Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!sunic!tut!ra!uwasa.fi!ts
From: ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi LASK)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Binaries and which packing (Was Re: xx vs. uu)
Message-ID: <1990Feb14.134810.8305@uwasa.fi>
Date: 14 Feb 90 13:48:10 GMT
References: <1513@krafla.rhi.hi.is>
Organization: University of Vaasa
Lines: 36

In article <1513@krafla.rhi.hi.is> frisk@rhi.hi.is (Fridrik Skulason) writes:
>
>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.
>Any suggestions ? 
>Or maybe we should just leave the decision to the new moderator.

Here we go again.  I agree that the new moderator is the person to
make the decision.  But if the packing method comes under discussion
again, the situation is different from the time when .zoo was
chosen:

1) .zoo was Rahul's own method, which meant that the moderator was
throuh and though familiar with the method and the possible problems
and remedies. 

2) We now have unzip available for unix, which means that file
integrity can be tested without first having to transfer to PC the
way it used to be.  Also .zip files can now be unpacked under unix. 

3) We still do not have unix zip, that is packing under unix (or if
we do, it has not yet been generally circulated). 

4) Compared to .arc .zip and .lzh (all now more or less available
for unix), .zoo was (and is) quite cumbersome to use, especially in
packing. 

5) Should the new moderator decide to invite a discussion, we are in
for much traffic (but what the heck, what's news without any
traffic, anyway). 

...................................................................
Prof. Timo Salmi        (Moderating at anon. ftp site 128.214.12.3)
School of Business Studies, University of Vaasa, SF-65101, Finland
Internet: ts@chyde.uwasa.fi Funet: gado::salmi Bitnet: salmi@finfun