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