roy@sts.sts.com (02/23/89)
How many people would like to see the archive format in
comp.binaries.ibm.pc changed from arc to zoo? The advantage to this
is now zoo is widely available on Unix systems (just posted on
comp.sources.unix) and you can now un-arc (un-zoo?) the "binaries" on
your host machine, look at the documentation and see if this thing
that was posted is really worth downloading to the PC. Also, if
you're sick of the PK/SEA controversy and the whole copyright mess,
this will avoid THAT "noid" (not you Ken, wherever you are!) I really
don't see any disadvantages, since zoo is also widely available for
the PC.
So, what do you think? If there are enough "yes" votes, Rahul says he'd
be willing to switch.
Roy Bixler | UUCP: ...!{claris,sun}!sts!roy
Semiconductor Test Solutions | phones: (408) 727-2885 x132 (work)
4101 Burton Dr. | (408) 289-1035 (home)
Santa Clara, CA 95054opsowens@sunybcs.uucp (William Owens) (02/23/89)
In article <77800005@sts> roy@sts.sts.com writes: > >How many people would like to see the archive format in >comp.binaries.ibm.pc changed from arc to zoo? The advantage to this >is now zoo is widely available on Unix systems (just posted on -------------------------------- >comp.sources.unix) and you can now un-arc (un-zoo?) the "binaries" on >your host machine... ...and print the docs on the network attached printer without having to download, un-arc, and upload. We don't have arc on this machine, and even when we did, it hardly ever worked (Segmentation faults). I don't care about copyrights or shareware or anything like that. I am just looking for the best answer, and so far Zoo seems to be it. Bill. -And you can check archive integrity, break up large archives for easier downloading, and set up code for posting either at home (on a PC, presumably) or on the big machine. Bill Owens opsowens@marvin.cs.buffalo.edu opnowens@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu ........................................................................ You rotten Norman swine you...look, my knees 'ave dropped! - Bluebottle
pfeifer@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Mark C Pfeifer) (02/23/89)
In article <77800005@sts> roy@sts.sts.com writes: > >How many people would like to see the archive format in >comp.binaries.ibm.pc changed from arc to zoo? [stuff deleted] >So, what do you think? If there are enough "yes" votes, Rahul says he'd >be willing to switch. Some of the local BBSs are also dropping ARC, but are instead switching to PKZAP (Phil Katz's new archiver). The new program claims to compress better than ARC (or PKPAK), and the documentation seems to allow easy porting to UN*X. This could be worth some thought, too. Mark \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ Mark Pfeifer pfeifer@vax1.acs.udel.edu \ \ University of Delaware \ \ \ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) (02/23/89)
In article <77800005@sts> roy@sts.sts.com writes: > >How many people would like to see the archive format in >comp.binaries.ibm.pc changed from arc to zoo? The advantage to this Yes yes YES (one each for the DOS, Unix and VMS sytems we develop on) John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | Manual? ... What manual ?!? Sales Technologies, Inc. Atlanta, GA | This is Unix, My son, You ...!gatech!stiatl!john | just GOTTA Know!!!
hartung@amos.ling.ucsd.edu (Jeff Hartung) (02/23/89)
I personally prefer to use ZOO (and I'm glad to know it's available for UNIX), but there have been moves to switch before (around the time of the SEA vs. PKWare suit) and numerous grumblings from prople who didn't want to switch, for one reason or another. I won't lose any sleep if we stick with ARC format, but I *do* like ZOO. --Jeff Hartung-- Disclaimer: My opinions only, etc., etc., BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!... Internet - hartung@amos.ling.ucsd.edu UUCP - ucsd!amos.ucsd.edu!hartung
hst@mh_co2.mh.nl (Klaas Hemstra) (02/23/89)
From article <77800005@sts>, by roy@sts.sts.com: > > How many people would like to see the archive format in > comp.binaries.ibm.pc changed from arc to zoo? The advantage to this > ... Sorry but I would not like that. I have arc (ok, not PKarc) on UNIX too. In the binaries arc's I am only interested in the documentation files in the archives. I have not had any problems extracting these file from those archives on a Unix computers. Klaas Hemstra (hst@mh.nl) | / / ,~~~ ~~/~~ uucp: ..{uunet!}hp4nl!mh.nl!hst | /--/ `-, / ___ |_/ |__| Multihouse N.V., Gouda, the Netherlands | / / ___/ / --- | \ | |
hpchang@tiger.waterloo.edu (I'm a Wild One) (02/23/89)
In article <77800005@sts> roy@sts.sts.com writes: >How many people would like to see the archive format in >comp.binaries.ibm.pc changed from arc to zoo? >Roy Bixler Ok, here we go again. YES - I am a ZOO user from time to time. YES - I am also an ARC user. YES - ZOO is available for UNIX and DOS systems. YES - ARC is available for both UNIX and DOS systems. So, the problem boils down to - what is most appropriate in this situation, ZOO or ARC. The only MAJOR difference I've found is that ZOO maintains directory information whereas ARC does not. Since postings to the network are for everyone who is interested, I don't really want to have default directories created when I extract files from my ZOO file. (Yes, the default directory can be overwritten, but it takes more keystrokes) I like both archivers, but for national distribution, I say stick to ARC. (One small vote for ARC) me.
malpass@vlsi.ll.mit.edu (Don Malpass) (02/23/89)
In article <77800005@sts> roy@sts.sts.com writes: > >How many people would like to see the archive format in >comp.binaries.ibm.pc changed from arc to zoo? The advantage .... >.... Also, if you're sick of the PK/SEA controversy .... >So, what do you think? If there are enough "yes" votes, Rahul says he'd >be willing to switch. yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes 10^3 times YES. Another 10^3 times YES. NO MORE NEW NON-STANDARDS! Let me also ask whether work is going on to adapt zoo to be the friendly multi-floppy compressing backup/restore program the world needs? -- Don Malpass [malpass@LL-vlsi.arpa], [malpass@gandalf.ll.mit.edu] A flush beats a full house. Plumber's Motto
christnp@stolaf.acc.stolaf.edu (Nikolai P. Christenson) (02/23/89)
In article <77800005@sts> roy@sts.sts.com writes: > >How many people would like to see the archive format in >comp.binaries.ibm.pc changed from arc to zoo? Personally, I'd rather stay with arc. -- Nick Christenson christnp@thor.acc.stolaf.edu christnp@stolaf.UUCP
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (02/24/89)
I'm in favor of switching now. arc is not available on UNIX machines,
and PKZIP (did someone say ZAP?) is shareware again. Let's go with
no-fee software that runs almost everywhere. Even the VMS guys can use
zoo!
