dvljhg@cs.umu.se (J|rgen Holmberg) (10/04/90)
I have seen a lot of postings complaining about lharc lately. The program is poorly written and you should use some other archive/compressor but if you use the nozero option you will at least screw the files up as little as possible :-) Jorgen
jita@polaris.utu.fi (Marko Katajisto) (10/05/90)
In article <1990Oct4.133454.25942@cs.umu.se> dvljhg@cs.umu.se (J|rgen Holmberg) writes: > I have seen a lot of postings complaining about lharc lately. > The program is poorly written and you should use some other > archive/compressor but if you use the nozero option you will > at least screw the files up as little as possible :-) Well well, what can I say... I've used lharc rather heavily for a while now and have nothing negative to say about it. I've used lharc in UNIX and in my Amy with very few conflicts. Lharc's newest version 1.2 is very stable and beta version 0.9 of LZ works rather fine too. UNIX version is a bit buggy still, you just got to use a patched version of it and everything works fine... Lharc is not a poorly written program, it's an excellent piece of public domain software and a nice and useful tool. > Jorgen PS. My whole 25-meg PD library ic compressed with lharc simply because it's the best available tool for it... :) Jita - Marko Katajisto University of Turku Department of Computer Science Internet: jita@utu.fi Bitnet: jita@firien.bitnet Tel: 358 21 325910
edp367s@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (Rik Harris) (10/05/90)
dvljhg@cs.umu.se (J|rgen Holmberg) writes: >I have seen a lot of postings complaining about lharc lately. >The program is poorly written and you should use some other >archive/compressor but if you use the nozero option you will >at least screw the files up as little as possible :-) There are at least 3 versions of lharc available for the amiga. I don't know much about how good each one is, except that I have used at least two of them, constantly for a couple of months, and had _no_ problem. The only problems I have had are using archives that were packed on unix machines with the protection bits in them (amiga lharc's don't understand unix protection bits) I can't wait to get time to try out lz, 'cause its go the great lharc compression with speed. >Jorgen rik. -- Rik Harris - edp367s@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au | Build a system that Faculty of Computing and Information Technology, | even a fool can use, Monash University, Caulfield Campus, Australia | and only a fool will (say that with your mouth full!) | want to use it.
jma@beach.cis.ufl.edu (John 'Vlad' Adams) (10/05/90)
In article <1990Oct4.133454.25942@cs.umu.se> dvljhg@cs.umu.se (J|rgen Holmberg) writes: >I have seen a lot of postings complaining about lharc lately. >The program is poorly written and you should use some other >archive/compressor but if you use the nozero option you will >at least screw the files up as little as possible :-) B.S. I've been using LHARC on the Amiga for a long time now and I've had *NO* problems. And my archives are completely usable on other non-Amiga platforms which have LHARC. Get yer facts straight. -- John M. Adams --**-- Professional Student on the six-year plan! /// Internet: jma@beach.cis.ufl.edu -or- vladimir@maple.circa.ufl.edu /// "We'll always be together, together in electric dreams" Tangerine Dream \\V// Sysop of The Beachside. FIDOnet 1:3612/557. 904-492-2305 (Florida) \X/
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (10/09/90)
jita@polaris.utu.fi (Marko Katajisto) writes: >> I have seen a lot of postings complaining about lharc lately. >> The program is poorly written and you should use some other >Well well, what can I say... I've used lharc rather heavily for a while now >and have nothing negative to say about it. I've used lharc in UNIX and in my >PS. My whole 25-meg PD library ic compressed with lharc simply because it's the >best available tool for it... :) Not only that, but 99% of all software on 99% of the BBS's in the USA is LHARCed, so it is a standard whether one wants it to be or not. I have had no trouble with it. Jorgan might be confusing it with LHWARP, which does seem to have some bugs in it (re: all the trouble people have had with the commodore 64 emulator file on abcfd) -- John Sparks |D.I.S.K. Public Access Unix System| Multi-User Games, Email sparks@corpane.UUCP |PH: (502) 968-DISK 24Hrs/2400BPS | Usenet, Chatting, =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|7 line Multi-User system. | Downloads & more. A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of----Ogden Nash
nkraft@crash.cts.com (Norman Kraft) (10/15/90)
