boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu (SoftXc Coordinator) (03/14/88)
I propose a standard format for ARCed files uploaded to comp.binaries.ibm.pc
could be as follows:
1) The moderator would ARC the files using PKARC 3.5
2) The moderator would use the MAKESFX program to create a
self-extracting archive.
This would eliminate the need for anyone to have a specific archive
extractor, hopefully simplifying any problems.
I am currently seeing about the possibility of setting up a moderation site
here at the University, but I won't know for certain for a while.
============================================================================
Brian O'Neill University of Lowell
boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu - boneill@hawk.UUCP ...!ulowell!hawk!boneill
MS-DOS Software Exchange Coordinator - E-mail for detailsrk9005@cca.ucsf.edu (Roland McGrath) (03/14/88)
["Standard format for ARCed files"] - boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu (SoftXc Coordinator): } I propose a standard format for ARCed files uploaded to comp.binaries.ibm.pc } could be as follows: } } 1) The moderator would ARC the files using PKARC 3.5 } 2) The moderator would use the MAKESFX program to create a } self-extracting archive. } } This would eliminate the need for anyone to have a specific archive } extractor, hopefully simplifying any problems. I think this is a bad idea. Making self-extracting archives for PC's makes them unusable by Unix arc programs. Using PKARC (with the -oc switch) is not as bad, since anyone can get PKXARC and there is at least one Unix arc program that supports PKARC's new compression method (really-- I've got it), but there are many people out there who don't have them. I suggest that well-known standard ARC programs such as PKARC/PKXARC and ARC 5.20 (is there a later version from SEA?) and some Unix arc programs be made available from the sites that archive comp.binaries.ibm.pc and that all binary postings be made with one of the above, NOT using PKARC's new method and NOT self-extracting, and then uuencoded -- Roland McGrath ARPA: roland@rtsg.lbl.gov roland@lbl-rtsg.arpa UUCP: ...!ucbvax!lbl-rtsg.arpa!roland
dave@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Dave Goldblatt) (03/14/88)
From article <5439@swan.ulowell.edu>, by boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu (SoftXc Coordinator): > I propose a standard format for ARCed files uploaded to comp.binaries.ibm.pc > could be as follows: > > 1) The moderator would ARC the files using PKARC 3.5 > 2) The moderator would use the MAKESFX program to create a > self-extracting archive. > > This would eliminate the need for anyone to have a specific archive > extractor, hopefully simplifying any problems. Not really; I like to check things out on our Unix system; if you don't have a direct Ethernet line to your netnews host, isn't it easier to look at the files on the host rather than spending hours downloading 'em? :-) Suggestion: Use PKARC with the /oct option to create ARC-compatible archives. Do not use MAKESFX. Some arc programs will read self-extracting archives, but some die on them. -dg- -- Internet: dave@sun.soe.clarkson.edu or: dave@clutx.clarkson.edu BITNET: dave@CLUTX.Bitnet uucp: {rpics, gould}!clutx!dave Matrix: Dave Goldblatt @ 1:260/360 ICBM: Why do you want to know? :-)
rrodrigu@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA (Russ Rodriguez) (03/15/88)
In article <551@sun.soe.clarkson.edu>, dave@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Dave Goldblatt) writes: > From article <5439@swan.ulowell.edu>, by boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu (SoftXc Coordinator): > > I propose a standard format for ARCed files uploaded to comp.binaries.ibm.pc > > could be as follows: > > > > 1) The moderator would ARC the files using PKARC 3.5 > > 2) The moderator would use the MAKESFX program to create a > > self-extracting archive. > > Suggestion: Use PKARC with the /oct option to create ARC-compatible > archives. Do not use MAKESFX. Some arc programs will read self-extracting > archives, but some die on them. > Who care whether the UN*X archive program can read them or not??? This is COMP.BINARIES.IBM.PC, not COMP.UN*X, so whatever you pull off this board is going to end up on a PC anyway. I vote for the self-extracting archives over the arced-only files. I guess it's a vote for whether to use the ZOO or the Phil Katz self extracting archivers. I'll take either but condemn to death the UN*X archive utility. Russell ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Disclaimer: The opinions of Russ Rodriguez are his own and couldn't possibly reflect those of his employer: Teknowledge, Inc., of Palo Alto, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ internet: rrodrigu@teknowledge-vaxc.arpa usenet: {hplabs|sun|ucbvax|decwrl|sri-unix}!rrodrigu%teknowledge-vaxc.arpa voice: 415/424-0500 X576 X585 US Mail: Teknowledge, Inc.,1850 Embarcadero Rd, POB 10119,Palo Alto, CA 94303
