Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!sun-barr!newstop!sun!panarthea!koreth
From: koreth@panarthea.sun.com (Steven Grimm)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: why zoo...
Message-ID: <114413@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 8 Jul 89 02:12:58 GMT
References: <615670847.12121@myrias.uucp> <2502@water.waterloo.edu>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Reply-To: koreth (Steven Grimm)
Organization: Sun Microsystems Federal, Milpitas, CA
Lines: 26

In article <2502@water.waterloo.edu> ljdickey@water.waterloo.edu (Lee Dickey) writes:
>Ok!  This posting and the one by Rainer Klute have convinced me.
>I would suggest that the moderator (are you there Steven Grimm?)
>be empowered and encouraged to accept postings that have been
>compressed with ZOO, and that he may send these on to the news
>groups "comp.binaries.atari.st" and "comp.sources.atari.st".

In fact, I have already posted a binary in .zoo format, the German
Modula-2 compiler in volume 4.  I don't have any strong preference
for Arc or Zoo (though I think the latter is more convenient in
most cases).  Whichever method is used by the person who sends the
program to me will be used when the program is sent out.  In fact,
I don't repackage anything unless I have to, most commonly to split
sources from binaries (why don't most people submit them in two
separate postings?) or to merge in documentation.

Since both arc and zoo are available to everyone who should be
concerned about which is used on the net, and both have proven
fairly reliable, I don't see what the big deal is.  You won't see
anything on comp.binaries that I wasn't able to unpack, so if zoo
has a bug you should never see it crop up in binaries articles.

---
This message is a figment of your imagination.  Any opinions are yours.
Steven Grimm		Moderator, comp.{sources,binaries}.atari.st
sgrimm%chrome@sun.com	...!sun!chrome!sgrimm