Xref: utzoo comp.binaries.ibm.pc:943 comp.sys.ibm.pc:14557 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ncar!boulder!sunybcs!bingvaxu!leah!itsgw!batcomputer!sun.soe.clarkson.edu!dave From: dave@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Dave Goldblatt) Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc,comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: (shar(uuencode(arc))) Message-ID: <763@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> Date: 18 Apr 88 01:09:31 GMT References: <446@csccat.UUCP> Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY Lines: 109 Followups-to: comp.sys.ibm.pc From article <446@csccat.UUCP>, by loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow): | | This is crazy. We have programs "shar'd", "uuencoded", and "arc'd". | If that wasn't enough, versions of arc are spawning like wild | flowers. It makes no sense! Depends on how you look at it, and whether DOS or Unix is the system you a) use mostly, and b) read news on. | Following that dubious development, It was necessary to | package the binary files that arc creates, so into uuencode | it goes. That's a lot like compressing (or squashing or ...) | and then padding it out fat again to make it transmit. | Two left turns and we're lost. Agreed, but that's partially the mailer's fault; mailers don't like binary as a rule. (especially BITNET mailers, which run mostly on IBM systems, who in turn only grok EBCDIC.. :-) | | Now, simply arc'ing and uuencode'ing isn't enough, files are | too big (or something) and they must be shar'd. Where does | this madness end. Surely it would make more sense to re-think | the whole process and develop one process that does it all. See the above. Some mailers don't like files greater than 64K in size. Using shar is quite a simple task, however, and solves many problems. | | I suppose that DOS is the true culprit here, since it is the | most brain-dead excuse for an operating system imaginable | but that can't justify the mania that has spawned here on | usenet. As I said before, I can dl into unix and simply copy | files to DOS and I don't really like having to jump through | endless loops before I can tell whether a program is useful | or not (especially since it's mostly junk and is promptly | discarded). And I have serious mis-givings about using anyones | copyrighted software as a standard. (have I missed something? | Is arc now in the PD?). | There are public domain versions available of ARC-compatible software. Lots of public-domain (or shareware, or freeware) software is quite excellent, and in many cases SUPERIOR to programs developed by alleged software houses. The point is, I don't want to have to spend 20 minutes (or more) downloading a file only to read a doc file; I want to be able to look at it on my host and see whether I should spend my time on the download BEFOREHAND. | I know that most people like to have the latest and greatest | version of programs and there seems to be something suspect | about good software just because a new rev appears but it's | created a massive tower of Babel. I'm going to say it out-loud, | "THE KING HAS NO CLOTHES". | If you're referring to PKARC vs. ARC, it isn't so much a new revision as the fact that a downward-incompatible compression technique was used. What most people seem to have forgotten, however, is that as new versions of SEA's ARC program came out, new techniques were also added, and it made INCOMPATIBLE FILES WITH OLDER VERSIONS. ARC 2.00 only supported two compression algorithms, if I recall correctly. PKARC is _much_ faster than ARC, but there are no commonly-available arc programs under Unix which support "squashing" (actually 13-bit Lempel-Ziv, vs. "crunching", which is 12-bit). ** IF SOMEONE HAS A FULLY WORKING 13-BIT LZ ARC FOR UNIX, I WILL HAPPILY MAKE THE SOURCE AVAILABLE HERE FOR FTP! ** | As a ISV (I write commercial software) it is appalling that | a) commercial software is taken over from the authors by an | unruly mob and b) the general attitude about copyright laws | is disdain. The solution to the piracy problem is clearly | going to be the wide-spread infection by viruses so that | problem is well on it's way to a solution (none too soon). | But the real root of the problem is each individual user: | if you want to benefit from the services provided by usenet | then make a contribution of integrity that can be heard far | and wide. Further, step back and look at what you want in | the way of protocols and get organized. One program can and | should be a common download utility. Let's find it. Unruly mob? Well, I guess how you can collectively describe Usenet. :-) The source for ARC is made publicly availble, and the only restrictions are that the original copyright messages remain in the program and that modified versions may not be distributed as "ARC". Remember: ARC itself isn't original; the compression routines were all written by someone else.. :-) Piracy is a major problem, but is not a topic which should be gotten into here. Start a discussion in comp.misc if you're interested. If you're willing to write the software, which would include a better mail system and an easily-transportable archive program (which must run under DOS and Unix, and preferably be ARC-compatible), please let us know. It should also be "freeware" (or copylefted, as the Gnu Foundation calls it). | | Charles Brunow | {killer, csccat, rpp386}!loci!clb | -dg- -- Internet: dave@sun.soe.clarkson.edu or: dave@clutx.clarkson.edu BITNET: dave@CLUTX.Bitnet uucp: {rpics, gould}!clutx!dave Matrix: Dave Goldblatt @ 1:260/360 ICBM: Why do you want to know? :-)