Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen
From: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Why "shar: Shell Archive  (v1.22)"
Message-ID: <607@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>
Date: 28 Sep 89 17:51:28 GMT
References: <1979@prune.bbn.com> <45400009@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corp R&D Center
Lines: 29

In article <45400009@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>, mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes:

|  Besides- there is another aspect - people seem to post shar files
|  to other sources groups too. If some new "shar" starts out only in
|  comp.sources.unix, it might spread like a plague to other groups.
|  There is no need to compromise anything - just be sure that
|  what is done in one place can be undone in another.

  Well, shar2 has been out for over two years now, if that's new. It has
certainly been popular in some groups where files are large or binary
data must be sent (data or files with control characters).

  If there was a way to make all of the unshar programs work, I would do
it. But there are programs in Basic, C, etc, which simply can't do error
checking on archive order. I want error checking and therefore use
shar2. It's my idea of "safe shar," and I really am not offended if
other people want to use non-error checking versions, I just don't want
to do it myself.

  I think diversity is great, and there is cross polination. I believe
that the new version Rich is making will break files to limit posting
size (I thought I saw that mentioned). In the meantime I will smile and
keep on using what works for me, with the onle unshar I'm sure you have
(/bin/sh). 
-- 
bill davidsen	(davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen)
"The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called
'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see
that the world is flat!" - anon