w8sdz@WSMR-SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL (Keith Petersen) (02/26/89)
Now is not a good time to switch from ARC to ZOO. Many BBSs around
the country are switching their entire on-line file archives to ZIP
archives. Reports I have seen indicate a savings of FIVE MEGABYTES on
a typical 40 mb hard disk BBS.
Anything we can do to lessen the network load is worthwhile. It's
just a matter of time before someone writes a ZIP archiver for Unix.
Ralf Brown, in his new Interrupt List just uploaded to Simtel20 says:
"I intend to release future versions compressed with PKZIP (except the
copy on SIMTEL20 until a version of PKZIP is available for it), as
testing shows that the current list compresses to ~136k with PKZIP,
versus ~181k for ZOO or PKARC and ~195k for PKARC -oct."
--Keith Petersen
Maintainer of the CP/M & MSDOS archives at wsmr-simtel20.army.mil [26.0.0.74]
DDN: w8sdz@wsmr-simtel20.army.mil
Uucp: {ames,decwrl,harvard,rutgers,ucbvax,uunet}!wsmr-simtel20.army.mil!w8sdzjapplega@csm9a.UUCP (Joe Applegate) (02/27/89)
In article <KPETERSEN.12473558519.BABYL@WSMR-SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL>, w8sdz@WSMR-SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL (Keith Petersen) writes: > Now is not a good time to switch from ARC to ZOO. Many BBSs around > the country are switching their entire on-line file archives to ZIP > archives. Reports I have seen indicate a savings of FIVE MEGABYTES on > a typical 40 mb hard disk BBS. > > Anything we can do to lessen the network load is worthwhile. It's > just a matter of time before someone writes a ZIP archiver for Unix. Amazing... whose code will PK pirate for PKZIP... and whose compression format will he steal and market as his own???? We need another compression "standard" like we need a hole in the head!!! I am seriously considering adding a statement to all my products to restrict their archiving with any PK product... I already refuse to make available any downloads to my BBS that are not in ARC or ZOO format... make that REAL ARC format! The decision of whether to embrace one format or another based on availability of processing tools on UNIX is rediculous! DOS programs should be processed with DOS tools... the idea of unarcing a program on Unix and then transmitting multiple files at 30-50% the size when the .ARC file is available is not pratical... we have excellant tools for DOS... not only is ARC available for DOS but ZOO as well... and SIMTEL20 and many BBS' even carry Unix-style tools such as uudecode/uuencode, tar, ar, and even compress... Let's let posters use what ever format they want and let the reciever use the available DOS tools to process it. Yes, I suppose even ZIP... though personally PKWARE has caused so much grief with the adaption of a standard extension for a non-standard non-compatible product that I feel they ought to be black-listed amongst the PC user community! - 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. =====================================================================
spolsky-joel@CS.YALE.EDU (Joel Spolsky) (02/27/89)
In article <1325@csm9a.UUCP> japplega@csm9a.UUCP (Joe Applegate) writes: > >The decision of whether to embrace one format or another based on availability >of processing tools on UNIX is rediculous! (1) The vast majority of c.b.i.p readers are on Unix systems (2) Very often they would like to read the documentation before wasting hours downloading a program which they aren't sure they need. (3) Even more often they have fancy high speed printers on their unix systems, to print said documentation. (4) Thus the availability of an unarc'er on Unix is a critical criterion for choosing a c.b.i.p format. >DOS programs should be processed >with DOS tools... This is meaningless drivel. >the idea of unarcing a program on Unix and then transmitting >multiple files at 30-50% the size when the .ARC file is available is >not pratical... we have excellant tools for DOS... not only is ARC available >for DOS but ZOO as well... and SIMTEL20 and many BBS' even carry Unix-style >tools such as uudecode/uuencode, tar, ar, and even compress... What is the point. > >Let's let posters use what ever format they want and let the reciever use >the available DOS tools to process it. In other words, anarchy? I vote for ZOO, because I would like ONE standard I can use for Unix and DOS, and for moving files between them. > - Joe Applegate - > +----------------+----------------------------------------------------------+ | Joel Spolsky | bitnet: spolsky@yalecs.bitnet uucp: ...!yale!spolsky | | | internet: spolsky@cs.yale.edu voicenet: 203-436-1483 | +----------------+----------------------------------------------------------+ #include <disclaimer.h>
mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) (02/27/89)
In article <1325@csm9a.UUCP>, japplega@csm9a.UUCP (Joe Applegate) writes: > Amazing... whose code will PK pirate for PKZIP... > and whose compression format will he steal and market as > his own???? 'scuse me? Last time I checked, Mr. Katz wrote the 'new' PK format code himself. It was only SEA's ARC code that he stole... > We need another compression "standard" like we need a > hole in the head!!! > I am seriously considering adding a statement to all my products to > restrict their archiving with any PK product... I already refuse > to make available any downloads to my BBS that are not in ARC or > ZOO format... make that REAL ARC format! So you force your users (some of whom may be calling long-distance) to spend extra time (and money) to download something, just because you don't like the PK line of products? Please, let me know what your BBS name is, so I remember never to call it. > The decision of whether to embrace one format or another based on > availability of processing tools on UNIX is rediculous! DOS programs > should be processed with DOS tools... the idea of unarcing a program > on Unix and then transmitting multiple files at 30-50% the size > when the .ARC file is available is not pratical... we have excellant > tools for DOS... not only is ARC available for DOS but ZOO as well... > and SIMTEL20 and many BBS' even carry Unix-style tools such as > uudecode/uuencode, tar, ar, and even compress... Stupid. People don't unarc the programs under Unix and then download the componant files; they unarc them under Unix so they can read the docs, and decide whether or not it's worth the trouble to download it to their PC. Remember that not everyone has a 9600 baud hardwire link from their Unix box to their PC. Yes, compress and tar are available for MS-DOS. But a 16-bit version of compress takes upwards of 500K to run, and is S-L-O-W. A 50K file can take 10 minutes to uncompress on my 8MHz. PC (XT clone). And the only version of tar I could find doesn't try to mung filenames - It just refuses to extract any file that doesn't fit into MS-DOS naming conventions. And I know that I could split up a tar file by hand, but that's pointless when the file could be on a Unix machine, where it could be untar'd by a REAL tar. Don't forget, my friend, that Usenet is primarily a network for Unix-based computers. It's transmitted (mostly) by Unix computers. The "gateway" software that's available for MS-DOS is kludgy at best. (I can't comment about the VMS software, because I've never used it.) > Let's let posters use what ever format they want and let the reciever > use the available DOS tools to process it. Yes, I suppose > even ZIP... though personally PKWARE has caused so much grief > with the adaption of a standard extension for a non-standard > non-compatible product that I feel they ought to be black-listed > amongst the PC user community! Wonderful. Now I'm going to have to keep SEA ARC, PKWare ARC, PKWare ZIP, ZOO, and PAK all on my hard disk, so I can be prepared to handle anything that might come over the net. Great. So much for a "standard". I don't quite know what you mean by "standard extension for a non-standard non-compatible product". I suspect that you have it switched, i.e. "non-standard non-compatible extension for a standard product". If so, then it (FLAME ON) WASN'T THEIR F***ING FAULT! (FLAME OFF). Yes, I suppose that they could have not pirated SEA's code in the first place. But I personally consider the PKARC/PKXARC programs a welcome add-on to the SEA code. They're faster and produce smaller archives. Remember that SEA sued PKWare and won. The terms of the settlement included banning PKWare from EVER producing an ARC-compatable product. Enter PKZIP. I think that the only "grief" that's being felt is among those who converted everything to NoGate's PAK when it first came out, and are now being forced to convert to ZIP. The only thing I can say is "toldyaso." --- Sirius 0.50 -- Marc Unangst UUCP : mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us UUCP bang : ...!uunet!sharkey!mudos!mju UUCP bang alt.: ...!{ames, rutgers}!mailrus!clip!mudos!mju Internet : mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us
boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu (SoftXc Coordinator) (02/27/89)
[Sniff...sniff...I smell smoke...] In article <1325@csm9a.UUCP> japplega@csm9a.UUCP (Joe Applegate) writes: > > >Amazing... whose code will PK pirate for PKZIP... >and whose compression format will he steal and market as his own???? > Hold on. PKZIP was built ground up from the format he made publicly available. >We need another compression "standard" like we need a hole in the head!!! > Well, considering the last poll I did of compression standards, a total of seven was submitted. I suppose I'll be conducting another poll soon, but probably not until Unix versions of ZIP are out... >I am seriously considering adding a statement to all my products to restrict >their archiving with any PK product... I already refuse to make available any >downloads to my BBS that are not in ARC or ZOO format... make that REAL ARC >format! > That is kind of rediculous, considering that you will most probably limit the distribution of your own programs that way. If several BBS systems have already converted, and if Simtel20 converts on the availability of a TOPS-20 ZIP, then I would assume distributions restricted to non-ZIP will get limited distribution. >The decision of whether to embrace one format or another based on availability >of processing tools on UNIX is rediculous! DOS programs should be processed >with DOS tools... the idea of unarcing a program on Unix and then transmitting >multiple files at 30-50% the size when the .ARC file is available is >not pratical... we have excellant tools for DOS... not only is ARC available >for DOS but ZOO as well... and SIMTEL20 and many BBS' even carry Unix-style >tools such as uudecode/uuencode, tar, ar, and even compress... > I think you have missed the point of a discussion way-back-when about using the ARC files on Unix. The major consideration was the ability to unarc the files on Unix not to download individual pieces, but rather to check documentation. It is a long distance phone call for me to this system if I use my PC, so I want to know what it is I'm getting BEFORE I waste a couple hours and a lot of dollars... ============================================================================== Brian O'Neill, MS-DOS Software Exchange Coordinator ArpaNet: boneill@hawk.ulowell.edu UUCP: {(backbones),harvard,mit-eddie,et. al.}!ulowell!hawk.ulowell.edu!boneill
greggt@VAX1.CC.UAKRON.EDU (Gregg Thompson) (02/27/89)
In article <1325@csm9a.UUCP> japplega@csm9a.UUCP (Joe Applegate) writes: > > >Amazing... whose code will PK pirate for PKZIP... >and whose compression format will he steal and market as his own???? > Boy this is amazing. Everytime something comes up about how PK "stole" SEA ARC's compression programs no one ever realizes that SEA ARC's compression programs were stolen in the first place too! There was a discussion on PC-Ohio long ago about the sources that were distributed from SEA ARC that contained copyright's from the original authors (like the author of the original sqz files!). I do not know if SEA ARC's sources still contain the different copyrights but from what the discussion on the PC-OHIO brought up was that these authors of the original programs probably didn't and haven't got a single dime from SEA ARC for the use of THEIR compression programs. Besides the name of the game is speed and space. Especially for most of the people who don't own 80+ meg hard disks and are running on 4.7 or 8mhz PC-XT compatables. I want something that will save me space and I don't have to wait around for ever for it to happen. As for BBS Sysops its great to have a fast ARC program (and now ZIP) program for use on OPUS and alike BBS systems. Besides that I don't want to spend forever downloading things off of SIMTEL20 because they decide not to use PKARC or PKZIP. It is hard enough to get on and stay on, so I would want the programs as compressed as possible. Even downloading them to my PC at 2400 baud takes a while. -- To live is to die, to die is to live forever; GRegg Thompson Where will you spend eternity? greggt@vax1.cc.uakron.edu
fargo@pawl.rpi.edu (Ethan M. Young) (02/28/89)
I'll throw in my two cents and give a yes vote for Zoo.
