dwl10@uts.amdahl.com (Dave Lowrey) (01/18/90)
We have started receiving NEW comp.{sources,binaries}.amiga
postings again!!! YEA!!!
However, I have a suggestion.....
I usually unpack the postings on my Unix machine before uploading
then to my amiga.
The recent "ChatterBox" posting will not "unshar" correctly, because
it uses filenames longer than 14 characters.
Would it be possible to make it so that future postings "unshar"
correctly under Unix? (I know, just be thankful I get them at all! :-)
Thanks!
--
"What is another word | Dave Lowrey | [The opinions expressed MAY be
for 'Thesaurus'?" | Amdahl Corp. | those of the author and are not
| Houston, Texas | necessarily those of his
Steven Wright | amdahl!dwl10 | employer] (`nuff said!)martens@shawnee.cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Martens) (01/18/90)
In article <d6zY02rx7fOE01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> dwl10@uts.amdahl.com (Dave Lowrey) writes: >The recent "ChatterBox" posting will not "unshar" correctly, because >it uses filenames longer than 14 characters. You must be using a REALLY old version of Unix. >Would it be possible to make it so that future postings "unshar" >correctly under Unix? (I know, just be thankful I get them at all! :-) An operating system should be able to handle a descriptive file name. I'd hope that the moderators wouldn't try to enforce anything like this. -=- -- Jeff (martens@cis.ohio-state.edu) Dan Quayle, space science advocate, on Mars: "We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe."
dwl10@uts.amdahl.com (Dave Lowrey) (01/18/90)
In article <75826@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Jeff Martens <martens@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: >In article <d6zY02rx7fOE01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> dwl10@uts.amdahl.com (Dave Lowrey) writes: > >>The recent "ChatterBox" posting will not "unshar" correctly, because >>it uses filenames longer than 14 characters. > >You must be using a REALLY old version of Unix. > I was afraid this might break up into "My OS is better than YOUR OS" wars like this. PLEASE, lets not continue it!!!!! >>Would it be possible to make it so that future postings "unshar" >>correctly under Unix? (I know, just be thankful I get them at all! :-) > >An operating system should be able to handle a descriptive file name. I agree totally. However, the one I use doesn't. Now, if the moderator is the one making up the file names, then I am only asking that he consider us poor "14 char file name" folks. If he doesn't, then fine. I can always edit the shar files. >I'd hope that the moderators wouldn't try to enforce anything like >this. Would that make the "OLD" OSs go away? Would my company buy a new machine because of it? Just because YOU have access to something better doesn't mean that the rest of us have to live up to it's specs. 14 character file names are upward compatable, at least. :-) -- "What is another word | Dave Lowrey | [The opinions expressed MAY be for 'Thesaurus'?" | Amdahl Corp. | those of the author and are not | Houston, Texas | necessarily those of his Steven Wright | amdahl!dwl10 | employer] (`nuff said!)
tadguy@cs.odu.edu (Tad Guy) (01/18/90)
In article <d6zY02rx7fOE01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> dwl10@uts.amdahl.com (Dave Lowrey) writes: > However, I have a suggestion..... Suggestions posted to the net are not as likely to reach the moderator as those sent to the address listed at the end of every posting... > The recent "ChatterBox" posting will not "unshar" correctly, because > it uses filenames longer than 14 characters. Would it be possible > to make it so that future postings "unshar" correctly under Unix? Gee, it unshars correctly on xanth, which runs UNIX. That should be rewritten as ``correctly under my UNIX, where we aren't permitted to have reasonable filenames like everyone else...'' Seriously, the names of the files in the sources or binaries postings are those used by the person submitting the software, and are not chosen by the moderator. You'll have to appeal to software developers to use short names for files... It's somebody else's problem... :-) ...tad
martens@ketch.cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Martens) (01/18/90)
In article <e6uJ02dl7fRj01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> dwl10@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Dave Lowrey) writes: .In article <75826@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Jeff Martens <martens@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: .>In article <d6zY02rx7fOE01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> dwl10@uts.amdahl.com (Dave Lowrey) writes: .>>The recent "ChatterBox" posting will not "unshar" correctly, because .>>it uses filenames longer than 14 characters. .>You must be using a REALLY old version of Unix. .I was afraid this might break up into "My OS is better than YOUR OS" .wars like this. PLEASE, lets not continue it!!!!! [ ... ] .Would that make the "OLD" OSs go away? Would my company buy a new .machine because of it? Just because YOU have access to something better .doesn't mean that the rest of us have to live up to it's specs. 14 .character file names are upward compatable, at least. :-) Just upgrade to a recent version of Unix. Of course, if you're using something really backward, like a Honeywell DPS-6, then I can understand being stuck with Sys III. -=- -- Jeff (martens@cis.ohio-state.edu) Dan Quayle, space science advocate, on Mars: "We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe."
