Talk:7-Zip/Archives/2013/May

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

volume support seems misleading

This looks wrong:-

  • 7-Zip flexibly supports volumes of dynamically variable sizes, useful for backups on removable media such as writable CDs and DVDs.

And should instead be:-

  • 7-Zip supports volumes of arbitrary sizes, useful for backups on removable media such as writable CDs and DVDs (but not tapes).

The words "flexibly" and "dynamically variable" incorrect suggest that it can somehow figure stuff out itself, or adjust on-the-fly. I can't see any evidence that it can do this. Also:- http://www.bugaco.com/7zip/MANUAL/switches/volume.htm note that if creating volumes, it needs to be able to re-write to them all - so it can't actually write directly to CDs or DVDs, and can't handle tapes at all.

203.206.137.129 (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing two items

I'm going to remove the following two items from the featurelist:

  • Fast compression and decompression
  • Plugin for FAR Manager

The first seems to purely belong in a product advertisment, not an encyclopedia. The second (the FAR thing) I just don't understand (yeah, I'm being a fascist and taking it out). If someone can explain what this is then it might be okay to replace it (but it needs a decent english sentence explaining it, not just a bulletpoint). -- Finlay McWalter 00:20, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

FAR is a filemanager from rarlabs.com, similar to Midnight Commander. Also we have an article on plugins.

PowerArchiver

I added the external link to PowerArchiver because its how I personally discovered 7Zip. I found PowerArchiver (and thus 7Zip) by accident while looking for a GUI frontend for bzip2 for Windows. My opinion is that PowerArchiver is important in the spread of 7Zip as an example of Free/Open Source Software to show to Windows users. Another good app for this purpose is Firefox. I made a lengthier argument in my blog.

Does this make my addition POV (and is my use of Wiki slang correct? n00b alert, sorry :o) )?

I also discovered AvanceCOMP while meta-researching 7Zip within Wikipedia. My question is which one came first: 7Zip or AdvanceCOMP? -- Lemi4 20:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay then since Power Archiver has been removed, then has any other program (either open or closed) supported the 7z format? Because it is my (perhaps premature) deduction that Power Archiver was the first program outside of 7-Zip itself to support the format (which makes Power Archiver significant in the historical development of 7-Zip) --Lemi4 18:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are many. See comparison of file archivers.

Support in Gnome

This CVS checkin suggests that Gnome 2.10 (sheduled release 2005-03-09) will also have 7-Zip support.

2.14 doesn't seem to have any support, however p7zip provides it. - bruce89 15:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

7zip compresses much better than bzip2

7zip compresses much better than bzip2; using my own open source project as input (which is mainly ASCII files, but we have a .pdf file in there), the bzip2 file was 737967 bytes long, the rzip file was 602539 bytes long, and the 7-zip file was 564453 or 566981 bytes long, depending on whether I tarred it before compressing. Samboy 02:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there any obvious reason why it is not used instead of bzip2 and tar.gz in Linux Package management systems? --85.212.16.35 19:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It isn't nearly as ubiquitous (being 5-10 years newer, developed on win32 first & with *nix versions as an afterthought, and not being embraced by GNU (for example, not being supported explicitly by tar). --Karnesky 20:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect information

This statement is incorrect: It is the first archiver to offer a special 64-bit version for Windows XP Professional x64 Edition

Squeez (www.speedproject.de) was the first to offer a native x64 archiver!

Correct. x64 squeez beta: 04-2005, stable 05-2005; x64 7-zip beta:07-2005, stable 12-2005. -- Karnesky 15:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What does the 7 stand for?

It would be nice to have a "trivia" section that explained what the 7 stands for, either here or in the 7z article. -- wr 9-feb-2006

Re: It stands for nothing, obviously. zip stands for zip (compressing method) and 7 stands for 7 (lucky number). No need in "Trivia" section, maybe only "Trivial" instead... --Yuriy, 17 Mar 2006

Re: If you are interested what Igor himself says about it, see: http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?thread_id=1429172&forum_id=45797:

Now I don't remember reasons for such name (it was in 1998). Maybe there was thought that starting from "7" allows to be in first places in lists sorted by name. (Igor Pavlov, 2006-01-27 03:53)

--84.142.191.237 10:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

just a sidenote: before 7-zip, he was developed archivers named UFA (yes, it's Russian city where Igor lives) and 777 Bulat Ziganshin (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Size limits?

What are the system limits when using 7zip ie max size of files, largest file to zip, max size of archive. Is this OS specific? Does it vary between 7zip and zip format?

