Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!gatech!udel!rochester!cornell!uw-beaver!tikal!hplsla!davidr From: davidr@hplsla.HP.COM ( David M. Reed) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: standards is standards Re: SQUASHED! Message-ID: <5280010@hplsla.HP.COM> Date: Tue, 7-Jul-87 16:50:23 EDT Article-I.D.: hplsla.5280010 Posted: Tue Jul 7 16:50:23 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 10-Jul-87 07:26:27 EDT References: <2290@whuts.UUCP> Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA Lines: 23 Perhaps I am missing some points also. I really do not perceive complaints against PK as a program, only the choice for archive filename extension, which is creating some confusion. With SEA's ARChive program using the extension of .ARC, and the ZOO archive program using the extension of .ZOO (as was pointed out to me this morning), there is no question as to what kind of file it is, and how to use (manipulate) it. And if I come across a file with the .ARC extension, and my version of ARC can not handle it, then I would determine that it was assembled by a newer version of ARC that I did not have (but would then seek out). I would never have guessed that it was done by a completely different program (i.e. PK), and so would be continually frustrated, upset, and unsuccessful in my attempts to extract something from the .ARC file which was NOT an ARC file. To put it simply, PK should be using, by default, a different extension than .ARC if the file can NOT be manipulated by the most recent version of ARC. I enjoy PK, particularly for its speed (the savings in file space over ARC is often inconsequential to me), and would consider encouraging others to obtain a copy and use it, EXCEPT for the extension factor. Like commented elsewhere, when one has a file with the .ARC extension, one expects to be able to manipulate it on ANY system (UN*X, DOS, etc.) that can (compile and) run the ARC program, and there is now a confusion factor created by use of one extension to possibly mean more than one thing.