acs@pccuts.pcc.amdahl.com (Tony Sumrall) (01/18/90)
In article <75826@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Jeff Martens <martens@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: >In article <d6zY02rx7fOE01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> dwl10@uts.amdahl.com (Dave Lowrey) writes: > >>The recent "ChatterBox" posting will not "unshar" correctly, because >>it uses filenames longer than 14 characters. > >You must be using a REALLY old version of Unix. Not really. It's a SVR3 version. >>Would it be possible to make it so that future postings "unshar" >>correctly under Unix? (I know, just be thankful I get them at all! :-) > >An operating system should be able to handle a descriptive file name. >I'd hope that the moderators wouldn't try to enforce anything like >this. Who says you can't be descriptive within a 14-character limit? Please, no flames about this...I understand the desire to use long names (I've done it myself in my not-so-recent VT100 distribution but all filenames were unique within the limit). There are quite a number of UN*X boxes out here which have to deal with the 14-character limitation. I don't necessarily expect the moderator to change filenames to fit within the limit but would hope that the *contributors* would be thoughtful enough to consider this issue. Perhaps an alternative is zoo things that contain long filenames? >-- Jeff (martens@cis.ohio-state.edu) -- Tony Sumrall author of VT100 2.9 (and 2.8a and 2.8 and...) acs@pccuts.pcc.amdahl.com <=> amdahl!pccuts!acs [ Opinions expressed herein are the author's and should not be construed to reflect the views of Amdahl Corp. ]
swan@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US (Joel Swan) (01/18/90)
In article <75829@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Jeff Martens <martens@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: :In article <e6uJ02dl7fRj01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> dwl10@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Dave Lowrey) writes: :.In article <75826@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Jeff Martens <martens@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: :.>In article <d6zY02rx7fOE01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> dwl10@uts.amdahl.com (Dave Lowrey) writes: : :.>>The recent "ChatterBox" posting will not "unshar" correctly, because :.>>it uses filenames longer than 14 characters. : :.>You must be using a REALLY old version of Unix. : :.I was afraid this might break up into "My OS is better than YOUR OS" :.wars like this. PLEASE, lets not continue it!!!!! : : [ ... ] : :.Would that make the "OLD" OSs go away? Would my company buy a new :.machine because of it? Just because YOU have access to something better :.doesn't mean that the rest of us have to live up to it's specs. 14 :.character file names are upward compatable, at least. :-) : :Just upgrade to a recent version of Unix. Of course, if you're using :something really backward, like a Honeywell DPS-6, then I can :understand being stuck with Sys III. Easier said than done. Many of us don't have control over what is done with our unix access. Since 14 is a limit many systems may have (including mine) why don't we keep to that. If you use 16 for your, fine and dandy. For something that is widely distributed, the more compatible limit seems appropriate. Besides, why make LONG, hard to tyoe names like "chatterbox.zuu01" instead of "chatb.zuu01"? Tad, if you read this, please consider a limit to name size. It won't really limit you that much -- but it sure will help many of us a lot. Thanks. (and thanks for taking on binaries/sources) :-=- :-- Jeff (martens@cis.ohio-state.edu) :Dan Quayle, space science advocate, on Mars: "We have seen :pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is :water, there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe." -- Joel E. Swan USENET: swan@jolnet Media Specialties Ltd. & PLINK : Amiga*Joel Moody Broadcasting Network CI$ : 74746,3240
840445m@aucs.uucp (Alan McKay) (01/18/90)
In article <d6zY02rx7fOE01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> dwl10@uts.amdahl.com (Dave Lowrey) writes: >We have started receiving NEW comp.{sources,binaries}.amiga >postings again!!! YEA!!! > >However, I have a suggestion..... > >I usually unpack the postings on my Unix machine before uploading >then to my amiga. > >The recent "ChatterBox" posting will not "unshar" correctly, because >it uses filenames longer than 14 characters. Tsk, tsk, I see that you are cursed to work under system V! Long live BSD and the likes! It *is* good to see all these programs coming through though isn't it? -- + Alan W. McKay + VOICE: (902) 542-1565 + + Acadia University + "Courage my friend, it is not yet too late + + WOLFVILLE, N.S. + to make the world a better place." + + 840445m@AcadiaU.CA + - Tommy Douglas +
