Prev: Clipboards In X - Why Do they Vanish?
Next: Extracting keywords from text
From: Ian Rawlings on 10 Apr 2008 14:36
On 2008-04-10, Will Kemp <Will(a)xxxx.Swaggie.net> wrote:

> If your customers can deal with tar files, why not just forget the
> compression part of the process and give them tar files of the jpegs?

I think zip is smart enough to just store files it can't compress,
which saves even more bother at both ends as there's no need to fret
about compressable files going into an archive with uncompressable
files, so I'd suggest sticking with zip. Remember that a compressed
tar file is an archive of uncompressed files that is then compressed
as a unit while a zip file is an archive of files that are compressed
individually but each can also be stored without compression,
depending on the file contents.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/
From: Justin C on 10 Apr 2008 14:54
On 2008-04-10, Will Kemp <Will(a)xxxx.Swaggie.net> wrote:
>
> I'm not suggesting a solution to your archive format question, just an
> observation about compression...
>
> jpeg is a compressed file format - and compressing an already compressed
> file is never a very good idea. There are two reasons it's not a good
> idea - firstly, it's unnecessary, and a waste of effort. Secondly, the
> files usually end up bigger than they started!
>
> If your customers can deal with tar files, why not just forget the
> compression part of the process and give them tar files of the jpegs?

It's the tar files that are not the sort of thing they're likely to
understand (average users, probably mostly Window$ types). A zip file is
something I believe the OS can deal with without third party help, has
to be the best way to go - also, I need to keep the files 'bundled',
there is a large number of them and it gets messy otherwise... I suppose
I could set the compression to -0 so that the files are just stored, not
compressed, that'll create an archive only.

Thanks for the suggestion, it's led me to a better solution.

Justin.

--
Justin C, by the sea.
From: Justin C on 10 Apr 2008 15:57
On 2008-04-10, Paul Martin <pm(a)zetnet.net> wrote:
>
> find [0-9a-f] -type f -name "*.jpg" -a '!' -name "th*" -print \
> | zip -9 /some/where/images1.zip -@

I always have such trouble with find. I use it so infrequently, that
when I need it I don't know how to get what I want from it!

I've looked at what you suggest in conjunction with the man page, and
can see what's going on. Thanks for the suggestion, I've refined (and
shortened!) the script. Now I understand the the -@ is for zip I can see
it's much better. Thanks again.

Justin.

--
Justin C, by the sea.
From: Will Kemp on 11 Apr 2008 02:22
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:54:15 +0000, Justin C wrote:

>> If your customers can deal with tar files, why not just forget the
>> compression part of the process and give them tar files of the jpegs?
>
> It's the tar files that are not the sort of thing they're likely to
> understand (average users, probably mostly Window$ types).

Yeah, that's what i would have thought, but you mentioned using tar + zip
as an alternative to tar + gzip - which gave the impression it was gzip
that was the problem, not tar.

> A zip file is
> something I believe the OS can deal with without third party help,

Not all versions of windows had zip included though. I can't remember
what version they started including it with as standard - but it wasn't
all that long ago.

Glad you found a solution, anyway.


--
http://SnapAndScribble.com/will/blog
http://WillKemp-Words.com
http://WillKemp-photos.com
From: Justin C on 11 Apr 2008 18:34
On 2008-04-11, Will Kemp <Will(a)xxxx.Swaggie.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:54:15 +0000, Justin C wrote:
>
>>> If your customers can deal with tar files, why not just forget the
>>> compression part of the process and give them tar files of the jpegs?
>>
>> It's the tar files that are not the sort of thing they're likely to
>> understand (average users, probably mostly Window$ types).
>
> Yeah, that's what i would have thought, but you mentioned using tar + zip
> as an alternative to tar + gzip - which gave the impression it was gzip
> that was the problem, not tar.

That's down to me typing before thinking, I'm sorry for the confusion.
All appears well withing work's four walls just now... at least until
Monday when the customers can reach me again. ... nurse, more pills
please.

>> A zip file is
>> something I believe the OS can deal with without third party help,
>
> Not all versions of windows had zip included though. I can't remember
> what version they started including it with as standard - but it wasn't
> all that long ago.

It wasn't in 98se. It is in XP. So, it came in in 2K, ME, or XP, who
knows? Who cares?! I know I don't, I also know that without the
customers I don't get paid so, however much I dislike their lack of
techinical ability, and how much I have to hold their hand, that is my
lot until I can find a way of doing something else.

Jeez, I sound depressed tonight. Honestly, I'm not really, it just
sounds that way... blame it on the beer... I'm a happy drunk on
whisky, send a bottle of 16 yo Laphroaig and I'll prove it. :) [1]

>
> Glad you found a solution, anyway.
TY.


Justin.
1: or MacAllan... that's the new fave (notice I've not put an age, it's
all good, *damn* good. So, what are you waiting for, why aren't you
emailing me and asking me for my address so you can send me a bottle?
eh? Oh, hmmm. I see. OK. Well, thanks anyway[2].

2: it was worth a try, especially with Scotch at these prices.
--
Justin C, by the sea.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Clipboards In X - Why Do they Vanish?
Next: Extracting keywords from text