I can't see this in the 7-zip docs.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newschapmj1 (talk • contribs).

It is partly file system dependent. FAT32 has a max file size of 4 gigabyte. NTFS has a max file size of 16 terabyte. 7-Zip or 7z might have some limit too though. If you look at the 7z article, you see that it mentions that it can handle up to approx 16 exabytes. -- Frap 17:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The zip standard is limited to 4 GB of data or 65,535 files. Some archivers are able to put more in than this, but then some can't & some won't be able to extract from this large archives. --Karnesky 17:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

How come everyone thinks that every thing is a promotion??

Not everybody thinks everything is promotion, but Wikipedia has a NPOV policy that should be followed and you have to keep your eyes open, because some people tend to use Wikipedia as a marketing platform, and promote their products or services, or write articles about them "in very good light", or they write stuff about their own products, or create articles about small piece of software that nobody ever heard of, just because they made it and want draw attention to it. -- Frap 10:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

support for rar

is the support for rar reverse engineered or was it because this program started as non-free and it was inherited? --MarSch 11:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither. unrar source is distributed under an almost open license that forbids using it to build a RAR archiver. The dll included with 7-zip is under a LGPL-like license which has this (nonfree) exception. --Karnesky 13:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
as of 06 Mar 2011, it is not stated as an exception, it is rather a restriction that makes the program nonfree:
any redistributor of e.g. 7-zip binaries must respect both the LGPL and RAR source license; the LGPL requires
that the whole program should respect users' freedom or it can't be redistributed at all. please check:
http://www.7-zip.org/license.txt ("The GNU LGPL + unRAR restriction means that you must follow both
GNU LGPL rules and unRAR restriction rules") and http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html
(section 4 and section 2) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.77.249.11 (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Changed version to 4.43

I've changed the version from 4.42 to 4.43 AppliArt 19:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, why? 4.42 is still the newest version ... Jasonn 03:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

4.43 is the beta. I cleaned it up so that it lists 4.42 as stable & 4.43 as a preview release. I also fixed release dates & generalized the text of the main article (which improves readability, makes it easier to update, and will prevent conflicting information). --Karnesky 01:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

PPMd Question

I've given 7-Zip a try, and it looks pretty good, but I wonder about one thing. The article concentrates on the LZMA compression, which is 7-Zip's default, but I've gotten clearly better results with the PPMd algorithm on almost all the files I tested it on. Is there an explanation for why PPMd isn't used by default? --Groggy Dice T | C 19:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess you were testing it on text files? — AVRS 14:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Is an API available?

I would very much like to include 7z in my projects and use it via an API. -- Anibalmorales

There is the LZMA SDK. -- Frap 21:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

JZip article nominated for deletion

Please help discuss that on its AfD page. --AVRS 13:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

smzip added

Smzip is now added to the list since 7-zip supports extracting smzip archives. --99.153.135.134 (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"non-free" wording

This revert restored the ghastly "it should be noted that" wording, which is always inappropriate. The summary makes reference to patent issues, but the actual changed text doesn't. This needs to be clarified and rewritten in a neutral and descriptive manner. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wine screenshot

I do believe it is appropriate to have screenshots of the major platforms that can successfully run the software (when the number of screenshots is not excessive). Also, I don't see any disadvantage of this screenshot. It contributes to the article, does not make it excessively big, and weighs only 8.81 KB. Also, the last deleter (Thumperward) said "We've had this discussion". Where is this supposed discussion? Or is he the anonymous user that posted a message to my talk page? -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Software screenshots. The "default configuration" is most certainly not running via a compatibility layer on an entirely different operating system. WP:USEFUL isn't just for AfDs, y'know. The discussion was had on one of the other dozen pages which had this kind of thing on them (SF007 put a huge bunch on Commons, and he's the one who reverted the image back in in the first place). I see that you actually contributed to this image, so I'd appreciate it if you waited for consensus to put it back in rather than just reverting in future. As-is, I don't see any valid reason for it to be used. And no, I'm not the anonymous user - try to assume good faith, thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The image was already there before an anonymous user (who was deleting Ubuntu content in a vast number of articles) deleted it with the justification "This is not relevant to a Windows program, lots of stuff on Windows runs in Wine, should we post all that too to satiate the Ubuntu fanboy appetite?". One of these users sent me a message (with a similar teenager tone) about this. So, when you referred to a discussion (without there being one in this talk page) I suspected you were the anonymous user. But it was merely a suspicion, not an accusation.
And it is backwards to say that I should wait for consensus before undoing the image removal. We need consensus for changes, not for the status quo. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and my contribution to the image was merely to optimize it with advpng. I am not its author, nor do I have emotional feelings towards it. I am merely maintaining the status quo when an anonymous user is deleting Ubuntu content in a vast number of articles with inadequate or no explanation. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding WP:USEFUL: I specifically said that the screenshot contributes to the article, not just that it is "useful". WP:USEFUL clearly says it is about useful but unencyclopedic content.
Regarding Wikipedia:Software screenshots, I didn't even read it. I stopped reading it when I saw this kind of warning:

{{historical}}
Note: This is not an official policy page, merely a request for comments. The text below represents individual suggestions, not the result of discussion and consensus. Please edit and discuss this page as you see fit, rather than trying to implement it as it currently stands.
  1. A suspicion that an editor in good standing is posting anonymous rude messages to one's talk page is an assumption of bad faith.
  2. The screenshot was only added last month, and survived only four edits. It's not the "status quo" at all.
  3. I've never been a fan of the "this editor did something bad, and therefore anything I do which confounds this editor is good". The user in question was indef-blocked for edit warring and civility, not because removing Wine screenshots from Windows articles is a bad thing.
  4. A picture of an actual supported OS would be much more "useful". Given that almost nobody has any interest in running 7-Zip under Wine, the value this image adds is extremely low. I'd take images of any number of variations of actual Windows operating systems before this one.
  5. WP:SCREEN might not have any official status, but its guidelines are still widely followed by the project. Rejecting it without reading it isn't very productive.

Again, this doesn't belong here. If there isn't a better reason than "it is informative to know it runs on Wine" or whatever then it should be removed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
As for bad faith, I merely asked if you were the anonymous user.
Regarding WP:SCREEN: first, it is not just unofficial. Look at the warnings on its top. Second, I cannot know if it reflects existing practice. Third, I don't even think it suggests that we should not have screenshots on different Operating Systems. It seems to mean that the default configuration is preferred, which is likely to mean that, when only one is to be chosen, the default is preferred. I do not see it as discarding the possibility of more than one screenshot.
As for the usefulness: given a random Windows XP program, it is more likely that it runs on Windows 98 or Windows 2000 than on Wine. To show a Wine screenshot is more appropriate than to show screenshots for multiple Windows versions. I believe this screenshot would be useful in Variations section, illustrating the plethora of guis for 7zip. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. WP:SCREEN does reflect existing practice - most of the project's software articles follow the guidelines therein (default configuration, Web screenshots pointed at Wikipedia) and I really should propose it again. As for "it does not discard the possibility", no, but WP:N indicates that non-default configurations are not worth including unless they are notable.
  2. No, this is backwards. You're suggesting that rather than showing the app running on the various versions of Windows - the platform it is supported and developed on - we should show a nonstandard hack of it running on a compatibility layer. While this may be many things ("useful", "informative") it is certainly not "appropriate".
  3. This is not an "alternative GUI for 7zip". It is a hack of the Windows binaries running on Wine. An official Linux version would be appropriate. A Wine version certainly isn't.
I agree with the anon. This is more suitable for the Wine article than the 7-Zip one. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. WP:N seems focused on article topics, instead of article content or, specifically, images.
  2. Screenshots in multiple Windows versions would be redundant. A Wine screenshot illustrates the plethora of ways in which 7-Zip can be run. It is obvious and uninteresting it runs on multiple Windows versions, but not obvious it runs on Wine.
  3. I do think it is an appropriate way of showing the various ways in which 7-Zip can be used, in a section already talking about a plethora of GUIs. That is what I meant with "would be useful in Variations section, illustrating the plethora of guis for 7zip" --Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. While WP:N doesn't directly limit the content of articles, it's still not to be entirely discarded when discussing content.
  2. Hardly. Vista and Windows 98 are nothing alike, for example. And "the plethora of ways in which 7-Zip can be run" is something which would need secondary sourcing, not original research through some guy running Wine. That it runs on wine is no more pertinent to the article than that one can fry an egg on a car radiator - it's non-standard and of only novelty value.
  3. You're not listening to me. It isn't a different GUI. it's the standard Windows GUI running (unofficially) on a compatibility layer.
This continual focus on "illustrating the plethora of guis for 7zip" is looking more and more like advocacy. This one should be struck out. We're not here to advertise products. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
It does not seem we will agree on this. I propose the following:
  1. I am allowed to edit the article and make it the way I think is appropriate (for example, move the screenshot to the Variations section).
  2. We call third opinion to see if they think the screenshot should be removed. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Fine with a third opinion, yeah. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll do it when I have time (probably this Saturday). --Jorge Peixoto (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I've asked for third party opinion (yesterday actually). Also, I made a quick google search that suggests that some people are indeed interested in running 7-zip under wine (like [1], [2] and [3]). Also, the Wine AppDB lists 7-Zip as "Platinum"[4] under wine 1.1.0 (although a user did report problems under wine 1.1.1).

