dmg vs. sit

[DougAdams]

When OS X began to proliferate, I began seeing more and more downloadable files that were encoded disc images (with the .dmg.bin extension).

I maintain a couple of sites that offer downloads as StuffIt'ed files. Generally, these are rather small downloads, usually no bigger than 50kb.

I must have missed the memo: Is there an advantage I am missing out on by not using disk images?

TIA!

Doug
Doug's AppleScripts for iTunes (http://www.malcolmadams.com/itunes/)

[hombre]

Don't feel bad, Doug, I never get the memos either :/

Actually, this is an excellent question, and I have been wondering the same thing for months. I don't know the answer to your question, but as a user, I have noticed (recently) that I am slightly annoyed when I download something and it is a .sit file rather than a .dmg file. I think the reason I have come to prefer .dmg is that I only install a fraction of what I download right away, and even if I do insttall it, I generally keep archives of old versions. If I want to check something out (which usually amounts to reminding myself of why I didn't install it in the first place) I can run it from the mounted image. No unstuffing a file that I wind up deleting half the time anyway. I like them even more now that the new version of SNAX (I am beta testing it) mounts them in a heartbeat, without using Disk Copy.

On the other hand, Stuffit Archives are easier to make, I think, and are smaller, I believe, than compressed .dmg files.

A related question is this: what is the reason for the sudden proliferation .tgz files, also at the expense of Stuffit Archives? I find that somewhat puzzling as well. I presume it has to do with our new Unix affiliation; one can manipulate them without leaving the CLI, for example. But again, Stuffit compression is better. Also, Stuffit archives can be browsed and searched from the GUI, and preserve resource forks (obviously), which .tgz files do not.

Yet another nice feature of SNAX is that hfstar, which preserves resource forks, is built in. (Note that if you create a .tgz archive with SNAX, but open it with Stuffit Expander, you don't get the resource forks back).

Finally, I wonder why one does not see more in the way of files made with pax and hfspax.

I await enlightenment from the usual sources.

[DougAdams]

hombre,

You have finessed my query deliciously.

Doug

[wayneyoung]

The main problem with Stuffit in OSX is when it comes to long file names. The stuffit format cannot handle names longer than OS9 could -- 32 characters. If you use long file names, DMG is the better format to use. The tar/gzip, or .tgz, is good because it is free. However, it cannot handle resource forks, so you could render your files useless if you use .tgz. DMG may very well be the best format to use, it handles long file names, resource forks, and it is free!

[Jacques]

This thread has me thinking..

Drag and drop install of .DMG archives is wonderful, especially when the file is a package (done so right by OmniGroup for one) - this should definately be the rule for all new software!

As far as archiving, I've stuck with .SIT - but now am considering .DMG -- anyone out there have the goods as far as compression comparison?

Jacques

[AKcrab]

.dmg files are not compressed at all, are they?

[mervTormel]

if i never ever see another stuffit expander OR disk copy dialog box stealing my focus, that would be fine with me.

________________
oldMan: so, i'm 27" below the cup, and the green pitches back and forth.

AKcrab: yeah, but you're even by the time you get there. swing!

[AKcrab]

Meaning they should operate in the background without user input, or that we should all be tarring and zipping our files, so you can be a command line commando?

[mervTormel]

yes. no.

i want the interface monkeys to do something about processes that don't really need to be in focus.

i rarely go commando for inflating archives. i care little about how the distribution is packaged.

i find images a little onerous. i always option-drag them to my download location, then i have to dismount the image and delete the .image package. it's a bit of a tedious process after awhile, always greeted with a sigh.

so, for a stuffed .image, it's:

1) stuffit archive expansion dialog and stolen focus (but auto-remove archive is done, yah!)

2) disk copy image mount dialog and stolen focus

3) option-drag to target maintenance chore (stolen focus)

4) unmount image maintenance chore (stolen focus)

5) select and command-delete .image archive and then command-option-delete empty trash maintenance chore (stolen focus)

so, i'd like to see this process more in the "i-don't-give-a-spit-about-it-unless-it-gakks" mode

to whit:

background archive inflation (archive is auto-removed), background convert image to directory (.image is auto-removed)

maybe innocuous dock thermometers but no foreground process. grok?

[at_sym]

Merv, I'm with you 200 % on this. I despise having Expander/Disk Copy swipe focus from what I'm doing. But, in the interest of sharing a tip you probably already knew, I wanted to comment on this point:

Originally posted by mervTormel

5) select and command-delete .image archive and then command-option-delete empty trash maintenance chore (stolen focus)


For what it's worth, you can set Expander to auto-delete archives after unstuffing. The options are in the Expanding item of the Options.

I always forget that you can double-click Expander and edit the prefs, so maybe this will help someone who is as equally forgetful.

[mervTormel]

Originally posted by at_sym
For what it's worth, you can set Expander to auto-delete archives after unstuffing. The options are in the Expanding item of the Options...

indeed, expander will and does auto-remove the stuffit archive.

i was referring to the .{d,i}mg archive turd i now have after option-dragging the mounted image to the target, e.g.,

dir - MouseWorks for Mac OS X
img - MouseWorks_OS_X_install.dmg

so, item three above should read:

3) option-drag [the mounted image] to target maintenance chore (stolen focus)


thanks for pointing it out and i hope i've captured the true mechanisms and have made it clearer.

[Jacques]

For what it's worth -

If you keep DiskCopy and StuffitExpander loaded from the start, hidden - they shouldn't steal the attention, handling their processes in the background.

My target directories for program unpacks are in the custom toolbar of every Finder. When I copy the package or folder from the .DMG I drag it to my App folder in the toolbar, then drag it (hold for more than a second on title bar icon) to my trash (also in the Finder toolbar).

