Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!mcnc!decvax!decwrl!navion.dec.com!fulton
From: fulton@navion.dec.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: ZOO vs ARC for comp.binaries.ibm.pc
Message-ID: <8803251512.AA28553@decwrl.dec.com>
Date: 25 Mar 88 16:10:00 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 81

Tim Iverson writes:

>In article <23699@clyde.ATT.COM> feg@clyde.ATT.COM (Forrest Gehrke) writes:
>>
>>I vote for Rahul for moderator of BINARIES.
>>
>>I vote against his ZOO as the archiving program for two reasons,however.  
>>
>>1) The SEA and PK versions of ARC are used by nearly every{BBS and 
>>most other nets in the country. 2) I, as many others, have dozens of 
>>floppies devoted to archives using SEA and PK ARC.
> 
>Frankly, I don't see how this bears on the issue at hand: the choosing of an
>archiver to be used as a standard in comp.binaries.ibm.pc.  The fact is that
>the great majority of people read news on machines for which zoo would be
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     
        What statistics  do  you  have to back this up?  Remember, we're
        talking about comp.binaries.ibm.pc, not all newsgroups.

>vastly superior to any form of arc.  We are not talking about forming a
>standard for BBS's (whom we don't care about anyway), we are talking about
                          ^^

        You must be  using  the  royal  "we,"  because  I  subscribe  to
        comp.binaries.ibm.pc AND I care a LOT about BBS's!  Exactly what
        is it about BBS's that disgusts you????

>forming a standard for *this* newsgroup.
> 
>>ZOO is a fine idea, but unfortunately it is not a widespread standard.
> 
>Again, so what?  Were not talking about everywhere, just here.  I see no
>reason to allow people to whom this means nothing influence my decision on
>this issue.
> 
>>I understand that SEA's ARC has been ported to Unix and PK's ARC can
>>turn off "squashing", so why not use ARC?
> 
>You say it all in the next line:
> 
>>Futhermore, there are probably many people on this net who don't 
>>even operate under Unix.
> 
>Yes.  Zoo is much, much more portable than arc.  This is the reason
>it should be the standard we choose.
> 
>>Besides, the moderator should include in the posting a description 
>>of the program, what it is used for, and any special requirements 
>>(EGA, VGA, MS windows, utility to 123, etc.)  With this information we 
>>can decide whether to download.
> 
>Really?  I almost invariably read the man page and readme files of
>a posting to comp.sources.unix before grabbing the goods.  Rich Salz
>does a good job, but no moderator has the time to describe a package
>in as great a detail as the author.  The same would be the case here.
> 
>>Forrest Gehrke
> 
> 
>- Tim Iverson
>  iverson@cory.Berkeley.EDU
>  ucbvax!cory!iverson

        I work in an environment with the following OS's:   MS-DOS, VMS,
        BSD Unix, and sys5 Unix.  I know of nobody who  uses  ZOO on any
        of these systems.  On MS-DOS, ARC (several different flavors) is
        used.  On  Unix  and VMS (for compressed files that are targeted
        for MS-DOS machines) a utility is used that deARCs ARC files.  I
        would think that MS-DOS, VMS,  and  Unix cover the vast majority
        of OS's that receive comp.binaries.ibm.pc (no,  I don't have any
        stats, but I am hard pressed to  imagine  what  other OS's would
        receive a significant portion of the usenet).
        
        I also happen to know that ARC runs  on  other machines as well:
        Amiga and Atari ST for two.
        
        So what's the reason behind the big push for ZOO?

	uucp: ...decwrl!comet.dec.com!fulton
	ARPA: fulton@comet.dec.com