hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) (02/08/89)
In article <40f0bca6.14e07@gtephx.UUCP> covertr@gtephx.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes: >ARC 5.21 has a serious bug which causes it make an ARC file larger then the >sum of the individual files. ARC 5.12 doesn't have this problem. In fact, >for a 400K ARCed file you can save about 50K by re-ARCing it with 5.12. > >so, don't use ARC 5.21 for new archives. Only use it if you have to de-ARC >an IBM file arced with the IBM ARC 5.21. > >I only use ARC 5.12 myself!!! > >Richard (ARC 5.21 is BADDD!!) Covert Y'know, I spent an awful lot of effort getting ARC 5.21 working. I also included my e-mail address with the program docs. If you noticed a bug, particularly a reproducible bug, you should have sent me a message about it. Personally I don't see any difference between the encoding 5.12 produces vs 5.21. In fact, I relied heavily upon this fact when testing 5.21 prior to release. 5.21 is marginally slower than 5.12 because it tests an additional compression method, but otherwise 5.21 produces compression results either identical or superior to 5.12. There was a bug in a pre-release version that sometimes caused zero length files to be written incorrectly, producing enormous archive files. This was fixed long ago. Try to be a bit more objective, eh? Putting such blatantly opinionated comments into your signatures is a little annoying, and doesn't reflect well upon postings with statements that are already utterly wrong. (You don't need ARC 5.21 to un-ARC files created by MSDOS ARC 5.21. You *do* need the squashing code I added to un-ARC files created by the MSDOS PKxxx utilities.) -- / /_ , ,_. Howard Chu / /(_/(__ University of Michigan / Computing Center College of LS&A ' Unix Project Information Systems
laba-2he@web-3a.berkeley.edu (Oliver Juang) (02/08/89)
I left you mail about the same bug that Richard Covert talked about. It happens once in a while, producing an archive which is much larger than the files within the archive. I mentioned that the last time this hap- pened, the files were stored, but it also pops up with other methods of compression. Since both Richard and I have encountered this bug, I find it highly unlikely that his statements are "utterly wrong." Lawrence Y. Chiu -- University of California; Berkeley.
covertr@gtephx.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) (02/11/89)
In article <20093@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, laba-2he@web-3a.berkeley.edu (Oliver Juang) writes: > > I left you mail about the same bug that Richard Covert talked about. It > happens once in a while, producing an archive which is much larger than > the files within the archive. I mentioned that the last time this hap- > pened, the files were stored, but it also pops up with other methods of > compression. Since both Richard and I have encountered this bug, I find > it highly unlikely that his statements are "utterly wrong." > > Lawrence Y. Chiu -- University of California; Berkeley. Thanks for someone verifying the problem with ARC521. I collect a lot of PD ST software from ST BBSes around the USA and have found many bbses which refuse to accept files ARCed with ARC521. My friend Lloyd Pulley has examined many files and he uses DCOPY307 to ARC his files. In almost all cases DCOPY307 will save 10% to 25% more space then ARC521. So, I am sory if I have offended anyone, especially Howard Chu, but I stand behind my previous statements that ARC521 is bad!! Richard (ARC521 is STILL Badd!!!!!) Covert
koreth@panarthea.ebay.sun.com (Steven Grimm) (10/11/89)
It's come to my attention that several people don't have Arc 5.21 and don't
know where to get it. It is available from the panarthea archive service.
If you've never used the service, send a mail message containing the word
"help" to archive-server@panarthea.ebay.sun.com for more information.
---
" !" - Marcel Marceau
Steven Grimm Moderator, comp.{sources,binaries}.atari.st
sgrimm@sun.com ...!sun!sgrimm