I've been a very solid user of PKARC/PKXARC and really despise SEA for what
they did to PKWARE!. But, my complaints aren't going to help much. And con-
sidering that the BBS world is going to be in multitudes of havoc with a SEA
faction vs. PKWARE! faction, I would just like to be able to sit back and still
be able to get the programs I want. Plus, if I ever want to create some tool
that can read/write an archiving format, the only source available is SEA.
Considering that I'm not fond of SEA anymore, but seem stuck with it, I'm in a
rut. But, if Rahul will make the source available for Zoo, then I'm all for
it.
Consider me in for two votes!
Thank you and happy hunting! Internet: fargo@pawl.rpi.edu
____ [> SB <] fargo@{paraguay|uruguay}.acm.rpi.edu
/__ -=>??<=- Bitnet (??): usergac0@rpitsmts.bitnet
/ ARGO : 3000 years of regression from the year 4990wcs@skep2.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart.[ho95c]) (03/01/89)
In article <KPETERSEN.12473558519.BABYL@WSMR-SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL>, w8sdz@WSMR-SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL (Keith Petersen) writes: > Now is not a good time to switch from ARC to ZOO. Many BBSs around > the country are switching their entire on-line file archives to ZIP > archives. Reports I have seen indicate a savings of FIVE MEGABYTES on Where can I get a copy of the ZIP file format and compression algos? Are the format and compression algorithm public-domain? Does PK promise he won't change the format on us, so we don't end up with the old problem of PKZIP ver n-1 being unable to read files made by PKZIP ver n? Is the compression really significantly better than Lempel-Ziv? What restrictions does PK place on using his stuff? Money for the code? Money for using the format? Is the source part of the standard distribution, so we can find out what it "really* does? Is the format ASCII, or binary? Somebody else recently posted an article about a new ascii-to-binary packer, I think Brad Templeton. -- # 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!"
ddb@ns.UUCP (David Dyer-Bennet) (03/01/89)
Joe Applegate writes:
:The decision of whether to embrace one format or another based on availability
:of processing tools on UNIX is rediculous! DOS programs should be processed
:with DOS tools.
I disagree very strongly. I regularly use the unix version of arc to test
the integrity of an archive before transmitting it to my dos system. I
often use it to extract the documentation, to determine if I *wish* to
transmit the archive to my dos system. I also use it to assemble source
code from the net into convenient bundles for my dos system (which is
irrelevant to posting format in c.b.i.p, but relevant to my interest in
unix copies of my favorite dos archivers).
I would be quite unhappy if the c.b.i.p postings were in a format I
couldn't manipulate on unix.
(Anybody in MN got a version of zoo I could build on a sun?)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ddb@ns.network.com
or ...!{rutgers!dayton | amdahl!ems | uunet!rosevax}!umn-cs!ns!ddb
or ddb@Lynx.MN.Org, ...{amdahl,hpda}!bungia!viper!ddb
or Fidonet 1:282/341.0, (612) 721-8967 hst/2400/1200/300alexc@psu-cs.UUCP (Alex Chan) (03/01/89)
In article <1325@csm9a.UUCP> japplega@csm9a.UUCP (Joe Applegate) writes: >In article <KPETERSEN.12473558519.BABYL@WSMR-SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL>, w8sdz@WSMR-SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL (Keith Petersen) writes: >> Now is not a good time to switch from ARC to ZOO. Many BBSs around >> the country are switching their entire on-line file archives to ZIP >> archives. Reports I have seen indicate a savings of FIVE MEGABYTES on >> a typical 40 mb hard disk BBS. >> >> Anything we can do to lessen the network load is worthwhile. It's >> just a matter of time before someone writes a ZIP archiver for Unix. > > >Amazing... whose code will PK pirate for PKZIP... >and whose compression format will he steal and market as his own???? > >We need another compression "standard" like we need a hole in the head!!! > >I am seriously considering adding a statement to all my products to restrict >their archiving with any PK product... I already refuse to make available any >downloads to my BBS that are not in ARC or ZOO format... make that REAL ARC >format! > >The decision of whether to embrace one format or another based on availability >of processing tools on UNIX is rediculous! DOS programs should be processed >with DOS tools... the idea of unarcing a program on Unix and then transmitting >multiple files at 30-50% the size when the .ARC file is available is >not pratical... we have excellant tools for DOS... not only is ARC available >for DOS but ZOO as well... and SIMTEL20 and many