How about moving the screenshot to the Wine article where it would make sense? --85.228.194.165 (talk) 06:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe it contributes to this article. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's a third opinion. I think it is good to mention that it runs with Wine. However, the screenshot doesn't add anything of worth to the article. One screenshot is enough; who cares about the slight differences between the icons that are shown by different systems? --Itub (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it belongs here either. It's kind of misleading to have it there and have the software classified as cross-platform, when it only runs on the Windows family (or through Wine). The caption should at least say that it must be run through a compatibility layer like with Wine. Either way though, I don't see why it's in that section. Perhaps a better image would be of one of the GUIs for p7zip. Louis Waweru  Talk  12:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Here's another third opinion: I'm with Itub on this: mention that it runs in Wine, but ditch the screenshot. I believe the screenshot adds too much undue weight. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of links

Hi. I have removed two links

  • 7ZIP manual & documentation 7-Zip unix documentation
    • I don't know the credibility of bugaco.com
    • People who want the p7zip documentation should probably just download the p7zip package
    • This is only indirectly related to 7-Zip (it is the documentation of a 7-Zip port)
  • jZip - a free WinZip alternative jZip for Windows
    • I don't know the notability of jZip. I for one, would very much prefer the original, official program. jZip has the disadvantage of not being free software (including some chance of having malware). Its supposed advantage is that its GUI is easier (can a GUI be significantly easier than that of 7-Zip? What's wrong with the 7-Zip GUI?).

The http://www.7-zip.org/download.html page also mentions EZ 7z for Mac OS X, and, in fact, mentions it before 7zX; maybe we should include this link. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 04:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Now the links were added back by an anonymous user without prior discussion in this talk page. I would like other editors to give their opinion on this so we can decide. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I've removed them again. Links to competing applications / portableapps spam aren't appropriate and the bugaco one is unreliable as you've indicated. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you.
Unfortunately I realized that when I removed the links, I failed to mention this discussion in my edit summary (so the anon, when reverted my edit without discussing here first, may well have been well-intentioned). I'm sorry. I must learn to be more friendly with other wikipedia editors.
Back on topic, perhaps it would be appropriate to link to http://www.7-zip.org/download.html (page currently down, see http://web.archive.org/web/20080120030724/www.7-zip.org/download.html). This includes not only download links for 7-Zip, but also links for p7zip, EZ 7z for Mac OS X and 7zX for Mac OS X. We could include the link like this:

Download Download page at 7-Zip website. Includes links for p7zip and Mac OS X ports

I believe this would be useful, official, more on-topic, and would provide links to relevant ports such as p7zip and EZ 7z. The downside is that this could possibly be considered unencyclopedic: instead of discussing about 7-Zip, we would be encouraging its download. What do you think? -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Nobody commented. If nobody objects, I will add the link this Sunday. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I see no reason to have those links here. They are appropriate on p7zip, though. --Karnesky (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Those links!? I am suggesting only one link:
Download Download page at 7-Zip website. Includes links for p7zip and Mac OS X ports
Re-stating my arguments for its inclusion: it would be useful, official, (arguably) on-topic, and would indirectly provide links to relevant ports. This way, other editors won't be tempted to include in the article links for p7zip, 7zX, or worse, 7-Zip alternatives of questionable notability. We would "outsource" the links to the official website - which is probably better suited for choosing which links to add. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm actually going to agree with Jorge on this. A link to the official download page for 7-zip is acceptable, I think. Third party implementations, perhaps not so much. But this is the official page, so I'm okay with it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I'm ambivalent--that is a top-level link on the 7-zip site, so is "findable" enough. I don't think it improves the article, but I wouldn't remove the link if you added it. --Karnesky (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I say go for it. You're right, it provides links to relevant ports and people will be less tempted to add links to unrelated alternatives. As a side-note, I think that p7zip is pretty relevant, because it's the same program as 7za.exe except compiled for POSIX systems. It is "the" 7-zip solution for POSIX. Kotatsuken (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"Debian and Ubuntu"

