Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!sundc!gouldsd!mjranum
From: mjranum@gouldsd.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: minix - is this a sensible thought ?
Message-ID: <468@gouldsd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Feb-87 10:11:20 EST
Article-I.D.: gouldsd.468
Posted: Thu Feb  5 10:11:20 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Feb-87 12:31:08 EST
References: <962@osiris.UUCP> <7619@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: Gould Electronics, Landover MD.
Lines: 29
Keywords: file transfer formats, etc, etc.
Summary: My Brain is on vacation...

my previous comments re tar(1):
> > ...it beats the alternative of sending everything in shar format, which
> > takes more bytes than is needed.

[Well-deserved flames deleted]

Okay, so I blew that one !  Let me take back what I said, etc. At any
rate, let's not avoid the point I was making and worry about what is
bigger. My point was that some discussion of standards is necessary
if we are going to post sources/binaries, etc. 

More to the point, suppose I make a version of uuclone and am willing
to post it for beta-test, but do not want to give out sources ?  If it
it a potential moneymaker, or the source files are *huge* and many,
giving out binaries is a better bet anyhow, no ? I can think of several
cases where binaries with config files would take less space on the
net. Swapping huge sources is best done with floppy-disk mailers
anyway. 

My stupid comments about tar(1) aside, I stand by my original proposal
that we form an off-the-cuff standard:

shar wherever possible, tar for binaries, and no "arc" "pack" "squeeze"
"much" or "gulp" formats. 

--mjr;
-- 
"It is better to shred the bugger than to bugger the shredder."
					-ancient doltic proverb.