I expect arc v6.00 to be ported to UNIX soon (source is included) but
that doesn't solve the basic problem. Now if zoo could only be posted on
services like Compu$serve it could sweep the world.
--
bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa)
{uunet | philabs}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -megeorge@rebel.UUCP (George M. Sipe) (02/24/89)
In article <2914@udccvax1.acs.udel.EDU> pfeifer@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Mark C Pfeifer) writes: >In article <77800005@sts> roy@sts.sts.com writes: >>How many people would like to see the archive format in >>comp.binaries.ibm.pc changed from arc to zoo? >[stuff deleted] >Some of the local BBSs are also dropping ARC, but are instead switching >to PKZAP (Phil Katz's new archiver). The new program claims to compress >better than ARC (or PKPAK), and the documentation seems to allow easy >porting to UN*X. This could be worth some thought, too. I vote for Zoo. I have zoo now, on all the machines I use. Works great. ZIP (Katz's new archiver) looks nice too, but I don't believe it will keep Unix attributes like zoo. Besides that, only the format has been documented. That's nice, but a very, very long way from having a fully functional and portable program developed to manipulate zip archives under Unix. We have zoo now. I can't think of a single reason not to standardize on it. -- George M. Sipe, Phone: (404) 447-4731, FAX: (404) 662-1537 Forte Technology, 537 Lakeshore Drive, Berkeley Lake, GA 30136-3035 UUCP: ...!{decvax,linus,rutgers}!gatech!rebel!george
roy@sts.sts.com (02/24/89)
> Return-Path: <claris!ames!ncar.UCAR.EDU!mailrus!iuvax!bsu-cs!mdlawler> > Date: Wed, 22 Feb 89 22:17:11 EST > From: claris!ames!ncar.UCAR.EDU!mailrus!iuvax!bsu-cs!mdlawler (Mike Lawler) > To: mailrus!ncar!ames!claris!sts!roy > Subject: Re: zoo'ed IBM-PC binaries? > References: <77800005@sts> > > I vote yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! to this. I use zoo all of the time and I know > Rahul so if I have a problem I can get it figured out a lot faster. by the way > how do we vote. Do we post or email to you? If we should post just post my > response in a summary if you get one. In answer to this, I would say that mailing votes to me would be best. I've never done anything like this before, but if there are a lot of votes, it wouldn't make sense to clutter the network with each one. Of course, I will summarize the response. Question: do you think this inquiry should be cross-posted anywhere? Roy Bixler | UUCP: ...!{claris,sun}!sts!roy Semiconductor Test Solutions | phones: (408) 727-2885 x132 (work) 4101 Burton Dr. | (408) 289-1035 (home) Santa Clara, CA 95054
news@netnews.upenn.edu (USENET News System) (02/24/89)
much more common, it seems to me, and what's the big deal about the copyright issue anyway? If you have PKUNPAK or whatever, there's no law against using it. Only that Phil Katz can't write any more .ARC programs. And his new ZIP format is very nice, anyway. It compresses files even further than ARC or ZOO ever did, and compression ratio is more important to me than any other factor. If I start converting my files, it'll probably be to ZIP rather than ZOO. From: silver@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Andy Silverman) Path: eniac.seas.upenn.edu!silver Disclaimer: I have no personal interest in either Phil Katz, SEA or the authors of ZOO, aside from that their programs are nice... Andy Silverman Internet: silver@eniac.seas.upenn.edu CompuServe: 72261,531
bgarrabr@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Byon Garrabrant) (02/24/89)
Tack one more vote for yes on to the list.
I use Zoo at home, I use Zoo at work, and it
would be great to use it with the net!!!
-Byon
====================================================
"Mashed potatoes can be your friends!" - Al Yankovictodd@stiatl.UUCP (Todd Merriman) (02/24/89)
>>How many people would like to see the archive format in >>........ The author of ZOO has graciously donated reams of ZOO source code to the Public Domain with minimal restrictions on how it is used. The author of ARC wants money for his code, even to the point of sueing other software authors to get it. Who would you rather support? (need I say more?) ...!gatech!stiatl!todd Todd Merriman 404-377-8638 Atlanta, GA
jpn@genrad.com (John P. Nelson) (02/24/89)
In article <13229@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >I'm in favor of switching now. arc is not available on UNIX machines, I really don't understand why people keep saying that. The UNIX source has been posted to usenet at least 3 times. The latest version that was posted is a port of ARC 5.21 with PKARC extensions (i.e. squashing), and it compiles on both System V and Berkeley. This version was even blessed by Thom Henderson (UNIX users can run it without oblication to SEA: that is not SEA's primary market). This source has been available and stable for about a year. What MORE do you want? >I expect arc v6.00 to be ported to UNIX soon (source is included) but >that doesn't solve the basic problem. I'm not sure what you consider the basic problem. I don't think the SEA copyright restrictions are any more severe than the ZOO copyright restrictions. Neither are public domain. While Phil Katz created a much faster version of ARC, he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar: he used source code copyrighted by a direct competitor. I don't really see what all the fuss is about: I have no reason to think that Rahul would react differently if someone pirated his code and tried to sell it. >Now if zoo could only be posted on >services like Compu$serve it could sweep the world. This is my main reservation about zoo: Rahul insists on adding complicated restrictions to his program. I have no particular love for either SEA or PK, but right now, I don't see any overwhelming reason to make a change. I will concede that ZOO is a more portable program (as well as being a more CAPABLE program), and probably deserves to be the new standard. But what we REALLY need is a PUBLIC DOMAIN archive program with NO RESTRICTIONS WHATSOEVER. Until that arrives, I don't see any reason to upset the applecart. john nelson UUCP: {decvax,mit-eddie}!genrad!teddy!jpn smail: jpn@teddy.genrad.com
bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (02/24/89)
My personal reality is that I have both zoo and unpak/pak. If zip takes off, I'll probably have to keep a copy of that around, too. On my Unix host, I've gotten zoo and arc installed. If zip shows up for Unix, I'll go for that, too. But I prefer zoo, and I trust it. It comes with source. It's community-oriented. It has corruption recovery. It supports varied systems better. It gives me MSDOS-specific features that I don't have with unpak, and haven't seen promised for zip (i.e., extract-&-execute-from-memory -- very significant under MSDOS's excuse for pipes). It's here now, and its version number is larger than a proper fraction. I vote for zoo (again).
