Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!comcon!roy From: roy@comcon.UUCP (Roy M. Silvernail) Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Subject: Re: which archiver/compresser and encoder/decoder to use? Keywords: archivers, compression, encoding Message-ID: <326@comcon.UUCP> Date: 21 Feb 90 13:23:01 GMT References: <1513@krafla.rhi.hi.is> <3418@plains.UUCP> <99623@looking.on.ca> Organization: Computer Connection, Anchorage Alaska Lines: 23 In article <99623@looking.on.ca>, brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: > I advise that a compressing archiver is not what is desired. Compression > is the duty of the news transport mechanism, by and large. Almost all > USENET links that care compress, and use better compression than found in > the 12 or 13 bit LZ of ARC. Remember, though, that we're transporting binaries, which will have to be encoded somehow. (xx or uu) Since the postings have to reside on disks, if the binaries are compressed before encoding, they consume less static space. I think a multi-platform compressing archiver _is_ the ticket. (and I lean toward LHarc. wish it were ported to more Unix platforms) The transport layer, however, does not compress. It encodes, packetizes and must be reassembled. Your description of ABE sounds like the right compliment to a good compressing archiver. -- _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. |