1 Apr
2005
1 Apr
'05
4:22 p.m.
From: "Randy McLaughlin" <cctalk at
randy482.com>
From: "Jules Richardson" <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 3:38 PM
Hi
The older ZIP program works fine and is compatable with
most any newer versions that I know of.
Dwight
On Fri, 2005-04-01 at 12:52 -0700, Ben Franchuk
wrote:
As stated in a different post the *.exe file can be renamed to *.zip and any
zip program will handle it normally, that is if the algorithms are
compatible. I had too many complaints from people that didn't have a
compatible program so a self extracting archive is the best way I've found
so far.
If anyone can come up with a method that is truly better I'll jump on it.
The problem is simple if it's not a self extracting file then everyone has
to use a compatible extractor :-(
For DOS/Windoze there are many different incompatible zip programs.
Randy
www.s100-manuals.com
Randy McLaughlin wrote:
And tar for multi-file archives... more portable than zip I'd say, plus
errors won't trash the archive (or at least not so much!).
Of course if compression *has* to be used... hmm... I suppose zip *is*
the best bet there, as at least it's more widely supported than some of
the other compression methods.
Self-extracting archives sound like a *very* bad idea when you have no
idea what the target machine will be! :)
I started using self-expanding archives because of complaints that
people couldn't unzip straight Zip files. Not everyone uses the same
Zip format. I use Winzip v8.1, many people use a variety of programs.
I have yet to find one archival format that everyone can use,
self-extracting archives at least supports 99%.
Umm I may want files for my LINUX box... I favor raw files for TEXT
since anybody ( using ascii ) can read them.