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 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" 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by postbox.mos.ru id g1G91YT18067 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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.