igp@camcon.co.uk (Ian Phillipps) (07/06/89)
andre@targon.UUCP (andre) writes: >In article <576@kullmar.se> bk@kullmar.se (Bo Kullmar) writes: .. other >>>> stuff deleted >more seriously, in comp.binaries ibm pc there are also postings of >documentation and sources. It is very handy to be able to look into >an archive before downloading it and spending money on downloading. You can do that with ARC better - arc5.21 as posted on comp.sources has a flag to do Unix/MSDOS newline mangling - something which ZOO lacks. >Also, the pkarc and arc structures have changed over time so that users >get the 'I think you need a newer version of arc' message and can't >use the stuff before they get their hands on a new version. ARC 5.21 and PKUNPAK both decode all .ARC files I've ever come across. Both have been net-posted in the last year, and are pretty widespread on bbs. >Zoo is always downward compatible (that's in its copyright notice) So are ARC/PKUNPAK. It's upwards that's needed! About the only advantage of ZOO for news postings over the best of the PAK/ARC programs is its ability to deal with subdirectories. It has other advantages in general use, but PKPAK is faster. -- UUCP: igp@camcon.co.uk | Cambridge Consultants Ltd | Ian Phillipps or: igp@camcon.uucp | Science Park, Milton Road |----------------- Phone: +44 223 420024 | Cambridge CB4 4DW, England |
Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (07/07/89)
In article <3306@titan.camcon.co.uk>, igp@camcon.co.uk (Ian Phillipps) writes: }andre@targon.UUCP (andre) writes: }>Also, the pkarc and arc structures have changed over time so that users }>get the 'I think you need a newer version of arc' message and can't }>use the stuff before they get their hands on a new version. } }ARC 5.21 and PKUNPAK both decode all .ARC files I've ever come across. }Both have been net-posted in the last year, and are pretty widespread on bbs. You've obviously never encountered an ARC 6.0 file.... If it is packed using subdirectories (and I think comments, as well), it will be unreadable by ARC 5.x and PKARC/PKPAK. That's why ARC6 has an option to generate ARC5-compatible files. -- UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school) ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/46 Disclaimer? I claimed something? "When things start going your way, it's usually because you stopped going the wrong way down a one-way street."
wnp@attctc.DALLAS.TX.US (Wolf Paul) (07/07/89)
In article <3306@titan.camcon.co.uk= igp@camcon.co.uk (Ian Phillipps) writes: =andre@targon.UUCP (andre) writes: =>more seriously, in comp.binaries ibm pc there are also postings of =>documentation and sources. It is very handy to be able to look into =>an archive before downloading it and spending money on downloading. = =You can do that with ARC better - arc5.21 as posted on comp.sources has =a flag to do Unix/MSDOS newline mangling - something which ZOO lacks. However, it is a pain to get ARC compiled on some UNIX systems. ZOO compiles without ANY complaints or difficulties even on my old 286 box. =>Also, the pkarc and arc structures have changed over time so that users =>get the 'I think you need a newer version of arc' message and can't =>use the stuff before they get their hands on a new version. = =ARC 5.21 and PKUNPAK both decode all .ARC files I've ever come across. =Both have been net-posted in the last year, and are pretty widespread on bbs. = =>Zoo is always downward compatible (that's in its copyright notice) = =So are ARC/PKUNPAK. It's upwards that's needed! I think you two mean the same thing. What he means is that an older version of ZOO will extract files from an archive created with a newer version; An older version of ARC or PK* will say something like he quotes above when trying to extract files from an archive created with an older version. Thus, you don't always have to be sure to have the latest version of ZOO, but you do have to have the latest version of ARC or PK*. =About the only advantage of ZOO for news postings over the best of the =PAK/ARC programs is its ability to deal with subdirectories. It has =other advantages in general use, but PKPAK is faster. These other advantages are significant enough to want to have zoo around. So then why should I have half a dozen other utilities as well, if zoo will do it just fine? =UUCP: igp@camcon.co.uk | Cambridge Consultants Ltd | Ian Phillipps =or: igp@camcon.uucp | Science Park, Milton Road |----------------- =Phone: +44 223 420024 | Cambridge CB4 4DW, England | And finally, although it is not really a technical reason, a lot of people over here feel that SEA's lawsuit against PKWARE was unwarranted, and would therefore like to altogether boycott SEA's products. ZOO and Rahul's specific copyright provisions suit us better. -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: {texbell, attctc, dalsqnt}!dcs!wnp DOMAIN: wnp@attctc.dallas.tx.us or wnp%dcs@texbell.swbt.com NOTICE: As of July 3, 1989, "killer" has become "attctc".
bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (07/08/89)
One more advantage to ZOO, which can be unanswerable to some of us: It uses unique temp-file names; ARC has constant, hard-coded temp-file names. This means that if you try to run multiple ARC processes (background in UNIX, DesqView or whatever in MS-DOS), the processes clobber each other's temp files. Very possibly you will irreparably damage every involved archive file (I did). ZOO generates unique temporary names, so that multiple ZOO processes coexist happily. Uncorrupted archives are worth a *lot* to me.