BBS' even carry Unix-style >tools such as uudecode/uuencode, tar, ar, and even compress... > >Let's let posters use what ever format they want and let the reciever use >the available DOS tools to process it. Yes, I suppose even ZIP... though >personally PKWARE has caused so much grief with the adaption of a standard >extension for a non-standard non-compatible product that I feel they ought >to be black-listed amongst the PC user community! > > - 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. > ===================================================================== I think that Joe Applegate should not openly post article to "flame" others effort to come up with suggestions and should not put down PKWARE's product. If someone have make a mistake in the past, it does not mean that they are in fault forever or in someone's black-list. This is USA and nobody is in fault unless proven guity..... Alex M. Chan AMC Microsystems Inc. ( Private research and developement ) UUCP: uunet!tektronix!{psu-cs,reed,ogccse}!qiclab!tanya!root DISCLAIMER : The above stated is only my personal opinion, in no way it represent my employer or my organization.... *** ALL FlAMES > /dev/null ***
Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (03/01/89)
In article <480@skep2.ATT.COM>, wcs@skep2.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart.[ho95c]) writes: }Where can I get a copy of the ZIP file format and compression algos? The file format and decompression algorithm are included in the PKZ090.EXE distribution file. }Are the format and compression algorithm public-domain? YES }Does PK promise he won't change the format on us, so we don't } end up with the old problem of PKZIP ver n-1 being } unable to read files made by PKZIP ver n? PK is not alone in this. ARC v4 couldn't read ARC v5 archives, and ARC v6 can create archives that are incompatible with v5. }Is the compression really significantly better than Lempel-Ziv? YES }What restrictions does PK place on using his stuff? } Money for the code? Money for using the format? Code is not available, though PK has promised public-domain example routines. }Is the source part of the standard distribution, so we can } find out what it "really* does? NO }Is the format ASCII, or binary? binary -- 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.
mms@sordid.Sun.COM (Michael Silverstein) (03/02/89)
In article <1175@ns.UUCP> ddb@ns.UUCP (David Dyer-Bennet) writes: *> *> Joe Applegate writes: *> *> ... I regularly use the unix version of arc to test *> the integrity of an archive before transmitting it to my dos system. I *> often use it to extract the documentation, to determine if I *wish* to *> transmit the archive to my dos system. I also use it to assemble source *> code from the net into convenient bundles for my dos system ... I do exactly the same. I assume, from what I've seen in prior discussions, that Rahul is offering to make available Unix compileable source so that we will have the same (or better) capabilities. Some one please correct me if I'm wrong. *-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=* | /\/\ike Silverstein | This can't be deja vu. Things are more like | | sun!mms -or- mms@sun.com | they are now, than they've ever been before! | *-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=*
bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (03/02/89)
mms@sun.UUCP (Michael Silverstein) <91896@sun.uucp> : - -I do exactly the same. I assume, from what I've seen in prior discussions, -that Rahul is offering to make available Unix compileable source so that -we will have the same (or better) capabilities. Some one please correct me -if I'm wrong. This sounds like you think Unix source isn't available. In fact it has gone out recently on comp.sources.misc (I think that was the group), along with the MSDOS adaptations. It is in the simtel20 archives, in the Unix area, and I presume it is in other archives as well. I've compiled it on Ultrix/VAXen, and I believe it'll go on Suns, etc. without undue trouble (I'll find out some day). I can't help but think of zoo as a unix tool that was written with portability in mind -- it feels unixish. (In contrast: try starting multiple ARC processes in the background; when I tried it they walked all over each other's temporary files, because the code didn't try to generate unique tempnames. Oof.) (If you DO try this, make sure you use junk .arc files!) The limitations on the program's availability revolve around profit-making networks (and Rahul's offered to relax them substantially); I personally doubt whether many of Compu$erve's customers call in from Unix boxes. [sorry; this seems far from "ibm pc binaries". But they don't exist in a vacuum, and compatibility is increasingly important to me...]