In article <3377@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: >Not only that, but 99% of all software on 99% of the BBS's in the USA is >LHARCed, so it is a standard whether one wants it to be or not. I have had >no trouble with it. Jorgan might be confusing it with LHWARP, which does >seem to have some bugs in it (re: all the trouble people have had with >the commodore 64 emulator file on abcfd) Excuse me? I don't know what boards you use, but 99% of the software on 99% of the BBS's in the USA (which tend to be DOS, not Amiga), is ZIP'ed, not LHARCed. Most of the software on public access and university systems is ZOO'ed (which makes sense, since it is the most portable, if not the most efficient.) Some of the Amiga boards around here in San Diego are ZOOing their software, as well... -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Norman R. Kraft "Things should be as simple Director, Software Development as possible, but not simpler." Postal Buddy Corporation, San Diego, CA - Albert Einstein INET nkraft@crash.cts.com UUCP {hplabs!hp-sdd ucsd nosc}!crash!nkraft Usual disclaimer applies... --------------------------------------------------------------------------
joseph@valnet.UUCP (Joseph P. Hillenburg) (10/15/90)
nkraft@crash.cts.com (Norman Kraft) writes: > In article <3377@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: > > >Not only that, but 99% of all software on 99% of the BBS's in the USA is > >LHARCed, so it is a standard whether one wants it to be or not. I have had > >no trouble with it. Jorgan might be confusing it with LHWARP, which does > >seem to have some bugs in it (re: all the trouble people have had with > >the commodore 64 emulator file on abcfd) > > Excuse me? I don't know what boards you use, but 99% of the software > on 99% of the BBS's in the USA (which tend to be DOS, not Amiga), is > ZIP'ed, not LHARCed. Most of the software on public access and > university systems is ZOO'ed (which makes sense, since it is the most > portable, if not the most efficient.) Some of the Amiga boards around > here in San Diego are ZOOing their software, as well... > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Norman R. Kraft "Things should be as simple > Director, Software Development as possible, but not simpler." > Postal Buddy Corporation, San Diego, CA - Albert Einstein > INET nkraft@crash.cts.com > UUCP {hplabs!hp-sdd ucsd nosc}!crash!nkraft Usual disclaimer applies... > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Well, us hicks here in Indiana like to LHArc (actually LZ) our files, simply because the archives look nice! :) -Joseph Hillenburg UUCP: ...iuvax!valnet!joseph ARPA: valnet!joseph@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu INET: joseph@valnet.UUCP
252u3130@fergvax.unl.edu (Phil Dietz) (10/15/90)
In article <5037@crash.cts.com> nkraft@crash.cts.com (Norman Kraft) writes: >In article <3377@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: > >>Not only that, but 99% of all software on 99% of the BBS's in the USA is >>LHARCed, so it is a standard whether one wants it to be or not. I have had >>no trouble with it. Jorgan might be confusing it with LHWARP, which does >>seem to have some bugs in it (re: all the trouble people have had with >>the commodore 64 emulator file on abcfd) > >Excuse me? I don't know what boards you use, but 99% of the software >on 99% of the BBS's in the USA (which tend to be DOS, not Amiga), is >ZIP'ed, not LHARCed. Most of the software on public access and >university systems is ZOO'ed (which makes sense, since it is the most >portable, if not the most efficient.) Some of the Amiga boards around >here in San Diego are ZOOing their software, as well... > Yeah right. Hmmmm....I wonder why I seem to be saving over 30% converting zoo's to lzh's? I wonder why our BBS is in the process of convertings all pak, arc, and zoo's, into lzh's (sits to .cpt's!). I know for a fact that lzh beats the dickins outta zoo. Converting a 6 meg partioion of zoo's yielded me over 1.5 megs more of space, dude. The reason the net uses zoo, was because it's an OLD standard. It supported full path structure so it was used over arc. As a result UNIX picked it up quick (probably developed on UNIX). Nowadays, UNIX has forgotton zoo and now goes with .Z's-- a suped up lzh'er!. Lharc is relatively new and works very well. Except for the new cpt format on MACS (its even better than lzh), we Amigan's need to get a common compression form. Like an IFF compressor to be better known as lzh. Phil Dietz ps. LZH averages about 3-6% better than ZIPS. IBM'ers should stick with ZIP's though, so Amiga files and IBM don't get confused. <<<=================--------- Cheap Ad ---------===================<<< Phil Dietz SWL Lincoln 565 MEGS! 2 lines 252u3130@fergvax.unl.edu (402)421-1963 AMIGA, IBM, MAC, GIFS Unless your're qweer, you'll buy an Amiga.
