Xref: utzoo comp.sources.d:2068 comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d:188
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
From: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d,comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: Standard for file transmission
Message-ID: <4355@dasys1.UUCP>
Date: 10 May 88 15:40:33 GMT
References: <292@cullsj.UUCP> <696@fig.bbn.com> <18621@watmath.waterloo.edu> <25925@clyde.ATT.COM> <307@cullsj.UUCP>
Reply-To: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Lines: 24

In article <307@cullsj.UUCP> jeff@cullsj.UUCP (Jeffrey C. Fried) writes:
>   I recently acquired the ZOO executables from the net and found them to be
>incompatible with ARC.  The UNIX ARC i received over the net is compatible
>with ARC5.2.1 under DOS.  Has anyone else experienced this incompatibility?  

Yes, everyone has experienced this incompatibility Jeffrey, because
they are not SUPPOSED to be compatible!  :-)

ARC is one archiving standard, ZOO is a completely different standard.
You need one set of programs to create, list and extract ARC files, and
a different set to manipulate ZOO archives.  You can't use one with the
other.

Now, if your next question was going to be why there are two incompatible
archiving standards for the MSDOS/UNIX/VMS environment, you'll have to
ask our very own moderator Rahul, because there was only one (ARC) until
he decided to invent his own.  I told him at the time that user confusion
would result, but the argument is moot at this point.


-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536		MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF		BIX: are you kidding?