Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!bath63!pes
From: pes@bath63.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: ARC vs SHAR
Message-ID: <790@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 23-Feb-87 05:43:39 EST
Article-I.D.: bath63.790
Posted: Mon Feb 23 05:43:39 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 27-Feb-87 02:22:22 EST
References: <799@water.UUCP>
Reply-To: pes@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: AUCC c/o University of Bath
Lines: 14


Ok, a short defense of shar.  If shar is used, then even if the transmitted
file is mini-munged it is usually possible to recover at least any contained
ASCII files -- source, docs, etc.  Even if the damage occurs within one of
those bits, it can often be made right with a little thought and a look at
the context.  ARC'ed files, on the other hand, are virtually impossible to
repair if damaged in transit.

ARC's are quite nice, both because of the compression (though a lot of that
is lost by the subsequent UUENCODE), and because the error-checking means
that if your file does unARC, you can be sure that what you got out was
what the originator put in.  But they're incredibly more frustrating when
they break.  (Not to mention, the ASCII parts of SHARs can be used by anyone
with an editor -- whereas the ARCs require you to have both UUDECODE and ARC.)