Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: "Carlos E.R." Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: Zip list Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2023 12:10:13 +0100 Lines: 79 Message-ID: References: <0LqcnRugEt7aNnL-nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <87pma61xl0.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net wcJNNlBmiFF4EV10NL95ogilhqeplPw+BlGTzjnknWFYqeepwr X-Orig-Path: Telcontar.valinor!not-for-mail Cancel-Lock: sha1:dZAinzVbJAB2XRCtPE8sVOVQwFg= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.7.1 Content-Language: es-ES, en-CA In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:37271 On 2023-02-25 06:51, 25A.I866 wrote: > On 2/19/23 6:48 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2023-02-19 12:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 18/02/2023 21:18, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >>>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 13:15:31 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 18/02/2023 11:43, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>> On 2023-02-18 11:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> RAR was my pet hate... >>>>>>> >>>>>> Why? :-?  :-o >>>>>> >>>>> Could never find an unpacking program that ran on Unix. >>>> >>>> unrar x file.rar >>>> >>>> should deflate the content into the PWD. >>> >>> Today yes, not in 1993, to run on SCO Unix. >> >> Well, RAR for DOS appeared on 1993! :-D >> >> So in 1993 there wasn't a version for Linux, either. >> >> I believe the sources were published with version 2, or version 2 >> sources were published when version 3 appeared. The wikipedia article >> doesn't have dates for these. But as soon as those sources appeared, >> anybody could compile a version for Unix. > > >   Always SOUNDS so simple  :-) > >   I always wind up having to write fill-ins for the >   missing/very-different library routines between >   Win and Lin. > >   Anyway, I'm not sure about the fascination with RAR. >   It is good, but then so are many others that are more >   modern/portable/supported. > >   Found an interesting "loop-based" approach to an Str2Int64() >   today. Basically it does powers of ten on each digit (derived >   from the ASCII values of the digits minus-48). It MAY be a bit >   faster than the one I wrote the other day for Pascal that >   involves 'shrinking down' the presented number. I'll have >   to benchmark. Mine only used integer subtraction and ONE >   modulo. Not AS many steps. But, we'll see. > >   I was writing a "disk visualizer" the other day (turned out >   pretty well) but Int64 numbers/functions ARE involved. Today >   I took that to write a 'C' "Disk Blaster" ... kinda like using >   'dd' to zero (or pattern-write) a whole drive but because it's >   not as complex it's about 30% quicker. Added a 'skitter' option >   that's applied AFTER the prescribed number of bytes are >   overwritten ... 'skittering' means writing yer zero/pattern >   block roughly (a little randomness added to annoy) every >   50mb on the REST of the disk area. It is not 'erasure' >   per-se, but kinda 'corrupts' and is 50x as fast. You can >   go thru a 1tb disk in an external USB3.0 fixture in about >   five minutes with 'skittering'. So, you totally obliterate >   the X-bytes you're most paranoid about and then randomly >   insert junk in the rest. > >   Just gotta smooth-out the params ... there's no slack >   right now. Something like 'dd' params would be good. >   It always uses the equiv of "bs=1M" ... seems the best >   compromise after some experimentation. My visualizer >   made it easy to see if the blaster util was doing it >   right. I wrote a tool in pascal to write an entire device with nearly random data, and does so at the SATA speed of the (mechanical) disk, about 190 MB/S last time I tried. I have done 4 TB disks. -- Cheers, Carlos.