n074ev@tamuts.tamu.edu (Christopher Walton) (10/15/90)
Zip does have a superior crunching algorith, considering it has lzhuf built
in as well as thier own modifications.... I would even say it is better than
LHArc... BUT the I*M has a superior Zip archiving/dearchiving program. The
Amiga version is buggy, slow, and not universal to all versions of the I*M
Zip. If someone would make a cli version like lharc, it MIGHT catch on...
But as for 99% of all bbs's using ZIP, WRONG.... Most Amiga bbs's use LZH
and considering this is an AMIGA newsgroup, I think you should think before
you speak...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Walton : n07ev@tamuts.tamu.edu
'To LIVE is to use an AMIGA!' : cmw1725@tamvenus.tamu.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------jbn35564@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (J.B. Nicholson) (10/16/90)
n074ev@tamuts.tamu.edu (Christopher Walton) writes: >Zip does have a superior crunching algorith, considering it has lzhuf built >in as well as thier own modifications.... I would even say it is better than >LHArc... BUT the I*M has a superior Zip archiving/dearchiving program. The >Amiga version is buggy, slow, and not universal to all versions of the I*M >Zip. If someone would make a cli version like lharc, it MIGHT catch on... There is an unzip cli program for the Amiga, but again, it doesn't support all the compression methods that the "I*M" version does. In fact, I've had to use the old PKAZip to unzip everything I've received that was ZIPped. >But as for 99% of all bbs's using ZIP, WRONG.... Most Amiga bbs's use LZH >and considering this is an AMIGA newsgroup, I think you should think before >you speak... I think that LZH is the best out there (for the Amiga), as far as being able to produce the smallest files (which is my top priority in a compression program), but the program has a few problems (which I won't go into here). If Paolo Zibetti would care to comment or contact me, please do! I like both lharc and lhwarp, but I don't think that either is a complete replacement for everyone's compression needs. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Christopher Walton : n07ev@tamuts.tamu.edu > 'To LIVE is to use an AMIGA!' : cmw1725@tamvenus.tamu.edu > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | "Earth destroyed by solar flare. Film at eleven" - The last nightly news.| +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | jeffo@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu These opinions are mine, that's all.| +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
maniac@brownie.cs.unlv.edu (Eric J. Schwertfeger) (10/16/90)
In article <9129@helios.TAMU.EDU>, n074ev@tamuts.tamu.edu (Christopher Walton) writes:
) Zip does have a superior crunching algorith, considering it has lzhuf built
) in as well as thier own modifications.... I would even say it is better than
) LHArc...
Not Quite. I ported a CLI based unzip program to the Amiga, so I
got a good long look at the source code. LZ-Huffman, which is what LHArc
uses, is not present. PKZip does, however have LZW, which is the same type
of compression ZOO uses.
Actually, I wasn't too impressed with the best ZIP compression
mode (forgot it's name, been too long), not because it wasn't efficient,
but because I saw a few *EASY* ways to improve on it.
ZIP tends to do about as well as LHArc on most files, except that
on a file that niether can compress much, ZIP usually does worse.
