Newsgroups: bit.listserv.pacs-l
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 08:36:30 CDT
From:         Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <LIBPACS@UHUPVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      File Compression

2 Messages, 65 Lines
*-----

From: TNewell@UTXVM.BITNET
Subject: File compression

  In a previous posting, John@math.nwu.edu argued against compression
utilities in light of cheap disk space and varying computing platforms.  I
feel he missed a valuable feature of most compression schemes.  Packages
such as PKWARE (and most others) allow the combining of many files into one
compressed form.  As most software files maintained for downloading from
internet ftp sites (as well as local BBS's) contain datafiles, graphic
files, and other necessary bits for that particular application to run
(aside from the basic executable code file), compression utilities are
enormously useful.  Even the "batch" downloading capability of most
communication software wouldn't ease my frustration if I had to download
scores of separate files for one application.  In light of the proliferation
of ejournals and the work of Project Gutenberg, this archiving feature is
valuable for the dissemination of text files as well.  Most compression
schemes allow for the internal viewing of the contents of the "unexploded
or unexpanded" file.
Tom Newell   Univ of Texas - Austin, Graduate School of Lib & Info Science
tnewell@utxvm.cc.utexas.edu
*-----

From:          <PEMMONS@WCU>
Subject:      Re: Novice vs. Expert vs. Compression

 John Franks says: "Disk space is cheap and getting cheaper. I don't think that
 compression in order to economize on disk space really makes much sense any
 more."

 Yeah. Our director of computer services talks that way too when in a blue sky
 mode about the wonderful things we are going to have in another few years.
 Meanwhile: (1) Each PROFS account here gets one cylinder of disk space, and we
 regularly run out of space, at considerable inconvenience and sometimes
 outright grunging or loss of data. (2) For the five years I have had my
 account I have been unable to get more, even though added responsibilities
 have increased my need considerably beyond the use of PROFS. (3) Our upgrading
 to new OPAC versions is usually hampered by the shortage of "DASD" to set up a
 test area. (4) We cannot do keyword-boolean indexing of our library database
 as thoroughly as we would like, either in terms of number of tags covered or
 in offering left truncation. Guess why? Granted, we were a Normal School
 until 1927 and haven't been normal since %-) but are we that unique?

 Although computers in the computer industry may have all the disk space their
 owners might want, most of us in PACS-L work for universities and libraries,
 and we're in a recession. I will believe that these things "they say" apply to
 us when I see them. Until then, how to make the most of disk space can be
 academe's modern equivalent of "How many angels can dance on the head of a
 pin." I bet that here, at least, we could have bought more with the cost of
 staff time in committee meetings, training sessions, and programmer hours
 somehow touching the ramifications of not having more. But they're different
 parts of the budget.

 In the microcomputer world, Stacker and its imitators are right up there among
 QEMM and Windows as things one feels rather ashamed now if one isn't using.
 True, prices are going down. But expectations are going up, and one of the
 immutable laws still seems to be "The machine you really want costs $5000."

 There are always limits, competition for resources, and trade-offs.
 Compression is an option in the mix. I will admit that a few of its uses may
 be misguided, but generally for its availability one can only cheer.

 Paul Emmons, West Chester University
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU