Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!dasys1!tneff
From: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: SIMTEL20 to ban ARC files
Keywords: lzw, atob/btoa, 7 bit pure
Message-ID: <6605@dasys1.UUCP>
Date: 23 Sep 88 15:21:04 GMT
References:   <6630@ihlpl.ATT.COM> <2736@uoregon.uoregon.edu> <8475@smoke.ARPA> <2594@csccat.UUCP> <424@pigs.UUCP> <2054@looking.UUCP>
Reply-To: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Organization: Independent Users Guild
Lines: 23

In article <2054@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
>The fact is that for the net compression is not desirable.  It clouds the
>issue, sometimes *increases* transmission time, and just makes postings
>harder to deal with.

However, the net is more than its bandwidth -- it is also its component
sites, and disk space is a resource just like transmission time. No one
whose spool volume has filled lately is likely to look kindly on doubling
their archive allocation.

I disagree with Brad that compression "clouds the issue" or "makes
postings harder to deal with," I think those are just afterthoughts
to his real argument which is that 'compress' has zero to negative
effect on pre-compressed files -- so that sites which batch news
compressed may actually spend a few percent more time on a pre-compressed
binary than on an uncompressed one.  My answer is that even if this
were a major headache (and I'm not convinced it is), there ought to
be some way of segregating your binaries feed so it runs uncompressed.

-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)