Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:18281 comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d:822 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!uw-entropy!dataio!pilchuck!del From: del@Data-IO.COM (Erik Lindberg) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Subject: Re: PK361.EXE Message-ID: <977@pilchuck.Data-IO.COM> Date: 22 Aug 88 20:31:04 GMT References: <11792@steinmetz.ge.com> <4936@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <173@falkor.UUCP> <7950@mhuxu.UUCP> Reply-To: del@pilchuck.Data-IO.COM (Erik Lindberg) Organization: Data I/O Corporation; Redmond, WA Lines: 19 In article <7950@mhuxu.UUCP> skeeve@mhuxu.UUCP (79533-riley c) writes: > >No kidding. But 99% of all the stuff I archive or extract goes into >one directory, the current directory. Therefore you don't need a tree >structure for the archive. I have never seen an archiver that only Of course! Since you can't make tree structures with the current popular archiver, software distributions of necessity are created to extract into one directory. Therefore the logical conclusion is that since we've gotten by just fine without it till now, we don't need it now. Many people apply the same logic to computers in general: 99% of all the paper work I do in my job can be done just as well, sometimes faster, without a computer, therefore I see no reason to switch to computers. (No matter what other advantages could be gained, new ways to manipulate the data, etc..... ) -- del (Erik Lindberg) uw-beaver!tikal!pilchuck!del