Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!ljdickey
From: ljdickey@water.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: ARC vs SHAR
Message-ID: <799@water.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 21-Feb-87 12:01:12 EST
Article-I.D.: water.799
Posted: Sat Feb 21 12:01:12 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Feb-87 13:38:08 EST
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 23

Not too long ago someone posted code for "shar" that was said to
compile both on a vax and on the ST.

I would like to pose the question:  Why use shar?

The uses of "shar" that I have seen in this group have been to bundle
several files together and do some trivial checking, such as counting
characters, and of those that I have looked at in this group, every one
has given some error report.  I count that as unreliable.

On the other hand, some people have used "arc" and "uuencode" and most
of the things I have looked at that use these programs have worked.
The "arc" program has some error checking in it, and it seems to be
better than the checking used by people here using "shar".

Just on the surface, it looks like "uuencode" and "arc" are more useful
than "shar".  I would like to hear a defense of "shar".

-- 
  Prof. L. J. Dickey, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Waterloo. 
	ljdickey@water.UUCP    ljdickey%water@waterloo.CSNET
 	ljdickey%water%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.ARPA
	ljdickey@water.BITNET