Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Unarchiver Provides LGPL RARv3 Extraction Tool

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the ok-now-conquer-the-world dept.

Media 183

An anonymous reader writes "Free software to support the RARv3 archive format has been listed on the FSF's High Priority Projects list for some time now. We've always had ways to create and extract free archive formats, using tools like GNU tar and Info-ZIP. The RARv3 format is proprietary, so we don't want it to replace these tools, but it's not uncommon to see it used for distributing multimedia files over the Internet. That means the lack of free software to extract RARv3 files has been sorely felt. We're happy to share the news that there's now a free software project to fill this gap, and we can mark this item as done. The Unarchiver is a small collection of software written by Dag Ågren."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Multimedia files? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36090328)

Also known as: Porno movies.

Re:Multimedia files? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36090332)

I thought those were flv files (Instant gratification while streaming etc)

Yay piracy! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36090334)

Compressing my HD rip to save 5MB on a 50GB download!

Re:Yay piracy! (5, Informative)

dougmc (70836) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090358)

Compressing my HD rip to save 5MB on a 50GB download!

In the case of movies, it's not so much that it saves space, it's more that it breaks the large file up into more manageable chunks and it also gives you checksums to know if something got corrupted.

This isn't particularly important for distribution methods like bittorrent which provides it's own checksums and doesn't have problems with files over 2 or 4 GB, but for some other distribution methods it does make a big difference, especially when you throw par2 files into the mix for correcting problems.

Re:Yay piracy! (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090434)

There are perfectly cromulent tools for that without rar: you can just split a file with split and compute "checksums" with md5 and sha1.

It's of course completely unnecessary for BitTorrent, which has an excellent system for breaking files into pieces and hashing those pieces. In fact, you might as well make a system for piecing and hashing based on torrent metainfo files.

Re:Yay piracy! (4, Insightful)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090586)

in unix, yes. in the windows world, there's only two levels of difficulty: drag-and-drop or impossible. most users have winzip or 7zip or whatever and pirates have traditionally favored rar. thus, the rar standard emerges and metastasizes so that programs like vlc support it natively. kind of silly, but it works.

if you want to cry, follow this link and count the number of shitty gui hacks that do nothing but "split" and "cat": http://www.google.com/search?q=split+file+windows [google.com]

Re:Yay piracy! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36091110)

pirates have traditionally favored rar.

Your hearing may be faulty. Pirates have traditionally favored har and yarr!

Re:Yay piracy! (1)

meerling (1487879) | more than 3 years ago | (#36091268)

Anyone who transferred files before the days of broadband favored rar because it made smaller files than zip or arc, and it also was quick to support multipart archives which was useful for those sites that limited how large a single file could be. Had no more to do with piracy than BBS or Internet. Of course the pirates like it too...

Re:Yay piracy! (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 3 years ago | (#36091760)

I'm sure Zip could do multipart archives -- that's how I used to transfer large files on Windows machines using only floppy disks.

Re:Yay piracy! (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#36091916)

7-zip will join split files. I think WinRar does too (I don't mean multi-part Rar files, I mean uncompressed chunks).

So the problem is more that people who have never thought about it think that Rar is the way to do it.

Re:Yay piracy! (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090708)

In the windows world rar is one of those perfectly cromulent tools, why use something else when the current tool works just fine.

And given it's the piracy scene that the tool isn't free software is completely irrelevant.

I'm pretty sure BitTorrent isn't the primary mechanism of the initial distribution of pirated material. I guess maybe for the movie world where you don't need people who have learnt how to remove disk checks and other copy protection schemes and hence anyone can make the initial copy.

Re:Yay piracy! (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090958)

If using a pirated piece of software (such as WinRar) is not a problem for such individuals, why go through the effort of writing an open source library as a replacement?

Re:Yay piracy! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36091266)

"People" is not a uniform group. One group is running Windows, and have no problems using a pirated copy of winrar, as much of their software is pirated anyway. When you're used to Winrar, you use it for everything, you don't use a different program for files that aren't pirated.

The other group is running an open source system, and want to be able to extract files compressed by the first group..

Re:Yay piracy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36091142)

And given it's the piracy scene that the tool isn't free software is completely irrelevant.

What about .rar compressed scanned (pirated) books on in DjVu format? I'd say they are critically important for free software hackers.

Re:Yay piracy! (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 3 years ago | (#36091924)

Because the free software cultists can't read pirated coding books for religious reasons they don't grow up to be 3l33t coderz like the pirates, so they can't solve the problem.

