FTP file formats

[quinn@Mountain.Net (Quinn Avery)]

Steven Nelson (snelson@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu) wrote:
: From article <2kolfq$bcb@rbse.Mountain.Net>, by quinn@Mountain.Net (Quinn Avery):
: [stuff delete]
: > Hell--I finaly found davex.doc, and it had to be EXEC'd to be turned into
: >  a binscii'd file that finally turned into a .SHK archive!  ARGH!
: > 
: > I understand posting binscii's to newsgroups, but FTP is mainly for binary
: >  users.  Why all the crap?
: > 
: Huh??????  FTP works for text (ascii and EBCDIC with auto character (mis)
: translation) as well as with binary files.  In fact, at most sites I think
: ascii (text) mode is the default for FTP.  And in fact (but I don't have any
: numbers to prove it) I think 7bit text is faster than 8bit binary for 
: downloading with Kermit over a 7bit path, even with the 25% overhead imposed
: with binscii.  I'd say almost everyone can receive a text file somehow,
: but binary files can only be done by a file transfer protocol, which not
: everyone has (especially beginners).  Text/Binscii just makes things easier
: for some people.  Is that crap, or what? :)

I know ASCII is the default mode for FTP (which is bad bad bad usually)

What I am complaining about is all the extra steps it takes to unpack
 a program.  Even in the unlikely event that the larger binscii'd or
 exec'd files are faster to download, you (or at least I) lose that
 time having to run binscii, basic.system and exec, or whatever else
 the arcane format requires.

I would much rather people upload a simple one-file shrunken archive
 than 6 binscii'd ones.

If you have FTP access, you have access to a binary FTP protocol.  The
 only problem a beginner would have is if e's stuck with Kermit or
 some other dinosaur.  And if they're used to downloading from an Apple
 BBS (as was I), then they'll be going straight to shrinkit to unpack
 them.  And be disappointed.

-quinn (who also can't get sciibin.c to compile at his unix site GRR)