Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!brianc From: brianc@cognos.uucp (Brian Campbell) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: standards is standards Re: SQUASHED! Message-ID: <1112@cognos.UUCP> Date: Wed, 15-Jul-87 12:09:13 EDT Article-I.D.: cognos.1112 Posted: Wed Jul 15 12:09:13 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 18-Jul-87 05:10:42 EDT References: <2290@whuts.UUCP> <5280010@hplsla.HP.COM> Reply-To: brianc@cognos.UUCP (Brian Campbell) Organization: Cognos Inc., Ottawa, Canada Lines: 44 In article <5280010@hplsla.HP.COM> davidr@hplsla.HP.COM ( David M. Reed) writes: +-- | 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 | [ -- text deleted -- ] | | 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. | [ -- text deleted -- ] +-- Does this mean that any code written for the new ANSI conformant C compilers (such as MSC) should also have a different extension if they use such things as function prototypes? Does this mean that all Turbo Pascal programs should have an extension other than .PAS simply because TP is not really a standard Pascal compiler. An extension does not *have* to uniquely identify the specific program that is need to compile it, or in this case, the specific program that is needed to unARC it. I use PKX?ARC exclusively on my PC. It can handle any archive ever produced by SEA's or V. Buerg's archivers. As an added plus, it is much faster and often produces better results. I really can't understand why you are complaining. Phil Katz has produced a truly useful program that is in direct competition with older archiving programs (hence the extensions are the same). In my opinion, PK has already won. I've been using PKARC for months and months now, and don't know of anyone who has tried it and not continued to use it to the exclusion of all other archivers. [Please don't send me mail telling me that you're an exception!] This includes about a dozen sysops that each have hundred's of archives to manage as well as fighting with users that can't read notices like: "All archives will be created using PKARC v3.5" In short, why don't you get with the times and use the newest, fastest archiver that's available? P.S. If you're out there, PK, thanks and can we have the source for the squashing algorithm? -- Brian Campbell uucp: decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!brianc Cognos Incorporated mail: 3755 Riverside Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, K1G 3N3 (613) 738-1440 fido: sysop@163/8