Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!pa.dec.com!decuac!shlump.nac.dec.com!jareth.enet.dec.com!edp
From: edp@jareth.enet.dec.com (Always mount a scratch monkey.)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.handhelds
Subject: Re: Why ASC over UUENCODE?
Message-ID: <20148@shlump.nac.dec.com>
Date: 13 Feb 91 02:35:01 GMT
Sender: newsdaemon@shlump.nac.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 16

> . . .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.

Binary file on one system -> UUENCODE -> UUDECODE on another system -- that
sequence is not guaranteed to produce an identical binary file, particularly
not one that will download correctly to the HP-48 -- differences caused by
file attributes or formats of a particular system's binary files can cause
problems.  I have been able to get binary objects to and from my 48, but I
cannot count on receiving them correctly, even with UUDECODE.  I need ASC or
a version of UUDECODE that runs on the 48.


				-- edp (Eric Postpischil)
				"Always mount a scratch monkey."
				edp@jareth.enet.dec.com