Re:Yay piracy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36090820)

Yep, you can do alot of this without rar. Although recovering a damaged bit of an archive takes a little more than a checksum.
It has it's strengths (recovery being a big one - cd's, floppies, hd's, dvd's all go a little bit bad usually before they become totally junk, very good compression).
It also has it's weaknesses (slow as hell, not 'standard')

It comes down to choosing the right tool for the job. And on a windows system, I'd use rar to archive something long before I'd look at zip or other tools on the platform.

Re:Yay piracy! (2)

Arlet (29997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090948)

You can't repair corrupted/missing archives with md5/sha1. The .rar format is perfect for usenet, where missing parts is very common.

Re:Yay piracy! (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36091694)

That's what par2 is for. It splits the file up and gives you a set of N files where you can reconstruct the original from N-M (depending on the redundancy settings) of them. Implementations available for most operating systems, including one GPL'd one. It's been a few years since I checked binary newsgroups, but par2 was pretty ubiquitous back then.

Re:Yay piracy! (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 3 years ago | (#36091770)

PAR is used more often on Usenet (or it was last time I looked, which is about 2-3 years ago).

PAR leaves the original file untouched, and creates extra redundant data based on it.

Re:Yay piracy! (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36092120)

Yes, but it's RAR + PAR, because this is another hack on top of a system never designed to do binaries. Long story short, any "large" file - originally 60kb and not much larger today - is split and transmitted as multipart binaries. This has nothing to do with RARs, every large file is that way. A lot of Usenet software won't download incomplete files because it means it should wait for more parts to arrive at the server. It doesn't know that with PAR files you actually have enough to recover the whole file anyway. So in practice many people download the *complete* RAR and PAR files they can get, then use the PAR files to recover the missing RAR files.

Maybe an illustration is easier:

Movie.avi [94/100]
Par1.par [7/10]
Par2.par [10/10]

Do we have enough parts? Yes (94+7+10 > 100), but many people can't save Movie.avi and make this work.

Movie.rar [10/10]
Movie.r01 [10/10]
Movie.r02 [10/10]
Movie.r03 [10/10]
Movie.r04 [4/10]
Movie.r05 [10/10]
Movie.r06 [10/10]
Movie.r07 [10/10]
Movie.r08 [10/10]
Movie.r09 [10/10]
Par1.par [7/10]
Par2.par [10/10]

Now people with "stupid" software download all parts except r04 as well as par2.par. We now have 90+10 parts and can recover r04. I won't bore you with old history, just say that everything is a hack to transfer over a system originally designed to only deal with ASCII text. It works, but it'll never be pretty.

Re:Yay piracy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36091476)

What it is good for is transforming the file into something that's not recognizable as the copyrighted material. It may be irrelevant when using BitTorrent, but there is a significant "scene" that utilizes RapidShare and its ilk to distribute files since they allow the uploader to make money. But those systems also have methods that allow copyright holders to file claims to get their content removed. As soon as they've done that, any upload with the same hash will be rejected. But if you break it up into a password-protected RAR archive, the hash will be different and there's no way for the upload host to reconstitute the file to check the hash. And, as a bonus, multiple files means multiple downloads and more money for the uploader.

There are search engines that allow you to find files uploaded to the various file hosting sites and you can find just about anything these days. The majority of that illegal content is RARed.

Re:Yay piracy! (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36091696)

What it is good for is transforming the file into something that's not recognizable as the copyrighted material

Really? Given that no one other than pirates seems to use RAR, I'd have thought it was a red flag saying 'look, illegal stuff here!'

Re:Yay piracy! (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36091806)

The most jarring place I've ever run into RAR is by a few companies, mostly random hardware OEMs for forgettable routers and such, who understand their legal obligations under the GPL; but clearly are totally disconnected from any cultural conventions of OSS. You go to their GPL page and boom, just a giant .RAR of the directory in which their firmware guy built the firmware.

Re:Yay piracy! (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 3 years ago | (#36091814)

There are perfectly cromulent tools for that without rar: you can just split a file with split and compute "checksums" with md5 and sha1.

RAR can not only have a checksum, but also optional redundancy, so that it can automatically fix a few flipped bits. RAR is also able to extract incomplete archives without problems unlike say 7zip where an incomplete archive becomes completely unusable. Unlike the gzip/tar mess RAR is also able to seek, thus you can extract the last file in the archive without first uncompressing, which is extremely useful when dealing with big archives. RAR also compresses extremely well.