iverson@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Tim Iverson) (03/15/88)
In article <5439@swan.ulowell.edu> boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu (SoftXc Coordinator) writes: >I propose a standard format for ARCed files uploaded to comp.binaries.ibm.pc >could be as follows: > > 1) The moderator would ARC the files using PKARC 3.5 > 2) The moderator would use the MAKESFX program to create a > self-extracting archive. > >This would eliminate the need for anyone to have a specific archive >extractor, hopefully simplifying any problems. This strikes me as one of the least intelligent ideas I have seen in a long while. First, I never run a program on my computer that someone I do not know has compiled - if you don't haul the horse through your gate, you can't be attacked. Now you tell me that I have to *execute* a program that some fool has posted to the net? No way. Moderation is no help as that can be simply and easily circumvented. Second, ARC is not the most widespread of archive programs. PKARC works only on PC's running MS-DOS, yet you wish to use it as a standard for transmission between machines that for the most part are not PC's and are running UNIX. I would then have to download the file (which could be quite large) before I could even get a listing of it. ARC would be slightly better than PKARC, as some could list and extract the contents before downloading. However, there does not exist an ARC program that will function satifactorily on all or even most of the systems on the net. There is only one program that I know of that can serve as a standard, if that is something you feel is needed: zoo. It runs on just about any machine I can think of and the resulting archive can be manipulated with equal ease on any system zoo runs on. Rahul Dhesi (sp?) has created a very nice program that is eminently suitable as a standard for exchange of data between disimilar machines. If you do choose a transmission method as a standard, please do not choose one that creates a vast security hole in the PC user community, nor one that can only be used from the PC, as that is not the environment from which most people are connected to the net. - Tim Iverson iverson@cory.Berkeley.EDU ucbvax!cory!iverson
davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr) (03/15/88)
In article <1551@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> iverson@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Tim Iverson) writes: | [...] | There is only one program that I know of that can serve as a standard, if | that is something you feel is needed: zoo. It runs on just about any | machine I can think of and the resulting archive can be manipulated with | equal ease on any system zoo runs on. Rahul Dhesi (sp?) has created a very | nice program that is eminently suitable as a standard for exchange of data | between disimilar machines. Absolutely! Zoo runs on UNIX, MS-DOG, and VMS (at least). However, I would be reasonably happy with ARC, but not PKARC. I can't see downloading a program via modem just to look at the doc files and see if it was worth doing. -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
merlin@hqda-ai.UUCP (David S. Hayes) (03/16/88)
We should not use a self-extracting format. These formats
necessarily require the a copy of the extraction code be passed
with EVERY article. This would dramatically increase the volume
of the news to be transmitted and stored.
With no apology to Russel, this may be a PC group, but most
of us do not connect our PC directly to the Usenet. The code must
come in to our Unix computers, and then it gets downloaded to the
PC. Download may mean a direct ethernet connection, or it may
mean a 1200-baud modem. I'm not willing to run a download for a
few hours, only to find that the archive has no documentation.
Why not use a format that everyone can read? ARC is fine, but
PKARC causes many of us problems.
