rosenkra@convex.com (William Rosencranz) (06/19/91)
here he goes again... as an (outspoken?) opponent of lharc (until it gets it sh*t together), i read with interest a previous post about testing at least a dozen (!!!!!!!) versions of lharc on a particularly nasty file. since at least one of them (2, i think) worked, the file COULD be considered "good" (not by ME or any other sane, rational user, however). then i came across this gem: In article <1991Jun18.151348.795@ccu.umanitoba.ca> bright@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Bob Bright) writes: >(To all the progenitors of lharc and .lzh files: I hope you die a >thousand miserable deaths, choking forever on the few megs of disk >space you've managed to save the world at the expense of countless >hours of frustration and wasted time and net bandwidth.) i LOVE this guy. he hits the point home! "a pox on you [lharc-ers] and all your ancesters" as ed norton would say :-). and NO, as much as i would REALLY like to, i will NOT eat my words (yet :-) so you STILL think i am nuts? (rhetorical: don't answer that... :-) -bill rosenkra@convex.com (incidently, i will try to ftp mgif v3.5 to terminator tonite if i can. it takes steve tons of time to post. i will post to c.{s,b}.a.st as well.) -- Bill Rosenkranz |UUCP: {uunet,texsun}!convex!c1yankee!rosenkra Convex Computer Corp. |ARPA: rosenkra%c1yankee@convex.com
jimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Omura) (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun19.012653.8005@convex.com> rosenkra@convex.com (William Rosencranz) writes: > >as an (outspoken?) opponent of lharc (until it gets it sh*t together), >i read with interest a previous post about testing at least a dozen >(!!!!!!!) versions of lharc on a particularly nasty file. since at least >one of them (2, i think) worked, the file COULD be considered "good" >(not by ME or any other sane, rational user, however). > >then i came across this gem: > >In article <1991Jun18.151348.795@ccu.umanitoba.ca> bright@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Bob Bright) writes: >>(To all the progenitors of lharc and .lzh files: I hope you die a >>thousand miserable deaths, choking forever on the few megs of disk >>space you've managed to save the world at the expense of countless >>hours of frustration and wasted time and net bandwidth.) > >i LOVE this guy. he hits the point home! "a pox on you [lharc-ers] and >all your ancesters" as ed norton would say :-). > >and NO, as much as i would REALLY like to, i will NOT eat my words (yet :-) > >so you STILL think i am nuts? (rhetorical: don't answer that... :-) > Well, I wouldn't exactly say that, but I agree that all the incompatible versions are bad enough that I won't support LHARC for the time being either. In retrospect, the law suit against Phil Katz by the originator or "ARC" was right too. Katz was on the same road to messing up the .arc file standard that these guys are on with .lzh files. The only things I use by choice now are ARC 6.02 and Zoo. At least I know with some certainty that anyone on almost any computer in the world will be able to unpack these and with a minimum of frustration due to "incompatible versions." -- Jim Omura, 2A King George's Drive, Toronto, (416) 652-3880 lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura
dpg@cs.nott.ac.uk (Dave Gymer) (06/20/91)
In article <1991Jun19.012653.8005@convex.com> rosenkra@convex.com (William Rosencranz) writes: > [...] > >In article <1991Jun18.151348.795@ccu.umanitoba.ca> bright@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Bob Bright) writes: >>(To all the progenitors of lharc and .lzh files: I hope you die a >>thousand miserable deaths, choking forever on the few megs of disk >>space you've managed to save the world at the expense of countless >>hours of frustration and wasted time and net bandwidth.) > >i LOVE this guy. he hits the point home! "a pox on you [lharc-ers] and >all your ancesters" as ed norton would say :-). > >and NO, as much as i would