Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!iuvax!bobmon
From: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: zoo'ed IBM-PC binaries?
Message-ID: <17887@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Date: 24 Feb 89 04:30:37 GMT
Reply-To: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante)
Organization: malkaryotic
Lines: 12

My personal reality is that I have both zoo and unpak/pak.  If zip takes off,
I'll probably have to keep a copy of that around, too.  On my Unix host, I've
gotten zoo and arc installed.  If zip shows up for Unix, I'll go for that, too.

But I prefer zoo, and I trust it.  It comes with source.  It's
community-oriented.  It has corruption recovery.  It supports varied systems
better.  It gives me MSDOS-specific features that I don't have with unpak, and
haven't seen promised for zip (i.e., extract-&-execute-from-memory -- very
significant under MSDOS's excuse for pipes).  It's here now, and its version
number is larger than a proper fraction.

I vote for zoo (again).