Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!sunic!kullmar!bk
From: bk@kullmar.se (Bo Kullmar)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: xx vs. uu
Message-ID: <941@kullmar.se>
Date: 14 Feb 90 06:50:52 GMT
References: <1513@krafla.rhi.hi.is>
Organization: Firma Bo Kullmar Datakonsult, Kista, Sweden
Lines: 36

frisk@rhi.hi.is (Fridrik Skulason) writes:

>The binaries that have appeared on c.b.i.p. have generally been UUencoded.
>What I would like to propose now is a general switch to XXencode. 

>The source for XXencode and XXdecode is available both in C and Basic. I
>have compiled the C source without problems with Turbo C 2.0 and on
>a HP/UX system.

I have never seen any source for something called XXdecode on comp.sources.
My Danish newsreader nn supports uudecode, but not as far as I know XXdecode.

This means that I don't want XXencode for the moment. The obvious solution
to the problem in Denmark is to skip the IBM network and use the unix network
without any silly EBCDIC-coding!

>One a side note - when c.b.i.p starts running again, which of the available
>file-compression utilities do the readers of the group want to be used ?
>ZOO and ZIP are obvious candidates, but there may be other possibilities.

Almost all in the PC enviroment uses ZIP and so do I, but I don't have a
goot working version of ZIP on my System V box. I do the packing and unpacking
on my PC.

I think that ZIP is the obvious choice. ZOO does not pack as good as PKZIP
does. But I know why a loft of unix users prefers ZOO...

>Or maybe we should just leave the decision to the new moderator.

Agree.

---
Bo Kullmar, Helsingoersg. 38, S-164 42  KISTA, Sweden, Phone +46 8 7511518
UUCP:		{uunet,mcvax,munnari,cernvax,diku,inria,prlb2,tut,ukc,unido}
		!sunic!kullmar!bk
Internet:	bk@kullmar.se