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (03/03/89)
In article <18128@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) writes:
=mms@sun.UUCP (Michael Silverstein) <91896@sun.uucp> :
=-
=The limitations on the program's availability revolve around profit-making
=networks (and Rahul's offered to relax them substantially); I personally
=doubt whether many of Compu$erve's customers call in from Unix boxes.
=
Then you would certainly be surprised to know of the active Unix Forum
on CompuServe, originated by OSU's Karl Kleinpaste! The members are
generally folks who do not have Usenet access, but there are exceptions
(like yours truly, Eric Raymond, Ross Greenberg, Jean-Pierre Radley,
Fred Buck, and other notables).
Pete
--
Pete Holsberg UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh
Mercer College CompuServe: 70240,334
1200 Old Trenton Road GEnie: PJHOLSBERG
Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800hpchang@tiger.waterloo.edu (I'm a Wild One) (03/03/89)
Ok, I've got the ZIP archiver fresh off of the Simtel20 server, it's uuencoded into nice, small, bite sized pieces of 500 lines each and ready for posting. Now, is this group moderated? Is there anyone acting as a co-ordinator for the group or do I just go right ahead and post?
craiga@phred.UUCP (Craig Arno) (03/03/89)
In article <91896@sun.uucp>, mms@sordid.Sun.COM (Michael Silverstein) writes: > In article <1175@ns.UUCP> ddb@ns.UUCP (David Dyer-Bennet) writes: > *> > *> Joe Applegate writes: > *> > *> ... I regularly use the unix version of arc to test > *> the integrity of an archive before transmitting it to my dos system. I > *> ... > > I do exactly the same. I assume, from what I've seen in prior discussions, > that Rahul is offering to make available Unix compileable source so that > we will have the same (or better) capabilities. Some one please correct me > if I'm wrong. > I've been looking at Zoo since the sources to 2.01 were released in comp.sources... (where are the files for compiling under MSC 5.1? I found a version 2.00 executable for DOS). I just recently started using Zoo and have learned enough to be say that Zoo can "test" a zoo archive with the command: zoo -test zoofile There are several "Novice" functions such as test that are very useful to a beginning user. The documentation states that "test" does a normal extract without saving the file but does report the results. I haven't found anything about Zoo that makes me feel that any functionality was left out. I use Zoo on our Ultrix and my PC systems, just wish I had an excutable for our VMS system with instructions on how to install it there. The last test will be to try installing Zoo on a Xenix system since that is an environment that the ARC source I have doesn't work under. Zoo is winning favor with me with each use.
sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Bob Sloane) (03/04/89)
In article <2502@phred.UUCP>, craiga@phred.UUCP (Craig Arno) writes: > ... I use Zoo on our Ultrix and my PC systems, just wish I had an > excutable for our VMS system with instructions on how to install it there. I have ZOO running on our VAX/VMS system here. The source was distributed on comp.os.vms a while back. If anyone is interested I can make it available for anonymous ftp. +-------------------+-------------------------------------+------------------+ | 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. | +-----------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------+
malpass@vlsi.ll.mit.edu (Don Malpass) (03/04/89)
In article <240be391@ralf> Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >In article <480@skep2.ATT.COM>, wcs@skep2.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart.[ho95c]) writes >}Does PK promise he won't change the format on us, so we don't >} end up with the old problem of PKZIP ver n-1 being >} unable to read files made by PKZIP ver n? >PK is not alone in this. ARC v4 couldn't read ARC v5 archives, and ARC v6 can >create archives that are incompatible with v5. You didn't answer his question, and it IS one of the real hangups with PK that makes ZOO a better choice - the COMMITMENT to compatibility. It is an important question. What's the answer? The other important one is: Will UNIX ZIP be available and if so when? Until then, I wouldn't even touch it with tongs. -- Don Malpass [malpass@LL-vlsi.arpa], [malpass@gandalf.ll.mit.edu] Have you noticed how little difference there often seems to be between ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE and REAL STUPIDITY?
