Re: best format for distribution (SHK? DSK? ZIP?)

[scott@alfter.DIESPAMMERSDIE.us (Scott Alfter)]

In article <C87C44B8.1F1E4%ivanxqz@yahoo.com>,
Ivan X  <ivanxqz@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 8/2/10 2:41 AM, in article
>1jml6hr.5g039hzl514yN%spectrumdaddy@nospam.com, "Ewen"
><spectrumdaddy@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> I always feel that the small Binary wrapper is of benefit if the file is
>> being downloaded with an application such as ProTerm or Spectrum, as
>> they will both then extract from the wrapper, and create the correct
>> filetype on disk.
>
>So right, I see the benefits for users of programs such as those; but are
>there any downsides for other users by providing BXY rather than SHK?

There shouldn't be...you can always use something like "dd bs=128 skip=1" to
remove the Binary II header from a file if it causes problems.

FWIW, the Apple II downloads on my website are all .BXY files, except for a
handful of files that aren't intended to be used on an Apple II (such as
source code that needs to be cross-compiled with cc65, for instance).  The
importance of that header was drilled into me way back when I was
uploading/downloading files on GEnie, and it's stuck with me ever since.

  _/_
 / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/            Top-posting!
 \_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden            >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---