Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!ncar!boulder!pikes!udenva!isis!csm9a!japplega
From: japplega@csm9a.UUCP (Joe Applegate)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: zoo'ed IBM-PC binaries?
Message-ID: <1321@csm9a.UUCP>
Date: 24 Feb 89 22:26:29 GMT
References: <77800005@sts> <5978@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> <13229@steinmetz.ge.com> <5889@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Colorado School of Mines
Lines: 28

In article <5889@bsu-cs.UUCP>, dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
> Let's you (the Usenet user) and me make a deal.  If you will vote at
> least 2 to 1 in favor of using zoo rather than arc for
> comp.binaries.ibm.pc, I will drop all distribution restrictions on all
> versions of zoo, with the minor exceptions that (a) nothing
> incompatible be created from my code and (b) source be made available
> for any binaries distributed unless I agree otherwise.

Except for the fact that ZOO doesn't work on our unix machine while
ARC does!!!!

Actually I have nothing against ZOO since this is a PC binaries group and
I can unarc, unzoo, unpak, uncompress, untar, unar, etc on my PC!

So then WHY restrict uploads or distribution to ANY one format!!!!

Heck, let's just .LBR averything and then squeeze it to .LQR ... I can
handle those too!!!  BUT THE ONLY THING I CAN'T HANDLE ON UNIX IS ZOO!

If this is a PC Binaries group then distrubute stuff for PC'ers not for
UNIX'ers!

			   - Joe Applegate -

    ======================STANDARD DISCLAIMER============================
     All views and opinions are my own and do not represent the views or
     opinions of the Colorado School of Mines, whatever they might be.
    =====================================================================