> JN>RJ> [...] From a business point of view, I get more requests for a UNIX
 > JN>  > version of ARJ than for an OS/2 version of ARJ.  However, I am
 > JN>  > working on an OS/2 version and not on a UNIX version currently.
 > JN>If this is true, why not create a UNIX version first?
 > Too many machine binary types to support.  If I chose one, it would be the
 > Linux or BSD platform.
 > JN>RJ> In any case, I am considering the future with my new project, JAR,
 > JN>  > which offers multi-platform support and significantly better
 > JN>  > compression than ARJ.
 > JN>Multi-platform?  Do you intend to release an OS/2 version of JAR?  And,
 > JN>if so, will this version be released at the same time as the DOS 
ersion
 > JN>(which I assume to be your primary platform), or is it going to take
 > JN>forever to release a non-DOS version?  By "forever" I refer to your
 > JN>claims of *years* ago to release an OS/2 version of ARJ.  Specifically:
 > Because of my time constraints, someone else is building JAR.  It now 
orks
 > on DOS, Windows 95, and Windows NT (three platforms already).  If the 
demand
 > is there, JAR/2 will be built.
Oh well, that's as good an answer as a wise person should expect.  Sounds 
like 
ARJ/RAJ will be a MS based program.  You and I are on different tracks.  Best 
of success in your direction, I'm riding my train till the end of the line.
C-ya!
Raymond
--- AdeptXBBS v1.07g (Registered)
---------------