X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mailnull set sender to opendos-bounces using -f
To:	opendos AT delorie DOT com
X-Comment-To:	Denise L Yenko <dlyenko AT yahoo DOT com>
References:	<200202151959 DOT g1FJx5W16448 AT dns1 DOT provide DOT net>
	<3C6DBD05 DOT 6010700 AT yahoo DOT com>
Message-Id:	<2.07b7.9JIN.GRMB1T@belous.munic.msk.su>
From:	"Arkady V.Belousov" <ark AT belous DOT munic DOT msk DOT su>
Date:	Sat, 16 Feb 2002 11:46:41 +0300 (MSK)
Organization:	Locus
X-Mailer:	dMail [Demos Mail for DOS v2.07b7]
Subject:	Re: DOS Clipboard access
Lines:	61
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from 8bit to quoted-printable by postbox.mos.ru id g1G91YT18067
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id g1G98Xa01096
Reply-To:	opendos AT delorie DOT com

X-Comment-To: Denise L Yenko

Hi!

16-ζΕΧ-2002 01:59 dlyenko AT yahoo DOT com (Denise L Yenko) wrote to
opendos AT delorie DOT com:

DY> No, there exists a peculiar file compression program that produces files
DY> with an ".rar" extension.  One of the correspondents here insists on
DY> using it,

     Its me, I suggest. :)

DY> even though he's been told on a number of occasions that it is
DY>  a.) proprietary.

     Same to PKZIP. Yes, I know about free InfoZIP, but it only command
line - whereas PKZIP and WinZIP both "proprietary". On the other side, UnRAR
utility is free if you have no troubles with command line.

DY>  b.) it is so uncommon that many people don't have a
DY> program to "un-rar" the files, but c.) he continues to use and send out
DY> files using the RAR compression method.

     I prefer RAR by some reason. (1) RAR compresses much better. (2) RAR
have more traditional command line interface. (3) I continue to use RAR for
DOS, which have GUI-like interface. (4) RAR much more sofisticated: it
allows native support for multivolume archives (.ZIP not allows this, for
example, in one directory) and allows to add recovery information. (5) I buy
license for RAR and may legacy create authentications.

     This is what comes in the mind at first think. On the other side, .ZIP
have only two features: it wider distributed (because older) and it have GNU
implementation. But this is reweigh only in some cases.

DY> Perhaps someone can "un-rar" it for you, and "zip" it up.  Considering
DY> that this discussion has been hashed over several times in the past,
DY> with exactly the same result, I douubt that he'll change to something else.
DY> FWIW, he claims that RAR compresses files "...better...",

     Yes, this is so.

DY> and therefore we should all switch.

     I don't say so. B-\

DY> It's been suggested to him that the benchmarking
DY> tests upon which he bases his arguments

     I base may arguments from everyday arhiver use.

DY> is hardly a reason to switch
DY> away from a long-time standard that *IS* open-source.

     (1) PKZIP is not open-source nor free program. (2) .RAR _format_ is not
patented and well documented. (3) You may create .RAR archives with some
other programs - for example, in FAR or in Windows Commander.

DY> I doubt that any of this makes any difference to the poster of the file.

     Makes, but advances of RAR up to now outweight this.

- Raw text -