Date:	Mon, 7 Apr 1997 02:48:08 -0400 (EDT)
From:	"Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca>
Reply-To:	"Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca>
To:	-= ArkanoiD =- <ark AT mpak DOT convey DOT ru>
cc:	opendos AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Interactive shells Re: 32bit BIOS
In-Reply-To:	<AAfmSHpW27@mpak.convey.ru>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.3.95.970407024449.1353g-100000@capslock.com>
Organization:	Total disorganization.
MIME-Version:	1.0

On Sat, 5 Apr 1997, -= ArkanoiD =- wrote:

> > Well, I'm glad that you agreed with me, the latter statement is
> > not in tune with what I was trying to say.  TGZ *IS* a good
> > archive format.  When I compare ZIP to TGZ in Linux, I find that
> > TGZ comes out smaller all of the time.  I don't know about the
> > speed, but the archives are usually smaller.
> 
> The reason is simple - .zip has uncompressed archive header and .tar.gz is
> archived and *then* compressed.

Yes, I agree.  That isn't a good reason to use TGZ in DOS though.
If one were to use an archiver based on that, a better DOS choice
would be to use RAR or UC2 in DOS.  However, not everyone has
RAR or Ultracompressor, so ZIP wins again.  A workaround would be
to ZIP -e0 (or whatever store is) then ZIP -ex, but this would
complicate unzipping unnecessarily.

Mike A. Harris        |             http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris
Computer Consultant   |                  Coming soon: dynamic-IP-freedom...
My dynamic address: http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris/ip-address.html
mailto:mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca

OpenDOS: The NEW DOS with FREE source code! http://www.caldera.com

- Raw text -