Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!olivea!uunet!convex!rosenkra From: rosenkra@convex.com (William Rosencranz) Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: lharc woes (AGAIN, was Is musedt.lzh corrupted?) Message-ID: <1991Jun20.182128.10910@convex.com> Date: 20 Jun 91 18:21:28 GMT References: <1991Jun18.151348.795@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1991Jun19.012653.8005@convex.com> <1991Jun20.120942.28747@cs.nott.ac.uk> Sender: usenet@convex.com (news access account) Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA Lines: 30 Nntp-Posting-Host: convex1.convex.com In article <1991Jun20.120942.28747@cs.nott.ac.uk> dpg@cs.nott.ac.uk (Dave Gymer) writes: >Just some random mutterings... i expect no more :-) >Have you tried the version of lharc in the gnustuff directory on a.a? I've this is not the point. the fact that i can (eventually) FIND a version of lharc to unpack any particulary archive may sound like there is no problem at all. there is. the SEARCH for the lharc version to do it IS the problem. until all the various lharc developers (many of whose work by itself is excellent, BTW) get together and standardize an extensible file format, this is basically still russian roulette. >My complaint with lharc is that's its's too damn slow. I still mainly use zoo >because I just can't be bothered to spend hours waiting for lharc. yes, this, too is a major problem. i consider MY time far more valuable than the few pennies i save on floppies (which can cost as little as $0.35 each). my time (to me, anyway) is more like $50-100/hour. if i can archive say 10 MB/hr with arc and only 5 MB/hr with lharc, and lharc saves me 50%, then i wasted $50 of my time to save maybe $2 on disks. hardly worth it. after all, we are only on the planet for a short time. i'd hate to waste it waiting for lharc :-) (or continuing this debate as well) -bill rosenkra@convex.com -- Bill Rosenkranz |UUCP: {uunet,texsun}!convex!c1yankee!rosenkra Convex Computer Corp. |ARPA: rosenkra%c1yankee@convex.com