hood@june.cs.washington.edu (Rick Hood) (02/24/89)
Yes. Definitely zoo. 2^yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------
F R Hood III (Rick) University of Washington, FR-35
hood@cs.washington.edu Seattle, WA 98195
{rutgers,cornell,ucsd,ubc-cs,tektronix}!uw-beaver!june!hood
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
F R Hood III (Rick) University of Washington, FR-35
hood@cs.washington.edu Seattle, WA 98195
{rutgers,cornell,ucsd,ubc-cs,tektronix}!uw-beaver!june!hoodsms@ficc.uu.net (Stanley M. Sutton) (02/24/89)
I'm in favor of arc. -- Stanley M. Sutton, Service &T, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!sms, sms@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5023 Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!sms, sms@sugar.uu.net. Opinions may not represent the policies of FICC or Service and Test.
sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Bob Sloane) (02/24/89)
In article <17652@genrad.UUCP>, jpn@genrad.com (John P. Nelson) writes: > I will concede that ZOO is a more portable program (as well as being a > more CAPABLE program), and probably deserves to be the new standard. > But what we REALLY need is a PUBLIC DOMAIN archive program with NO > RESTRICTIONS WHATSOEVER. Until that arrives, I don't see any reason to > upset the applecart. You mean we should wait until someone spends many hours creating a program, and then wants to give it away for free, even to people who will sell it at a profit? My understanding of public domain is that you can do whatever you want with it, including selling it for $250 per copy without giving the author a dime. In the old days people did things like that. Not any more. While I don't personally agree with Rahul's restrictions concerning the redistribution of ZOO by services like Compu$erve, the restrictions on ZOO are far more liberal than any comparable product we are likely to see. Since Mr. Nelson agrees that ZOO has more capabilities than ARC (tm of SEA), and it is available to anyone on USENET for free, I think we should use it. +-------------------+-------------------------------------+------------------+ | Bob Sloane \Internet: SLOANE@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU/Anything I said is | | Computer Center \ BITNET: SLOANE@UKANVAX.BITNET / my opinion, not my | | University of Kansas\ AT&T: (913) 864-0444 / employer's. | +-----------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------+
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (02/25/89)
In article <17652@genrad.UUCP> jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson) writes: >I will concede that ZOO is a more portable program (as well as being a >more CAPABLE program), and probably deserves to be the new standard. >But what we REALLY need is a PUBLIC DOMAIN archive program with NO >RESTRICTIONS WHATSOEVER. I'm beginning to agree. Let's you (the Usenet user) and me make a deal. If you will vote at least 2 to 1 in favor of using zoo rather than arc for comp.binaries.ibm.pc, I will drop all distribution restrictions on all versions of zoo, with the minor exceptions that (a) nothing incompatible be created from my code and (b) source be made available for any binaries distributed unless I agree otherwise. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi ARPA: bsu-cs!dhesi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
dmurdoch@watstat.waterloo.edu (Duncan Murdoch) (02/25/89)
In article <5889@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: > >Let's you (the Usenet user) and me make a deal. If you will vote at >least 2 to 1 in favor of using zoo rather than arc for >comp.binaries.ibm.pc, I will drop all distribution restrictions on all >versions of zoo, with the minor exceptions that (a) nothing >incompatible be created from my code and (b) source be made available >for any binaries distributed unless I agree otherwise. I'll vote for zoo, but would like to point out that your condition (b) is rather ambiguous: It seems like putting my source up for sale for a high price follows the letter, but not the spirit, of what you've written. I'd agree to the condition even if the requirement was free, or at cost, source code distribution. But then I know nothing about file compression, so it's not too likely to affect me anyways. Duncan Murdoch
young@cxsea.UUCP (Gary Young) (02/25/89)
In article <77800005@sts> roy@sts.sts.com writes: > >How many people would like to see the archive format in >comp.binaries.ibm.pc changed from arc to zoo? ... > >Roy Bixler | UUCP: ...!{claris,sun}!sts!roy >Semiconductor Test Solutions | phones: (408) 727-2885 x132 (work) >4101 Burton Dr. | (408) 289-1035 (home) >Santa Clara, CA 95054 Does ZOO support subdirectories in the archive format? The problems that I encounter in handling network files involve: (1) files in subdirectories, or which should be in subdirectories, (2) files that contain two or more periods in their name (but not usually from this news group), and (3) archives that are over 360K. The collecting of net files is too labor intensive. A good archiver should run semi-automatically for all possible cases, as well as doing a good job of compression. It should combine the best features of arc, tar, cpio, compress, and split/cat; and be automatic. I have not paid much attention to the general discussion on the net about archive formats, but would like these problems considered in your decission. -- Gary H. Young young@cxsea.UUCP ...{mnetor,uw-beaver!ssc-vax}!cxsea!young +1 206 251 6098 Motorola Computer X Inc. - a Motorola New Enterprise company
mason@tc.fluke.COM (Nick Mason) (02/25/89)
I vote for staying with ARC.