--
David S. Hayes, The Merlin of Avalon PhoneNet: (202) 694-6900
UUCP: *!uunet!cos!hqda-ai!merlin ARPA: ai01@hios-pent.arpadavidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr) (03/16/88)
In article <21480@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA> rrodrigu@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA (Russ Rodriguez) writes: > >Who care whether the UN*X archive program can read them or not??? This is >COMP.BINARIES.IBM.PC, not COMP.UN*X, so whatever you pull off this >board is going to end up on a PC anyway. I vote for the self-extracting >archives over the arced-only files. I guess it's a vote for whether to >use the ZOO or the Phil Katz self extracting archivers. I'll take either >but condemn to death the UN*X archive utility. You're missing the point. Most of the people reading this do so on UNIX machines. If the ARC file can be read in UNIX we can look at the doc and decide if the program justifies the effort of pulling it over a phone line. What you propose is that if UNIX users want to see if a program is useful, let'em take five hours to pull it over a modem, THEN find out it has no application. I disagree that whatever you pull off this group winds up on a PC anyways. At least for me, most of what I pull off this group winds up in the bit bucket or archives, because it doesn't justify the effort to download it at the current time. Actually I wouldn't ever just run a program I can't check, anyway. I have some reasonable tools to check things extracted with MY arc program, before I let them look at the CPU, but I doubt that many people will be as trusting as you imply. If I send you a program and tell you it does something useful, just unpack it, will you promise to run it? I didn't think so. All this without getting into the 6-9k various unpackers add to the size (and our phone bill). -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
saj@chinet.UUCP (Stephen Jacobs) (03/16/88)
As long as we're considering standards for postings, I'd like to suggest that anything which doesn't uudecode to human-readable text should be kept to some modest size. In particular, a single arc or zoo or .Z file containing several 50K+ executables and maybe a digitized image or two is not the most desirable output from uudecode. The reason for this suggestion is that the error checking in uudecode is imperfect, and it is easy, especially when concatinating input to it, to get errors. Localization and containment of errors is easier by hand in text files; errors in large compressed collections of non-text are difficult to deal with
boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu (SoftXc Coordinator) (03/16/88)
In article <9945@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> davidsen@kbsvax.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr) writes: >In article <21480@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA> rrodrigu@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA (Russ Rodriguez) writes: >> >>Who care whether the UN*X archive program can read them or not??? This is >>COMP.BINARIES.IBM.PC, not COMP.UN*X, so whatever you pull off this >>board is going to end up on a PC anyway. I vote for the self-extracting >>archives over the arced-only files. I guess it's a vote for whether to >>use the ZOO or the Phil Katz self extracting archivers. I'll take either >>but condemn to death the UN*X archive utility. > > You're missing the point. Most of the people reading this do so on >UNIX machines. If the ARC file can be read in UNIX we can look at the >doc and decide if the program justifies the effort of pulling it over a >phone line. > I had no intention when I originally posted about the self-extracting archives of alienating anybody. I had forgotten about those of you who use the UNIX ARC program, as I was never able to get it to work properly. No that I have a working version, I understand your purpose. As far as concealing trojans within them, I think it is the duty of the moderator to test them before posting, preventing trojans from reaching the net. If a trojan was posted, then everybody knows who to blame. ============================================================================ Brian O'Neill University of Lowell boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu - boneill@hawk.UUCP ...!ulowell!hawk!boneill MS-DOS Software Exchange Coordinator - E-mail for details
loafman@convex.UUCP (03/17/88)
> /* Written 10:12 pm Mar 14, 1988 by rrodrigu@teknowledge-vaxc.UUCP */ > /* ---------- "Re: Standard format for ARCed files" ---------- */ > [...stuff deleted] > Who care whether the UN*X archive program can read them or not??? This is > COMP.BINARIES.IBM.PC, not COMP.UN*X, so whatever you pull off this > board is going to end up on a PC anyway. I vote for the self-extracting > archives over the arced-only files. I guess it's a vote for whether to > use the ZOO or the Phil Katz self extracting archivers. I'll take either > but condemn to death the UN*X archive utility. > [...stuff deleted] > Russell I care! I would like to have the ability to preview the documentation in the archive _before_ I tie up phone lines to download it. The headers do not always tell me about the 'glitch' that would make this particular posting useless to me, so why spend time downloading it. If you're reading the net, you probably are on a UNIX box anyway, so why not keep it the best of both worlds? So I vote _for_ pkarc format with the -oct option to stay compatible with SEA's archiver. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Kenneth W. Loafman @ CONVEX Computer Corp, Dallas, Texas | All opinions Voice: work: (214) 952-0829 home: (214) 964-1250 | are my own, USPSnail: 1705 Coit Rd #2101, Plano, Tx 75075 | of course. UUCP: ihnp4!convex!loafman | CompuServe: 72345,233 | ...KWL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
