gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) (05/06/88)
I almost didn't reply to these two postings since I'm sure a lot of other replies will be generated, and the tone of the postings seemed to be deliberately asking for replies in this tone, but I couln't resist. If Chuck Brunow is really the ignorant, stupid, overbearing, obnoxious, intolerant twit that his postings make him look like, then I feel it will be an act of charity to point out his failings to him. In article <540@csccat.UUCP> loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) stupidly writes: > > The existing binary > groups are strictly limited to the hobbyist types of machines > are have more of an air of junk mail than anything useful. Your prejudice is showing. I read a lot of Unix groups as well as the MSDOS binary group, and there is no substanial difference in the postings. IBM PC's and clones are not hobbyist machines. A _lot_ more real work is done on such machines than on UNIX machines. Not that there is anything wrong with using computers for play either. > Much of Usenet is devoted to an exchange of ideas and techniques > which is completely unlike the jumble of unreadable postings > to binary groups. It may be a great ego trip for somebody to > post their little pet project or worse, to post something they > had no part in creating, but it's just a eye-sore at 1200 baud. You obviously know nothing about the groups which you so freely insult, there have been some impressive postings to those groups. I do most of my work on UNIX and read all the comp.sources groups, and the programs I've seen on the MSDOS binaries group have been just as useful as anything on the comp.sources groups. In article <542@csccat.UUCP> loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) continues to act like a twit: >>In article <21371@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >> >>My understanding is that zoo can handle directories and arc can't. If >>that is true, it would seem zoo is preferable. > > ??????????? what's preferable about that? Doesn't your system > have a file system? You know, the things that list when you > say "dir". Funny thing about the file system is that it's already > got directories (an idea they picked up from unix). Zoo is another idea from UNIX. Ever heard of tar, you condescending UNIX snot? Gee why does UNIX need an archiver that handles directory structure when they already have a file system with a directory structure? Well, as anyone with intelligence higher than the average plant life could tell you, if you have a hierarchical file system, and you want to (gasp) archive a hierarchy of files , then it helps to have an archiver that understands the file hierarchy. >> ...more standard, > > what standard? What are you smoking? What planet are you from? > Is it your standard practice to insult people when they talk about things you know nothing about? The format used by arc is quite well standardized. There are at least three different programs that use it, and most MSDOS users have at least one of the programs. Since the source is available, any UNIX machine can have it also. >>there shouldn't be any one who can't use a zoo posting. >> >>Plus you can easily get zoo on many other operating systems like Unix. >>-- > Keep you junk on your own machine, Unix doesn't need it. Oh, shutup. UNIX needs anything that UNIX users need, and one thing we need is better ways to communicate with MSDOS. It may be a junk operating system, but it is everywhere, and a lot of good work is done on MSDOS. Your ignorance of what's going on in the rest of the world is typical of UNIX users, but most people have the sense not to shout out their ignorance.