loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) (04/26/88)
>From ninja!sys1!uiucuxc!rutgers!psuvax1.uucp!psuvm.bitnet!jkn!mailer > Subject: Re: Comparison of compaction routines > > 1. Speed does matter when you are doing the compaction/extraction > on the PC itself. > > 2. There are lots of non-Unix nodes out there, and the compress function > is not nearly so universal as you seem to believe. > > Bob Johnson Can you believe this guy? Look at the string of Unix sites he pipes his "note" through and he's got the audacity to talk about his little problems. Somebody tell him that every one of the archiver programs which he swears by uses "compress" as at least on of it's compaction methods. Maybe he doesn't know about crunching and squashing, but is ignorance an excuse? clb@loci.UUCP
cjeffery@arizona.edu (Clinton Jeffery) (04/27/88)
From article <496@csccat.UUCP>, by loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow), flaming someone to the nth degree: > Maybe he doesn't know > about crunching and squashing, but is ignorance an excuse? Maybe this flamer doesn't know what a condescending unix-snot his posting makes him look like, but is ignorance an excuse? (PS I LOVE UNIX TOO) Compress may or may not be one of the compaction methods used by arc programs, but if can't read ARC files its utility is limited. I for one would like SOMEONE to write an archiver smart enough to figure out which program did the compression, and then field the file to ARC, ZOO, Compress, or whatever else will handle things. -- | Clint Jeffery, University of Arizona Department of Computer Science | cjeffery@arizona.edu -or- {ihnp4 noao}!arizona!cjeffery --