On Linux/Unix, does .tar.gz versus .zip matter?
Yes, it matters.
Actually, it depends.
tar.gz
- Stores unix file attributes: uid, gid, permissions (most notably executable). The default may depend on your distribution, and can be toggled with options.
- Consolidates all files to be archived in one file ("Tape ARchive").
- Actual compression is done by GZIP, on the one .tar file
zip
- Stores MSDOS attributes. (Archive, Readonly, Hidden, System)
- Compresses each file individually, then consolidates the individually compressed files in one file
- Includes a file table at the end of the file
Because zip compresses the files individually, a zip-archive will most-likely have a larger size (especially with many smaller files - think config files).
So you see, appart from file size, if you zip a bunch of files on Linux/Unix, and then unzip them, the file-attributes will be gone (at the very least those not supported by MS-DOS - depends on what ZIP-software you use). This may matter, or it may not, in which case it doesn't matter (because the file-size difference is in most cases negligible).
tar gz is better for Linux/Unix as it retains permissions, such as "executable" on scripts.
Most popular Linux distros these days are by default equipped with zip compatibility. But as stated by nc3b, tar and gzip are more common on Linux/Unix systems. If you need 95% compatibility on these systems, consider using tar and gzip. If you need only 85%, zip will do fine.