magik@sorinc.UUCP (Darrin A. Hyrup) (01/19/90)
In article <e6uJ02dl7fRj01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> dwl10@uts.amdahl.com (Dave Lowrey) writes: >In article <75826@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Jeff Martens <martens@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: >>In article <d6zY02rx7fOE01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> dwl10@uts.amdahl.com (Dave Lowrey) writes: >> >>>The recent "ChatterBox" posting will not "unshar" correctly, because >>>it uses filenames longer than 14 characters. >> >>You must be using a REALLY old version of Unix. >> > >I was afraid this might break up into "My OS is better than YOUR OS" >wars like this. PLEASE, lets not continue it!!!!! I agree, thats useless. >>>Would it be possible to make it so that future postings "unshar" >>>correctly under Unix? (I know, just be thankful I get them at all! :-) >> >>An operating system should be able to handle a descriptive file name. > >I agree totally. However, the one I use doesn't. Now, if the moderator >is the one making up the file names, then I am only asking that he >consider us poor "14 char file name" folks. If he doesn't, then fine. >I can always edit the shar files. > >>I'd hope that the moderators wouldn't try to enforce anything like >>this. > >Would that make the "OLD" OSs go away? Would my company buy a new >machine because of it? Just because YOU have access to something better >doesn't mean that the rest of us have to live up to it's specs. 14 >character file names are upward compatable, at least. :-) What an operating system should or shouldn't be able to handle is not really what we need to decide here. I think what Tad should be doing is to post all submissions as .ZUU files (uuencoded ZOO files, broken up into whatever file sizes chosen). That method allows those who unarchive their files on UNIX (or any OS) to uudecode the files, and put them together into a .ZOO file that can easily be transported to wherever it need go. Plus that also makes it easier to handle submitted binary files and object code (besides having obvious storage and transfer time savings over uncompressed shar files.) It would be a good policy to adopt for all amiga {sources|binaries} group postings in the future in my opinion. (Although my personal preference would be to have uuencoded LHARC .LZH files instead of .ZOO files to conserve net bandwidth and save transfer times. <grin> Although I'm sure someone out there may disagree with me on that for their own reasons.) >"What is another word | Dave Lowrey | [The opinions expressed MAY be Hope this helps, Darrin Hyrup -- Darrin A. Hyrup // AMIGA Enthusiast rencon!esfenn!dah magik@sorinc.PacBell.COM \X/ & Software Developer pacbell!sorinc!magik ========================================================================== "Speak little and well, if you wish to be considered as possessing merit."
crs@cpsc6a.att.com (Chris (Insert phrase here) Seaman) (01/19/90)
martens@ketch.cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Martens) writes:
[ Volumes of net.discussion of format comp.[binaries|sources].amiga postings ]
< Just upgrade to a recent version of Unix. Of course, if you're using
< something really backward, like a Honeywell DPS-6, then I can
< understand being stuck with Sys III.
< --
< -- Jeff (martens@cis.ohio-state.edu)
Just for the record (I sent my request for shorter filenames directly
to Tad Guy), I use the most current version of UNIX there is (since SVR4
isn't quite OUT yet). I use System V Rel3.2.2, which is all of 5-6 months
old. And yes, it only supports 14 character file names, as have all
versions of SYSV since its creation.
Besides, the suggestion is ridiculous. Yes, make everyone who doesn't
conform to your version of UNIX 'upgrade' to it (a tremendous expense),
as opposed to trimming a few characters from the distribution file names
for usenet.
--
Chris (Insert phrase here) Seaman | /o -- -- --
crs@cpsc6a.att.com <or> ||| -- -- - I'm Outta Here!
...!att!cpsc6a!crs |vvvv/ -- -- -
The Home of the Killer Smiley |___/ -- -- --aduncan@rhea.trl.oz.au (Allan Duncan) (01/19/90)
>>>The recent "ChatterBox" posting will not "unshar" correctly, because >>>it uses filenames longer than 14 characters. >> >>You must be using a REALLY old version of Unix. > > Not really. It's a SVR3 version. > >>>Would it be possible to make it so that future postings "unshar" >>>correctly under Unix? (I know, just be thankful I get them at all! :-) Fish #287 has an unshar that works well on the Amiga, so unsharing can be left till then, keeping the Unix box for what it does best - mail, news and lots of storage space :-) Allan Duncan ACSnet aduncan@rhea.trl.oz ARPA aduncan%rhea.trl.oz.au@uunet.uu.net UUCP {uunet,hplabs,ukc}!munnari!rhea.trl.oz.au!aduncan Telecom Research Labs, PO Box 249, Clayton, Victoria, 3168, Australia.
tadguy@cs.odu.edu (Tad Guy) (01/20/90)
The impatient should search forward for ^------ to see a summary and something that should make many happy... ...tad swan@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US (Joel Swan) writes: >>>>>The recent "ChatterBox" posting will not "unshar" correctly, >>>>>because it uses filenames longer than 14 characters. > >Besides, why make LONG, hard to tyoe names like "chatterbox.zuu01" instead >of "chatb.zuu01"? Because it's the name the author used? It's easiest for me to not change things when possible. Not only does it make the submissions go out faster, but it saves me the aggravation.. Why type the names at all? Real UNIX weenies use * and ? and wouldn't type a file name longer than a few characters anyway (and some of us are addicted to file name completion). :-) >Tad, please consider a limit to name size. It won't really limit you >that much -- but it sure will help many of us a lot. Until your posting (and a private message I had received today), I was under the impression the complaint was with the names of the files in the sources shars, not the names of the split uuencoded files (in looking back at the articles I see nowhere where this was made clear). Since I am generating those intermediate names, it's reasonable for me to keep them down to 14 characters in length (in fact, I have already modified my posting script to force me to rename .zoo files down to 12 characters in length, to allow for the part number). Previously I had only been concered with the length of the names of the Archive-name: secondary header... So, the intermediate uuencoded files will now be within 14 characters in length. However, I will not change the names of the files in the sources shars. There's no way I could do it and not break a majority of the sources, since I will miss something in trying (not to mention the major slowdown this would cause). magik@sorinc.UUCP (Darrin A. Hyrup) writes: > I think what Tad should be doing is to post all submissions as .ZUU > files (uuencoded ZOO files, broken up into whatever file sizes > chosen). That method allows those who unarchive their files on UNIX > (or any OS) to uudecode the files, and put them together into a .ZOO > file that can easily be transported to wherever it need go. No can do -- one of the ``rules'' about the sources groups is that the sources posted must be in a plain-text form (shars qualify). Encoding them into zoo's would not be appreciated by the backbone cabal (even including uuencoded binaries isn't really legit). Sources must remain readable without unusual software... > Plus that also makes it easier to handle submitted binary files and > object code (besides having obvious storage and transfer time > savings over uncompressed shar files.) You're real close to proposing to get rid of the sources group and going only with the binaries group. It'd make things easier for me, but I don't think it would pass a vote. I know I woudn't vote for it, and I think you'd find it'd meet with opposition from those without Amiga who want to browse the sources postings... > (Although my personal preference would be to have uuencoded LHARC > .LZH files instead of .ZOO files to conserve net bandwidth and save > transfer times.) I have no UNIX LHARC, and I will not download everything to my Amiga just to package it. Zoo remains the most widespread archiver available. (I often wish no one had made an Amiga LHARC until after an UNIX version came out). ------ I think that covers everything: 1. The foo.zuuxx files are now limited to 14 characters. 2. The filenames in sources postings remain unchanged. 3. The sources must remain plain-text. 4. LHARC is out of the question until I get a UNIX version. Oh, and an Amiga UNSHAR program that reads the sources and binaries postings (as well as those of comp.sources.misc, at least) is in my queue and will go out as soon as xanth finishes running expire (assuming I'm still awake then...) ...tad
karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) (01/20/90)
>:.>In article <d6zY02rx7fOE01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> dwl10@uts.amdahl.com (Dave Lowrey) writes: >:.>>The recent "ChatterBox" posting will not "unshar" correctly, because >:.>>it uses filenames longer than 14 characters. Ironic, isn't it, that the Amiga supports longer filenames than some versions of Unix? While I acknowledge these difficulties and will strive to create filenames unique to the first 14 characters for distribution, I generally believe in long, descriptive names for things, and the names not being real short on vowels, either. Nonetheless, I hope some of you are enjoying chatterbox! -- -- uunet!sugar!karl "It takes a smart man to know when he's stupid." -- -- Barney Rubble -- Usenet access: (713) 438-5018
ben@contact.uucp (Ben Eng) (01/21/90)
