ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) (06/25/91)
In article <10002@discus.technion.ac.il> nyh@GAUSS.TECHNION.AC.IL (Nadav Har'El) writes: >I have tested 10 of the most availiable compressors (all of which can be >downloaded from garbo.uwasa.fi). For the archived files I arbitarily chose >pak's distribution file, which contains docs,exes, and other files, all >together 203497 bytes. I've classified the compressors by the number of >bytes after the compression. >Extention Compressor Size after compression Rank >------------------------------------------------------------------ >.arj arj -jm 85907 Great [Much (interesting text) deleted] >Notice the great difference between the compressors I've classified as Bad, >and the others. Zoo, which ranks one of the lowest, is the compressor most >widely used in the c.b.i.p group. Also, pkzip, the form most widely used in >ftp sites, is only the fourth out of ten, which a very big difference between >it and arj. >Therefore, I suggest ftp sites should use the arj format, instead any of the >others. I know it is hard work converting all the files to arj, so the sites >can make all new archives in the arj format. [Much (interesting text) deleted] >preferred archiver, he can post a reply. Maybe some site admistrators could >post a reply, why they prefer using other archivers. > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Nadav Har'El nyh@gauss.technion.ac.il >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am very pleased at the interest shown in the maintenace of FTP sites, and naturally welcome the suggestion. However, this has been discussed previously at several occasions, and the reply has not changed. Converting the files at an FTP site to another format is a _major_ effort. The benefits would have to be really significant to warrant the effort involved. We use several formats at garbo.uwasa.fi archives (since files come in in the various formats) but I prefer keeping .zip our principal method unless something truly revolutional comes along. And nothing such is in the sights at the moment (even given these .arj test results). BTW, I often recommend to users to utilize archive shells like /pc/arcers/shez62.zip which make the handling easy on a PC whatever the archiving method. All the best, Timo ................................................................... Prof. Timo Salmi Moderating at garbo.uwasa.fi anonymous ftp archives 128.214.12.37 School of Business Studies, University of Vaasa, SF-65101, Finland Internet: ts@chyde.uwasa.fi Funet: gado::salmi Bitnet: salmi@finfun
millerje@handel.CS.ColoState.Edu (Jeff Miller) (06/26/91)
In article <1991Jun24.181748.12705@uwasa.fi> ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) writes: >In article <10002@discus.technion.ac.il> nyh@GAUSS.TECHNION.AC.IL (Nadav Har'El) writes: . . . >changed. Converting the files at an FTP site to another format is a >_major_ effort. The benefits would have to be really significant to >warrant the effort involved. We use several formats at >garbo.uwasa.fi archives (since files come in in the various formats) >but I prefer keeping .zip our principal method unless something >truly revolutional comes along. And nothing such is in the sights >at the moment (even given these .arj test results). [last quote from prof. salmi] I don't see any reason why why all the files at an FTP site would have to be changed... keep the existing files in their current archive format, and for any new files, or updates of old files, use the "approved" format. I do feel that "lha" is quite revolutionary, since it has amazing compression ratios, and that it is completely free... no shareware, no licensing, etc. It is also for this reason, that I feel ARJ would not be appropriate, as if I remember correctly (I don't use ARJ), it is shareware with a required fee. _____________________________________________________________________________ | | | "NUKE THE UNBORN GAY WHALES!" | Jeff Miller | | - graffiti | millerje@handel.CS.ColoState.Edu | |_____________________________________________________________________________|
goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring) (06/26/91)
In article <15714@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU>, millerje@handel.CS.ColoState.Edu (Jeff Miller) writes: >I don't see any reason why why all the files at an FTP site would >have to be changed... keep the existing files in their current >archive format, and for any new files, or updates of old files, use >the "approved" format. >I do feel that "lha" is quite revolutionary, since it has amazing >compression ratios, and that it is completely free... no shareware, >no licensing, etc. It is also for this reason, that I feel ARJ would >not be appropriate, as if I remember correctly (I don't use ARJ), it >is shareware with a required fee. another point to consider is compatibility with other systems. many of us use UNIX systems to build and tear down archives for whatever reason (i, for example, like to print documentation from UNIX instead of from PCs, since UNIX actually has a functional print spooler). i see no point in downloading the archive to a PC, exploding it, and reuploading the files to my UNIX account, especially since i probably used my UNIX account to ftp the file in the first place, and since this here sequent blows away every PC i've ever used. therefore, i'd like to have files be bundled in some format i can unbundle on my UNIX machine. a lot of these cutting edge archivers don't exist in UNIX implementations yet. -- Scott Goehring | There's a lot of overweight people in the goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu | world, many are arguably food-addicts. Shall | we outlaw chocolate cake? | -- Mike Percy, in alt.censorship