Nick Mason/ms272G/John Fluke Mfg Co/Box C9090/Everett WA 98206 USA
mason@tc.fluke.COM
UUCP:
{{cornell,decvax,sdcsvax,tektronix,utcsrgv}!uw-beaver} \
{microsoft,gatech!sb1,hplabs!lbl-csam,decwrl!sun,sunup} - !fluke!mason
{ssc-vax,hplsla,wavetek,uw-vlsi,tikal} /
ARPA: fluke!mason@uw-beaver.ARPA
BITNET: "fluke!mason@uw-beaver.ARPA"@PSUVAX1.bitnet
"Avoid the Dull and Ignorant"japplega@csm9a.UUCP (Joe Applegate) (02/25/89)
In article <5889@bsu-cs.UUCP>, dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: > Let's you (the Usenet user) and me make a deal. If you will vote at > least 2 to 1 in favor of using zoo rather than arc for > comp.binaries.ibm.pc, I will drop all distribution restrictions on all > versions of zoo, with the minor exceptions that (a) nothing > incompatible be created from my code and (b) source be made available > for any binaries distributed unless I agree otherwise. Except for the fact that ZOO doesn't work on our unix machine while ARC does!!!! Actually I have nothing against ZOO since this is a PC binaries group and I can unarc, unzoo, unpak, uncompress, untar, unar, etc on my PC! So then WHY restrict uploads or distribution to ANY one format!!!! Heck, let's just .LBR averything and then squeeze it to .LQR ... I can handle those too!!! BUT THE ONLY THING I CAN'T HANDLE ON UNIX IS ZOO! If this is a PC Binaries group then distrubute stuff for PC'ers not for UNIX'ers! - Joe Applegate - ======================STANDARD DISCLAIMER============================ All views and opinions are my own and do not represent the views or opinions of the Colorado School of Mines, whatever they might be. =====================================================================
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (02/25/89)
In article <17652@genrad.UUCP> jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson) writes: | In article <13229@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: | >I'm in favor of switching now. arc is not available on UNIX machines, | | I really don't understand why people keep saying that. The UNIX source | has been posted to usenet at least 3 times. The latest version that | was posted is a port of ARC 5.21 with PKARC extensions (i.e. | squashing), and it compiles on both System V and Berkeley. This I don't know why others say it, I say it because the version with PK extensions doesn't work on anything I can access except Ultrix and SunOS (BSD environment). It doesn't seem to work on Xenix/286 (okay it's a segmented archetecture), Xenix/386 (32bit, V.3), Encore (BSD) or even Cray2 (V.?). zoo runs on all of them, first try. | version was even blessed by Thom Henderson (UNIX users can run it | without oblication to SEA: that is not SEA's primary market). This | source has been available and stable for about a year. What MORE | do you want? It's nice that it compiles, but I really would like it to run... I got the original posting running on most machines and later got several other versions. Some save the files with uppercase names, some lower, some accept and strip path info, etc. | | >I expect arc v6.00 to be ported to UNIX soon (source is included) but | >that doesn't solve the basic problem. | | I'm not sure what you consider the basic problem. I don't think the It takes a lot of hacking to get arc to compile on many systems, and even more to make it work. Why should we do that when zoo is here and now. | SEA copyright restrictions are any more severe than the ZOO copyright | restrictions. Neither are public domain. You are not asked to send money for zoo, under any circumstances. | I will concede that ZOO is a more portable program (as well as being a | more CAPABLE program), and probably deserves to be the new standard. | But what we REALLY need is a PUBLIC DOMAIN archive program with NO | RESTRICTIONS WHATSOEVER. Until that arrives, I don't see any reason to | upset the applecart. I have mixed feelings about that... with a totally public domain version we could wind up with incompatible versions. As long as there is a copyright other versions are discouraged, at least. I don't distribute my hacked zoo, not because I worry about being sued, but because there aren't supposed to be any incompatible derivitive works. That's fair. Let's hope that Rahul just cuts the restrictions down to "don't sell it" and lets it go at that. -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
benfeen@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Ben Feen) (02/26/89)
It's fine by me IF a copy of the ZOO archivers, dearchivers showed up here (In .ARC format, of course!) so that we .ARC'ers could use these files too. -- /| This is my sig. I must learn its parts like I know myself. \'o.O' Steven Spielberg presents the Last Temptation of Schwartzeneggar! =(___)= "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, but I will use my U rocket launcher." -=<<[[******BOOM******]]>>- +>----> WOOSH!
twb@hoqax.UUCP (T.W. Beattie) (02/27/89)
>>How many people would like to see the archive format in >>comp.binaries.ibm.pc changed from arc to zoo? I have never seen a ZOO file on a BBS but I have already encountered ZIP files. Seems like ZIP is a better candidate for replacing ARC. Especially after the abuse PKWARE suffered from SEA. --- Tom Beattie att!hoqaa!twb t.w.beattie@att.com
peter@apexepa.UUCP (Peter Palij) (02/27/89)
In article <5889@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: > >Let's you (the Usenet user) and me make a deal. If you will vote at >least 2 to 1 in favor of using zoo rather than arc for >comp.binaries.ibm.pc, I will drop all distribution restrictions on all >versions of zoo, with the minor exceptions that (a) nothing >incompatible be created from my code and (b) source be made available >for any binaries distributed unless I agree otherwise. > Bravo! -- ----------------- Peter Palij uunet!apexepa!peter Apex Software Corporation peter@apexepa.uucp Phone: (412) 681-4343
grinberg@bimacs.BITNET (Dennis Grinberg) (02/27/89)
I have always used the PK programs, but I would have no major objections to moving over to ZOO ON THE CONDITION that once every month or two ZOO is sent over the net in a form that is readable to people that DO NOT have ZOO. In the past, many people (including those that are unable to FTP anywhere) have requested the archiving utilities. If the "standard" is being changed, then everyone must have easy access to the standard. -- Dennis Grinberg, Math & CS Department, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan ISRAEL BITNET: grinberg@bimacs.bitnet INTERNET: grinberg@bimacs.biu.ac.il CSNET: grinberg%bimacs.bitnet%cunyvm.cuny.edu@csnet-relay ARPA: grinberg%bimacs.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu UUCP: ...!uunet!mcvax!humus!bimacs!grinberg SNAILNET: Dennis Grinberg, 13 Hava Lutzki St., Rehovot, ISRAEL
skeeve@mhuxu.UUCP (Chris Riley) (02/28/89)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Subject: Re: zoo'ed IBM-PC binaries? Summary: Expires: References: <77800005@sts> <275@vlsi.ll.mit.edu> <2184@hoqax.UUCP> Sender: Reply-To: skeeve@mhuxu.UUCP (79533-riley c) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Keywords: In article <2184@hoqax.UUCP> twb@hoqax.UUCP (T.W. Beattie) writes: |||How many people would like to see the archive format in |||comp.binaries.ibm.pc changed from arc to zoo? | |I have never seen a ZOO file on a BBS but I have already encountered |ZIP files. | |Seems like ZIP is a better candidate for replacing ARC. |Especially after the abuse PKWARE suffered from SEA. |--- |Tom Beattie I also would rather see ZIP files than ARC or ZOO files. ARC and ZOO are about the same in terms of file compression. ZIP beats both by a fair margin. I would like to avoid using any SEA product anyway. -- Chris Riley My mind isn't always in the gutter -- sometimes it comes out to feed. chris.riley@attbl.att.com att!attbl!chris.riley What I think has no bearing on what AT&T thinks.
