Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!uccba!ucqais!dstrombe
From: dstrombe@ucqais.uc.edu (pri=2 Dan Stromberg)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Let's have ONE standard lharc!
Message-ID: <2592@ucqais.uc.edu>
Date: 19 Jan 91 13:38:00 GMT
References: <767@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM> <20609@yunexus.YorkU.CA>
Organization: Univ of Cincinnati, College of Business Admin.
Lines: 40

In article <20609@yunexus.YorkU.CA>, oz@yunexus.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) writes:
> In article <767@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM> koreth@panarthea.EBay.Sun.COM
> (Steven Grimm) writes:
> 
> >The lharc program is really nice (though a bit slow) and I'd like to see it
> >become a more widespread standard.
> 
> I thought that the prevailing standard (at least on non-un*x systems)
> was zip. Hmm. Is there some concrete usage data available as to which
> one of these archievers is worth investing some effort into?
> 
> oz
> ---
> We only know ... what we know, and    | Internet: oz@nexus.yorku.ca 
> that is very little. -- Dan Rather    | UUCP: utzoo/utai!yunexus!oz

The prevailing standard under *DOS* is zip.

I'd much rather see effort going into lharc, though I doubt we'll convince
people to only work on one or the other.

Currently, I'm aware of four utilities that allow me to both compress and
decompress files, under both DOS and UNIX.  Those are arc, zoo, lharc,
and UNIX 16-bit "compress".

I gather there's a good-sized project underway, to produce a portable zip,
but don't have a zip compressor for UNIX presently.  ...and the
decompressor I have, makes some assumptions about structure alignment,
that I haven't bothered to wade into...

I'm sure there are other compression utilities available, and would like to
hear about them, if they do a better job than lharc.

Of those, lharc works *now*, and typically packs harder than arc, zoo or
UNIX "compress" - and that high compression ratio is important to me, when
I'm transferring largish files over a 2400bps line.

...I'd like to see a non-begware zip under DOS, also.

- Dan