Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:13548 comp.binaries.ibm.pc:688
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!nuchat!splut!jay
From: jay@splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.binaries.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Standard format for ARCed files
Message-ID: <438@splut.UUCP>
Date: 22 Mar 88 12:35:55 GMT
References: <21480@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA>
Distribution: na
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 22

From article <21480@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA>, by rrodrigu@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA (Russ Rodriguez):
> Who care whether the UN*X archive program can read them or not??? This is 
> COMP.BINARIES.IBM.PC, not COMP.UN*X, so whatever you pull off this 
> board is going to end up on a PC anyway. I vote for the self-extracting 
> archives over the arced-only files.  I guess it's a vote for whether to
> use the ZOO or the Phil Katz self extracting archivers.  I'll take either
> but condemn to death the UN*X archive utility.

NO!!! Not all PCs run just DOS. The self-extracting archives would
require that I shut down Unix and boot DOS just so I can tell whether or
not I need to save the archive. Having the Unix archiver available is a
godsend, simply because that way I can un-ARC the documentation and read
it.
In the same vein, I STRONGLY recommend that the OLD ARC format be used.
There appears to be only one Unix archiver that can handle the Phil Katz
version, and it won't run on my system.

-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC...>splut!< | GEnie: JAYMAYNARD  CI$: 71036,1603
uucp: {uunet!nuchat,academ!uhnix1,{ihnp4,bellcore,killer}!tness1}!splut!jay
Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
The opinions herein are shared by none of my cats, much less anyone else.