dick@slvblc.UUCP (Dick Flanagan) (03/17/88)
In article <92500006@convex> loafman@convex.UUCP writes: > > /* Written 10:12 pm Mar 14, 1988 by rrodrigu@teknowledge-vaxc.UUCP */ > > Who care whether the UN*X archive program can read them or not??? This is > > COMP.BINARIES.IBM.PC, not COMP.UN*X, so whatever you pull off this > > board is going to end up on a PC anyway. I vote for the self-extracting > > archives over the arced-only files. I guess it's a vote for whether to > > use the ZOO or the Phil Katz self extracting archivers. > > I care! I would like to have the ability to preview the documentation > in the archive _before_ I tie up phone lines to download it. I don't believe this conversation is taking place! Self-extracting archives??? Programs that must be executed on my PC before I can even see what they really contain? ^^^^^^^^ Here is my wonderful public domain program enhancement system. If you are a programmer, then you really deserve this wonderful program. It is contained in the enclosed self-extracting ARC file. Documentation? It's in there! Source? It's in there! So just execute the enclosed BIG_JOKE.EXE file and you will get what you deserve. Trust me!!! Gimme a break. . . . Dick -- Dick Flanagan, W6OLD GEnie: FLANAGAN UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucscc!slvblc!dick Voice: +1 408 336 3481 Internet: slvblc!dick@ucscc.UCSC.EDU LORAN: N037 04.7 W122 04.6 USPO: PO Box 155, Ben Lomond, CA 95005
ccs002@deneb.ucdavis.edu (0058;0000074017;300;9999;94;ccs) (03/18/88)
>> Suggestion: Use PKARC with the /oct option to create ARC-compatible >> archives. Do not use MAKESFX. Some arc programs will read self-extracting >> archives, but some die on them. >> > >Who care whether the UN*X archive program can read them or not??? This is >COMP.BINARIES.IBM.PC, not COMP.UN*X, so whatever you pull off this >board is going to end up on a PC anyway. I vote for the self-extracting I care that the UNIX archive doesn't work, as I am sure many others are. I like to see what I am going to get (read the docs) before I bother downloading tons of arced files to a PC and un archiving them. How many people get the news ON PC's? Why not make the arc compatible with the machines that the news is recieved on? Also, on the subject of moderation, I would like a comp.binaries.ibm.pc.discussion(whatever the syntax is) group, since comp.sys.ibm.pc is (as stated by others) too busy to keep up with without the binaries discussions. David Hatcher Internet DWHATCHER@ucdavis.edu or ccs002@deneb.ucdavis.edu BITNET DWHATCHER@ucdavis UUCP {ucbvax, lll-crg, sdcsvax}!ucdavis!DWHATCHER or
iverson@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Tim Iverson) (03/19/88)
In article <5506@swan.ulowell.edu> boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu (SoftXcCoordinator) writes: >I had no intention when I originally posted about the self-extracting >archives of alienating anybody. I had forgotten about those of you who use >the UNIX ARC program, as I was never able to get it to work properly. Now >that I have a working version, I understand your purpose. As far as >concealing trojans within them, I think it is the duty of the moderator to >test them before posting, preventing trojans from reaching the net. If a >trojan was posted, then everybody knows who to blame. Of course it is the duty of the moderator to supress trojans. However, it is apparently rather easy to circumvent moderation and post whatever you like. This has happened a few times in the past and will undoubtably happen in the future. Self-extracting archives make the situation much more dangerous, since the program must be run for the archive to be extracted. - Tim Iverson iverson@cory.Berkeley.EDU ucbvax!cory!iverson
gerry@syntron.UUCP (G. Roderick Singleton) (03/21/88)
In article <92500006@convex>, loafman@convex.UUCP writes:
<
< > /* Written 10:12 pm Mar 14, 1988 by rrodrigu@teknowledge-vaxc.UUCP */
< > /* ---------- "Re: Standard format for ARCed files" ---------- */
< > [...stuff deleted]
< > Who care whether the UN*X archive program can read them or not??? This is
< > COMP.BINARIES.IBM.PC, not COMP.UN*X, so whatever you pull off this
< > board is going to end up on a PC anyway. I vote for the self-extracting
< > archives over the arced-only files. I guess it's a vote for whether to
< > use the ZOO or the Phil Katz self extracting archivers. I'll take either
< > but condemn to death the UN*X archive utility.
