HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries)
Newsgroups: comp.compression
Subject: More severe bugs in PKZIP 2.04c.
Date: 7 Jan 93 22:45:20 GMT
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht

I have to admit at first I expected most problems with PKZIP 2.04C
to be DPMI related. Unfortunately that is not the case. Even in
super safe mode (everything disabled, slowcopy etc) the program
seems to make mistakes. An interesting example:

I made a zip file of all cpp files included in Borland C++ 3.1 +AF
examples directory (-r -p). I tried to extract bitma*.cpp. Strangely
enough this fails with an CRC error but ONLY if there is already some
bitmap.cpp in the current directory! If the current directory is not
empty no error is produced. The test integrity option generates
no problems. 

I am beginning to wonder how well tested this program is. And I
wonder even more about what PKWARE did during all those delays. I
am still impressed by the Super Fast compression. It is even
super fast with 386 disabled.

Nico E. de Vries  (nevries@cc.ruu.nl  100115,2303) |-----*   AA   III  PPP
_ This text is supplied AS IS, no warranties of any kind |  A  A   I   P  P
| apply. No rights can be derived from this text. This   |  AAAA   I   PPP
| text is likely to contain spelling and grammar errors. |  A  A   I   P
*---------------------------( Donate to GreenPeace! )----*  A  A  III  P

To get (many) ==> LOSSLESS DATA COMPRESSION SOURCES <== get lds_10.zip at 
garbo.uwasa.fi /pc/programming. Make files for Borland C are included. 
Newsgroups: comp.compression
From: ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi)
Subject: Re: PKZIP 2.04c vs. ARJ 2.39b (and LHA/ZOO) Compression Results
Keywords: archive compress ARJ PKZIP LHA ZOO
Organization: University of Vaasa, Finland
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 08:48:39 GMT

In article <3568@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:
>>Unfortunately, ARJ is a one-platform-only program. There are
>Why not make an InfoARJ??? The methodolgy behind ARJ and ZIP is

>>Kai Uwe Rommel
>Nico E. de Vries  (nevries@cc.ruu.nl  100115,2303) |-----*   AA   III  PPP

Well there it is, out in the open.  Anyone with sufficient spare
time?  There already is
  35321 Nov 23 11:38 garbo.uwasa.fi:/unix/arcers/unarj230.tar.Z
so go for it!  It is a very worthwhile idea.

   All the best, Timo

..................................................................
Prof. Timo Salmi      Co-moderator of comp.archives.msdos.announce
Moderating at garbo.uwasa.fi anonymous FTP archives 128.214.87.1
Faculty of Accounting & Industrial Management; University of Vaasa
Internet: ts@uwasa.fi Bitnet: salmi@finfun   ; SF-65101, Finland

Newsgroups: comp.compression
From: fred@genesis.demon.co.uk (Lawrence Kirby)
Subject: Re: PKZip 2.04c quick impressions 
Distribution: world
Organization: BT
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.19)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:26:23 +0000

In article <3569@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl writes:

>(Richard Kooijman) writes:
>
>>roe2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Cave Newt) writes:
>
>>Next thing you will be doing is showing us with mathematical proof
>>that diskettes that show no problems are less likely to expose
>>bad sectors than diskettes that already have bad sectors?
>
>This can be emperically proved. In general it is smart (given pricing
>and the quality you should expect nowadays) to throw away a diskette
>with a bad sector. Mostly something has gone wrong at produktion time
>and it is indeed to be expected other parts of the disk are less
>reliable as well. Often it is a matter of too less magnetic material
>on the disk. 

My experience in the past has been that new disks with bad sectors generally
improve with a bit of use. I'm not suggesting you entrust valuable data to
such disks though!
>
>>What about harddisks, they are sold with bad sectors on them! You
>>probably don't own one, now do you?
>
>Most harddisk produced nowadays are bad sector free. If you get a new
>one with bad sectors ask your dealer to replace it (we always do).

This is not true. Most IDE and SCSI hard disks *look* as if they are defect
free because they map bad sectors out internally. If you see a bad sector on
one of these it is a NEW bad sector. I agree in that case it is time to
question the drive's reliability.


