Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!pyrnj!mirror!rs From: rs@mirror.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: quantitative comparision of arc versus compress Message-ID: <3301@mirror.TMC.COM> Date: Wed, 22-Apr-87 12:36:34 EST Article-I.D.: mirror.3301 Posted: Wed Apr 22 12:36:34 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 24-Apr-87 03:15:52 EST References: <865@xanth.UUCP> Followup-To: poster Organization: Mirror Systems, Cambridge MA Lines: 32 Summary: Arc is bad for Usenet Most sites on Usenet use the COMPRESS program to cut down their transmission costs. Compressing an ARC'd file results in something bigger than the original. As a courtesy, then, to those sites who pay big money to ship articles around, the nicest way to post binary files is to use UUENCODE. The C sources to UUENCODE have been posted to mod.sources; a portable shar/unshar package was posted in net.sources. Contact your nearest mod.sources archive site for the former, me for the either. Also, people have written that "well, it's easiest for ME to do things this way." In an internetworked electronic conferencing system of several thousand sites, the ruling theme should be the greatest good for the greatest number. Rise above selfishness, and go out of your way a bit to help the net that helps you: conventional wisdom and empiricism have shown that posting UUENCODE'd binaries work best, given that COMPRESS is usually in the transport mechanism. As lesser arguments, assuming appeals to your "better side" don't work: ARC is shareware, which goes against the grain of the so-called free Usenet, don't you think? The maintainers and developers of ARC refuse to support Unix ports. Think about the implications of those two sentences... Comments to me, and I'll summarize. /Rich $alz, Moderator of mod.sources (soon to be comp.sources.unix) -- -- Rich $alz "Drug tests p**s me off" Mirror Systems, Cambridge Massachusetts rs@mirror.TMC.COM {cbosgd, cca.cca.com, harvard!wjh12, ihnp4, mit-eddie, seismo}!mirror!rs