car@pte.UUCP (Chris Rende) (02/28/89)
In article <17652@genrad.UUCP>, jpn@genrad.com (John P. Nelson) writes: > In article <13229@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: > >I'm in favor of switching now. arc is not available on UNIX machines, > > I really don't understand why people keep saying that. The UNIX source > has been posted to usenet at least 3 times. The latest version that > was posted is a port of ARC 5.21 with PKARC extensions (i.e. > squashing), and it compiles on both System V and Berkeley. I got the source for ARC 5.21 for my System V Release 2 system. It wouldn't compile - after a bit of hacking I gave up on it. More often than not, the ARC's I get from the net don't work with the version of ARC.EXE I have for MSDOS - that's a pain. Maybe I have an older ARC.EXE - who knows? ZOO, on the other hand, WORKS GREAT on my System V. And, I didn't have to do any major back flips to get it working. > What MORE do you want? Something that works well in BOTH environments. car. -- Christopher A. Rende Multics,DTSS,Unix,Shortwave,Scanners,StarTrek uunet!edsews!{rphroy!}pte!car Minix,PC/XT,Mac+,TRS-80 Model I: Buy Sell Trade ...!mcf!pte!car Precise Technology & Electronics, Inc. "I don't ever remember forgetting anything." - Chris Rende
jhoward@helps.cactus.org (James Howard) (02/28/89)
In article <520@apexepa.UUCP> peter@apexepa.UUCP (Peter Palij) writes: >In article <5889@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >> >>Let's you (the Usenet user) and me make a deal. If you will vote at >>least 2 to 1 in favor of using zoo rather than arc for >>... >Bravo! Bravo and 9 votes for zoo from us at this site. ---- James Howard AA5R Howard Electronic Laboratories Products & Services (512) 329-5006 jhoward@helps.cactus.org or bigtex!helps!jhoward
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (02/28/89)
I ask you all to note a few things.
Roy Bixler asked me if I might want to switch to using zoo format for
comp.binaries.ibm.pc. I told him that I would if that's the way users
wanted to go, and suggested that he ask. I will happily go with
whatever the consensus is.
Please don't send me any votes by email, and please don't post any
votes.
I am not collecting votes on this issue, because I am probably biased.
If any voting is done it should be (a) organized by one or more
relatively impartial people, and (b) done solely via private email.
So, I request all users to avoid casting votes by posting articles.
Please post an article on this issue only if you have some important
points to make, either pro or con.
So *if* the comp.{sys,binaries}.ibm.pc community holds an impartial
vote, and *if* there is a 2:1 vote in favor of zoo, I will change to
zoo format, and also drop my zoo distribution restrictions as I
described earlier.
P.S. My own selfish point of view is that using zoo format would be
much better for me. It's not just because I wrote it. I can do a lot
more with zoo archives, on our 4.3BSD system here, including commands
like:
for f in `zoo lfq xyz`; do; zoo xpq xyz $f | cmp - $f; done
which compares each archived file in xyz.zoo with its disk copy and
reports if they are different. I can search a bunch of zoo archives
for a file with a simple UNIX command like "zoo L *.zoo | grep name".
Among the tools I use for moderation arc is the bottleneck because of
its slow speed and lack of flexibility. The easier life is for me the
better a job of moderation I can do.
--
Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
ARPA: dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.eduroy@sts.sts.com (03/01/89)
/* Written 8:39 pm Feb 27, 1989 by dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP in sts:comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d */
I ask you all to note a few things.
Roy Bixler asked me if I might want to switch to using zoo format for
comp.binaries.ibm.pc. I told him that I would if that's the way users
wanted to go, and suggested that he ask. I will happily go with
whatever the consensus is.
Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
ARPA: dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
/* End of text from sts:comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d */
I am collecting the votes via e-mail. So far I've received about 20 - keep
'em coming!
Roy Bixler | UUCP: ...!{claris,sun}!sts!roy
Semiconductor Test Solutions | phones: (408) 727-2885 x132 (work)
4101 Burton Dr. | (408) 289-1035 (home)
Santa Clara, CA 95054wcs@skep2.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart.[ho95c]) (03/01/89)
In article <5889@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: :In article <17652@genrad.UUCP> jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson) writes: :>But what we REALLY need is a PUBLIC DOMAIN archive program with NO :>RESTRICTIONS WHATSOEVER. :Let's you (the Usenet user) and me make a deal. If you will vote at :least 2 to 1 in favor of using zoo rather than arc for :comp.binaries.ibm.pc, I will drop all distribution restrictions on all :versions of zoo, with the minor exceptions that (a) nothing :incompatible be created from my code and (b) source be made available :for any binaries distributed unless I agree otherwise. Great! I'll vote yes for that. I don't know if you'll be able to break into the ARC market in the non-UNIX PC world, but it's worthwhile and I applaud your willingness. You might want to add c) your name be left in all copies. -- # Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218 Holmdel NJ 201-949-0705 ho95c.att.com!wcs # Synchronicity is when the paper has an article about Moonie ties to # Right Wing Politicians, and they're dropping the charges against Ollie North, # and you finally find that copy of "Illuminatus!"
