Compression routines - please include 7-Zip

Henry Hertz Hobbit hhhobbit at
Tue Aug 21 08:06:43 CEST 2007

Settle down.  I am arguing for the inclusion of 7zip IN THE FUTURE!
I am just afraid it is going to get overlooked again yet one more
time.  The fact that 7zip doesn't store the UID:GID is a plus in
my mind.  It allows you to get what ever UID:GID YOU are when you
unzip it.  That is better than some of the strange ownerships I see,
sometimes with the actual install files themselves.  Some people
don't know what "chown -R UID:GID <DIR>" is yet.

I am not so stupid to not know you can NOT use 7zip now.  It isn't
in the RFC.  What I am arguing for is NOT to forget 7zip exists
when you do the next iteration of the RFC.  Here is why with
a non-trivial real world example comparing all of the zips.  I
have one machine I work on almost all the time. It isn't mine.
My machine is rarely available (I did mention I have been homeless
for several years now and unemployed for over eleven years now,
didn't I?) and since I need the mail in sync I frequently zip it
up on this machine, encrypt it, put it up to my web site and
then pull it down to the other machine to keep the mail in sync
on both machines.

Here are the file size comparisons for the two MUAs:

Evolution File Sizes:
2713325   evolution.tar.7z
2728384   evolution.tar.7z.gpg        [ 1.00555 * 7zip ]
3090190   evolution.tbz               [ 1.14 * 7zip ]
3221545   evolution.tar.gz            [ 1.04 * bzip2 ]   { used -9 }
3340579               [ 1.04 * gzip ]    { used -9 }
7792640   evolution.tar               [ 2.33 * zip ]

Thunderbird File Sizes:
 4058666   thunderbird.tar.7z         [ BEST ]
 4080803   thunderbird.tar.7z.gpg     [ 1.00545 * 7zip ]
 4528758   thunderbird.tbz            [ 1.16 * 7zip ]
 5044288   thunderbird.tar.gz         [ 1.11 * bzip2 ]   { used -9 }
 5138290            [ 1.02 * gzip ]    { used -9 }
13721600   thunderbird.tar            [ 2.67 * zip ]

Cipher = TWOFISH

Now it doesn't take a genius to know what I am going to use with
restrictive upload speeds - *.tar.7z.gpg or just *.7z.gpg!  You
think I am so crazy that I am not going to encrypt it with file
perms like these?

ftp> dir
-rw-rw-r--   1 3156036  1000006   2728384 evolution.tar.7z.gpg
-rw-rw-r--   1 3156036  1000006   4080803 thunderbird.tar.7z.gpg

I don't know who else is in group 1000006.  I also actually have
the 7zip format on my web site (just replace the tbz with 7z):
(last two are work in progress, second is actually used)

But I face the same problem.  There are all of these moss-backs
that say they can't pull down 7-zip and compile it for their Unix
systems.  It isn't the Unix way! PHOOEY!  You can even pull down
the binary install packages of 7zip (which is NOT the Unix way as
far as I am concerned) for Linux and several other Unix systems if
you don't have a Gnu development system.  In fact, I have to provide
gzip and zip files on the sister site because that
IIS server isn't set to allow downloads of either 7zip or bzip2
files. So here are the actual links I use instead:
(second is same and still work in progress)

All of this reminds me of the person (a Microsofft MVP) I tried
to get to do the following things.

1. Use GnuPG encryption to get around the block at his
   pop mail server that caused all the zip files containing
   the name of bad hosts I was sending to him to be blocked in
   a very strange way. He wouldn't do it. It wasn't the Windows

2. Use another mail server.  It wasn't the Windows way?
   He is still using the same mail server.

3. Use gzip?  It isn't the Windows way. It doesn't matter that
   WinZip and almost all other zip programs support the gzip
   format.  It just isn't the Windows way!

4. Use 7zip?  It isn't the Windows way.  Besides, one zipped
   up file with just a few dozen bad hosts isn't worth it.
   SHEESH!  That 7zip file contained almost a dozen files and
   hundreds of bad hosts and yes, they were in a folder.

Work with that person is terminated!  But it takes just one
suggestion via an Internet search before I address a hole I
know has been there for some time in what I am working on. It
doesn't matter that it was way down on the 4 dozen things I
had to do and the monitoring of two dozen experimental rules.
Just one person making that statement will make me shift when
I see it is a priority with the people considering what I am
providing (it is *GPL licensed).

WHAT I USE 7ZIP FOR (besides personal use):
I use 7zip to unpack the files with an auto-update and I can
already hear people complaining that because it needs UnixUtils
(CygWin is rather large) and 7-zip, that it ISN'T THE WINDOWS
WAY!  It doesn't matter that it is blisteringly fast.  Phooey
with the Windows way.  I want the way that works that is best.
I will dump my absurd keys with their huge key size if you
promise to at least consider 7zip in the future.

It kind of reminds me of the almost 4,000 hosts that somebody
was blocking that I block with just one rule (I have no
idea how many there are):

BadNetworks[i++] = ",";,,,, anybody?

But that ISN'T THE WINDOWS WAY!   What I am saying is there IS
a better mouse-trap, and it IS 7zip!  It is ALL I use for my
own personal use any more.  It IS LGPL licensed and it IS THE
GNU WAY.  Pun intended.  Do some tests to convince yourself
that it is the real deal.  And yes, I could have used 7zip's
built-in AES encryption.  I like TWOFISH.  It is just personal
preference.  I may reconsider.


More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list