rxcob@minyos.xx.rmit.oz (Owen Baker) (10/16/90)
OK, OK, I get the message. Apologies to all those who wished I hadnt posted CHECKTD and others, I wont do it again thats for sure. I just thought some of the programs may have been usefull to some of you. As a final request can you please NOT publicly execute me again when the complete set of my programs makes it to c.p.i.b? I posted them sometime ago and they were only partly posted last month.
magnus@thep.lu.se (Magnus Olsson) (10/16/90)
In article <6037@minyos.xx.rmit.oz> rxcob@minyos.xx.rmit.oz writes: >OK, OK, I get the message. Apologies to all those who wished I hadnt posted >CHECKTD and others, I wont do it again thats for sure. I just thought some >of the programs may have been usefull to some of you. No, no, no! I do not - repeat *not* - wish you hadn't posted your programs. I *do* believe they may be useful to someone, and I do *not* think it was a bad idea to post them. What I didn't like was the combination of there being no documentation *and* an unreasonably high price for this kind of product. >As a final request can you please NOT publicly execute me again when the >complete set of my programs makes it to c.p.i.b? I posted them sometime ago >and they were only partly posted last month. Flame follows (hit 'j' if you don't want to see it): IMAO, if you're so thin-skinned that you can't take *any* criticism at all, without complaining about being "publicly executed", then you shouldn't post to Usenet at all! If you'd read and understood the previous messages from me and others (which you obviously haven't done) you'd have known that we weren't after you personally. (At least not until you started sending insulting email). Magnus
jzl@micasa.UUCP (Jack Z. Lupic) (10/20/90)
rxcob@minyos.xx.rmit.oz (Owen Baker) writes: > OK, OK, I get the message. Apologies to all those who wished I hadnt posted > CHECKTD and others, I wont do it again thats for sure. I just thought some > of the programs may have been usefull to some of you. > The resulting ZOO file has an info file after each exe file.How the heck is one supposed to unpack all of this and keep all the info files?Why couldn't you have named each info file after the corresponding executable? What happens is that ALL the subsequent INFO files get overwritten by DOS since they all have THE SAME NAME.This is absurd.
mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) (10/23/90)
jzl@micasa.UUCP (Jack Z. Lupic) writes: > The resulting ZOO file has an info file after each exe file.How the heck is > one supposed to unpack all of this and keep all the info files?Why couldn't > you have named each info file after the corresponding executable? "When all else fails, read the directions." Try "zoo x// ozshare.zoo". > since they all have THE SAME NAME.This is absurd. No, it's absurd that even though anybody with half a brainstem can figure out how to extract this archive based on the instructions included in part 1 of the posting, there are so many people who are having so much trouble. -- Marc Unangst | mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us | "Bus error: passengers dumped" ...!umich!leebai!mudos!mju |
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (10/24/90)
In article <Vg7aR3w163w@micasa.UUCP> jzl@micasa.UUCP (Jack Z. Lupic) writes: | The resulting ZOO file has an info file after each exe file.How the heck is | one supposed to unpack all of this and keep all the info files?Why couldn't | you have named each info file after the corresponding executable? | | What happens is that ALL the subsequent INFO files get overwritten by DOS | since they all have THE SAME NAME.This is absurd. He didn't do it, I did. And if you would *read* the documentation in clear unpacked text which was part of the first posting, you know the stuff in the big box with asterisks, it says clearly that you must unpack with the x// directive, to put each item in its own subdirectory. -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) (10/24/90)
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) writes: > He didn't do it, I did. And if you would *read* the documentation in > clear unpacked text which was part of the first posting, you know the > stuff in the big box with asterisks, it says clearly that you must > unpack with the x// directive, to put each item in its own subdirectory. I read that part, and unpacked the files with no problems... at least, as far as unpacking was concerned. I'd respectfully ask, though, that you follow this packaging formula sparingly, if at all. You see, after I had unpacked all those little files into individual directories, I then had to rename all the info files before I could repack the whole assortment into a ZIPfile. A collection such as this is much easier to handle if you needn't take embedded pathnames into account. BTW, SHEZ was not able to see the path information in your Zoofile, Bill... don't know why. -- Roy M. Silvernail |+| roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu |+| #define opinions ALL_MINE; main(){float x=1;x=x/50;printf("It's only $%.2f, but it's my $%.2f!\n",x,x);} "This is cyberspace." -- Peter da Silva :--: "...and I like it here!" -- me
mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) (10/25/90)
roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) writes: > files into individual directories, I then had to rename all the info > files before I could repack the whole assortment into a ZIPfile. Eh? Since when does ZIP not handle subdirectories? > A collection such as this is much easier to handle if you needn't take > embedded pathnames into account. Nonsense. Users should get used to unpacking things with "x//" or "-d" (pick an archiver...); not storing subdirectories was a shortcoming of the original ARC that we needn't propogate any farther than necessary. > BTW, SHEZ was not able to see the path information in your Zoofile, I'd guess because it uses the novice-mode commands, instead of the expert-mode commands. -- Marc Unangst | mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us | "Bus error: passengers dumped" ...!umich!leebai!mudos!mju |
roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) (10/26/90)
mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) writes: > roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) writes: > > files into individual directories, I then had to rename all the info > > files before I could repack the whole assortment into a ZIPfile. > > Eh? Since when does ZIP not handle subdirectories? Of course it does... but it's less than convenient to store them for a collection of this type. (BTW, I ended up tossing the whole thing after inspection) > > A collection such as this is much easier to handle if you needn't take > > embedded pathnames into account. > > Nonsense. Users should get used to unpacking things with "x//" or > "-d" (pick an archiver...); not storing subdirectories was a > shortcoming of the original ARC that we needn't propogate any farther > than necessary. Agreed, where subdirectories make sense. IMHO, this collection of programs didn't rate a subdir structure, especially since the programs weren't likely to stay in those subdirs. (if I had kept them, they'd have gone into my \tools dir) Where they're needed (like, say, Waffle), I certainly store subdirs. Also, please note that I tend to store things in a form somewhat friendly to novices, since many of these things get passed along to novices. Usenet isn't the world, and many users are not as skilled as those of us who populate the net. > > BTW, SHEZ was not able to see the path information in your Zoofile, > > I'd guess because it uses the novice-mode commands, instead of the > expert-mode commands. SHEZ opens and scans the archive directly when you 'look' inside one. The archiver in question isn't spawned until an actual extract is performed. -- Roy M. Silvernail |+| roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu |+| #define opinions ALL_MINE; main(){float x=1;x=x/50;printf("It's only $%.2f, but it's my $%.2f!\n",x,x);} "This is cyberspace." -- Peter da Silva :--: "...and I like it here!" -- me