Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!utfyzx!oscvax!rico
From: rico@oscvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Jtime.arc Posting [1 of 2]
Message-ID: <479@oscvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 30-Mar-87 11:47:09 EST
Article-I.D.: oscvax.479
Posted: Mon Mar 30 11:47:09 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 31-Mar-87 05:32:10 EST
References: <10423@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> <520@madvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: rico@oscvax.UUCP (Rico Mariani)
Organization: Ontario Science Centre, Toronto
Lines: 34
Summary: 

I may be one of millions of people that say this but just in case everyone
else decides that "a million people are going to say this so why should I"
I'll say it.

It seems that various experiments have shown that posting .arc'd files is
a waste of resourses.  Most of the sites already do their own compression
of files in the fashion most suited to the kind of connection they have.
So arc'ing your files doesn't save the net any transmission time, in fact
files which are arc'd and then compressed tend to be larger than if the
files were just compressed.

Also, you get many people who are in this boat...

In article <520@madvax.UUCP> davidlo@madvax.UUCP writes:
>
>   Where can I find an ARC utility to extract this file ?
>
>   Thanks.
>

Check the fish disk listings, I believe it was in one of the last batches,
I downloaded my copy off of Compuserve but I don't recommend that if you
can avoid it... ARC is *BIG*.

So the morale of the story is "don't do me any favours"  just take the
bare binaries... uuencode them and then shar them.  Let the news system
do its own compression if/when it sees fit.

	Redundantly yours,
	    -Rico
-- 
[NSA food: terrorist, cryptography, DES, drugs, CIA, secret, decode]
[CSIS food: supermailbox, tuna, fiberglass coffins, Mirabel, microfiche]
[Cat food: Nine Lives, Cat Chow, Meow Mix, Crave]