Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!uwvax!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!homxb!whuts!tes From: tes@whuts.UUCP (STERKEL) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: PKARC 3.5 -g option Message-ID: <2430@whuts.UUCP> Date: Thu, 16-Jul-87 19:36:05 EDT Article-I.D.: whuts.2430 Posted: Thu Jul 16 19:36:05 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 18-Jul-87 10:16:26 EDT References: <23599@sun.uucp> Distribution: na Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 17 Summary: but did SEA use the same extension format? In article <23599@sun.uucp>, dbercel@sun.uucp (Danielle Bercel, MIS Systems Programming) writes: > Since we are all talking about compatibility between > PKARC and ARC,...... > There have been a few messages about how horrible it > is for a new method to be introduced that is not > compatible with existing compression methods. I would > like to point out that when ARC was first introduced > it replaced a number of existing programs (nusq, usq, lupc, > etc.), and was incompatible with them. BUT, did SEA blithely declare compatibility, and *KEEP THE SAME EXTENSION* (.ARC), even in the face of obvious user confusion and angst? -- Terry Sterkel {clyde|harvard|cbosgd|allegra|ulysses|ihnp4}!whuts!tes [opinions are obviously only my own]