Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!renner
From: renner@uiucdcsb.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: ARC vs SHAR
Message-ID: <164100002@uiucdcsb>
Date: Tue, 24-Feb-87 10:49:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcsb.164100002
Posted: Tue Feb 24 10:49:00 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 27-Feb-87 22:13:58 EST
References: <799@water.UUCP>
Lines: 12
Nf-ID: #R:water.UUCP:799:uiucdcsb:164100002:000:439
Nf-From: uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu!renner    Feb 24 09:49:00 1987


>  Just on the surface, it looks like "uuencode" and "arc" are more useful
>  than "shar".  I would like to hear a defense of "shar".
>				--(ljdickey@water.uucp)

As far as I know, the only thing "shar" has that "arc" doesn't have is
the ability to preserve subdirectory structure.  With "arc", everything
is unpacked into one directory, and any subdirectory structure is lost.

Scott Renner
renner@uiuc.edu
{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner