oneill@bass.bu.edu (Brian V O'Neill) (02/14/90)
I think at least for now UUEncoding should continue to be used. XXEncoding may work better, but a majority of sites do not have it. I do not know what the percentage of BITNET sites connected to UseNet is, but I believe it is relatively small. Perhaps if it can be guaranteed that XXEncoding will be in widespread use, then it would be proper for cbip. What I think would be a more attainable solution at this point would be some sort of Echoing system. Some system connected to BITNET but receives UUEncoded postings properly could recode the postings with XXEncode, and redistribute them in an auxiliary group avilable to BITNET sites. As far as compression schemes, this gets back to the discussion on what systems are Connected to UseNet - mostly Unix systems, and few PCs. I am not aware of a fully operational, portable ZIP program for Unix, and I don't even think a portable unpacking program exists for LHArc. Until fully-operational, portable versions of these formats are available, they should not be used. ============================================================================ Brian O'Neill - Local Internet Access Account Internet: oneill@bu-pub.bu.edu UUCP : ...!bu.edu!bu-pub!oneill
gilmore@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Scott Gilmore) (02/14/90)
In article <52155@bu.edu.bu.edu> oneill@bass.bu.edu (Brian V O'Neill) writes: >I am not aware of a fully operational, portable ZIP program for Unix I have an unzip program here on a Vax running BSD 4.3 Unix which I got from somewhere via anonymous ftp. I can't seem to find the address anywhere, but I'll keep looking. Anyway, the source code mentions that it compiles under Turbo C too, so it looks portable. Of course, it only UNzips, but that may be all we need since most people just want to test the archive and scan the readme file before going to the trouble of downloading to a PC. --- Scott Gilmore gilmore@vax1.acs.udel.edu Mechanical Engineering and Center for Composite Materials, U. of Delaware
roy@comcon.UUCP (Roy M. Silvernail) (02/14/90)
In article <52155@bu.edu.bu.edu>, oneill@bass.bu.edu (Brian V O'Neill) writes: > I think at least for now UUEncoding should continue to be used. XXEncoding > may work better, but a majority of sites do not have it. That can be taken care of by simply posting the XX*code sources as the first programs, no? [...] > I am not > aware of a fully operational, portable ZIP program for Unix, and I don't > even think a portable unpacking program exists for LHArc. Until The sources for LHarc were posted to comp.sources.atari.st a couple weeks ago. The compression isn't exactly portable to SysV(no ftruncate() call), but it will unpack just fine. I also pulled a Unix unZipper off SIMTEL20, but haven't tested it yet. Certainly, any change will have side-effects, and some sites will be slow on the uptake, but overall, I think the change to XX*code and LHarc will be benificial, and will avoid the overhead of gatewaying to Bitnet. Besides, LHarc is *much* tighter than ZOO, and will conserve much bandwidth. -- _R_o_y _M_. _S_i_l_v_e_r_n_a_i_l | UUCP: uunet!comcon!roy | "Every race must arrive at this #include <opinions.h>;#define opinions MINE | point in its history" SnailMail: P.O. Box 210856, Anchorage, | ........Mr. Slippery Alaska, 99521-0856, U.S.A., Earth, etc. | <Ono-Sendai: the right choice!>
cab3@uafhcx.uucp (Chad A. Bersche) (02/15/90)
> I have an unzip program here on a Vax running BSD 4.3 Unix which I got from > somewhere via anonymous ftp. I can't seem to find the address anywhere, but > I'll keep looking. Anyway, the source code mentions that it compiles under > Turbo C too, so it looks portable. Of course, it only UNzips, but that may be > all we need since most people just want to test the archive and scan the > readme file before going to the trouble of downloading to a PC. I too have gotten the BSD version of an Unzip program and have it working perfectly on our system. I belive I got it off of Simtel20, if I recall correctly. Also, for my two cents worth, I would like to see the c.b.i.p. standard be something like Lharc. I have a copy of it for the same BSD machine that allows both the unarchiving and archiving of lharc files. Admittedly, few may actually do much with the files before downloading them to their PC's, but every now and then I tend to unarchive something, take what I want (or need), rearchive it and then download just what I need to save time. For that reason, lharc would be a little better. It also has a very good compression ratio, and isn't too awfully slow. If I could find a Zip program for Unix BSD, I'd most definitely change my vote to .ZIP. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- cab3@uafhcx.uark.edu - Chad A. Bersche University of Arkansas Fayetteville Computer Science Engineering If you have the source to ZIP let me know!! -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
jmerrill@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Jason Merrill) (02/15/90)
In article <3702@uafhp.uark.edu> cab3@uafhcx.uucp (Chad A. Bersche) writes: >... >correctly. Also, for my two cents worth, I would like to see the c.b.i.p. >standard be something like Lharc. I have a copy of it for the same BSD machine >that allows both the unarchiving and archiving of lharc files. Admittedly, few >may actually do much with the files before downloading them to their PC's, but >every now and then I tend to unarchive something, take what I want (or need), >rearchive it and then download just what I need to save time. For that reason, >lharc would be a little better. It also has a very good compression ratio, and >isn't too awfully slow. If I could find a Zip program for Unix BSD, I'd most >... I agree completely. I ALWAYS look at the file before sending it to my machine (one of my most commonly-typed commands is arc p stuff STUFF.DOC | more), to see if I have any use for it. My problem with the UnZip problem is that it won't let me do that (On the PC, I use "pkunzip -c stuff stuff.doc | list /s"). I don't have LHarc for UN*X, but since Yoshi releases his source I'm sure it can extract to console. -- Jason Merrill jmerrill@jarthur.claremont.edu
demon@ibmpcug.co.uk (Cliff Stanford) (02/15/90)
In article <52155@bu.edu.bu.edu> oneill@bass.bu.edu (Brian V O'Neill) writes: > > Perhaps if it can be guaranteed that XXEncoding will be in widespread use, > then it would be proper for cbip. > Provided that xx is posted first in executable format and source for as many machines as possible, I really can't see it makes any difference that xx is used rather than uu. Obviously you have the problem of how to distribute xx but I would suggest that it should be the one and only set of files distributed as uu. Whatever you do, *please* don't mix them! I get confused enough as it is :-) Regards Cliff. -- Automatic Disclaimer: The views expressed above are those of the author alone and may not represent the views of the IBM PC User Group. -- Cliff Stanford demon@ibmpcug.co.UK Demon Systems Limited demon@cix.UUCP 42 Hendon Lane cliffs@bix London N3 1TT - England
mike@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Mike Mueller) (02/15/90)
More than anything else, I'm glad that c.b.i.p is starting up again. Let's use what's working now for a while longer and work off what I hope is a substantial backlog of postings. I also vote for zoo and uu.
jmd@umree.isc.umr.edu (Jim Dumser) (02/16/90)
In article <52155@bu.edu.bu.edu> oneill@bass.bu.edu (Brian V O'Neill) writes: >I think at least for now UUEncoding should continue to be used. XXEncoding >may work better, but a majority of sites do not have it. I do not know what >the percentage of BITNET sites connected to UseNet is, but I believe it is >relatively small. > >Perhaps if it can be guaranteed that XXEncoding will be in widespread use, >then it would be proper for cbip. This is a valid comment. But, I don't think it would be too hard to fix. All you have to do is to post XXEncode as one of the first files to cbip (it would be UUEncoded, of course) and also offer it someplace unencoded for ftp (for those that might have problems getting UUEncoded stuff). This is what the original author of this discussion suggested. >As far as compression schemes, this gets back to the discussion on what >systems are Connected to UseNet - mostly Unix systems, and few PCs. I am not >aware of a fully operational, portable ZIP program for Unix, and I don't >even think a portable unpacking program exists for LHArc. Until >fully-operational, portable versions of these formats are available, they >should not be used. But you forget -- we are talking about cbip here, not csu. These programs will generally be for DOS systems, where ZIP and LHArc do exist. Also, there are un-arcing programs for both that run under Unix so people can test the integrity of the archive before downloading it. +-------------------------------------------------------+ | The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, | | but fools despise wisdom and discipline. Proverbs 1:7 | |-------------------------------------------------------| | Internet: jmd@ee.umr.edu | M S - D O S . . . | | UUCP: ...uunet!umree!jmd | Just say "NO!" | +-------------------------------------------------------+
keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) (02/16/90)
In article <5729@udccvax1.acs.udel.EDU> gilmore@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Scott Gilmore) writes: >In article <52155@bu.edu.bu.edu> oneill@bass.bu.edu (Brian V O'Neill) writes: >>I am not aware of a fully operational, portable ZIP program for Unix > >I have an unzip program here on a Vax running BSD 4.3 Unix which I got from >somewhere via anonymous ftp. I can't seem to find the address anywhere, but >I'll keep looking. The one I have notes that the original was done by Samuel Smith, and is dated August 1989. It came from comp.sources.misc, moderated by Brandon Allbery, and was in v08i043 (volume 8, issue 43) of that newsgroup. The archive name assigned was unzip_gs. The doc file indicates that both C and Turbo Pascal source are available, but I only have the C source. Moreover, the README states that the original C source was rather Turbo C dependent, and that modifications were done by the submitter, George Sipe, at Georgia Tech, to get it to run on BSD 4.3. The source code itself contains instructions for compiling with Turbo C, MSC 5.1 and on a "unix pc," as well as George's note about "portabilizing" the code. kEITHe
" Seaman) (02/16/90)
cab3@uafhcx.uucp (Chad A. Bersche) writes: < < I too have gotten the BSD version of an Unzip program and have it working < perfectly on our system... < lharc would be a little better. It also has a very good compression ratio, < and isn't too awfully slow. If I could find a Zip program for Unix BSD, < I'd most definitely change my vote to .ZIP. < < ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- < cab3@uafhcx.uark.edu - Chad A. Bersche University of Arkansas Fayetteville < Computer Science Engineering If you have the source to ZIP let me know!! < ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- the problem with the BSD version of unzip is just that. It is so specific to BSD that it doesn't come close to compiling on my System V machine, and I don't have the time to search through the source to figure out what the author was really trying to do. Until there is a PORTABLE version of zip for UNIX (one that can create AND extract), it should not be the 'archiver of choice' for usenet postings. Similar arguments can be made against lharc. Please note that I'm not saying that PKZip and LHArc are not good archivers. I have used both on my PC, but zoo is the only one that runs reliably under UNIX. Also, there is a very handy utility on the PKWare BBS that will convert zoo files to zip files on the PC. -- Chris (Insert phrase here) Seaman | o\ /o See crs@cpsc6a.att.com <or> | || "Attack of the Killer Smiley"! ...!att!cpsc6a!crs | \vvvvvv/ Coming Soon | \____/ to a newsgroup near you!
