Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!ll-xn!husc6!bbn!rochester!ritcv!ritcsh!dani From: dani@ritcsh.UUCP (Dani Kadoch) Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Subject: Re: Source ARCs are inappropriate! Summary: I strongly agree Keywords: ARCs sources Message-ID: <5247@ritcsh.UUCP> Date: 25 Oct 88 13:06:05 GMT References: <7119@dasys1.UUCP> <823@uwovax.uwo.ca> Reply-To: dani@ritcsh.UUCP (Dani Kadoch) Organization: Computer Science House @ RIT, Rochester, NY Lines: 29 >In article <7119@dasys1.UUCP>, tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: >> ARC+UUENCODE should be restricted to no-choice binaries like .EXE's and >> data files. Newsbatch-compress will do a better job of saving net >> bandwidth on your source files than ARC+UUENCODE can anyway. > >I disagree with you ... >... ARC files save >transmission time down to my micro. Don't forget that most of the stuff >posted here _is_ for those MS-DOS machines. Some people seem to forget that having the net is a priviledge, not a right. The cost of transmitting long postings is very high, and when we think about how to send files over the net we should be *primarily* concerned with the "hidden" costs involved. I don't know exact figures, but I know that *many* long distance phone calls are made for every posting. We have to remember that if some backbone sites start considering stopping their service because of the costs involved, the net would be seriously hurt. When you download stuff to your micro you're probably making a local phone call which is probably for free. If you let your micro work a little longer downloading a file, it won't affect you as much as it would increase transmission costs of that file world-wide. -- +/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\+ > Dani Kadoch -- R&D director @ Computer Science House < > Rochester Institute of Technology < > UUCP:rochester!ritcv!ritcsh!dani MCIMail:dani BITNET:dnk8842@ritvax <