REALLY like to, i will NOT eat my words (yet :-) > >so you STILL think i am nuts? (rhetorical: don't answer that... :-) Just some random mutterings... Have you tried the version of lharc in the gnustuff directory on a.a? I've yet to find a .lzh which it couldn't handle. The difference in compression ratios between zoo and lharc is quite considerable, up to 30%. Arc is somewhere in between. My complaint with lharc is that's its's too damn slow. I still mainly use zoo because I just can't be bothered to spend hours waiting for lharc. As long as people stop using the brain-dead Arc I really don't mind which one they use... let's hope we can avoid tar and compress, at least until Minix support in MiNT is better. :-) -- /* 'Grave' Dave Gymer --------- Internet: dpg@Cs.Nott.AC.UK *\ +* 42 St Marys Park, Louth, Lincolnshire, LN11 0EF, England *+ +* Olivier's Law: "Experience is something you don't get *+ \*-------------------------- until just after you need it." */
rosenkra@convex.com (William Rosencranz) (06/21/91)
In article <1991Jun20.120942.28747@cs.nott.ac.uk> dpg@cs.nott.ac.uk (Dave Gymer) writes: >Just some random mutterings... i expect no more :-) >Have you tried the version of lharc in the gnustuff directory on a.a? I've this is not the point. the fact that i can (eventually) FIND a version of lharc to unpack any particulary archive may sound like there is no problem at all. there is. the SEARCH for the lharc version to do it IS the problem. until all the various lharc developers (many of whose work by itself is excellent, BTW) get together and standardize an extensible file format, this is basically still russian roulette. >My complaint with lharc is that's its's too damn slow. I still mainly use zoo >because I just can't be bothered to spend hours waiting for lharc. yes, this, too is a major problem. i consider MY time far more valuable than the few pennies i save on floppies (which can cost as little as $0.35 each). my time (to me, anyway) is more like $50-100/hour. if i can archive say 10 MB/hr with arc and only 5 MB/hr with lharc, and lharc saves me 50%, then i wasted $50 of my time to save maybe $2 on disks. hardly worth it. after all, we are only on the planet for a short time. i'd hate to waste it waiting for lharc :-) (or continuing this debate as well) -bill rosenkra@convex.com -- Bill Rosenkranz |UUCP: {uunet,texsun}!convex!c1yankee!rosenkra Convex Computer Corp. |ARPA: rosenkra%c1yankee@convex.com
ue@nathan.ruhr.de (Udo Erdelhoff) (06/22/91)
Hi,
what about giving STZip a try? Ok, it's still called a beta version, but
it works, its faster than LHarc, and the compression rate is alomost the
same as LHarc's...
The actual version is 0.9beta...
/s/
--
Udo Erdelhoff smart: ue@nathan.ruhr.de
Am Westheck 170 Fido: Udo Erdelhoff on 2:245/52.1
W-4600 Dortmund 12 (FRG) Maus: Udo Erdelhoff @ DO
Please keep your replies short - I have to pay for recieving mailVincent.Pomey@linn.fidonet.org (Vincent Pomey) (06/23/91)
In a message of <20 Jun 91 12:09:42>, dpg@cs.nott.ac.uk (Dave Gymer) writes: > My complaint with lharc is that's its's too damn slow. I still mainly You could try using STZip, it process zip files (compatible with PKZip on PC), is faster than LHArc 1.13.19, compress roughly the same (better on big text files, worse on very small files), and has a built-in GEM interface. Should appear in comp.binaries.atari.st soon. Vincent.Pomey@linn.fidonet.org or tfd.com!afp!gna!linn!vincent
rosenkra@convex.com (William Rosencranz) (06/26/91)