jimmy@pyrltd.UUCP (Jimmy Aitken) (02/17/90)
In article <315@comcon.UUCP> roy@comcon.UUCP (Roy M. Silvernail) writes: >call), but it will unpack just fine. I also pulled a Unix unZipper off >SIMTEL20, but haven't tested it yet. If this is the one posted to comp.sources.misc last August (volume 8), it doesn't seem to work too well on a Sun or Pyramid. It dumps core on both of them on a recently posted ZIP file to the net. If someone could convince me that they work as well as 'zoo' (ran immediately on both Sun and Pyramid), I may change, but until then the ease of looking at archives on Unix and DOS, means that I'll use zoo. Jimmy -- -m------- Jimmy Aitken ...!mcvax!ukc!pyrltd!jimmy ---mmm----- Pyramid Technology Ltd jimmy@pyra.co.uk -----mmmmm--- Pyramid House, Solartron Rd jimmy@pyramid.pyramid.com -------mmmmmmm- Hants GU14 7PL, ENGLAND (+44) 252 373035
kjeld@iesd.auc.dk (Kjeld Flarup) (02/20/90)
I find it important that it should be possible to do an automatic unpacking of cbip on a unix system. If anyone want's to change the way how to transport, I would strongly suggest that a way follows of how to unpack the whole thing. uuencode and zoo is known to run on unix, thus these are ok. If someone want's to change it is thus nessecary to post the sources of the programs used. But many sites use special scipts to do the work. These also has to be modified to run again. Before changing anything, it should be assured that a package for unpacking is available to all users. In this case there is no problems. -- * I am several thousand pages behind my reading schedule. * Kjeld Flarup Christensen kjeld@iesd.auc.dk
andy@mks.com (Andy Toy) (02/21/90)
In article <466@umrisca.usenet.umr.edu> jmd@umree.UUCP (Jim Dumser) writes: >But you forget -- we are talking about cbip here, not csu. These programs >will generally be for DOS systems, where ZIP and LHArc do exist. Also, >there are un-arcing programs for both that run under Unix so people can test >the integrity of the archive before downloading it. O.k., but I bet that most of the systems maintaining archives and from which the postings are assembled are *NOT* DOS systems. As a matter of fact, the infamous simtel20 is a DECsystem running TOPS-20. I don't know about LHARC, but there is definitely no UNZIP programme for UNICES other than the BSD flavour. -- Andy Toy, Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Internet: andy@mks.com 35 King Street North, Waterloo, UUCP: uunet!watmath!mks!andy Ontario, CANADA N2J 2W9 Phone: 519-884-2251 FAX: 519-884-8861
andy@mks.com (Andy Toy) (02/21/90)
In article <1990Feb20.164019.20116@mks.com> I (Andy Toy) write: >there is definitely no UNZIP programme >for UNICES other than the BSD flavour. Looks like I wrote too soon. I just pulled unzip 2.0a from alt.sources and compiled it on my SysV machine and voila, it works. However, it will not compile on my BSD machine, but I already have another unzip for BSD. Now all we need is a zipper. -- Andy Toy, Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Internet: andy@mks.com 35 King Street North, Waterloo, UUCP: uunet!watmath!mks!andy Ontario, CANADA N2J 2W9 Phone: 519-884-2251 FAX: 519-884-8861
kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson) (02/22/90)
In article <1990Feb21.143510.9909@mks.com> andy@mks.com (Andy Toy) writes: >However, it will not compile on my BSD machine, but I already have >another unzip for BSD. Now all we need is a zipper. Where is the unzip for BSD? I get core dumps, and I don't feel like hacking on this. Ken Hendrickson N8DGN kjh@usc.edu ...!uunet!usc!pollux!kjh