Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watmath!watdragon!tiger!hpchang
From: hpchang@tiger.waterloo.edu (I'm a Wild One)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: zoo'ed IBM-PC binaries?
Message-ID: <11735@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Date: 23 Feb 89 14:32:46 GMT
References: <77800005@sts>
Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu
Reply-To: hpchang@tiger.waterloo.edu (I'm a Wild One)
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 22

In article <77800005@sts> roy@sts.sts.com writes:
>How many people would like to see the archive format in
>comp.binaries.ibm.pc changed from arc to zoo?
>Roy Bixler

Ok, here we go again.
YES - I am a ZOO user from time to time.
YES - I am also an ARC user.
YES - ZOO is available for UNIX and DOS systems.
YES - ARC is available for both UNIX and DOS systems.

So, the problem boils down to - what is most appropriate in this situation,
ZOO or ARC.  The only MAJOR difference I've found is that ZOO maintains
directory information whereas ARC does not.  Since postings to the network
are for everyone who is interested, I don't really want to have default
directories created when I extract files from my ZOO file. (Yes, the default
directory can be overwritten, but it takes more keystrokes)  I like both
archivers, but for national distribution, I say stick to ARC.

(One small vote for ARC)

me.