Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-lcc!lll-tis!ames!amdcad!cae780!hplabs!hpcea!hpda!hpihoah!hpirs!jrg
From: jrg@hpirs.HP.COM (Jeff Glasson)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: tar vs. cpio
Message-ID: <4750008@hpirs.HP.COM>
Date: Fri, 5-Jun-87 11:39:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: hpirs.4750008
Posted: Fri Jun  5 11:39:33 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 10-Jun-87 03:49:20 EDT
References: <178@ttrdd.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Lines: 15

> What is the difference between tar and cpio - I mean the Essential
> Difference.  Why did anyone go to the trouble of writing cpio when
> tar is perfectly okay?  What don't I understand about this?  Thanks

First of all, I think cpio came first.  So your question should be phrased:
"Why did someone go and write tar when cpio seems perfectly OK?"

One advantage cpio has over tar is the ability to archive and re-create
special files (i.e. device files, named pipes, etc.).  Tar only knows
how to handle symbolic links.

But, in my opinion, tar has a much superior user interface so I only use
cpio when I have to deal with restoring device files.

Jeff Glasson