home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.archives.msdos.d
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!caen!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!eff!news.oc.com!mercury.unt.edu!sol!billy
- From: billy@sol.acs.unt.edu (Billy Barron - VAX/UNIX Systems Manager)
- Subject: Re: $$ Is pkz204c worth the $$ ?
- Message-ID: <billy.726881771@sol>
- Sender: usenet@mercury.unt.edu (UNT USENet Adminstrator)
- Organization: University of North Texas
- References: <961@bbkingMDC.unisys.COM> <1993Jan12.052426.9168@uwasa.fi> <16353@auspex-gw.auspex.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:36:11 GMT
- Lines: 26
-
- wally@Auspex.COM (Wally Bass) writes:
-
- >The dominant standard, I think, is something that can be decompressed
- >with pkunzip 1.10. If someone comes out with something which can't
- >be decompressed by pkunzip 1.10, then it is no longer the dominant
- >standard. Just because the files produced by this program have
- >an extension of 'ZIP' (a disservice, it seems to me, since people
- >will mistake these files for files which conform to the dominant
- >standard decompression program, namely pkunzip 1.10) and comes from
- >the infamous PKWARE software works doesn't mean a thing relative to
- >the question of conforming to prevailing standards. pkzip 2.04c is
- >fundamentally a new product having little relation to prevailing
- >standards, and it should be viewed that way. Or perhaps it should
- >be viewed somewhat more negatively, for absolutely destroying
- >that 'standard' meaning that we previously could infer from the
- >commonly used notion of 'zip file'.
- >
- Personally, I don't care about the underlaying compression method as
- much as I care about the user interface. I like PKZIP because it
- implements the same commands basically all the way back to ARC whereas
- with the other programs I always have to look them up....
-
-
- Billy Barron, VAX/UNIX Systems Manager, University of North Texas
- billy@unt.edu, billy@untvax.bitnet, THENET: NTVAX::BILLY
-
-