Simply put, I haven't seen any other compression format that has all the features and robustness of RAR.

Re:Yay piracy! (3, Insightful)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090648)

The problem with RAR files and Bittorrent is "scene snobbery". Basically, people reason that since all scene releases are released in RAR archives then all media distributed should be distributed as multi-file RAR archives. This can be seen on invite-only torrent sites that demand that all upload regardless of origin be split into multiple RAR files.

And should someone point out that it's really only when downloading files using FTP and other non-checksummed protocols that this is necessary then they will be screamed down by the know-nothings. And then there's the whole thing where they seem to insist on using 25 or 50 MB files instead of larger chunks. If you're grabbing files from an FTP/HTTP server dedicated to sharing these large media files chances are that the server is able to push the files to you faster than say, 10 Mbps, and we'll assume that's as fast as your connection is, that means you can grab a 250 MB file in approximately 3m30s if we assume no overhead, if we a assume you have a regular uncapped g.dmt ADSL connection (8/0.8 Mbps) with the typical EoATM and TCP overhead for your transfers then we're still talking less than five minutes for a 250 MB chunk. Contrast this with people splitting things into 5 or 10 MB chunks back when a lot of people were still on modem connections, a single 5 MB chunk would take more than ten minutes on a good day...

Re:Yay piracy! (3, Insightful)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090696)

multi-rar archives in torrents? Just thinking about that makes my blood boil.

Re:Yay piracy! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36090842)

First: did you read his post? He said nothing about using multi-rar in torrents.
"The Scene" uses mostly news and ftp/fxp, and hates protocols like torrents other p2p. So the do split the file because of this.
The you will also see that many times they provide a sfv file as well, and have their servers automagically check to see if all parts are transferred properly when upped. ftp is a fast protocol, but for bigger files things gets easily corrupted.

Second: There also exists a reason for multi-rar torrents. I have seen on torrent sites archives where a part of the multi-rar has been corrupted (in many cases with a different size) so it passes crc-checks from rar, but creates a subtle corrupted file, that you do not at a first glace may see if it works or not.
In this cases you only have to try to fetch that part, and does not need to redownload the whole image.

As an example I may give on how subtle those corruption may be (which is also close to what people reported on the one of the torrents I pointed at before) is one time when I downloaded a DVD-linux-image from FTP once, trusted the source, and since everything seemed to go fine I burned it. When I booted it it lacked backgrounds in the desktop (I did not think about it since I did not know there was supposed to be backgrounds), but seemed to work fine on the first system. One the second computer however the module for the ATA-chip was broken.
It turned out that the image was broke, and I had to re-download 4 GB data on a 500k connection.
It has later come to my understanding that this may have been the fault of the ISP I had back then, the count of faulty files uploaded/downloaded has seriously been decreased since I moved.

Re:Yay piracy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36091378)

"Second: There also exists a reason for multi-rar torrents. I have seen on torrent sites archives where a part of the multi-rar has been corrupted (in many cases with a different size) so it passes crc-checks from rar, but creates a subtle corrupted file, that you do not at a first glace may see if it works or not.
In this cases you only have to try to fetch that part, and does not need to redownload the whole image."

A wellbehaving bittorrent client will do the same. I also had filesystem corruption (an xfs bug in an early 2.6 kernel). Downloaded the torrent again, pointed the save location to the place with the corrupt file, forced a recheck in azureus which found chunks of the image that were corrupt and only downloaded those blocks.

Re:Yay piracy! (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090704)

The advantage of splitting into small files is that its easier to upload the content to hosting services like Rapidshare, Megaupload etc etc etc.

Re:Yay piracy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36091396)

FTP is TCP, which is checksummed at the packet level. Broken packets will be discarded by the OS and retransmitted. If you need checksums on FTP, you're doing it wrong.

Re:Yay piracy! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36090624)

Movies in rar archives aren't even compressed.

Anything else your ass wants to talk about? Moron.

Re:Yay piracy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36090782)

There are plenty of reasons to use RAR. For our windows friends It's the most reliable commonly available compression tool especially when it comes to recovering slightly damaged archives. It compresses better than most other tools available on the platform. It also has a pretty decent UI backing the windows version.
I'm not sure how v3 works. I havn't used it personally but I assume it's v3 cause it's even better.

Seems like the distributor needs to be slapped (4, Insightful)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090352)

Why would you use a proprietary format to store openly distributed files?