emanuel@cernvax.UUCP (emanuel) (03/01/89)
In article <9137@mhuxu.UUCP> skeeve@mhuxu.UUCP (79533-riley c) writes: >In article <2184@hoqax.UUCP> twb@hoqax.UUCP (T.W. Beattie) writes: >| >|Seems like ZIP is a better candidate for replacing ARC. >|Especially after the abuse PKWARE suffered from SEA. > >I also would rather see ZIP files than ARC or ZOO files. ARC and ZOO are >about the same in terms of file compression. ZIP beats both by a fair >margin. I would like to avoid using any SEA product anyway. > Honestly, I can see the point of SEA in what "she" did to PKWARE. I can understand it, though I don't agree very much on the precedent that it brought. However, it seems to me that it is not good policy to take decisions based on emotional grounds. Come on, that's what the media is always trying to force us into. Politicians too. "Oh, this POOR little defenseless guy was caught by an EVIL, RUTHLESS and HARSH police officer..." (*) So, why go for ZIP or PKPAK for THOSE reasons? I'd propose that some benchmarks would be presented on ALL compression programs, so that we can have a clearer idea of the implications (moneywise too...) of our votes. I'm using ARC, but I'll gladly vote otherwise if I'm convinced that the OTHERWISE is better. Rahul made some good points recently on the moderation problem. I prefer that kind of argumentation. Cheers, Emanuel Machado (*) This is an ilustration intended as ONLY an ilustration. No bias whatsoever in the SEA/PKWARE case. -- Emanuel T.M. Machado, CERN | "Science is true. | UUCP: _ _ | Don't be misled | emanuel@cernvax.UUCP /_ ____ __ __ _ </ | by facts." | FLAMES: /_ / / / /_ < / / /_/ <'_ /_ | -- Finagle's Creed | /dev/null
dhw@itivax.iti.org (David H. West) (03/01/89)
In article <77800007@sts> roy@sts.sts.com writes: >I am collecting the votes via e-mail. My attempt to reply by email failed when rutgers claimed that it didn't know sts.com. Is there another form of this adddress that works better?
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (03/02/89)
In article <5889@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
=
=I'm beginning to agree.
=
=Let's you (the Usenet user) and me make a deal. If you will vote at
=least 2 to 1 in favor of using zoo rather than arc for
=comp.binaries.ibm.pc, I will drop all distribution restrictions on all
=versions of zoo, with the minor exceptions that (a) nothing
=incompatible be created from my code and (b) source be made available
=for any binaries distributed unless I agree otherwise.
=--
=Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
= ARPA: bsu-cs!dhesi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES!!
YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES!!
YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES!!
YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES!!
YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES!!
YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES!!
YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES!!
YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES!!
YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES!!
YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES!!
YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES!!
Please count all of these! :-)
Pete
--
Pete Holsberg UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh
Mercer College CompuServe: 70240,334
1200 Old Trenton Road GEnie: PJHOLSBERG
Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800fritz@friday.UUCP (Fritz Whittington) (03/02/89)
-In article <675@pte.UUCP> car@pte.UUCP (Chris Rende) writes: ->In article <17652@genrad.UUCP>, jpn@genrad.com (John P. Nelson) writes: ->> In article <13229@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: ->> >I'm in favor of switching now. arc is not available on UNIX machines, ->I got the source for ARC 5.21 for my System V Release 2 system. ->It wouldn't compile - after a bit of hacking I gave up on it. ->More often than not, the ARC's I get from the net don't work with the version ->of ARC.EXE I have for MSDOS - that's a pain. Maybe I have an older ARC.EXE - ->who knows? ->ZOO, on the other hand, WORKS GREAT on my System V. And, I didn't have to do ->any major back flips to get it working. ->> What MORE do you want? ->Something that works well in BOTH environments. ->Christopher A. Rende Multics,DTSS,Unix,Shortwave,Scanners,StarTrek The important thing to remember in voting for or against this change is (IMHO) to end up with something that works well in both (really, all) environments. Zoo seems to meet these requirements best at the moment. Nothing prevents you from un-Zooing (oozing?) on your MS-DOS machine and re-packing the stuff in whatever your favorite, personal-standard MS-DOS archiver happens to be, costing you only a piece of re-usable temporary file space. I find that I have to keep some version of A*C, Zoo, and PKZIP all on my MS-DOS machine at the moment anyway. Zoo is the only one that also works just as well on my UNIX machine. Seems like win-win to me. ---- Fritz Whittington Texas Instruments, Incorporated I don't even claim these opinions myself! MS 3105 UUCP: killer!ernest!friday!fritz 8505 Forest Lane AT&T: (214)480-6302 Dallas, Texas 75243
pfeifer@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Mark C Pfeifer) (03/02/89)
Why is there a sudden rush to change formats? This all started when everyone got to talking about PKZIP, and either trashing or praising it. Why do we have to change now, when PKZIP is uncertain, instead of waiting for the program to mature to switch. I'm sure ZOO is a really good program (judging by the responses, even though I don't use it myself) - but what if, six months from now, we as a group realize that SuperNewPakingProgram is the one that we want - you can't keep switching. Basically, my vote is one stay with ARC for now, but there's no reason not to switch when we know more about the contestants. No flames, please! Mark --------- Pfeifer@vax1.acs.udel.edu
bga@bgalli.eds.com (Billy G. Allie) (03/02/89)
In article <77800007@sts>, roy@sts.sts.com writes: < Written 8:39 pm Feb 27, 1989 by dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP in comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d < < Roy Bixler asked me if I might want to switch to using zoo format for < comp.binaries.ibm.pc. I told him that I would if that's the way users < wanted to go, and suggested that he ask. I will happily go with < whatever the consensus is. < < Rahul Dhesi < End of text from sts:comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d < < I am collecting the votes via e-mail. So far I've received about 20 - keep < 'em coming! < < Roy Bixler Since Roy Bixler has agreed to collect the votes, I think we should set forth some guidelines for the vote. A couple of minor points come to mind, such as: 1. When will the vote taking period begin. 2. How long will the vote be taken before a winner is declared. I propose that the voting last for 1 month, after which time the decision will be announced. I also recommend at least a 1 week delay to allow discussions to take place concerning the pros and cons of the various archive formats. I know that Roy has already collected some of the votes, but I feel that there is a need for the guidelines set before the voting begins. In other word, Roy, when will the voting begin and how long will the votes be taken? -- ____ | Billy G. Allie | Internet..: bga@bgalli.eds.com | /| | 7436 Hartwell | UUCP......: uunet!{mcf|edsews}!bgalli!bga |-/-|----- | Dearborn, MI 48126 | Compuserve: 76337,2061 |/ |LLIE | (313) 582-1540 | Genie.....: BGALLIE
kevinc@auvax.UUCP (Kevin "auric" Crocker) (03/03/89)
In article <77800005@sts>, roy@sts.sts.com writes: > How many people would like to see the archive format in > comp.binaries.ibm.pc changed from arc to zoo? The advantage to this > is now zoo is widely available on Unix systems (just posted on > comp.sources.unix) and you can now un-arc (un-zoo?) the "binaries" on > your host machine, look at the documentation and see if this thing > that was posted is really worth downloading to the PC. Also, if I grabbed Zoo for both Unix and my PC and they work just great. All the flags are a bit intimidating for generic PC users but you get the hang of it really easy. I have just been converting most of my files up on the mainframe to zoo format and it saves a lot of space. On the PC sometimes the savings doesn't happen, but in that case I just keep it as an "ARC" (trademark somebody or other!) file. On a 40Mb hard disk with about 85% usage I was able to get zoo to release about 1Mb of space for the files that I keep zoo'd. Hey 1Mb is 1Mb! I need all the space I can get, donations kindly accepted :-) sort of. Kevin -- Kevin "Auric" Crocker @Athabasca University {alberta ncc}auvax!kevinc
abcscagz@csuna.csun.edu (Jeff Boeing) (03/03/89)
What about PKARC? -- Jeff Boeing: ...!csun.edu!csuna!abcscagz (formerly tracer@stb.UUCP) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "His brain is gone!" -- McCoy
zifrony@TAURUS.BITNET (03/03/89)
I vote for staying with ARC format. I think there are two reasons for it: 1. The ARC format and the programs used to handle it are widespread, and have been so for a long time. 2. All the archives, both personal and public are already in ARC format. 3. The wars concerning the usage of the ARC format are none of our business. There are working versions of both ARC and PK(X)ARC which are available to all people who need to use it, so why bother with these issues. Doron Zifrony zifrony@taurus.bitnet || zifrony@Math.Tau.AC.IL Msc. Student Tel Aviv Univ. Israel Disclaimer: I represent no one but myself.
Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (03/03/89)
In article <943@cernvax.UUCP>, emanuel@cernvax.UUCP (emanuel) writes: } I'd propose that some benchmarks would be presented on ALL compression }programs, so that we can have a clearer idea of the implications (moneywise }too...) of our votes. I'm using ARC, but I'll gladly vote otherwise if I'm }convinced that the OTHERWISE is better. Check out COMPRES5.ARC in PD1:<MSDOS.ARC-LBR> on SIMTEL20. It compares a bunch of archivers (PKZIP, PKARC, SEA ARC 5.3, PAK, ZOO, DWC, SCRNCH, etc) on compression speed, decompression speed, and compressed size, using quite a few file sets, including ASCII-only, binary-only, and mixed. From memory, PKZIP consistently comes out on top or near the top on all three measures. The only program that consistently beats PKZIP for compressed size is SCRNCH, which is two orders of magnitude slower (we're talking 3 to 8 HOURS versus one to four MINUTES with PKZIP -e?4), but compresses only a few percent more. The only two programs that consistently come near and occasionally beat PKZIP's speed for default compression are PKARC and DWC. -- 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 1:129/31 Disclaimer? I claimed something? You cannot achieve the impossible without attempting the absurd.
sbanner1@uvicctr.UUCP (S. John Banner) (03/07/89)
In article <5889@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: > >Let's you (the Usenet user) and me make a deal. If you will vote at >least 2 to 1 in favor of using zoo rather than arc for >comp.binaries.ibm.pc, I will drop all distribution restrictions on all >versions of zoo, with the minor exceptions that (a) nothing >incompatible be created from my code and (b) source be made available >for any binaries distributed unless I agree otherwise. You have my vote. I have been using ZOO, and promoting it as best I could here, since I first got it, and have had no real complaints. It is just too good a program to complain about (compression is not as good as with other programs, but the added usefulness [directories, source, etc], far outweigh the difference there in my opinion). sjb.
roy@sts.sts.com (03/07/89)
/* Written 7:39 pm Mar 1, 1989 by bga@bgalli.UUCP in sts:comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d */ I know that Roy has already collected some of the votes, but I feel that there is a need for the guidelines set before the voting begins. In other word, Roy, when will the voting begin and how long will the votes be taken? -- ____ | Billy G. Allie | Internet..: bga@bgalli.eds.com | /| | 7436 Hartwell | UUCP......: uunet!{mcf|edsews}!bgalli!bga |-/-|----- | Dearborn, MI 48126 | Compuserve: 76337,2061 |/ |LLIE | (313) 582-1540 | Genie.....: BGALLIE /* End of text from sts:comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d */ The voting has just begun and I was thinking more in terms of taking 3 weeks to collect all the votes and announce the outcome. I've seen much of the discussion going on and I feel that some of the objections are easily taken care of: 1) zoo doesn't compress as much as the new ZIP or PAK programs. That may be true, but there are two convincing reasons to use zoo instead of ZIP or PAK. Zoo is quasi-public-domain and portable and it can be used in many other applications and on many other machines. In other words, once you learn it, you can use it on your Unix system to store source code (preserving the directory structure and saving space at the same time) and/or to keep IBM/PC binaries around on the machine of your choice. These considerations more than make up for a small savings in space/time. The other reason is that no money/donation is being asked for to use zoo and the source code is available for anyone to make improvements to. If you think you can make zoo faster or compress better, go ahead ... This is more in the spirit of Usenet. 2) Zoo isn't available to me. If the switch to zoo is made, Rahul can post zoo201.exe to comp.binaries.ibm.pc and the latest zoo source to comp.sources.unix. That way, everyone will have a version for the PC and a version they can compile for their local Unix/VMS system. Roy Bixler | UUCP: ...!{claris,sun}!sts!roy Semiconductor Test Solutions | phones: (408) 727-2885 x132 (work) 4101 Burton Dr. | (408) 289-1035 (home) Santa Clara, CA 95054
pinkas@hobbit.intel.com (Israel Pinkas ~) (03/08/89)
In article <715@itivax.iti.org> dhw@itivax.iti.org (David H. West) writes: > In article <77800007@sts> roy@sts.sts.com writes: > >I am collecting the votes via e-mail. > > My attempt to reply by email failed when rutgers claimed that it > didn't know sts.com. Is there another form of this adddress that > works better? Try @relay.cs.net:roy@sts.sts.com or roy%sts.sts.com@relay.cs.net. -Israel -- -------------------------------------- Disclaimer: The above are my personal opinions, and in no way represent the opinions of Intel Corporation. In no way should the above be taken to be a statement of Intel. UUCP: {amdcad,decwrl,hplabs,oliveb,pur-ee,qantel}!intelca!mipos3!cadev4!pinkas ARPA: pinkas%cadev4.intel.com@relay.cs.net CSNET: pinkas@cadev4.intel.com
jbrown@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Jordan Brown) (03/08/89)
In article <77800010@sts> roy@sts.sts.com writes: >1) zoo doesn't compress as much as the new ZIP or PAK programs. >The other reason is that no money/donation is being asked for to use >zoo and the source code is available for anyone to make improvements >to. If you think you can make zoo faster or compress better, go ahead ... Alas, you aren't allowed to. A better compression scheme would probably be incompatible (old versions wouldn't be able to decode it) and so would be disallowed by Rahul's license agreement.
