Hey Wulf!

Nov 17 18:27 06, Wulf C. Krueger wrote to Maurice Kinal:

 MK>> Just a sec ... nope no zip.  

 WCK> Then install it. It's really that simple.

No it isn't.  I'd need to support it myself and I don't have a need for it.
 What would be my motivation for something I don't want or use?

 WCK> How would I know? Doesn't matter, though, as there's even a ZIP 
 WCK> implementation for the Commodore 64. :-)

I don't have one of those.  I have been using regular PC's running regular
Unix based software for ages now without many problems.  I haven't even
seen a Commodore 64 since ages ago and have never owned one.  BTW zip
didn't even exist back then as far as I know.  Everything I used back then
used tar for archiving and as far as I am aware nothing used compression or
at least not anything important.  It was a big mistake to compress files on
tape and was never done to my knowledge.  I definetly never compressed any
archives I created and never ran across one when cataloguing the tape
library.  Never heard of zip back then nevermind anyone using it or even
bringing up the subject.  Data was always stored in raw format although
there was a well structured and predefined header (512 bytes if I recall
correctly) for each archive.  Definetly no zip but mind you never heard of
DOS back then either.  I still use tar even with flash disks (no
compression) even usb ones.  Why would anyone do anything else?

 WCK> Who said anything about it being a requirement? It would be useful 
 WCK> for some (including myself) to have it. Nothing more, nothing less. 
 WCK> It would be an *optional* component, of course.

I have no issue with that.  However I think it would be appropriate if the
networked format was designed in a manner condusive to compatibilty with
all concerned.  No compression doesn't meets that standard.  A suitable raw
format would make the most sense if true compatibilty is a desirable goal.

 WCK> ZIP has proven its usefulness for over a *decade*. Should be enough 
 WCK> to make it a de-facto standard at least, I'd say.

Sorry tar wins.  Check it out and you'll see I am right.  However I don't
suggest it be used as a Fido network standard since few sysops know about
it let alone how to use it.  A raw text based format would be the most
universal no matter what.  Also endianess would have to be a consideration
if there are sysops that wish to use a big endian based system which is
entirely possible although I haven't heard of any in Fido.

 WCK> You're haunted by the ZIP format? I'm sorry but that's ridiculous.

Nope,  Never had a use for it ever.

 WCK> Yes, but why not *internally* use a more versatile format?

I have no use for it.  Never did and I highly doubt I ever will.  What for?

Life is good,
Maurice

--- Msged/LNX 6.2.0