Re:Seems like the distributor needs to be slapped (0, Offtopic)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090356)

Because, you see, some children have two daddies or two mommies instead of a mommy and daddy.

Re:Seems like the distributor needs to be slapped (5, Funny)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090416)

Because, you see, some children have two daddies or two mommies instead of a mommy and daddy.

And sometimes, nerds like to watch movies where both mommies and both daddys are in the same room giving each other special hugs. But they like to watch them for free, so they wind up downloading the movie as a 50 part .RAR file.

Re:Seems like the distributor needs to be slapped (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36090488)

And sometimes, nerds like to watch movies where both mommies and both daddys are in the same room giving each other special hugs. But they like to watch them for free, so they wind up downloading the movie as a 50 part .RAR file.

Just wait till you get to the ones with two daddies and two mommies and everyone is getting special hugs. That's when it gets kinda juicy.

Re:Seems like the distributor needs to be slapped (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 3 years ago | (#36091568)

And sometimes, nerds like to watch movies where both mommies and both daddys are in the same room giving each other special hugs. But they like to watch them for free, so they wind up downloading the movie as a 50 part .RAR file.

Just wait till you get to the ones with two daddies and two mommies and everyone is getting special hugs. That's when it gets kinda juicy.

Yeah, but I gotta draw the line at 50 daddies and one mommy.

Re:Seems like the distributor needs to be slapped (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#36091840)

Yeah, but I gotta draw the line at 50 daddies and one mommy.

You gotta draw the line much earlier than that (if you want an orderly procession).

Re:Seems like the distributor needs to be slapped (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090534)

So why not use one of the many other open formats that support multi-part checksummed files, or pirate WinRar just like they did the porn.

Re:Seems like the distributor needs to be slapped (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36092084)

So why not use one of the many other open formats that support multi-part checksummed files

If you're downloading the file, chances are you didn't create it.

or pirate WinRar just like they did the porn.

That's what everyone did. Well, actually they don't need to pirate in the usual sense of the word, you can download it from the developers' site, but you're supposed to stop using it after 40 days.
They're actually pretty nice, the software doesn't stop working, the GUI version just starts nagging you and the CLI doesn't say anything at all.

Re:Seems like the distributor needs to be slapped (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36091354)

and those families should be put down because they'll spread teh gay.

Re:Seems like the distributor needs to be slapped (3, Insightful)

Bacon Bits (926911) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090392)

Maybe because it's the best tool for your job? Politics isn't the only reason to pick your software. Or maybe someone has to deal with files from *gasp* someone else!

Re:Seems like the distributor needs to be slapped (2)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090528)

The closed source and payware distributors use executable installers. The Linux community uses tar, compressed using gzip, bzip, or lzma. The legitimate Windows community uses WinZip (because they don't know otherwise) or 7-Zip (because it's free). The hugely overwhelming use of WinRar is just to split files for distribution on antiquated mediums like FTP and Usenet, which don't natively support multi-part uploads and downloads, and have file size limits. Since this is generally multimedia content that cannot be further losslessly compressed, these archives use store mode, and the only thing the rar format is used for is integrated checksumming, which rar is just one of many formats that will perform that job equally well.

Content distributed in that manner is almost always in violation of copyright, which makes the entire concept of developing an open source library to access a proprietary format, rather than simply using another format, or pirating WinRar as well, is comical. It's either a waste of effort when other tools are available, or a downright confusing inconsistency in ethics on someones part.

Re:Seems like the distributor needs to be slapped (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090726)

I find RAR files all the time, even small ones used for small files.

Lots of people just use RAR because they have WinRar (usually pirated) and its seen as "better"

Re:Seems like the distributor needs to be slapped (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090956)

WinRar does better for some filetypes, 7-Zip does better for other filetypes, but in general they're pretty comparable. Given the option between programs comparable in capability and usability, one being free and the other costing $30, why would you choose to pirate the payware one? Is there some stigma that the program you refuse to pay for is somehow inherently better?

Re:Seems like the distributor needs to be slapped (1)

lisaparratt (752068) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090986)

Because the files I receive from other people are in Rar format, I need to decompress them, and my power to dominate their puny, weak minds with my glowing neon brain-waves, and force them to resend it as a .tar.xz only works in person?

Re:Seems like the distributor needs to be slapped (1)

internettoughguy (1478741) | more than 3 years ago | (#36091818)

But 7zip can decompress rar files.

Re:Seems like the distributor needs to be slapped (1)

dargaud (518470) | more than 3 years ago | (#36091954)

It's been a while, but isn't 7-zip limited to decompressing rar files only ?
And also, isn't there optional redundancy in split rar files ? i.e. if you compress a (set of) file(s) into several split rars and you loose one or two of them you can still decompress the original file(s). Very convenient when archiving on CDs or, cough, cough, Usenet.

Re:Seems like the distributor needs to be slapped (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 3 years ago | (#36092324)

Maybe because it's the best tool for your job?

Since when is rar the best format for any job? I swear that you pirates are completely ignorant. Your obsession with rar is a self destructive cycle that will forever have you passing around significantly larger files than necessary.

1995 called and it wants its inefficient proprietary archive format back.

Re:Seems like the distributor needs to be slapped (2)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090402)

because most PC users, when faced with a .7z file, will download winrar.

and when that happens, it's extra effort for bugger-all (none?) extra compression to make your own archives in 7z. so they end up in rar by default.

Re:Seems like the distributor needs to be slapped (2)

slashdot_commentator (444053) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090476)

Odd. I don't understand why people even use RAR anymore when there's 7z. I don't see this horde of clueless users dying for shredded archiving. And as far as I know, RAR isn't this gratifying user experience.

Re:Seems like the distributor needs to be slapped (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090874)

For the same reason they still use mp3 when there are several alternatives that provide superior quality at any bitrate. It's established now. Once a technology is established, it's very hard to get rid off.

Re:Seems like the distributor needs to be slapped (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090908)

the one time i tried a 7z only client (i presume the one made by the 7z people), it sucked badly.

you don't know how often you use shell integration until you lose it, or have to manually add it back in.

it's probably much better now, but i wouldn't know because it's so much quicker to install winrar.

Re:Seems like the distributor needs to be slapped (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090954)

Except Winrar isn't free (in any sense). The shell integration has been part of the installation options in 7-zip for years now. If you don't have a need to create rar archives, only open them. there really is no reason to give Rarlab your money or make it a pirated piece of software on your system.

Re:Seems like the distributor needs to be slapped (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36091950)

Because non-techie people associate filetypes with programs 1:1, and WinRAR is a usable program whereas the 7-zip GUI on Windows sucks big time and hooks itself into everything and bloats the system in an unconfigurable way. I tried the 7-zip Windows GUI and uninstalled it right away. WinRAR is a bit retro in its design but it does the job.

What's probably even more important here is tradition. And "scene rules". There's a cargo cult about splitting releases up into dozens of small partial archives as if we were still on Usenet, and then people pack those into bigger archives and split those up again because of filehoster limits. It's a mess, and it's all done in RAR, nothing else.

There are also de-facto standards that require RAR, such as for vobsub files.

Re:Seems like the distributor needs to be slapped (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36091986)

BBSes kept using ZIP well after RAR came out because they had scripts that would embed their taglines into the ZIP files that passed through their board, thus incriminating the owners in criminal copyright infringement. I'm not sure why this was considered to be a feature, but it was and probably still is. However, the scripts were eventually updated to support RAR which was carried through the society because the boards were run by nerds or kiddies who wanted to think they were nerds and both groups are willing to move to a technically superior solution. Now we have RAR and no compelling reason to replace it... not a reason big enough for the whole internet anyway

Re:Seems like the distributor needs to be slapped (1)

Loopy (41728) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090524)

Re:Seems like the distributor needs to be slapped (2)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090560)

I don't understand what relevance a 9yr old compression test is.

Re:Seems like the distributor needs to be slapped (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36090700)

Because these are Windoze users and they can't tell the difference between sharewarez that they forget to pay for and open source.

Re:Seems like the distributor needs to be slapped (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 3 years ago | (#36091262)

Why would you use a proprietary format to store openly distributed files?

More to the point, why would I care as long as I can open said file?

Excellent! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36090368)

Finally there is a Richard Stallman approved way of extracting my pirated pornography, movies and TV shows on my Linux box.

Using a proprietary tool on an OSS system is so unethical...

Re:Excellent! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36091480)

What about Creative Commons licensed porn? Is that on that FSF high priority list?

On second thought, I hope Stallman's NOT working on that. In fact, how do I unthink that mental image?

Re:Excellent! (3, Interesting)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36092126)

What about Creative Commons licensed porn?

http://www.freedomporn.org/ [freedomporn.org]

The mission of Freedom Porn is to empower and engage individuals to create and share ethical porn as a means of advancing sex-positivism and sexual freedom.

