malloy@nprdc.arpa (Sean Malloy) (02/26/89)
In article <2917@udccvax1.acs.udel.EDU> brunke@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Jim Brunke) writes: >In article <11771@watdragon.waterloo.edu> hpchang@tiger.waterloo.edu (I'm a Wild One) writes: >>In article <LFK.89Feb23105544@mbio.med.upenn.edu> lfk@mbio.med.upenn.edu (Lee Kolakowski) writes: >>>Since no one seems to prefer compress and tar for archive >>>transmission to/from PC's, Here is another vote for zoo. >>>Arc/PK{ARC?ZIP} is brain dead, incompatible with Unix/Vms ... etc. Brain dead? No. Remember that the version released is 0.90 -- it's a _beta_ test release. If you've ever done serious software development, think about the last product you worked on, and then imagine the kind of comments you'd have gotten if you released it four months earlier and the 'brain-dead' users thought that they were getting the final version. As for its being incompatible with Unix/VMS, again, it hasn't been out long enough for any non-MSDOS versions to appear. You can get the file formats trivially, so you can write them yourself if you want them that bad. >>As a fellow U of W student - I can say that we ARE using ARC on unix systems and >>I haven't had a problem yet with any of the arc files I received from the net ... >>including moria - just recently posted. > >I will have to agree, I have never gotten a garbeled binary here, and I am >running the Unix version of ARC (that is compatible w/ PK) As a commentary on this, in comp.graphics, a zoo'd archive of a ray tracing program was posted recently. Using the ZOO source from SIMTEL20, _none_ of the files in the zoo archive were extractable, all failing CRC check. All of the .ARC files I've gotten off the net have extracted correctly; the one .ZOO file I try to get dies horribly. This is probably an exception to zoo's normal performance, but it sure doesn't look good to _me_. ARC is widespread; ZOO is much less so. ZIP is just now appearing. As little as I like keeping the products of 'Sue Everyone Anyway' alive, there are enough archives of MSDOS software on BBSs and sites like SIMTEL20 using it that it would be massively inconvenient to require converting the .zoo file to a .arc file to add it to the archives. Not everybody interested in binaries off the net grabs everything as they're posted -- the postings of people asking about package _X_ posted some months ago proves that. Let's leave the postings in the format that the archive sites use -- the expense of maintaining the archives is not inconsequential; let's not add to the inconvenience as well. Sean Malloy Navy Personnel Research & Development Center San Diego, CA 92152-6800 malloy@nprdc.navy.mil
chuck@coplex.UUCP (Chuck Sites) (03/02/89)
ZOO YES!!!! Go ZOO, Go ZOO, Go ZOO, Goooooo ZOO!!!
This is about the 20th time I've seen the Zoo vs. Arc vs. All comers debate.
My vote is ZOO. Arc has so many versions and variations that it's confusing.
It seems that everyone that had thier hand in Arc did something to the arc's
file format! The result is I when I download an .arc file, it usually:
1. Does not un-arc on unix systems, because it was arc'ed with PK-arc or
some other unknown archiver with the file extension .arc
2. It doesn't un-arc on DOS because it was arc'ed with Sea version.
3. It doesn't un-arc because it was arc'ed with a newer version.
I mean real folks, we've got squshed, squished, compressed, munged and
mangled files being transmitted under the name ARC. ARC is brain dead,
Arc is copyrighted, and Arc should be trashed.
ZOO is simply the better program of the bunch. Compared to the arc programs
I've seen, ZOO, function-wise, code-wise, protability-wise, beats Arc hands down.
Rahul Dhesi did a super job, and my hats off to him. Now folks, when are we
going to stop the arguing, and switch?
svirsky@ttidca.TTI.COM (Bill Svirsky) (03/03/89)
In article <1529@skinner.nprdc.arpa> malloy@nprdc.arpa (Sean Malloy) writes:
+ As a commentary on this, in comp.graphics, a zoo'd archive of a ray
+ tracing program was posted recently. Using the ZOO source from
+ SIMTEL20, _none_ of the files in the zoo archive were extractable, all
+ failing CRC check. All of the .ARC files I've gotten off the net have
+ extracted correctly; the one .ZOO file I try to get dies horribly.
+ This is probably an exception to zoo's normal performance, but it sure
+ doesn't look good to _me_.
I also follow comp.graphics. My understanding from the discussions
there of the problems with the .ZOO file were NOT a problem with zoo but
that the multipart uuencoded posting was being put together incorrectly.
--
Bill Svirsky, Citicorp+TTI, 3100 Ocean Park Blvd., Santa Monica, CA 90405
Work phone: 213-450-9111 x2597
svirsky@ttidca.tti.com | ...!{csun,psivax,rdlvax,retix}!ttidca!svirsky