mj@myrias.uucp (Michal Jaegermann) (07/06/89)
In response to Lee Dickey question why zoo is preferable over arc.
Besides of a possibility of storing the whole tree of subdirectories
(which can be fairly important, but can be achieved also with arc'ed
shar or tar format) there is also a business of recovery.
Recently I had a dubious pleasure of receiving a huge corrupted zoo
archive - gdb sources from terminator server. It would be a total
waste if this would be compressed with arc. Using fiz and editor I was
able to recover everything but two(?) files, which I replaced with some
luck. It is true that I had to recompile fiz, since posted version
apparently is writing directly to a console, instead of stdout, and
I had no way to capture it's output to a file. It was far too big to
be dealt with by hand. After I done that a quick run of awk on output
file, which produced a command file for gulam, was all what was needed
to enable an automatic rescue operation. Does anybody know how
to do something like that with .arc file? I don't.
Michal Jaegermann
Myrias Research Corporation
Edmonton, Alberta, CANADA
...{ncc, alberta}!myrias!mjdhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Rahul Dhesi) (07/06/89)
In article <615670847.12121@myrias.uucp> mj@myrias.uucp (Michal Jaegermann) writes: >It is true that I had to recompile fiz, since posted version >apparently is writing directly to a console, instead of stdout, and >I had no way to capture it's output to a file. This surprises me. The original code writes everything through printf() function calls, and that is always supposed to write to stdout. Could this be an Atari-specific change? It's true that fiz optionally does setbuf (stdout, (char *) NULL); which makes stdout unbuffered, but it does not change where it goes. -- Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> UUCP: ...!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
f-leoe@IFI.UIO.NO (Lars-Erik 0sterud) (07/06/89)
Why not get an Atari ST version of LHARC.... LHARC compresses better than both ARC, ZIP and ZOO... Lars-Erik 0sterud / Summer & Christmas: / leoe@ifi.uio.no / f-leoe@ifi.uio.no / ____________________/ _______________________/
pcg@thor.cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) (07/07/89)
In article <615670847.12121@myrias.uucp> mj@myrias.uucp (Michal Jaegermann) writes:
In response to Lee Dickey question why zoo is preferable over arc.
Besides of a possibility of storing the whole tree of subdirectories
(which can be fairly important, but can be achieved also with arc'ed
shar or tar format) there is also a business of recovery.
There is also the non trivial aspect, for everyday users of zoo
or arc, that zoo is vastly faster, because it does not do two or
more passes over the files to archive to determine which is the
best compression method.
Zoo uses one of the best compressions right away, betting that
almost always is the optimal one, and is very much faster for
this. Overall zoo is "arc with hindsight".
--
Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.ukljdickey@water.waterloo.edu (Lee Dickey) (07/08/89)
In article <615670847.12121@myrias.uucp> mj@myrias.uucp (Michal Jaegermann) writes: >In response to Lee Dickey question why zoo is preferable over arc. ... >Recently I had a dubious pleasure of receiving a huge corrupted zoo >archive - gdb sources from terminator server. It would be a total >waste if this would be compressed with arc. Using fiz and editor I was >able to recover everything but two(?) files, which I replaced with some >luck. ... Ok! This posting and the one by Rainer Klute have convinced me. I would suggest that the moderator (are you there Steven Grimm?) be empowered and encouraged to accept postings that have been compressed with ZOO, and that he may send these on to the news groups "comp.binaries.atari.st" and "comp.sources.atari.st". It would be wrong for us to dictate to Steven just which compressor he *must* use. I think that choice should belong to the moderator. I believe for instance, that there are instances when ARC comes up with better compression than ZOO and this could be an important consideration. -- 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
koreth@panarthea.sun.com (Steven Grimm) (07/08/89)
In article <2502@water.waterloo.edu> ljdickey@water.waterloo.edu (Lee Dickey) writes: >Ok! This posting and the one by Rainer Klute have convinced me. >I would suggest that the moderator (are you there Steven Grimm?) >be empowered and encouraged to accept postings that have been >compressed with ZOO, and that he may send these on to the news >groups "comp.binaries.atari.st" and "comp.sources.atari.st". In fact, I have already posted a binary in .zoo format, the German Modula-2 compiler in volume 4. I don't have any strong preference for Arc or Zoo (though I think the latter is more convenient in most cases). Whichever method is used by the person who sends the program to me will be used when the program is sent out. In fact, I don't repackage anything unless I have to, most commonly to split sources from binaries (why don't most people submit them in two separate postings?) or to merge in documentation. Since both arc and zoo are available to everyone who should be concerned about which is used on the net, and both have proven fairly reliable, I don't see what the big deal is. You won't see anything on comp.binaries that I wasn't able to unpack, so if zoo has a bug you should never see it crop up in binaries articles. --- This message is a figment of your imagination. Any opinions are yours. Steven Grimm Moderator, comp.{sources,binaries}.atari.st sgrimm%chrome@sun.com ...!sun!chrome!sgrimm
swklassen@dahlia.waterloo.edu (Steven W. Klassen) (07/09/89)
In article <2502@water.waterloo.edu> ljdickey@water.waterloo.edu (Lee Dickey) writes: [...] >It would be wrong for us to dictate to Steven just which compressor >he *must* use. I think that choice should belong to the moderator. >I believe for instance, that there are instances when ARC comes up >with better compression than ZOO and this could be an important >consideration. [...] Would it be feasible to upgrade ARC so that it can use ZOO's compression algorithm as well as the current ARC algorithms? In this way we could have the smallest compression but still only have one compressor to deal with. Also we would not have to deARC and then ZOO any current archives we might have. Steven W. Klassen Computer Science Major
dav@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (William David Haas) (07/11/89)
Has anyone thought about updating arc so that it saves directory info, then we wouldn't need zoo? The best way I can think of is to have this new arc create a file with all the path info in it so old arc can unarc the new stuff. When its dearcing it should create the directories and store the files in the correct place. Who is the keeper of arc?
crc6@pyuxe.UUCP (C. Colbert) (07/14/89)
%In article <114413@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>, koreth@panarthea.sun.com (Steven Grimm) writes: In article <2502@water.waterloo.edu> ljdickey@water.waterloo.edu (Lee Dickey) writes: ##Ok! This posting and the one by Rainer Klute have convinced me. # would suggest that the moderator (are you there Steven Grimm?) # #be empowered and encouraged to accept postings that have been # #compressed with ZOO, and that he may send these on to the news # #groups "comp.binaries.atari.st" and "comp.sources.atari.st". # # In fact, I have already posted a binary in .zoo format, the German # Modula-2 compiler in volume 4. I don't have any strong preference # for Arc or Zoo (though I think the latter is more convenient in # most cases). Whichever method is used by the person who sends the # program to me will be used when the program is sent out. In fact, # I don't repackage anything unless I have to, most commonly to split # sources from binaries (why don't most people submit them in two # separate postings?) or to merge in documentation. # # Since both arc and zoo are available to everyone who should be # concerned about which is used on the net, and both have proven # fairly reliable, I don't see what the big deal is. You won't see # anything on comp.binaries that I wasn't able to unpack, so if zoo # has a bug you should never see it crop up in binaries articles. # # --- # This message is a figment of your imagination. Any opinions are yours. # Steven Grimm Moderator, comp.{sources,binaries}.atari.st # sgrimm%chrome@sun.com ...!sun!chrome!sgrimm Is there source for ZOO? What language is it in? Programs without source aren't portable. Charles Colbert