Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!think!ames!ncar!noao!asuvax!mcdphx!mcdchg!clyde!feg
From: feg@clyde.ATT.COM (Forrest Gehrke)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: zoo'ed ibm-pc binaries?
Message-ID: <42052@clyde.ATT.COM>
Date: 8 Mar 89 14:32:07 GMT
References: <77800004@sts> <77800010@sts>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Whippany NJ
Lines: 27

In article <77800010@sts>, roy@sts.sts.com writes:
.> 
.> I've seen much of the discussion going on and I feel that some of
.> the objections are easily taken care of:
.> 
.> 1) zoo doesn't compress as much as the new ZIP or PAK programs.
.> 
.> That may be true, but there are two convincing reasons to use
.> zoo instead of ZIP or PAK.  Zoo is quasi-public-domain and portable
.> and it can be used in many other applications and on many other
.> machines.  In other words, once you learn it, you can use it on
.> your Unix system to store source code (preserving the directory
.> structure and saving space at the same time) and/or to keep IBM/PC
.> binaries around on the machine of your choice.  These considerations
.> more than make up for a small savings in space/time.
.> Roy Bixler                   | UUCP: ...!{claris,sun}!sts!roy


Does anyone know if source for ZIP will be made available for
UNIX?

If it is to be made available, it should be noted that many, if
not most, BBS in the country are rapidly shifting over to ZIP.
Using ZOO on Usenet will then guarantee that many of us will
have to deal with two archiving systems.

Forrest Gehrke