In article <870@pccuts.pcc.amdahl.com> acs@pccuts.pcc.amdahl.com (Tony Sumrall) writes: >In article <75826@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Jeff Martens <martens@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: >>An operating system should be able to handle a descriptive file name. > >Who says you can't be descriptive within a 14-character limit? This site is running under the most recent version of Xenix and it can't handle long filenames either. I am getting the impression that there is a significant number of sites that are plagued by this limitation. While we are on the topic of improvements to comp.sources.amiga, would it not be a good idea to distribute the source code as a shar'ed-uuencoded-zoo archive, rather than as straight source code? It would certainly cut down on net bandwidth (smaller size), preserve full pathnames, preserve long filenames, and ensure data integrity. If a zoo file is not desirable then I would certainly like to see a MANIFEST file to go along with each distribution, so that when the files are unshar'ed, there is some way to check that all the files are properly extracted. By the way, "Thanks!" to Tad for a great job so far. Ben -- Ben Eng | ben@contact.uucp _or_ ben@ziebmef.mef.org 150 Beverley St. Apt #1L | Bix: jetpen ^^^-down for repair? Toronto, Ontario M5T 1Y6 | UofT Engineering Science: engb@ecf.toronto.edu _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_| Phone: (416)-979-7885, (416)-979-8761
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) (01/21/90)
In article <75826@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Jeff Martens <martens@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: |In article <d6zY02rx7fOE01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> dwl10@uts.amdahl.com (Dave Lowrey) writes: | |>The recent "ChatterBox" posting will not "unshar" correctly, because |>it uses filenames longer than 14 characters. | |You must be using a REALLY old version of Unix. Jeff, you should find out what the facts are before shooting off your mouth. The current version of AT&T Unix, System V release 3.2, has this filesize. In fact, depending how it is configured, the upcoming release 4.0 can be set up to have it as well. |>Would it be possible to make it so that future postings "unshar" |>correctly under Unix? (I know, just be thankful I get them at all! :-) | |An operating system should be able to handle a descriptive file name. |I'd hope that the moderators wouldn't try to enforce anything like |this. Hey, don't be such a twink. Not everyone thinks that way, and there's no call to try & push your opinions off in such an arrogant fashion. Note, for example, how accomodating I'm being about this, heh heh. I'm writing this from a Unix machine - when I get to unsharing the file in question, I'll be fairly irritated to have all the hand work to deal with this filename problem. Since I tend to repackage & redistribute these things to Amiga folks, I want to have the process be as straightforward as possible. -- ,,,, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ont. w \$$/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `/c/-e BitNet: BECKER@HUMBER.BITNET _/ >_ "Money is the root of all money" - Adam
magik@sorinc.UUCP (Darrin A. Hyrup) (01/22/90)
In <TADGUY.90Jan19212309@diatomite.cs.odu.edu> tadguy@cs.odu.edu (Tad Guy) writes: >magik@sorinc.UUCP (Darrin A. Hyrup) writes: >> I think what Tad should be doing is to post all submissions as .ZUU >> files... > >No can do -- one of the ``rules'' about the sources groups is that the >sources posted must be in a plain-text form (shars qualify). Encoding >them into zoo's would not be appreciated by the backbone cabal (even >including uuencoded binaries isn't really legit). Sources must remain >readable without unusual software... What is the basis for these ``rules''? Until now I've never heard of that restriction being placed on any group. And Zoo isn't exactly unusual software, but if you say so... :-) >> Plus that also makes it easier to handle submitted binary files and >> object code (besides having obvious storage and transfer time >> savings over uncompressed shar files.) > >You're real close to proposing to get rid of the sources group and >going only with the binaries group. It'd make things easier for me, >but I don't think it would pass a vote. I know I woudn't vote for it, >and I think you'd find it'd meet with opposition from those without >Amiga who want to browse the sources postings... I never meant to insinuate that! I personally prefer the sources distributions over the binaries any day. (In fact, at this time, I'm not even carrying the binaries distribution at all, since I carry sources and have both Lattice and Manx here if I need to compile something). If something goes out that doesn't come with sources, I can get it from my net-neighbors. What I meant is that ZOO'ing and uuencoding would make BOTH the sources and binaries groups easier to handle because it would be lowering the amount of transfer time neccessary for the groups, and it would make object/binary files easier to extract from the distributions at the user end. Nothing more. >> (Although my personal preference would be to have uuencoded LHARC >> .LZH files instead of .ZOO files to conserve net bandwidth and save >> transfer times.) > >I have no UNIX LHARC, and I will not download everything to my Amiga >just to package it. Zoo remains the most widespread archiver >available. (I often wish no one had made an Amiga LHARC until after >an UNIX version came out). There is a UNIX LHARC out there. Both the extract-only version, and a full LHARC. Its also my understanding that there is a PKZIP out there for UNIX now as well. So, either of these would be ideal for compression savings. I'll try to dig up the UNIX LHARC sources and mail them off to you soon. What you do with them from there is up to you. :-) > ...tad Best wishes, Darrin Hyrup -- Darrin A. Hyrup // AMIGA Enthusiast rencon!esfenn!dah magik@sorinc.PacBell.COM \X/ & Software Developer pacbell!sorinc!magik ========================================================================== "Speak little and well, if you wish to be considered as possessing merit."