Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cica!iuvax!bobmon From: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Subject: lharc on UNIX (was Re: But is there a ZIP? (Was "unzip for unix?")) Message-ID: <58772@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> Date: 15 Sep 90 14:17:35 GMT References: <1990Sep14.183442.5007@sj.ate.slb.com> <1990Sep14.212200.6207@looking.on.ca> Organization: malkaryotic Lines: 24 brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) <1990Sep14.212200.6207@looking.on.ca> : | | A *zip* for unix would be used to create archives for ms-dos users in ZIP | format, and I suppose to create archives for unix users using the unix | unzip, although that's far less common a use. I use the "lharc" program to archive and compress files on various unix machines, specifically to manage related groups of data files which I need to move around or hang onto. I much prefer it, as it is more efficient at compression than "compress" and more convenient to use than "tar"; and vastly more convenient than the tar/compress combination. I suppose a unix zip would have similar advantages, and might achieve slightly better compression for some files if MS-DOS experience is a guide, but I am pleased enough with lharc's performance *and* its availability that I really don't much care about zip. Of course, PKZIP on my MS-DOS box is faster than lharc, but that does not mean that a public-domain zip for unix boxes would be faster than unix lharc; and the speed really isn't much of a concern except when I run a single-tasking "O.S." on an 8088 with a slow disk drive. -- disclaimer: This opinion has been compressed by discarding all the 0 bits and only transmitting the 1 bits.