paulm@ccicpg.UUCP (tmp Paul Moreau usenet acct) (12/22/89)
Well it seems that the LHARC is going to take over the atari archiving world. I for one use a UNIX system for posting and recieving news and binaries. I uudecode, and unarc on the unix system and examine the stuff before going through the expense of going home, making a LONG DISTANCE call to work and download the stuff. If LHARC is to be the new standard (which I can see the benefit in smaller archives) I'd like to get the source so I can port it to our UNIX system. If the source is protected (which it seems to be) then I don't think I'll be downloading any more files unless I know what to expect in them. I hope that the source is available! I think that the majority of readers on the net here are on UNIX machines and would also like to get LHARC on thiers also. Just my $0.02 worth. --- .==========================================================. | ### ####### ### | N O R T H | /==============\ | | ### ### ### | A M E R I C A |< An STC Company >| | ### ####### ####### | (was CCI) | \==============/ | |----------------------------------------------------------| | UUCP: ...ccicpg!dl2!paulm | Paul L. Moreau | | or ...ccicpg!dl1!paulm | Diagnostics Software Eng. | | or ...ccicpg!paulm | Irvine, California | `=========================================================='
hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) (12/23/89)
In article <51989@ccicpg.UUCP> paulm@ccicpg.UUCP (tmp Paul Moreau usenet acct) writes: >Well it seems that the LHARC is going to take over the atari archiving >world. I for one use a UNIX system for posting and recieving news >and binaries. I uudecode, and unarc on the unix system and examine >the stuff before going through the expense of going home, making a >LONG DISTANCE call to work and download the stuff. If LHARC is to be >the new standard (which I can see the benefit in smaller archives) I'd >like to get the source so I can port it to our UNIX system. >If the source is protected (which it seems to be) then I don't think >I'll be downloading any more files unless I know what to expect in them. > >I hope that the source is available! >I think that the majority of readers on the net here are on UNIX machines >and would also like to get LHARC on thiers also. I have the source for LHARC. I haven't bothered doing anything with it yet. It's 80% 8086 assembler. Even the C source code is full of ASM compiler directives. Most of the comments are in Japanese, for a Kanji character set, and show up as weird diacriticals on an ST display. I doubt any printer would like them very much. I haven't seen very much of anything archived with LHARC, which is why I haven't been too eager to look at it. Is there really that much demand for it? Maybe a show of hands ( }-) ) for people saying "yes, I've used it, I like it" ? I've seen discussion of LHARC on GEnie, they weren't too thrilled with it because the ST version was slow, buggy, and incompatible with the PC version. I think that's changed recently, with a new ST version, but I haven't paid it too much attention. I'm still waiting for SEA to send me the ARC 6.02 sources. I sent 'em a floppy months ago, a few messages on CI$, made a few phone calls and left messages that way, and now I'm in limbo, waiting, waiting, waiting... Needless to say, I'm somewhat perturbed at them. They just sent me a copy of their newsletter, which mentions the Atari ST and Unix versions of ARC, (as well as all the other systems it's been ported to) but no credit to the respective authors, or even any indication that the work was done by outside people. (To be fair, they don't blatantly claim it as their own, either. Just mention the existence of such, not how it came to be...) -- -=- PrayerMail: Send 100Mbits to holyghost@father.son[127.0.0.1] and You Too can have a Personal Electronic Relationship with God!
jdg@elmgate.UUCP (Jeff Gortatowsky CUST) (12/24/89)
In article <51989@ccicpg.UUCP> paulm@ccicpg.UUCP (tmp Paul Moreau usenet acct) writes: >Well it seems that the LHARC is going to take over the atari archiving >world. I for one use a UNIX system for posting and recieving news >and binaries. I uudecode, and unarc on the unix system and examine >the stuff before going through the expense of going home, making a >LONG DISTANCE call to work and download the stuff. If LHARC is to be >the new standard (which I can see the benefit in smaller archives) I'd >like to get the source so I can port it to our UNIX system. >If the source is protected (which it seems to be) then I don't think >I'll be downloading any more files unless I know what to expect in them. > >I hope that the source is available! >I think that the majority of readers on the net here are on UNIX machines >and would also like to get LHARC on thiers also. Sources to LHARC on the IBM are readily available on any half-inept IBM BBS. I have heard mention that the ST version is incompatible. If this is the case, someone should port the PC source instead of creating confusions between the two (the MAC has it too I think). I have glazed over the sources on several occasions (and to be honest, the "idea" itself of Lempel->Ziv->Huffman coding is a natural, so obvious its funny it wasnt discovered quite some years back) and do believe it could be sped up, and could get better compression yet (although not "drastic") by using a run-length-encode after the huffman squeeze. Since it's just bufferin' a byte of output bits, then writing the byte out, it'd be nothin' to buffer "more" bits before the output, and RLE the bits. MANY storage devices (that have any sorta brains about em') do exactly that, in hardware. Since LHARC is already slow (due to it's iterative nature and semi-efficient trees) whats a few seconds more?. And as I stated, I do beleive LHARC in itself can be sped up. While using arrays for tree's is fast on access times, it is not in insertions and deletions. I beleive a "pre-formed" dynamic tree ala' pointers couls speed it up (and some other tiny items). -- Jeff Gortatowsky-Eastman Kodak Company .....rochester!kodak!elmgate!jdg (use uuhosts or such to find path to rochester) Eastman Kodak makes film not comments. Therefore these comments are mine not theirs.
