UNIX for Dummies Questions & Answers

Hi, I'm new to linux and unix and I'm learning. I have no problem with copying files with "cp" command.
I'm following unixacademy dvd training and for some reason there's recommendation to learn copying files with "cpio" command. As to me, this "cpio" method is much more complex, hard to remember and what is the benefit of using it? Aren't all "cp" commands alike? I understand that there are many ways to accomplish the same task, but why such basic task as copying files should be outsourced to "cpio"? I suspect there's some good reason for it. Can someone, please, point me to a reason of using "cpio" instead of "cp"?

Thanks!

I rarely use cpio myself. Originally cp could not do recursive copies. But cpio can do lots of stuff the cp still cannot do. Like copying a bunch of files into a cpio archive. The other utility that can do that is tar, which is what I like. tar and cpio compete to a certain extent. Another utility called pax was written to handle both cpio and tar archives. You really need to know all of these. They are all in operation. If someone hands you a cpio archive containing some program and asks you to install it, cp isn't going to help you.

A lot of people and material seem to be evangelical about using cpio. But it's ancient, very hard to use, doesn't support large files, and isn't even a standard UNIX utility any more, though! tar and cp remain so. In the end, it's just a choice, like what editor you use.

I understand that "cp" will not help with "cpio" archive, it is clear. I've been asking about, why it is used as a replacement of "cp". So "cp" initially could't copy recursively... is that the main reason why "cpio" could be the tool for copying files?