would have to type
nice -n <priority to run at> rar a <options to run with>-m<compression level> -v<size to split to><units to split with> <archive to be made name> <file/folder to archive>If it is still too time consuming, you could try good ol' version 1 of "makerar" (shown above somewhere) ;)


This is brilliant stuff! Can't you merge code with file roller though? So file roller can make split part archives...? Then it's all in one app..

Still, excellent script.. took one google to find it. Thanks a bunch.
Thanks a lot! I do not believe that this could be merged with file-roller however because that is a C++ (I'm assuming) application, and this is just a BASH script :(
I do believe that everyone would benefit if file-roller could be upgraded to include all possible features and options when creating archives :KS


For Everyone's Info: I am learning python, and TKinter as well so hopefully, this will eventually be all converted to a python script that consists of 1 window with all the options, instead of all the separate ones!!

bschleusner
January 26th, 2008, 11:08 PM
a password cracking program for rar files would useful. :)

ryanVickers
January 26th, 2008, 11:43 PM
Funny you should ask... I'm actually working on that, but its not going well; the main reason is the fact that you have to enter the password manually instead of just having it entered as part of the extraction command, and a few other technical reasons... :(

ryanVickers
January 30th, 2008, 03:08 AM
I have noticed so far 7 downloads of the Genuine Advantage checker script, but no one has come forward with a problem... people just want to verify their install, or what? Someone care to enlighten me? :p

ryanVickers
February 2nd, 2008, 06:21 AM
I have noticed a steady decrease in my overall rating in the last couple of weeks. This has held a rating of over 80% since almost the day it was released, and I am proud of it! If memory serves, I believe it was even in the low 90's for a while, and I am wondering why it has just taken a dip below the 80% line. If you feel this product is not up to your standards, or there is something else causing you to feel negatively towards this project, I would appreciate a comment so I can attempt to remedy the problem.

slavik
February 2nd, 2008, 08:16 AM
Funny you should ask... I'm actually working on that, but its not going well; the main reason is the fact that you have to enter the password manually instead of just having it entered as part of the extraction command, and a few other technical reasons... :(
if you want a true rar password cracker, write some code to look directly into rar files and find out what it does to the password when putting it into the file, I would advise against using rar itself to test your password.

ryanVickers
February 2nd, 2008, 04:40 PM
I know, but that involves decryption, etc etc. and so far a brute force would be the easiest, or so I thought... lol

I continue to accept recommendations for the script, and if you think it needs something, please ask instead of just voting down!!

nikoPSK
February 7th, 2008, 04:08 AM
COOL, how would you make that?

ryanVickers
February 7th, 2008, 04:18 AM
it's bash - a file that is just a collection of commands, and it can store variables etc. I used zenity to popup dialogs to collect information, and then it runs RAR with the desired options :D

nikoPSK
February 7th, 2008, 04:40 AM
it's bash - a file that is just a collection of commands, and it can store variables etc. I used zenity to popup dialogs to collect information, and then it runs RAR with the desired options :D

very cool... :D I give my +1, lemme go thank you... :lol:

papuccino1
February 7th, 2008, 06:36 AM
Wow, incredible tool and very very useful Ryan. One suggestion to make a 9.8/10 product a 10/10:

Is there any way you could make a progress bar to show how the compression is going along?

ryanVickers
February 7th, 2008, 07:17 AM
I've been working on that, but it's complicated because RAR actually runs in side of "nice", which is of course in the script, but that doesn't matter. The zenity progress dialog is highly complicated and dysfunctional, but since I'm planning on re-making it in Python and TKinter, in theory this should then become an easy task! :D

papuccino1
February 8th, 2008, 03:20 PM
Can't wait for the new script then. Beautiful work, once again. :)

nikoPSK
February 8th, 2008, 04:44 PM
why is he banned... :cry:

papuccino1
February 8th, 2008, 06:01 PM
He got freaking banned?! What the HELL?!

nikoPSK
February 8th, 2008, 09:28 PM
He got freaking banned?! What the HELL?!

I know... :(:(:(

antisocialist
February 20th, 2008, 08:36 AM
does it have the feature to combine up to four split rar's? cuz thats all I really need...

nikoPSK
February 21st, 2008, 03:07 PM
does it have the feature to combine up to four split rar's? cuz thats all I really need...

Give ryan an email?

LaRoza
February 21st, 2008, 03:12 PM
Acting as moderator:

Since this thread is out of the OP's hands, I am closing it.