home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!uqcspe!cs.uq.oz.au!warwick
- From: warwick@cs.uq.oz.au (Warwick Allison)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
- Subject: Re: PERFPICH.TOS v1.1 posted to a.a
- Message-ID: <10219@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>
- Date: 9 Sep 92 01:10:53 GMT
- References: <1992Sep03.202923.16021@convex.com> <1992Sep4.142912.6932@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> <1992Sep8.153600.11388@csi.uottawa.ca> <laq50iINNa5e@aludra.usc.edu>
- Sender: news@cs.uq.oz.au
- Reply-To: warwick@cs.uq.oz.au
- Lines: 33
-
- In <laq50iINNa5e@aludra.usc.edu> baffoni@aludra.usc.edu (Juxtaposer) writes:
-
- > Nearly every self-extracting archiver
- >out there is one that was ported from other systems (ie zip,etc.). And most
- >of them can still be extracted/viewed as a normal compressed file (ie you can
- >unzip a zipped .sea on your UNIX host). So using a .sea is not a bad idea.
-
- And exactly how are we supposed to know which archiver to try to use on the
-
- "PERFPICH.TOS"
-
- file? "lha"? "zip"? "zoo"? "lharc"? "arc"? "arj"? "UNTOS"?
-
-
- Let's face it, anyone with access to these distributable files will have
- access to programs to extract them. Adding to the download time by including
- all the code to un-LHARC or un-PKZIP (UNCOMPRESSED) to all of these Self
- Extracting Archives is not just a pain in the neck, but also a waste of
- storage space, bandwidth and time.
-
- Let's all use ZOO, LHA, LHARC, ARC, ZIP, TAR, COMPRESS, etc.
-
- ie. standard formats that can clearly be extracted on-site.
-
-
-
- --
- warwick
- --
- _-_|\ warwick@cs.uq.oz.au /Disclaimer:
- / * <-- Computer Science Department, /
- \_.-._/ University of Queensland, / void (if removed)
- v Brisbane, Australia. /
-