We advocate safer sex and consensual sex, and feminism is inseparable from our mission. We also fight for freedom of speech, privacy, and free culture. As such, we are the world's first porn repository of entirely free cultural works. All videos are in free formats, either WebM or Ogg Theora, and we encourage the use of free software. We run on donations, so please contribute!

Re:Excellent! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36092100)

Finally there is a Richard Stallman approved way of extracting my pirated pornography, movies and TV shows on my Linux box.

Without a GUI. But maybe the FSF thinks that is a feature. These newfangled clickypointy interfaces are the devil's playground.

That's the problem, really? (0)

tftp (111690) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090398)

it's not uncommon to see it used for distributing multimedia files over the Internet. That means the lack of free software to extract RARv3 files has been sorely felt.

99.999% of those "multimedia files" are proprietary, commercial materials. The archiver is probably the least concern here.

Re:That's the problem, really? (1)

Arlet (29997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36091094)

The archiver is probably the least concern here.

It is if you're a Linux distributer, and you want to include the archiver as a standard package.

Also, with the source code available, you could modify the archiver. For instance, you could make/modify an open media player with the capability of automatically downloading Usenet archives, unpacking those, and playing the media file.

Re:That's the problem, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36091552)

For instance, you could make/modify an open media player with the capability of automatically downloading Usenet archives, unpacking those, and playing the media file.

As a matter of fact, TheUnarchiver itself can do something similar to what you suggest. When you have it and Xee (an image viewer from the same developer) installed on a mac, you can browse images inside of any archive supported by TheUnarchiver without needing to expand the archive to disk.

There are already "free" unrar apps (3, Informative)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090430)

I assume theyr'e using "free" in the not-as-beer sense, since there are plenty of free apps that can unrar , 7-Zip for example. True, these all seem to use code available from RAR that isn't "free" . E.g., from the 7-Zip licence:

unRAR restriction
The decompression engine for RAR archives was developed using source
code of unRAR program.
All copyrights to original unRAR code are owned by Alexander Roshal.

RAR is pretty much the default foprmat on Usenet binary groups, for instance.

Re:There are already "free" unrar apps (2, Interesting)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090446)

PS: It'd be real news if there was a free app to CREATE RAR archives.

Re:There are already "free" unrar apps (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090752)

Now that there is LGPL code that can decompress RAR files (code that is presumably untainted by the restrictions on the "unrar" code used by most archivers to uncompress RAR files) someone can use that code as a reference for how the compression works.

Re:There are already "free" unrar apps (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#36091668)

It would be fairly easy to write that. Getting it to be as efficient as the original rar archiver might be tricky, but basic compression is about as easy as it is for zlib's Deflate.

Re:There are already "free" unrar apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36090578)

I've found that the rar implementations in ubuntu were unable to uncompress rar files if i tried to open the 2nd or 3rd file. If I opened anything but the first file it resulted in a corrupted output... hopefully that has been fixed.

Re:There are already "free" unrar apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36090786)

Are you running 64-bit ubuntu? I've only ever had that problem on 64-bit linux, never on 32-bit linux. I'm not sure if the free-as-in-beer code by the original RAR guy was even intended to be portable to 64-bit systems, or if this is just a bug that he hasn't got around to fixing.

Re:There are already "free" unrar apps (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36092138)

There is an OSS version (unrar-free), which only decompresses RARv1&2. Only the non-free package (unrar) can decompress RARv3 files.

Re:There are already "free" unrar apps (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090658)

The main problem with the implementations that are available seems to be that they are very slow for larger files split across multiple rar files. I even remember reading some posting about this somewhere where the gist of the message was "the portable *nix version of rar/unrar was developed to be portable, not efficient. Try using the Windows version if you think it's too slow.".

Re:There are already "free" unrar apps (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36091030)

This free software version of UnRAR is based on an old version of RARLAB's UnRAR with permission from author Eugene Roshal.[1] It is licensed under the GPL. It does not support the RAR3 format.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrar [wikipedia.org]

Re:There are already "free" unrar apps (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36092030)

Copyright doesn't matter, what matters is the license. You omitted the relevant part:

The license for original unRAR code has the following restriction:

            The unRAR sources cannot be used to re-create the RAR compression algorithm,
            which is proprietary. Distribution of modified unRAR sources in separate form
            or as a part of other software is permitted, provided that it is clearly
            stated in the documentation and source comments that the code may
            not be used to develop a RAR (WinRAR) compatible archiver.

