Re: Why *.bsq.Z - How about *.SHK ?

[grover@emunix.emich.edu (Grover Thomas)]

In article <1ttfqh$5h1@altitude.HIP.CAM.ORG> vandry@CAM.ORG (Phillip Vandry) writes:
>It sounds awful. Binscii INCREASES the size of archives. While it helps to
>add the .Z after (.bsq.Z), what's the point of packing the file with
>something that increases size in the first place? If you want compression,
>use .SHK. If you want GOOD compression, use a .SHK shell (no compression)
>and then compress.

     Gee Phil,  you conveniently left off the first part of my post. BinSCII'd
files are extremely useful for people connecting through Non-8-bit-clean
systems, and many other people who use FTP by mail (I happen to know a few).

     If we're going to have a dedicated Apple II archive, it should allow
access for the GREATEST number of Apple II people (which also includes making
the files easy to handle). 

-- 
Grover Thomas       grover@emunix.emich.edu   (Nifty quotes currently down)