--
Eric J. Schwertfeger, maniac@jimi.cs.unlv.edudinn@ug.cs.dal.ca (Michael Dinn) (10/16/90)
In article <ay83q2w163w@valnet> joseph@valnet.UUCP (Joseph P. Hillenburg) writes: >nkraft@crash.cts.com (Norman Kraft) writes: >Well, us hicks here in Indiana like to LHArc (actually LZ) our files, >simply because the archives look nice! :) I run a BBS myself; I use LHARC or LZ for all of my file compressions. It gives compression just as good ar PKZip while keeping CLI useability or GUI-style useability (via LHARCA). I wouldn't switch if paid... -- Michael Dinn, Sysop of the Moose's Swamp - Nova Scotia's largest Amiga BBS +1 (902) 463-0483, 3/12/24/48/96/14,400 baud * 170 Megabytes online Full Internet/Bitnet subscribing to the BBS is available. Send mail. Home: moose%swamp@tmpor.UUCP (Amiga1000/BBS) +-------------------------- School: mdinn@ac.dal.ca, mdinn@dalac.bitnet | These are my opinions and Work: 01Moose@ac.dal.ca, 01Moose@dalac.bitnet| noone else's. (blame me :-)
joseph@valnet.UUCP (Joseph P. Hillenburg) (10/17/90)
Yeah. I say it's time CBM declare more IFF stuff, like make a 3-D graphics standard, standard compression format. Possibly a standard word processor format etc. -Joseph Hillenburg UUCP: ...iuvax!valnet!joseph ARPA: valnet!joseph@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu INET: joseph@valnet.UUCP
joseph@valnet.UUCP (Joseph P. Hillenburg) (10/17/90)
I think .LZH files would blow the doors off .zip files if: a) the original LHArc got faster (and maybe supported self-extracting archives) b) LZ got more compatible. -Joseph Hillenburg UUCP: ...iuvax!valnet!joseph ARPA: valnet!joseph@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu INET: joseph@valnet.UUCP
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (10/17/90)
nkraft@crash.cts.com (Norman Kraft) writes: >In article <3377@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: >>Not only that, but 99% of all software on 99% of the BBS's in the USA is >>LHARCed, so it is a standard whether one wants it to be or not. I have had >Excuse me? I don't know what boards you use, but 99% of the software >on 99% of the BBS's in the USA (which tend to be DOS, not Amiga), is >ZIP'ed, not LHARCed. Most of the software on public access and >university systems is ZOO'ed (which makes sense, since it is the most >portable, if not the most efficient.) Some of the Amiga boards around >here in San Diego are ZOOing their software, as well... Sorry for the confusion, you are right. If you are talking about all BBS's (like I mistakenly implied). But what I should have made clear was that I was talking about Amiga BBS's. The evolution I have seen on Amiga BBS's is they started with ARC, then went to Zoo, then Lharc and Zip came on the scene. Zip and Lharc competed for a short while then it seemed like Lharc started taking over. Then we heard from Phil Katz that he was pissed off because no one on the Amiga was registering PKAZIP. After that, you hardly see any ZIP files at all any more on Amiga boards. And ARC and ZOO have all but disapeared also. Zoo is still used on university and unix based BBS's that support the Amiga, because Lharc hasn't really caught on for unix yet. But it is getting there. If you look at many of the FTP sites, you will see that Lharc is starting to overtake Zoo (like incoming/amiga at abcfd for example). [I just posted a message yesterday admonishing someone to 'say what you mean and mean what you say', I guess my making a similar mistake is justice, eh?] -- John Sparks |D.I.S.K. Public Access Unix System| Multi-User Games, Email sparks@corpane.UUCP |PH: (502) 968-DISK 24Hrs/2400BPS | Usenet, Chatting, =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|7 line Multi-User system. | Downloads & more. A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of----Ogden Nash
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (10/19/90)
joseph@valnet.UUCP (Joseph P. Hillenburg) writes: >Yeah. I say it's time CBM declare more IFF stuff, like make a 3-D >graphics standard, standard compression format. Possibly a standard word >processor format etc. CBM never made IFF a standard. Electronic Arts did. They just had the fore-sight to release it as a public standard to encourage other people to use it also. So it became a defacto standard on the amiga. As to the 3D standard, the rest of the world already has two, it would be nice if Amiga adapted them. IGES and DXF. They are CAD standards but they also support 3D. and for rendering, RENDERMAN is a pretty nice standard, that supports textures as well as 3D shapes. -- John Sparks |D.I.S.K. Public Access Unix System| Multi-User Games, Email sparks@corpane.UUCP |PH: (502) 968-DISK 24Hrs/2400BPS | Usenet, Chatting, =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|7 line Multi-User system. | Downloads & more. A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of----Ogden Nash