blahaj.exe.tar.gz
Speaking of which, it blew my mind when I discovered that .EXEs are just zip files compressed archives. Same goes for .DLLs, and a lot of other common Windows file extensions as well. (.DOC too, for example IIRC). They all open in your favorite archiver software (I like NanaZip; which is a fork of 7-Zip with a modern UI).
Just because they open in 7-Zip or whatever doesn’t mean they are just a zip file. There are several kinds of archives. EXEs are a special case as well. They aren’t archives at all. Rather they can contain archives or extra content along with being an executable. One reason is self extracting archives. Here an archive is packaged with an extraction program as an exe all in one. The other case is exes that have extra resources like images, videos, graphics textures, etc. Either way it’s an executable plus some extra stuff, not a zip archive. DLLs I am not sure about, but I suspect something similar is happening here.
Next time you should research stuff before posting it on Lemmy. Things are sometimes more complicated than they appear.
docx you are correct about though. Specifically it’s a zip file that contains XML files and resources.
Edit: I actually found an article on self extracting archives, it’s quite an interesting technology to be fair even if it causes confusion: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executable_compression
By “zip file”, I meant a compressed archive. I’m not as nerdy as you guys are so I see now that there is a difference. I appreciate the correction.
That said, you have to admit that it’s still cool that these different file formats are nothing more than archives. Maybe not to you but it blew my mind when I first learned this.
I don’t think that’s true for .exe or .dll files, but it’s definitely true for .docx files and other Office files ending with x. Some .exe’s are self-extracting archives or have other files embedded in them, so maybe that’s what you’ve been seeing.
Why don’t you just try it and see for yourself?
Remind me in about 5 hours and I’ll upload a screenshot as proof when I get home.
You are actually correct. They can contain archived files or resources that can be unpacked with an archive program (including on Linux btw), but they aren’t just a zip file. That’s why my Linux archive manager (ark I think) offer to open one, but won’t execute it. They can see the extra content even if they can’t execute the file as intended.
We have Unicode these days: blåhaj
Unicode in filenames? Are you crazy?!
Okay that was /s to some extent but I gotta rant, I’m totally convinced that there’s still new software today that completely trip over themselves when files or paths have non-ASCII characters, or sometimes even a space. Incompetence didn’t go anywhere.
I still use underscores for filenames, basically muscle memory at this point
Spaces in file names will always be fiddly though. It’ll work, but it’ll still be wrong, because arguments are space separated, and having spaced file names totally messes with that.
Unicode in filenames can be a bad idea, since there are more than one way to achieve what looks like the same character. So matching patterns could fail if you think it’s one way, but it’s actually another representation in unicode.
Good point. Do filesystems use a normal form to at least prevent having two files with effectively the same name?
I should point out the flip side though, that there’s no avoiding Unicode in filenames. Users in languages that don’t use the Latin alphabet (such as Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Hebrew, Arabic, Greek and Russian, and the list could go on) can reasonably expect to be able to give a file a name they can read and understand with no extra effort. All the software woes that come with it - too bad, software needs to deal with it.
You don’t need to tape archive it, it’s one thing
free him
blahaj.zone