Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!samsung!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!orca!javelin.es.com!pashdown From: pashdown@javelin.es.com (Pete Ashdown) Newsgroups: comp.sys.handhelds Subject: Re: Why ASC over UUENCODE? Message-ID: <1991Feb12.183108.14799@javelin.es.com> Date: 12 Feb 91 18:31:08 GMT References: <1991Feb11.230500.9590@javelin.es.com> <37409@netnews.upenn.edu> Reply-To: pashdown@javelin.sim.es.com Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, Utah Lines: 31 hoford@sequoia.upenn.edu (John Hoford) writes: >In article <1991Feb11.230500.9590@javelin.es.com> pashdown@javelin.sim.es.com writes: >> >>I am having a real hard time trying to see why ASC is preferred over UUENCODE. >>Here are my points against ASC: >>3. Not a standard form of transportation. How many times are we going to see >>"Where can I get ASC?" in the future? UUENCODE is widely available FOR ALL >>PC's. UNIX, VMS, IBM, Amiga, Atari, Mac. I think there is even an Apple II >>version available. If not, there are versions of UUENCODE available in >>BASIC. >But UUENCODE is not available for the hp48sx, the intended machine. >This seems to have been the major reason ASC was implemented, >It also means you could not type in the binary progams. Anyone who would rather type in a huge hex dump than hack together a cable has got to be crazy. I'm not talking about using UUENCODE on the 48. How many people read this group via the 48? There is virtually ALWAYS an interfacing machine between the net and the 48. Its much easier to UUDECODE binaries on that machine then do a binary transfer on the 48 than the ASC method. As for the "disassembly" argument. Doesn't anyone have any utilities on their machines to dump out a file in hex/decimal/octal/ascii/whatever? ASC is hardly the utility for this. -- "Hi, we're 'Slaughter'. We'd just like to say how much we love our troops." Pete Ashdown pashdown@javelin.sim.es.com ...uunet!javelin.sim.es.com!pashdown