silvert@cs.dal.ca (Bill Silvert) (12/24/89)
In article <10429@stag.math.lsa.umich.edu> hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) writes: >In article <51989@ccicpg.UUCP> paulm@ccicpg.UUCP (tmp Paul Moreau usenet acct) writes: >>Well it seems that the LHARC is going to take over the atari archiving >>world. I for one use a UNIX system for posting and recieving news >>and binaries. I uudecode, and unarc on the unix system and examine >>the stuff before going through the expense of going home, making a >>LONG DISTANCE call to work and download the stuff. If LHARC is to be >>the new standard (which I can see the benefit in smaller archives) I'd >>like to get the source so I can port it to our UNIX system. >>If the source is protected (which it seems to be) then I don't think >>I'll be downloading any more files unless I know what to expect in them. >I have the source for LHARC. I haven't bothered doing anything with it yet. >It's 80% 8086 assembler. Even the C source code is full of ASM compiler >directives. Most of the comments are in Japanese, for a Kanji character >set, and show up as weird diacriticals on an ST display. I doubt any >printer would like them very much. I strongly support Moreau's call for a Unix version. I run a BBS on a Unix system with archives on a PC with a huge drive. Both zoo and arc formats are supported by all three OS's, but LHARC is creating lots of problems for me. It should not be used for a group like this unless it can run on all machines through which the code is likely to pass. -- Bill Silvert, Habitat Ecology Division. Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Dartmouth, NS, Canada B2Y 4A2 UUCP: ...!{uunet,watmath}!dalcs!biomel!bill Internet: biomel@cs.dal.CA BITNET: bs%dalcs@dalac.BITNET
ljdickey@water.waterloo.edu (L.J.Dickey) (12/26/89)
In article <51989@ccicpg.UUCP> paulm@ccicpg.UUCP (Paul Moreau ) writes: >Well it seems that the LHARC is going to take over the atari archiving >world. Don't jump to conclusions Paul. This does not seem too likely to me. I tried that program on a file that was posted a couple of months ago. It was a disaster. > I for one use a UNIX system for posting and recieving news > and binaries. I uudecode, and unarc on the unix system and examine > the stuff before going through the expense of going home, > making a ... call to work and download the stuff. I agree and sympathize with the writer here. I do much the same thing. However, I would insist that a program be significantly better before we switch to it. It takes a lot of effort to bring a large body of users on line to the use of new software. Readers may recall that I asked about ZOO and whether or not it was really better. I am convinced. It does offer significant improvement over ARC, and now use both ZOO (and ARC) on three systems. Now, I ask, can anyone speak up for LHARC ? Is it really any better than ARC ? I can testify that it is harder to use! I doubt if it is better than ZOO. If I am right about this, perhaps we should just let it lie in peace. -- L. J. Dickey, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Waterloo. ljdickey@water.UWaterloo.ca ljdickey@water.BITNET ljdickey@water.UUCP ..!uunet!watmath!water!ljdickey ljdickey@water.waterloo.edu
larserio@IFI.UIO.NO (LarsErikOsterud) (12/27/89)
I have both ARC and LHARC on my BBS (to PACK and download new mail) and 95% of my users use LHARC. 99% og the uploaded files are LZH-files !!! Lars-Erik / ABK-BBS +47 2132659 / ____ ______ ________________________ Osterud / larserio@ifi.uio.no / /___ / The norwegian ST __________/ ______________________/ ____/ / Klubben, user association