< > [...stuff deleted]
< > Russell
<
< I care! I would like to have the ability to preview the documentation
< in the archive _before_ I tie up phone lines to download it. The
< [stuff deleted for brevity]
I CARE TOO! Interesting that some who use USENET forget that most
machines are UNIX-based and not toys on a study desk somewhere.
To get back on track, SEA released sources to the net sometime ago
which has allowed most UNIX machines to read, create and extract files
from compatible archives, I know, I know, the compression isn't the
greatest BUT at least, I can handle archives on my BSD and Venix boxes by
using it. Unfortunately, the author(s) of pkarc have not followed suit
so no pkarc on UNIX machines and I don't see anyone using ZOO.
THERFORE, LET'S USE SEA ARC. In other words, I agree with loafman@convex.UUCP.
--
G. Roderick Singleton, Technical Services Manager
{ syntron | geac | eclectic }!gerry
"ALL animals are created equal, BUT some animals are MORE equal than others."
George Orwelljay@splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard) (03/22/88)
From article <21480@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA>, by rrodrigu@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA (Russ Rodriguez): > Who care whether the UN*X archive program can read them or not??? This is > COMP.BINARIES.IBM.PC, not COMP.UN*X, so whatever you pull off this > board is going to end up on a PC anyway. I vote for the self-extracting > archives over the arced-only files. I guess it's a vote for whether to > use the ZOO or the Phil Katz self extracting archivers. I'll take either > but condemn to death the UN*X archive utility. NO!!! Not all PCs run just DOS. The self-extracting archives would require that I shut down Unix and boot DOS just so I can tell whether or not I need to save the archive. Having the Unix archiver available is a godsend, simply because that way I can un-ARC the documentation and read it. In the same vein, I STRONGLY recommend that the OLD ARC format be used. There appears to be only one Unix archiver that can handle the Phil Katz version, and it won't run on my system. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC...>splut!< | GEnie: JAYMAYNARD CI$: 71036,1603 uucp: {uunet!nuchat,academ!uhnix1,{ihnp4,bellcore,killer}!tness1}!splut!jay Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity. The opinions herein are shared by none of my cats, much less anyone else.
frotz@drivax.UUCP (Frotz) (03/24/88)
In article <278@syntron.UUCP> gerry@syntron.UUCP (G. Roderick Singleton) writes: >I don't see anyone using ZOO. THERFORE, LET'S USE SEA ARC. I use zoo exclusively. I like it because I can retain directory structures across file systems. This is **VERY** important to me when copying sources/objects/executables from one system to another. The only feature that I wish (Rahul are you listening?) zoo had is multi-volume archives (arch.zoo > 2M fitting on 2 hypers or on 8 DSDDs). Until zoo is expanded to include this capability, I will continue use Metaware's Find command to create multi-volumne archives though this is somewhat of a pain. I think that the real redeeming features of zoo are: (1) zoo is able to salvage parts of an archive that has been partially munged and (2) archive portability. For this reason I say ZOO should be considered a strong candidate for this news groups archive format. Frotz -- "Now that we've decided on an archive format, who's going to moderate;-)" -- Me
tvf@cci632.UUCP (Tom Frauenhofer) (03/24/88)
A while back someone posted to comp.sources a modified version of the source to SEA ARC that could unpack archives created by PKARC. It worked only on Berkley UN*X-based machines, but it shouldn't be a problem for someone who has the time to port it to the various non-Berkeley UN*X's (unfortunately, I don't). I've got all the sources and would be willing to send them to whoever would be interested (or I could post them if there's enough interest). ----------- Tom Frauenhofer (tvf@ccird3.UUCP, tfra_c56@cc.vera.rochester.edu, ...!rochester!cci632!ccird3!tvf) BLOOM: You can't kill the actors! They're human beings! BIALYSTOCK: Oh yeah? You ever eat with one?
schung@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Stephen the Greatest) (03/24/88)
Is there PKARC and PKXARC for UNIX? I read news on a VAX system, and would like to see what kind of software an ARC contains before wasting 20-30 minutes transferring it over to my PC. If there is none, can someone send me the specs of the ARC format, and I will write one for UNIX and post it to the net (probably comp.sys.ibm.pc and comp.sources.unix). - Stephen