#CLtd Scsi Dos
14 messages in this thread
Ron, I'll look for it. However, we are getting a terrible proliferation of
unpacking programs around here. I was happier when we used nothing but ARC.
It's hard enough to tell beginners how to use one program, much less a dozen
or so. Besides, all those unpackers take up still more room on my overstuffed
WorkBench.
Betty
Well said Betty! In the Mac world they have a ton of unpakers and it is a
mess! I hear that the IBM world is revolting against its ARC as they are
sueing everyone with similar programs. What a mess! Lets just keep using ARC
unless someone comes up with something MUCH better. Hopefully they will be
smart enough to have it compatable with old arc?
I certainly hope so, Jay. We really need to accept one or another of the
methods and standardize on it unless the difference is really marked. ARC was
chosen here because it was compatible with files in several other fora. For
instance, you can unarc IBM files with the Amiga ARC program. It would be
awfully nice, though, if ARC would take longer file names and preserve
directory structure. I wish they'd let p=Ale improve on it – if they aren't
going to do it themselves.
Betty
Betty:
Your wish is statisfied! The Amiga and Arexx to the rescue again! You can
have Amiga style file names in ARCives. The solution (or at least one
solution) is to have the Arexx driver program rename the file(s) for you, save
the names in another file and ARC the whole mess. The same drive will also
rename the file(s) upon extraction to their original name. If the whole batch
was transfered to an Incredibly Bad Machine their ARC program would still dearc
the mess and the 'names' file would allow them to try to choose appropriate
name to use that fit within the limited ability of the MSDOS format.
73, bill
…which is precisely what Larry Philips' ARCALL.REXX does. Works like a
charm. And I often download files onto my office PC to review the text files.
I just look at the EXEC.ME file to see what I want to extract from the ARC. —
Art
Bill,
I have been using MAKEARC to do that, and it works quite well. Many people
like to look at the names of the files, though, without dearcing. They
complain when we rename things to "File1", "File2", etc. Renaming works, but
it does not please those people at all. How much nicer if ARC could just
accept the file names – and keep directory structures – without making us
rename and create script files to restore!
Betty
Betty,
"How much nicer if ARC could just accept the file names – and keep the
directory structures – without making us rename and create script files to
restore!"
Sound a *LOT* like you are asking for ZOO. Does exactly that. And ZOO is
FASTER than PKAX (the fast unARCer) – which is faster than ARC. And ZOO's speed
is in BOTH creating and dissolving the archives, unlike PKAX which only
dissolves ARC's.
Lloyd
Well…if they are smart enough to make it compatible with the old arc they had
better have a good lawyer. Compatibility was part of the reason Phil Katz was
sued and the main reason PKPAK is history. Hopefully Phils next attempt will
be everything he's promising. Until then I'll just keep using my old copy of
ARC and PKUNPAK ( and pray Dean Cooper will port DWC to the Amiga)!
Sounds like the problem with… Uhh I can't remember it name (Twin Maybe?) but
it ran all the templates for Lotus 123 etc but did so faster and cost 1/5 the
price. That should be legal right? Lots of companies do reverse eng. Its not
a crime.
Dave, I believe you're mistating the facts. According to 'official' SEA
announcements over in IBMSW, the suit was based on the claim that Phil Katz
used some of the original SEA code….not that he had a program which extracted
ARC files.
Vic,
Yep, I did mistate a few facts <humbly asking forgiveness>. I just
reviewed the lawsuit files, and sure enough, selective memory strikes again.
However, it still appears to me that the only people who really lost in this
deal are all of us who use ARC.
Yes, Vic, you're right (jumping into another thread, "uninvited") the argument
WAS over 'misappropriation' of SEA's code. The argument however was that it
was SO much faster that it was not possible that a critical segment of code (to
the algorithm) could be pirated with as much an improvement in performance.
–Gabe
On Usenet the Amiga groups have all standardized on ZOO. It is litigation
free, and isn't shareware. I've been trying to convince others that it is the
only rational route to take for the IBMPC as well but without much impact yet.
Some claim that ZOO does not compress as well as ARC. I don't really care
which o% chosen, but I do think we should stick with just one. I don't
think Usenet has really standardized, though. Lots of them like ZOO, but I
still see ARCed things there. And then there is uuencode and shar and all
the rest. <sigh>
Betty