So unRAR is sort of free but don't you dare look at the source with the wrong thoughts (writing a packer). I wonder how the LGPL can be compatible with such a restriction.

I remember... (1)

Super Dave Osbourne (688888) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090456)

Back in the day, OpenIt! :) I think I even wrote some of that code. How times change, but ObjC still is the best damn mistake to ever happen in programming.

Re:I remember... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36090742)

What the fuck are you talking about?

The Unarchiver (3, Interesting)

PhunkySchtuff (208108) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090552)

I'll put in a big thanks for The Unarchiver.

I deploy it as my standard unarchiving utility on all desktops I manage. It replaces the Mac OS X built-in BOMArchiveHelper which isn't as smart about handling extracting multiple files at once, and it handles a vast range of file formats that you'd otherwise have to resort to the command-line to deal with. News of it adding RARv3 is the icing on the cake - not that I've encountered a RARv3 file, but because now I don't need to worry if I do as my standard utility will deal with it.

Big double-thumbs up to Dag Ågren. Cheers.

oof (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36090710)

Mac enthusiast AND Ausjailian?

Crikey!

Abbo boyfriend for the trifecta?

Re:The Unarchiver (1)

Lord_Jeremy (1612839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36091394)

Indeed. I discovered this amazing gem of a tool a couple years ago and I've loved it ever since. I've been familiarizing myself with the source lately with the intent of implementing a FUSE filesystem layer for at least viewing archives. Glad to see TU is getting a decent amount of attention.

Seriously, just download WinRAR. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36090626)

All this work and hubaloo, when all you have to do is go to rarlab.com get the latest WinRAR, FOR FREE!!!!!! "They might go out of business, what will we do, oh just what will we do?" you snivel? Hello? McFly? Remember all those stories about piracy? Just go to a site and get it there!

For such smart people, sometimes they can be really stupid. I guess that old axiom is true, intelligence/brains != smarts.

Re:Seriously, just download WinRAR. (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090722)

The importance is that this is free as in freedom software. Ubuntu, gNewSense, and Debian can all legally ship this out of the box.

"Legally"? Is this a new word? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36090818)

I'm a pirate, so I really have no idea what the hell you are jabbering about. I don't need you talking no trash, I do all the work around here. When I see something I want, I TAKE IT!!!! Capiche?

fuhgetaboutit

Re:Seriously, just download WinRAR. (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36092170)

You should read the license of the software you download. You can only use it legally for 40 days.

Catch 22 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36090642)

Unfortunately for free software purists, the author compressed for distribution all binaries and source code of the The Unarchiver using RARv3.

Speaking of unarchivers... (0)

antdude (79039) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090686)

Hi.

Last week, I downloaded 4.2 GB http://dl.godsandheroes.com/Gods&Heroes_0.10.30.0a.zip [godsandheroes.com] file, but I am having problems using command line's unzip to test and extract this file:

$ unzip -t GodsAndHeroes_0.10.30.0a.zip
Archive: GodsAndHeroes_0.10.30.0a.zip
warning [GodsAndHeroes_0.10.30.0a.zip]: 131165639 extra bytes at beginning or within zipfile
    (attempting to process anyway)
error [GodsAndHeroes_0.10.30.0a.zip]: start of central directory not found;
    zipfile corrupt.
    (please check that you have transferred or created the zipfile in the
    appropriate BINARY mode and that you have compiled UnZip properly)

$ unzip -v
UnZip 6.00 of 20 April 2009, by Debian. Original by Info-ZIP.

Latest sources and executables are at ftp://ftp.info-zip.org/pub/infozip/ [info-zip.org] ;
see ftp://ftp.info-zip.org/pub/infozip/UnZip.html [info-zip.org] for other sites.

Compiled with gcc 4.4.3 for Unix (Linux ELF) on Feb 21 2010.

UnZip special compilation options:
                ACORN_FTYPE_NFS
                COPYRIGHT_CLEAN (PKZIP 0.9x unreducing method not supported)
                SET_DIR_ATTRIB
                SYMLINKS (symbolic links supported, if RTL and file system permit)
                TIMESTAMP
                UNIXBACKUP
                USE_EF_UT_TIME
                USE_UNSHRINK (PKZIP/Zip 1.x unshrinking method supported)
                USE_DEFLATE64 (PKZIP 4.x Deflate64(tm) supported)
                UNICODE_SUPPORT [wide-chars, char coding: UTF-8] (handle UTF-8 paths)
                LARGE_FILE_SUPPORT (large files over 2 GiB supported)
                ZIP64_SUPPORT (archives using Zip64 for large files supported)
                USE_BZIP2 (PKZIP 4.6+, using bzip2 lib version 1.0.5, 10-Dec-2007)
                VMS_TEXT_CONV
                WILD_STOP_AT_DIR
                [decryption, version 2.11 of 05 Jan 2007]