Jorge, you removed my generalization of "unix-like systems like debian and ubuntu" with the reason that these are the only distributions in the AppDB. Debian and Ubuntu are pretty much the same, but so is Wine on other platforms. I myself have ran 7-zip on OS X with no problems at all. The Wine used in Debian and Ubuntu is the exact same code as in other distributions and operating systems, so why should we only mention those two? --83.226.68.176 (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

We need a better source on this anyway. AppDB is user-submitted. Surely if it's notable at all, a reliable secondary source has mentioned at some point that 7-zip runs on Wine. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know of non-user-submitted sources that would mention this. Normally the "tech reviewers" who review wine mention MS Office, Photoshop, and maybe MS Internet Explorer and games. They choose these apps not only because they are potentially useful to run on Wine, but also (and perhaps mostly) because they're horribly complex and it is a feat for Wine to run them. But there are smaller apps than can usefully run on wine (and perhaps by a good number of people) that aren't mentioned by the "wine reviewers". They aren't notable enough (among the ocean of applications) when talking about wine (so the wine reviewers miss them), but when specifically talking about them it is (in my opinion) notable that they run on wine -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Reviewers typically concentrate on Microsoft Office et cetera because... (drum roll) it's notable that these run on Wine. That Wine can run lots of random Windows apps is notable enough for the Wine (software) article. It is notable enough for those applications where secondary sources have remarked that the app runs (for instance, there are dozens of sources which describe why running Office, or Photoshop, or AutoCAD, or some random in-house application has helped some company in some way). It is not notable enough to be included in every single article on an app which happens to run on Wine. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
It is unnotable that 7-Zip runs on Wine when discussing about Wine. When discussing about Wine, it is more interesting and useful to mention the horribly complex applications - like MS Office and Photoshop - that it runs. When discussing a specific app, and in the section describing its variants, I believe it is notable it runs on Wine. The third opinioners seem to agree: they suggested "mention it runs on Wine, but ditch the screenshot". -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I still think that it's pointless trivia which demonstrates Wikipedia's systemic biases, but I'm apparently in the minority here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I disagree it is pointless trivia. Regarding the supposed systemic bias, I don't see it. Could you tell exactly what are you talking about? (this is way off topic, you can choose to ignore my question or to answer in my talk page). -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
As a free content encyclopedia, Wikipedia gives disproportionate coverage to hi technology and computer science, free software in particular. That's difficult to avoid. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I see no problem with that. It would be bad to insert false information on proprietary software articles, or to exaggerate the quality of a particular free program, or otherwise present false information. But in my opinion there is no problem with we having an article on BusyBox (which would hardly be on Britannica). -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem is more that at one time or another almost every article on Windows-based free software has been hit with two things - a mention of PortableApps and a Wine screenshot. These things are of exceedingly little value in most cases, but are deemed to be acceptable by some because those variants are free software. I know what the reaction would be if some random non-notable proprietary plugin or version were mentioned on dozens of innocuous articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, in this specific case (merely mentioning 7-Zip runs on Wine) I do think it was appropriate.
Also I am sure that if an editor includes a proprietary plugin mention with indisputable verifiability and notability, and explains it in the edit summary, and act friendly, the plugin mention will remain. But, in the borderline cases, are people more lenient with free software? I don't know. In any way, I don't think it really affects the encyclopedic integrity of Wikipedia.
In any event, I think we both have nothing more to add to this discussion, so I think we should stop before this talk page is big enough to crash internet browsers. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
(responding to 83.226.68.176): Our evidence only mentions Debian and Ubuntu. I could mention it runs on Gentoo (which is the distribution I use) because I know, but it would be original research. And there is some chance it would not work on some other distribution. Maybe a different distro provides a different wine configuration, who knows? And specially, different distros package different wine versions. My wording "Unix-like operating systems such as Debian and Ubuntu" states what we know (works on Debian/Ubuntu), while hinting users of Gentoo/Fedora/Mandriva that it probably also works for them. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
But it's the same code. That it runs on Debian or Ubuntu (which are both the same OS) isn't really relevant. You won't find any Linux distribution with Wine that won't run 7-zip, and not only that: many users on the AppDB compile their own Wine... --83.226.68.176 (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.234.198.202 (talk)
I disagree, and still think we have to be rigorous and stick to what the source tells us. What's the problem anyway? The way it is currently phrased, a Gentoo user like me will think (oh, so it almost certainly runs on Gentoo's wine too). The current phrasing is useful for people of any distribution. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Encryption

I beleive the wording "WinZip-developed AES encryption standard..." in features section is confusing. It sounds like Winzip developed the Advanced_Encryption_Standard stanadard. The encrypted zip files however maybe be invention of the authors of Winzip. 124.168.216.45 (talk) 12:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like both WinZip and zipp format authors developed independent AES extensions around 2003, then agreeed to support each other's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PKWARE#Version_history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinZip#Features http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZIP_(file_format)#Strong_encryption_controversy

Usage List?

