Xref: utzoo alt.sources.d:641 comp.sources.d:5584
Path: utzoo!mnetor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!uc!cs.umn.edu!cybrspc!roy
From: cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail)
Newsgroups: alt.sources.d,comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Unnecessary tar-compress-uuencodes
Message-ID: <0w66L1w162w@cybrspc>
Date: 12 Jul 90 00:01:32 GMT
References: <5256@plains.UUCP>
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN
Lines: 27

overby@plains.UUCP (Glen Overby) writes:

> While I'm indicting comp.os.minix, I'd like to also charge comp.binaries.*
> with a similar offense, using arc, zip or zoo instead of compress.

In defense of c.b.ibm.pc, the use of arc/zip/zoo is appropriate, since
these are widely available archivers for MS-DOS platforms. The contents
of c.b.i.p are binaries _for_ MS-DOS platforms. Frequently, these
postings are collections of files, rather than single files. To use
compress, you would also have to devise a way to assemble multi-file
postings, and they would _still_ have to be uuencoded. (shars of uuencoded
compressed files? yuck!) Certainly, compress for MS-DOS machines is
available, but arc/zip/zoo are more appropriate. Also, all 3 formats can
be unpacked on a Unix box (and arc and zoo files can be assembled, as
well), so non-DOS types can peek at things they cannot use.

There is a distinct difference between source postings and binary
postings. Binaries should properly be packed in a manner appropriate to
the target platform, and sources should be left as transparent as
possible (i.e. shars).

Just my $0.022, adjusted for inflation.
--
    Roy M. Silvernail   |   "It won't work... I have an  | Opinions found
    now available at:   |   exceptionally large mind."   | herein are mine,
 cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu | --Marvin, the paranoid android | but you can rent
(cyberspace... be here!)|                                | them.