XYplorer Beta Club

Please put the portable installers so that they end up in a separate folder when you unzip/unrar them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarbomb#Tarbomb

I personally dislike installers that force a subfolder on me. But I'm open for discussion...

i'm with Don here. I also hate zip files that extract the (actual) content into a subfolder.

Pagat wrote:i'm with Don here. I also hate zip files that extract the (actual) content into a subfolder.

+1

you can very easily extract a "tarbomb" to a subfolder by using the command "extract to <foldername>" in the context menu.
its right below "extract here", less than 20px of mouse movement.

I would like for the portable version to extract into a separate folder, but if that's not something that's included one can use aforementioned context menu and scripting.

My cousin likes the scratching, hissing, and popping sounds that old cassettes and records make.

She claims it makes the sound "warmer", I claim she is retarded.

Please don't tarbomb.

Maybe here is a difference in expectations between tar-users and users of other compression tools?

I - as a zip-user - always extract archives to where I expect the contents to be. And would not like it to create an own subdirectory.
While the refered wiki explains just other expectations for tar...

PeterH wrote:I - as a zip-user - always extract archives to where I expect the contents to be. And would not like it to create an own subdirectory.

Exactly how I feel on this. They both have their own pros and cons.


Changing it now will also break a few of my scripts and jacky's updater, which I don't look forward to be that the case.

TheQwerty wrote:

PeterH wrote:I - as a zip-user - always extract archives to where I expect the contents to be. And would not like it to create an own subdirectory.

Exactly how I feel on this. They both have their own pros and cons.

Same for me...I hate it when a zip decides it wants to create a folder by itself...so I definitely prefer the way it is now...howver, maybe the RAR version could be setup differently as we mostly all use the ZIP one?

Pretty much everyone (myself included) seems to say that what they like or don't like, but not why that is. Personally, I feel that it is good for testing if each beta is in a separate folder as it allows simultaneous testing of several versions without configuration files overwriting each other. In addition, for DnD usability, a one-folder approach is better. That said, I respect people's preferences in this area -- we're all different

And -- while we're at it -- I would like if we can download the installers directly instead of having to extract them from Zip archives. I understand that some people may have issues with downloading EXEs (workplace restrictions, etc), in which case Zip option should be offered in parallel. "More work for Don" could be a deterrent, but if it is, why is the non-beta portable package also available as a RAR?

@all:

Please stop wasting your time on this topic. I won't change the packages anytime soon.

Thanks.

Don

I believe that practically all linux users agree that tarbombing is a bad idea.
Since I also use linux a lot I usually just assume that it isn't.

There is a large inconsistency among zip archives in Windows meaning that you have to open an archive to check if it is a tarbomb, in my opinion you shouldn't have to do this.

CrouZ wrote:There is a large inconsistency among zip archives in Windows meaning that you have to open an archive to check if it is a tarbomb, in my opinion you shouldn't have to do this.

Agreed, that's a problem. But I don't see a solution for this from here. And the better strategy IMO is not to include any subfolders and leave it to the user whether to extract to "here" or to a subfolder (via context menu). The other way would be a "sub-bomb".

admin wrote:The other way would be a "sub-bomb".

"Sub-bomb"?

You mean in case anybody else has written a program called xyplorer_full?

Sadly, learn the basic before you complain... get familiar with archive tools!