A lot of intermediate libraries are accompanied with a list of examples of usage. You might think of &-zip as a stand-alone app, but it is not only the applcation, but a library as well. I think, that a list of application, using its code, is to be. How would you like such an self-testimonial of one of the instalers? "Each of these third party setups are re-compressed using InstallAware’s superior LZMA/BCJ2 compression." with no mention of 7-zip at all, while listing its codecs as their own thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.77.201.237 (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Versin 9

Y that huge jump? 84.56.7.122 (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably a version scam, to trick people into believing it is a more mature software than it is, since WinZip is v12.1. -- Frap (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Igor already mention it, it is back to the old versioning manner when v3 where released in 2003 and v4 in 2004, so now v9 in 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.214 (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Not unusual to see a jump like that. Slackware linux went from like 5 to 10 or something, so thats its numbering was more like that of redhat, so it want seen as "old". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.50.232 (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

batch conversion

It seems that this program does not have batch conversion features. Too bad! Hope someone can add that? Common need to convert each sub-folder within a folder into a separate zip archive... -68.236.103.195 (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

External links, again

So the external links section is again being used to promote random third-party software, such as libraries and frontends. This isn't the point of the section, and leaving these in only encourages people to add more. I'm going to remove these again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

... Done. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"WinZip-developed AES encryption"?

The link given as reference clearly attributes the AES encryption algorithm closer to where it belongs (certainly not Winzip Computing). http://www.winzip.com/aes_info.htm

Maybe something like "the extensions to the zip format specification to support AES encryption, made by winzip computing, have been fully implemented in 7-zip" would be more accurate?

24.69.96.251 (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

External links

It was claimed in a recent edit that 7-zip.org is not maintained, but it seems to track the versions at sourceforge.net --Lexein (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Source

In-depth review and worked administrative usage examples

--Lexein (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Totally unsourced section moved here for discussion.

"Limitations" section was removed with this edit. It had been marked as an unsourced section since July 2011. Pasted below for possible discussion/referencing.

Limitations

While 7-Zip supports file sizes of up to 16 exabytes, it has an unusually high overhead allocating memory for files, on top of the memory requirements for performing the actual compression.[citation needed]

Approximately 1 kilobyte is required per file, more if the pathname is very long; the file listing alone can grow to an order of magnitude greater than the memory required to do the actual compression. In real world terms, this means 32-bit systems cannot compress more than a million or so files in one archive, as the memory requirements exceed the 2 GB process limit.[citation needed]

64-bit systems do not suffer from the same process size limitation, but still require several gigabytes of RAM to overcome this limitation. Archives created on such systems could not be opened on machines with less memory.[citation needed]

Seriously, people, these claims aren't supported by any reputable review or analysis. The most damning thing is that now this section has started to be quoted in full (except for the "citation needed" tags, of course), or referred to specifically by section. This is beyond inexcusable. --Lexein (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC) and  Chzz  ►  (Formatting improved by Chzz, through discussion with Lexein elsewhere  Chzz  ►  17:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC))

Thanks. --Lexein (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Abuse of the variants section

The variant section is being abused to promote third-party projects. Currently, the offenders include:

  • J7Z and Keka: these are simply front-ends.
  • A repackaged version on PortableApps.com

Having worked extensively with the 7zip codebase, I can assure you that none of these qualify as variants, nor are they currently meritorious enough to warrant inclusion elsewhere. - Kcapture (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Someone placed a merge tag suggesting a merge of 7-zip and p7zip. Please comment with merge or don't merge D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Merge: p7zip is a port of core library and command line utility from 7-zip package. The same person develops them, utilities share use pattern, etc. In fact they might have developed in the same source tree if Igor Pavlov would choose that option. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done in the lack of opposition for at least a month. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:7-Zip/Archives/2013/May&oldid=1144301908"