Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!dasys1!tneff From: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Subject: Re: SIMTEL20 to ban ARC files Keywords: lzw, atob/btoa, 7 bit pure Message-ID: <6605@dasys1.UUCP> Date: 23 Sep 88 15:21:04 GMT References: <6630@ihlpl.ATT.COM> <2736@uoregon.uoregon.edu> <8475@smoke.ARPA> <2594@csccat.UUCP> <424@pigs.UUCP> <2054@looking.UUCP> Reply-To: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) Organization: Independent Users Guild Lines: 23 In article <2054@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >The fact is that for the net compression is not desirable. It clouds the >issue, sometimes *increases* transmission time, and just makes postings >harder to deal with. However, the net is more than its bandwidth -- it is also its component sites, and disk space is a resource just like transmission time. No one whose spool volume has filled lately is likely to look kindly on doubling their archive allocation. I disagree with Brad that compression "clouds the issue" or "makes postings harder to deal with," I think those are just afterthoughts to his real argument which is that 'compress' has zero to negative effect on pre-compressed files -- so that sites which batch news compressed may actually spend a few percent more time on a pre-compressed binary than on an uncompressed one. My answer is that even if this were a major headache (and I'm not convinced it is), there ought to be some way of segregating your binaries feed so it runs uncompressed. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding)