Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!danoc From: danoc@clyde.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: ARC/ZOO/TAR Message-ID: <17729@clyde.ATT.COM> Date: Wed, 2-Dec-87 18:58:54 EST Article-I.D.: clyde.17729 Posted: Wed Dec 2 18:58:54 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 6-Dec-87 13:22:22 EST References: <3027@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> Sender: nuucp@clyde.ATT.COM Reply-To: danoc@moss.UUCP (Dan O'Connell) Distribution: na Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany NJ Lines: 23 In article <3027@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> amit@umn-cs.UUCP (Neta Amit) writes: > ... >PDTAR offers a number of significant advantages over both ZOO and ARC: > - It can compress, and the resulting archive is small; on the sample above, > smaller than the .arc or .zoo files > pdtar will not compress on ms-dos systems. the code to handle compression uses fork() and is surrounded by #ifdef; if MSDOS is defined that section is not compiled. i haven't seen a version of compress (or arc for that matter) that will compress a file on **ix (vax svr2 style) and uncompress on ms-dos. is there one? i guess i don't actually need it now that i have zoo. zoo works beautifully. i've packed up files into a zoo archive on the vax and upacked it on the 6300; zoo's the first program i know about that handles that. some seat-of-the-pants testing (on the zoo source) showed that the zoo archive is smaller than those created by arc and pkarc. zoo is much faster than arc and about the same speed as pkarc on the pc (in creating an archive). -dan