feg@clyde.ATT.COM (Forrest Gehrke) (03/08/89)
In article <77800010@sts>, roy@sts.sts.com writes:
.>
.> I've seen much of the discussion going on and I feel that some of
.> the objections are easily taken care of:
.>
.> 1) zoo doesn't compress as much as the new ZIP or PAK programs.
.>
.> That may be true, but there are two convincing reasons to use
.> zoo instead of ZIP or PAK. Zoo is quasi-public-domain and portable
.> and it can be used in many other applications and on many other
.> machines. In other words, once you learn it, you can use it on
.> your Unix system to store source code (preserving the directory
.> structure and saving space at the same time) and/or to keep IBM/PC
.> binaries around on the machine of your choice. These considerations
.> more than make up for a small savings in space/time.
.> Roy Bixler | UUCP: ...!{claris,sun}!sts!roy
Does anyone know if source for ZIP will be made available for
UNIX?
If it is to be made available, it should be noted that many, if
not most, BBS in the country are rapidly shifting over to ZIP.
Using ZOO on Usenet will then guarantee that many of us will
have to deal with two archiving systems.
Forrest Gehrketoma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) (03/08/89)
I'm sorry to post this, but I cannot seem to reach Roy via email. "Yes" on Zoo. The required commercial use license for the other contenders is too much of a pain when Zoo has no such restrictions. And Zoo does seem to work without any bugs. Tom Almy toma@tekgvs.labs.tek.com Standard Disclaimers Apply
burleigh@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (frank burleigh) (03/09/89)
In article <905@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> jbrown@jato.UUCP (Jordan Brown) writes: >In article <77800010@sts> roy@sts.sts.com writes: >>1) zoo doesn't compress as much as the new ZIP or PAK programs. >>The other reason is that no money/donation is being asked for to use >>zoo and the source code is available for anyone to make improvements >>to. If you think you can make zoo faster or compress better, go ahead ... > >Alas, you aren't allowed to. A better compression scheme would probably >be incompatible (old versions wouldn't be able to decode it) and so would >be disallowed by Rahul's license agreement. Alas, someone has got to the real issue that makes me feel very cautious about any change in archivers now, especially to zoo. While zoo is in many ways superior to arc and pkpak, I can't see its technological superiority over zip or perhaps some of the others. On the other hand, there are dimensions of 'superiority.' In terms of portibility, the consensus is that zoo is far superior, at the moment. Zip could come on strong once someone who knows how ports it over. So, in my mind, one of the liabilities of zoo *is* that portibility and guarantee that the present version will always accomodate 'zoos' created with earlier versions. Technological stagnation seems inevitable. The rush to zoo thus seems odd, since generally technical stagnation is not tolerated. -- Frank Burleigh burleigh@silver.bacs.indiana.edu USENET: ...rutgers!iuvax!silver!burleigh BITNET: BURLEIGH@IUBACS.BITNET Department of Sociology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405
roy@sts.sts.com (03/09/89)
/* Written 12:48 pm Mar 7, 1989 by pinkas@mipos3.UUCP in sts:comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d */ In article <715@itivax.iti.org> dhw@itivax.iti.org (David H. West) writes: > In article <77800007@sts> roy@sts.sts.com writes: > >I am collecting the votes via e-mail. > > My attempt to reply by email failed when rutgers claimed that it > didn't know sts.com. Is there another form of this adddress that > works better? Try @relay.cs.net:roy@sts.sts.com or roy%sts.sts.com@relay.cs.net. -Israel -- -------------------------------------- Disclaimer: The above are my personal opinions, and in no way represent the opinions of Intel Corporation. In no way should the above be taken to be a statement of Intel. UUCP: {amdcad,decwrl,hplabs,oliveb,pur-ee,qantel}!intelca!mipos3!cadev4!pinkas ARPA: pinkas%cadev4.intel.com@relay.cs.net CSNET: pinkas@cadev4.intel.com /* End of text from sts:comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d */ It appears as if our news system thinks we're in the .com domain. I will probably have to re-compile it, because we're really just in .uucp domain. Roy Bixler | UUCP: ...!{claris,sun}!sts!roy Semiconductor Test Solutions | phones: (408) 727-2885 x132 (work) 4101 Burton Dr. | (408) 289-1035 (home) Santa Clara, CA 95054
campbell@hpbsla.HP.COM (gary campbell) (03/10/89)
>Let me also ask whether work is going on to adapt zoo to be the friendly >multi-floppy compressing backup/restore program the world needs? I would like to use one primary archiver. I would like the ability to do compressed backups of my system. That means that I want to see an archiver with the ability to store subdirectories and to do multi-floppy archives. Until now, Zoo seems to come closest to this. This morning is the first I've heard that PKWare's new program is available, so I don't know anything about it, but I remember reading somewhere that it would support multi-floppy archives. Could an option be added to Zoo to allow either the ability to switch to a new floppy when the current one is full, or to allow specification of a maximum archive size and to continue on making a new archive file? The latter approach would allow easy generation of archives on UNIX which could be sized for transfer to floppies. With this change, I think that Zoo would meet my backup and archiving needs. I agree that a freeware archiver makes sense for a free distribution group. I appreciate Rahul's efforts not to force the decision in favor of his program. I also think that since he has to do a lot of work to provide this service, and that since he is volunteering this effort, that what is easiest for him is worth noting, although it wouldn't be appropriate to switch standards every time we switch moderators. Therefore, I think that which tool is easiest for the moderator is also worth considering. -- Gary Campbell campbell%hpbsla@hplabs.HP.COM hplabs!hpbsla!campbell