In article <A0b7du58@nathan.ruhr.de> ue@nathan.ruhr.de writes: >Hi, >what about giving STZip a try? Ok, it's still called a beta version, but >it works, its faster than LHarc, and the compression rate is alomost the >same as LHarc's... >The actual version is 0.9beta... ONLY, repeat ONLY iff 1) there is full source for ST, Unix, VMS, and whatever, 2) ONLY (again) if there is only ONE, repeat, ONE version, fully controlled by ONE group (not 10+ like lharc), 3) ONLY if it is so much better than zoo (2.01 or 2.10 or the new, soon to be released version) that it is much faster (both compression and decompression), much easier to use (command line interface, arguably zoo's single weakness, with hooks to add it to arcgsh et al for those prefering GEM), much better compression, much more feature laden, but not so much as to get in the way, etc. please do NOT start posting archives in this format. i would propose a vote (here?), preceded by extensive testing (on ALL platforms) before this happens. and i am reluctant to use anything labeled "beta" for archival. beta s/w should be used by beta testers, NOT the entire community. [ note that my initial reaction, of course, was "SHEESH! ANOTHER ARCHIVER FORMAT TO DEAL WITH" but i calmed down... :-) ] -bill rosenkra@convex.com -- Bill Rosenkranz |UUCP: {uunet,texsun}!convex!c1yankee!rosenkra Convex Computer Corp. |ARPA: rosenkra%c1yankee@convex.com
rosenkra@convex.com (William Rosencranz) (06/26/91)
In article <fido_2:320/100_2863aa8b@linn.fidonet.org> Vincent.Pomey@linn.fidonet.org (Vincent Pomey) writes: >You could try using STZip, it process zip files (compatible with PKZip on PC), >is faster than LHArc 1.13.19, compress roughly the same (better on big text >files, worse on very small files), and has a built-in GEM interface. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ why? does this mean it won't port to unix et al? if so, i recommend against it... -bill rosenkra@convex.com (defender of portability :-) -- Bill Rosenkranz |UUCP: {uunet,texsun}!convex!c1yankee!rosenkra Convex Computer Corp. |ARPA: rosenkra%c1yankee@convex.com
the.fawn@mcshh.hanse.de (Thomas Quester) (06/26/91)
>My complaint with lharc is that's its's too damn slow. I still mainly use zoo >because I just can't be bothered to spend hours waiting for lharc. >As long as people stop using the brain-dead Arc I really don't mind which one >they use... let's hope we can avoid tar and compress, at least until Minix >support in MiNT is better. :-) If you are using the wrong version of LHarc, it IS slow. The slowes of them all is John Webbs 0.xx. The LZH 1.13.20 is about 4 times faster than the original 1.13, because the whole compression and decompression is entierly written in assembler. It should be about twice as fast as LHA 1.21 in decoding and about 3 times faster in coding. ---- Thomas Quester * Lampenland 9 * 2050 Hamburg 80
the.fawn@mcshh.hanse.de (Thomas Quester) (06/26/91)
>this is not the point. the fact that i can (eventually) FIND a version >of lharc to unpack any particulary archive may sound like there is no >problem at all. there is. the SEARCH for the lharc version to do it IS >the problem. until all the various lharc developers (many of whose work >by itself is excellent, BTW) get together and standardize an extensible >file format, this is basically still russian roulette. If you have any problem with any archive and the version 1.13.20 or newer, why not send it to me. If the archive is not damaged or if it is'nt coded with LHA 2.xx on a PC, I will adapt my version of LHarc to read this kind of archives. If you get an error-message "Unknown method", your archive is packed with LHA 2.xx on a PC. This is impossible to adapt to the atari st until there are sources available, If you get CRC-Errors on many files, you probably have a damaged archive. You could then try to download it again. --- Thomas Quester * Lampenland 9 * 2050 Hamburg 80
ue@nathan.ruhr.de (Udo Erdelhoff) (06/28/91)
In <9331@mcshh.hanse.de>, Thomas Quester writes: Hi Thomas, >If you get an error-message "Unknown method", your archive is packed with >LHA 2.xx on a PC. This is impossible to adapt to the atari st until there >are sources available, I already sent you the sources for an lh5 extractor/creator via email (on wednesday). Did you recieve them already? The program works perfect and very fast (altough it's pure C)... So the problem with the LHA 2.xx archives using the lh5 compression method should be over... /s/ -- Udo Erdelhoff ue@nathan.ruhr.de Fido: Udo Erdelhoff on 2:245/52.1