Re: lha vs compress (use zip instead)

Article View: comp.sys.next.misc

Article #4531

Back to comp.sys.next.misc Previous Next

#4531

From: Mark Adler
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 15:18

17 lines
1219 bytes

>>     pkzip is better then lharc, but generally not better then lha. (make

Actually, I was referring to zip (a free, portable program in source), vs.
pkzip (a shareware executable for MSDOS).  However, both pkzip 1.93a and
zip 1.9 consistently compress better than lha.

>>     I tend to use lha/lharc because I can run it on my Amiga, PC's, AND my
>>     NeXT box.

zip 1.9 and unzip 5.0 compile and run on virtually any Unix machine (NeXT
included--zip was originally developed on a NeXT), MSDOS, OS/2, Windows/NT,
Amiga, Atari, Macintosh, VMS, and maybe some others I'm forgetting.  And it
is compatible with pkzip and pkunzip on MSDOS.

Mark Adler
madler@cco.caltech.edu

Technical Details

Message-ID: <1h22rkINNbpk@gap.caltech.edu>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!madler

References: <dillon.0t0e@overload.Berkeley.CA.US> <1gt7p3INNa8s@gap.caltech.edu> <dillon.0t23@overload.Berkeley.CA.US>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!madler
From: madler@cco.caltech.edu (Mark Adler)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.misc
Subject: Re:  lha vs compress (use zip instead)
Date: 20 Dec 1992 15:18:12 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 17
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1h22rkINNbpk@gap.caltech.edu>
References: <dillon.0t0e@overload.Berkeley.CA.US> <1gt7p3INNa8s@gap.caltech.edu> <dillon.0t23@overload.Berkeley.CA.US>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

Reply to Parent Message