kevinc@auvax.UUCP (Kevin "auric" Crocker) (03/06/89)
In article <91896@sun.uucp>, mms@sordid.Sun.COM (Michael Silverstein) writes: >that Rahul is offering to make available Unix compileable source so that >we will have the same (or better) capabilities. Some one please correct me >if I'm wrong. > > | /\/\ike Silverstein | This can't be deja vu. Things are more like | AS far as I can see the source for zoo came across just a little while ago. I grabbed and without any tweaking at all it compiled on the following: VAX 785 Ultrix 2.0 I never bothered to compile on my PC as binaries came across a week earlier. I will probably move the source over to our SYS V in the next few days and compile over there to see if things change. I never really cared very much about how files came over the net i.e SEA ARC or PK ARC until I started to get files that wouldn't unarc with either for some reason. Most of the problems that I had seemed to be connected with PK but this is PROBABLY MY FAULT. Every since the zoo source and binaries came around here I have switched because zoo worked better and stored things better. Now with PK's new ZIP I can't tell. What I probably will do is store things in whatever format saves the most space. I don't really care about how fast these things archive stuff as I usually go and do something else or start them running at night or over lunch. An absolutely essential feature is that whatever we all decide to do it would be nice if we had software than ran on both unix_oids and pc_oids. I like to know what things are before I spend a whole lot of time downloading. As I've said I don't care how long it takes to archive stuff but I do care how long it takes to download. Actually I have found that archiving is reasonably quick and the downloading very slow even at 9600 direct connect to the unix box. The one thing that has really burnt my toast is the crap that occured between SEA and PK. I don't care who did what or why but the whole thing really was tiresome. I'm pissed off at SEA for the lawsuit, I'm pissed off at PK for putting himself in that predicament and to some extent I'm pissed off at RD for the restrictions on zoo. Now that Rahul has indicated that he might be willing to take the restrictions off zoo, zoo seems to be a better choice. When and if PK provides ZIP for unix_oids then I'll revisit the decision. Of course, I'm pretty small potatoes - only about 60Mb of stuff and its all just for my, and a few locals, use. I have consistently ignored all the big stuff that has come across the net because I just have no room, but for the stuff that I do have space is my prime consideration. Wow, rambling city - next thing you know I might even write something inciteful (no pun intended). Kevin -- * Kevin "Auric" Crocker | Keeper of the paperless office * * Athabasca University | If I could get everyone to quit * * alberta!auvax!kevinc | sending me the stuff! *
john@stag.UUCP (John Stanley) (03/08/89)
[hpchang@tiger.waterloo.edu (I'm a Wild One) writes...] > Ok, I've got the ZIP archiver fresh off of the Simtel20 server, it's uuencoded > into nice, small, bite sized pieces of 500 lines each and ready for posting. > Now, is this group moderated? Is there anyone acting as a co-ordinator for the > group or do I just go right ahead and post? Why is it that people keep thinking this is a newsgroup for posting binaries? This is a .d (discussion) newsgroup. DON'T POST ANYTHING HERE(!!!) except conversation about the comp.binaries.ibm.pc newsgroup. If you have something to post to comp.binaries.ibm.pc, send it/them to dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP who is the moderator for -that- newsgroup. --- John Stanley <dynasoft!john@stag.UUCP> Software Consultant / Dynasoft Systems