Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!comcon!roy From: roy@comcon.UUCP (Roy M. Silvernail) Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Subject: Re: Encoding and compression for cbip (Was: xx vs. uu) Message-ID: <315@comcon.UUCP> Date: 14 Feb 90 10:06:49 GMT References: <1513@krafla.rhi.hi.is> <52155@bu.edu.bu.edu> Organization: Computer Connection, Anchorage Alaska Lines: 27 In article <52155@bu.edu.bu.edu>, oneill@bass.bu.edu (Brian V O'Neill) writes: > I think at least for now UUEncoding should continue to be used. XXEncoding > may work better, but a majority of sites do not have it. That can be taken care of by simply posting the XX*code sources as the first programs, no? [...] > I am not > aware of a fully operational, portable ZIP program for Unix, and I don't > even think a portable unpacking program exists for LHArc. Until The sources for LHarc were posted to comp.sources.atari.st a couple weeks ago. The compression isn't exactly portable to SysV(no ftruncate() call), but it will unpack just fine. I also pulled a Unix unZipper off SIMTEL20, but haven't tested it yet. Certainly, any change will have side-effects, and some sites will be slow on the uptake, but overall, I think the change to XX*code and LHarc will be benificial, and will avoid the overhead of gatewaying to Bitnet. Besides, LHarc is *much* tighter than ZOO, and will conserve much bandwidth. -- _R_o_y _M_. _S_i_l_v_e_r_n_a_i_l | UUCP: uunet!comcon!roy | "Every race must arrive at this #include ;#define opinions MINE | point in its history" SnailMail: P.O. Box 210856, Anchorage, | ........Mr. Slippery Alaska, 99521-0856, U.S.A., Earth, etc. |