Pretty quick and painless. After the install, I go to my download folder and drag the .DMG file to my archives drop box.

Using the Finder custom toolbar is definitely a big shortcut!

Jacques

[DougAdams]

As I originally stated at the top of this thread, I distribute downloads from my site. It appears that StuffIt files are preferred for distributing software since they: 1) make download files smaller 2) able to delete archive after expanding 3) create fewer "turds" than a .dmg.

I haven't seen any advantage to .dmg files other than the "freeness" of DC, although Expander is free to the end user too.

[at_sym]

Originally posted by DougAdams
I haven't seen any advantage to .dmg files other than the "freeness" of DC, although Expander is free to the end user too.

I think the major advantage is that (as of today), Stuffit Expander doesn't support long filenames. So if you've got a file named com.yoursoftware.uses.reallylong.names.for.stuff, you may want to go DMG.

[DougAdams]

Is it also true that your icon view layout remains intact in a .dmg? For instance, I often see a tiled logo effect in a .dmg (the FruitMenu installation comes to mind). I've always gotten inconsistent results trying to acomplish that in a .sit'ed folder, however.

[mervTormel]

hmm, interesting.

that may be important from a marketing standpoint, but all that garnish gets tossed pretty quick here.

power users tend to work almost exclusively in column view (true?), unless trying to accomplish something with the list view sorts (and that was painful in 10.1.x with more than a couple dozen files. glad to say that list view is fixed in 10.2, but i find myself hankering for a preview window of some sort).

anyhow, my point being is that in column view, icon placement and the garnish is noise, like the background image or 20 tiled icons arranged to create an image. so, the marketing fluff is fleeting, approaching more annoying maint chores to clean up, and icon placement is irrelavent.

although, it occurs to me that i've mounted an image and all the icons were stacked, which was annoying, or at least seemed unprofessional. so, i retract some of the above, a good appearance is a positive thing, if only for a fleeting moment.

--
The Sirius Cybernetics Corporation is responsible for the development of the most popular range of domestic and industrial robots. The marketing division defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who’s fun to be with!"

The (late) Robotics Correspondent of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy defines The Sirius Cybernetics Corporation as; "a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes".

[Jacques]

Originally posted by mervTormel

1...that may be important from a marketing standpoint, but all that garnish gets tossed pretty quick here...

2...power users tend to work almost exclusively in column view (true?)...

3...icon placement and the garnish is noise, like the background image or 20 tiled icons arranged to create an image...


1...when dealing with installers, presentation is important! The best consistant example is OmniGroup, who from the start have used .DMG archives attractively and correctly...

2...yup, column view is nice (ever use the Apple script Tandem? It automatically creates two column views lined up and brings them to the front, useful!) when working with your own files...

3...when using .DMG to create the background it's through an image, so those old Mac OS 9 tiled icon probs are gone...

bottomline, our systems work great with column view - it's efficient

topline, our installers need to be simple and are punctuated by good presentation

[Dr-NiKoN]

"i was referring to the .{d,i}mg archive"

Sure you don't mean: '\.(d|i)mg' ? :D

nikon

[Craig R. Arko]

These (http://www.aboutcomp.com/~crarko/desktops/imgs.html) uses of Disk Images are the standard that I would like to see more vendors adopt for drag and drop installs. Even package installs could be presented with brief instructions in the picture and a clear readme available.

[hombre]

Christian Pickman on OSXFAQ
http://www.osxfaq.com/Tutorials/disk-images/index.ws (http://) states the following: You may have already noticed that Mac OS X shareware and commercial software developers are starting to use disk images as a method for online software delivery. Using disk images for software delivery guarantees that there is a checksum verification of the disk image prior to mounting the disk image as a volume on the user desktop. The added benefit is software developers can easily add company logos or other artwork as a background image in the disk image to enhance the appearance of their product.


I had forgotten about the checksum aspect. I think some people turn this off. Do we think this is important?

[DougAdams]

Steven Frank of Panic Software introduced this topic at his weblog, if you are interested.

This is the link (http://www.panic.com/~stevenf/mt/archives/000118.php).

[nkuvu]

I forget -- is a .sit file considered by Stuffit to be an archive file?

The reason I ask is that I'm not sure if Stuffit removes that file after expanding the contents. I know there's one file extension that hangs around after being expanded (even though I have the "delete archives" option set).

For larger (more important) applications, I prefer the .dmg files -- I keep an archive of all of my installation programs, and I don't want them to be removed after installation. For files like icons or images and so on I prefer .sit or .tgz files, because I don't want the archives to stay there.

So I think it pretty much depends on what you are distributing, IMHO.

[Glanz]

Originally posted by hombre
Don't feel bad, Doug, I never get the memos either :/

A related question is this: what is the reason for the sudden proliferation .tgz files, also at the expense of Stuffit Archives? I find that somewhat puzzling as well. I presume it has to do with our new Unix affiliation; one can manipulate them without leaving the CLI, for example. But again, Stuffit compression is better. Also, Stuffit archives can be browsed and searched from the GUI, and preserve resource forks (obviously), which .tgz files do not.

I await enlightenment from the usual sources.

I have also noticed a proliferation of badly made tarballs. This annoys me from time to time. I guess many Linux heads [I guess some consider me one of those] are "porting" apps while forgetting some very important particularities of Darwin.

[Mikey-San]

For clarification, StuffIt Expander 7.0 /does/ support long file names, but only if the archive it's expanding is in the new StuffIt X format. Older (StuffIt 5 and prior) archiving remains crippled.


-/-