Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!umd5!uvaarpa!virginia!uvacs!edison!toylnd!dca
From: dca@toylnd.UUCP (David C. Albrecht)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: zoo enhancements solicited
Message-ID: <190@toylnd.UUCP>
Date: 9 Dec 87 07:40:54 GMT
References: <1600@van-bc.UUCP>
Organization: Dave & Anne in Charlottesville, VA
Lines: 30


>   Much as I like the idea of being able to use full pathnames and
> filenames in an archiving utility, I wish zoo wasn't available. Please
> don't take this as a flame, because it isn't. As a sysop on the Amigaforum
> on CIS, I get enough questions about using ARC, and don't look forward to
> learning yet another archiver just to answer questions about it.
> 
>   The only advantage I see to zoo is in the path/filename area. ARC
> generally does a better job of compression. I suggest that it would be
> better to modify ARC in such a way as to retain compatibility across
> machines that have ARC available, yet provide the benefits of long
> filenames and directory preservation.
> 

You're leaving out one large advantage.  Zoo is FREEWARE.  Not shareware.
Doesn't ask for donations.  Doesn't insist commercial enterprises pay $35 for
a product which cost them absolutely nothing to advertise and distribute.
Like 'arc' zoo is available on unix and micros often including source
making it widely available for shipping files between the machines.
zoo does a more than adequate compression job, handles long file names,
directory preservation, and isn't shareware that makes it a superior product
in my book.  Why should I want to modify arc to do the same things?

Of course, CIS has a problem.  Unless it has changed, the copyright file for
zoo specifically prohibits posting the zoo program to commercial services
that charge more than $7.00 an hour for 1200 baud.  That kinda leaves
CIS out in the cold.  Just an observation mind you, I have nothing against
CIS.

David Albrecht