UnZip and ZipInfo environment options:
                      UNZIP: [none]
                UNZIPOPT: [none]
                  ZIPINFO: [none]
            ZIPINFOOPT: [none]

What's wrong? I even tried it on my friend's 64-bit Fedora box with the same unzip version with the same results. :( WinZip v12.1 in old, updated 32-bit Windows XP Pro. SP3 had no problems!

Is unzip too old? Is there another one to use?

Thank you in advance. :)

Re:Speaking of unarchivers... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36090970)

My god man. This is slashdot, not random tech support. Surely a 5-digit should know better than this.

Unarchiver? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36090712)

De-archiver perhaps, at a pinch, would be an acceptable noun.

But "unarchiver" does not make sense as an English word, meaning literally "not archiver". There is no means by which English could be contorted to create the verb "unarchive" to mean "remove from an archive".

Re:Unarchiver? (0)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#36090750)

To unearth is to remove from the earth. One that unearths would be an unearther. To unarchive is to remove from an archive. One that unarchives would be an unarchiver.

Re:Unarchiver? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36091054)

Looks like you need an untroller.

Thank you for the tip... Amiga formats, too (1)

chiark (36404) | more than 3 years ago | (#36091044)

To slashdot, thanks for bringing this to my attention! I have far too much data in Amiga archives / disk image formats that previously I had to fire up an emulator to access. With this, and xnview / nconvert along with other tools, I can access my old stuff whenever I want.

The fact it is open source, and deals with rars, and almost every other archive well is an added bonus!

Of course, huge thanks to the author. Donation on its way.

...and I've just noticed that the author provides a lightweight IFF viewer. What a star!

Already had source code (3, Informative)

peppepz (1311345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36091102)

You could already download the UnRAR source code from the RAR web site itself; if all you want to do is to extract RAR files, its license doesn’t look too evil (I'm quoting the most "problematic" part):

The UnRAR sources may be used in any software to handle RAR archives without limitations free of charge, but cannot be used to re-create the RAR compression algorithm, which is proprietary. Distribution of modified UnRAR sources in separate form or as a part of other software is permitted, provided that it is clearly stated in the documentation and source comments that the code may not be used to develop a RAR (WinRAR) compatible archiver.

OK, it's no GPL, but still I'd say that it puts "open source" RAR support in a better position than other high priority GNU projects such as Flash support, where your only chance to have a good experience is to use binary-only code.

Re:Already had source code (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36092014)

That's distributing code. There are two parts to being open and distribution. Devs want access to the code, users want the binary installed as a package.

I'm surprised RAR is still relevant. People using it are capping/ripping video that they don't own copyright to, and there's no need to split the file into small chunks now bittorrent is used. Useness for binaries is all but dead. Torrents have built in error checking, so the need for parts and recovery is redundant in the process.

Most distro's already include unrar don't they? (2)

timbo234 (833667) | more than 3 years ago | (#36091126)

On the 2 distros I've used most in the last 8 years (Mandriva and Opensuse) unrar is already included (in Mandriva from the PLF repo, in Opensuse from the non-oss repo). So what's the advantage of this new program?

Re:Most distro's already include unrar don't they? (2)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 3 years ago | (#36091276)

UnRAR is a binary. This is why it's in the non-oss repo in Opensuse. The advantage is that this one is under an open source license.

Re:Most distro's already include unrar don't they? (2)

arkhan_jg (618674) | more than 3 years ago | (#36091290)

unrar is by rarlab, the same company that makes winrar and is run by Alexander Roshal - and licences the format from Eugene Roshal, who invented it. It's shareware, and can only decompress files, not create them. Rar and winrar, that can create archives, are closed source.

This one is open source, and thus can be incorporated more easily into other open source apps for extraction of the current v3 of rar files; previously, unrarlib could do v1 and v2, but not v3.

Irony (1)

ianare (1132971) | more than 3 years ago | (#36091136)

So now we have free (libre) software for extracting RAR files. Great ! You just need to run it on a proprietary operating system ...

Re:Irony (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#36091678)

The command-line version runs on Linux, OS X and Windows. Probably on BSDs too, but I have not been able to test this.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?