Message-ID: <00a501c0535f$516bed40$6a4bdcc8@alain-nb>
From: "Alain" <alainm AT pobox DOT com>
To: <opendos AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: PKZIP 2.50 for DOS
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 23:45:52 -0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="koi8-r"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Reply-To: opendos AT delorie DOT com

>>> AM> Yeees !!!  I upgraded both ZIP 2.3 and UNZIP 5.41 and it works
very
>>> AM> nice with LFN :-))
>>> AM> FWIK it is the first free archiever that can be used in a batch
>____________^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> AM> file (for automated work) that uses LFN :))
> A> Arkady B. wrote:
>AB>>     Don't know about others but WinRAR distributive includes
command line
>AB>>RAR.EXE which works as Win32 console app and, of course, fully
support LFN
>AB>>and all RAR possibilities like 1M window for packing.
> A> Sorry, you missed one point: Info-Zip is FREE and RAR is
shareware...
>
AB>     1. RAR includes free UNRAR.EXE and UNRAR.DLL with sources. 2. As
I say
AB>"don't know about others" - but sure, there _is_ free archivers with
LFN
AB>support beside InfoZIP. 3. ZIP format inconvenient (excessive data,
called
AB>"Directory", which gives almost nothing except additional archive
size; no
AB>support for recovery information; very odd archive splitting by
parts; etc).

1. unrar.exe shoul be ok, I propose that you distribute it in the same
site as
ctmouse. 2. Where?  3. For What I know zip is the most widelly used and
that is important for me... The inconvinients you name are real, but
minor.

> A> I had a little experience with RAR because of you (Arkady) because
you use
> A> it to distribute ctmouse and I didn't like it. I also don't see why
you use
> A> a comercial archiever to distribute a free software !!!
AB>     1. I buy RAR and free in creating any archive by it. 2. Until
you use
AB>only UNRAR (and this is sufficient for use contents of archives from
me)
AB>there absolutely nothing problems. 3. When I switch from ARJ to RAR
it was
AB>almost best archiver in sense of packing. Now this is not so but RAR
still
AB>good, it is Russian and it stable. 4. RAR allows create script
controlled
AB>self extracting archive (for DOS this is IDOS.SFX).

1. 2. and 3. No comments. 4. This may be a very strng advantage...

Alain