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?