Date: Thu, 03 Apr 97 16:55:16 From: Scott_Mendelsohn AT arken DOT arkenstone DOT org Message-Id: <9703038601.AA860115316@arken.arkenstone.org> To: "Mike A. Harris" To: OpenDOS discussion list cc: ark AT mpak DOT convey DOT ru, MPAUL AT ibh DOT rwth-aachen DOT de Subject: Re: Interactive shells Re: 32bit BIOS Subject: cc:Mail UUCPLINK 2.0 Undeliverable Message User arken!jason is not defined Original text follows ----------------------------------------- Received: by ccmail Received: from nanospace by arkenstone.org (UUPC/extended 1.11) with UUCP; Thu, 03 Apr 1997 16:34:37 PST Received: from surf.pangea.ca ([204.112.101.109]) by ts2.nanospace.com with smtp (ident root using rfc1413) id (Debian /\oo/\ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.37); Thu, 3 Apr 97 12:17 PST Received: from delorie.com (delorie.com [199.125.93.1]) by surf.pangea.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA04164 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 14:15:32 -0600 (CST) Received: by delorie.com (940816.SGI.8.6.9/940406.SGI) for opendos-list id OAA13843; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 14:31:22 -0500 Received: from mail.ican.net by delorie.com via ESMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/940406.SGI) for id OAA13839; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 14:31:19 -0500 Received: from capslock.com (root AT ppp-015 DOT sault-01 DOT ican DOT net [206.248.78.15]) by mail.ican.net (8.8.5/8.8.4) with ESMTP id OAA08569; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 14:27:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (root AT localhost) by capslock.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA11536; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 14:28:24 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 14:28:24 -0500 (EST) From: "Mike A. Harris" X-ccAdmin: postmaster AT nanospace X-Sender: root AT capslock DOT com Reply-To: "Mike A. Harris" To: OpenDOS discussion list cc: ark AT mpak DOT convey DOT ru, MPAUL AT ibh DOT rwth-aachen DOT de Subject: Re: Interactive shells Re: 32bit BIOS Message-ID: Organization: Total disorganization. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailing-List: opendos AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com On Tue, 25 Mar 1997, -= ArkanoiD =- wrote: > I hope so. (it won't). I just don't want it to be mandatory - i am afraid > of that because NC 5.0 is big and ugly. And - being compared to other shells > it *does* cost memory,speed,etc.. > > > I must admit, it would be slow if for maximum compatibility using > > we'd use the original 3rd party archivers, but, of course, we could > > write specialized programs for common archivers like ZIP/ARJ/RAR/LHA. > > TGZ! Don't forget .tar.gz archives! It _is_ common archiver! I have yet to see any major software, commercial or otherwise, or even any shareware software, freeware or public domain software released using TGZ in DOS. I'm sure that somewhere out there is an example program that exists for the sole purpose of proving me wrong, however it fails miserably at doing so because this is the real world and we know that NO-ONE distributes programs for DOS using TGZ. No sane person anyway. Besides when is the last time you saw a DOS filename with two dots ('.') in the filename? :o) 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 LINUX: The ONLY bulletproof 32-bit operating system that has it all.