-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.compression
From: evans1@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (Dan Evans)
Subject: changes for the UNIX zip 5.0 wanted
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:14:16 GMT

Could someone post again where the updated sources are for the unzip 5.0
that is compatible with pkzip 2.04c.  I missed the posting. I saw the 
change posting for inflate.c but I'd rather get my hands on the entire file
or pakage if I can.
-- 
The Danimal                @@@@-                    @@@@-            
                          @@@@@-      @@@@-        @@@@@-       @@@@-
UUCP: att!ihlpm!evans      @@@@-     @@@@@-         @@@@-      @@@@@-
Internet: evans@ihlpm.att.com         @@@@-                     @@@@-
Newsgroups: comp.compression
Subject: And people ask me why I use ARJ...
From: CHEGC@LURE.LATROBE.EDU.AU (CROSS,Graeme)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:26:32 GMT
Organization: La Trobe University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

I have no problem with people who want to use PK-ZIP, but I'm beginning to
suspect that Phil Katz is out to destroy comp.compression. The evidence?

Well, for what seems like 30 years, but my therapist assures me was only a year
or two, we have had what seems like 30 people a day mailing questions like:

        * "When is the new PKZIP version coming out?"
  or
        * "I've just got PKZIP 2.666 from a BBS - is it the real thing?"

And like moths drawn to the candle, people would constantly reply, along the
lines of:

       * "No, you poor dear, PKZIP 2.666 hasn't been released yet. We're all
         hanging out for that extra 0.23% of compression and the added 4.65
         seconds that it will save us on a 34K data file. But if you behave,
         Santa may bring it to us all this year sometime. And please don't read
         the FAQ: people have put too much time and effort into it. Instead,
         ignore the 34 responses that your significant posting has inspired,
         and re-post your question again in two days.
         In the name of the Father, the Son and Phil Katz, have a nice day."

Comp.compression survived the constant onslaught of questioning and replying
(but only just).

PKZIP 2.04c then arrived.
"Great", says Graeme, "we can return to the good old days", but no, the worst
was yet to come, for now it's:

       * "What switch disables DPMI?"
       * "Why does PKZIP fail on some multi-volume archives?"
       * "What other bugs haven't I found yet?"

And I can just see the future: inane questions for what will seem like another
30 years, asking the same old questions:

       * "When is the PKZIP bug-fix coming out?"
or
       * "I've just got PKZIP 69.69 from a BBS - is it the real bug-fix?"

I would just stick ZIP in my ignore file, but as my therapist constantly
reminds me, I take curious delight in observing the suffering of PKZIP users,
and I also worry about comp.compression (one of my favourite newsgroups). We
could create a new newsgroup: comp.compression.phil.katz.is.divine perhaps?

Just my thought for the day (I'm on a strict ration :-)

------------
Graeme Cross
chegc@lure.latrobe.edu.au

PS. And for the humour-impaired; yes, I know ZOO is slow, and there's no ARJ
compressor for Apple 2s, and LHA is free (which means something has to be wrong
with it... :-), but they work (or at least 99% of the time).
And you can send your flames to Phil (I'm-out-to-destroy-comp.compression) Katz
or to dev/null.


Newsgroups: comp.compression
From: m.ruppel@imperial.ac.uk
Subject: Re: First impression, PKZIP 2.04c
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: m.ruppel@imperial.ac.uk
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 01:37:06 GMT

In <3552@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:
>...
>I am comparing PKZIP 2.04c with PKZIP 1.93a.
>I tried to test under OS/2 2.0 but failed to get PKZIP running, I
>tested on a 33/486, QEMM, 8Mb, PC-DOS 5.02
>...
>
>* system usage
>   PKZIP utilizes XMS and DPMI now. Unfortunately this implies the program
>   does not seem to run under OS/2 2.0. At least not with the default
>   settings. Has someone found a setting which DOES work? PKZIP works
>   with all the specials disabled.
>...

Just for the record, PKZIP 2.04c works flawlessly on my OS/2 2.1 beta system
in a 4DOS 4.01d VDM.
Mike Bessy mentioned in a recent post (comp.os.msdos4dos) that it works for
him on OS/2 2.0 as well.

Markus Ruppel

Newsgroups: comp.compression
From: dboer@let.rug.nl (Ale de Boer)
Subject: Re: *** WARNING *** PKZIP 2.04c is infected by a virus.
Organization: Faculteit der Letteren, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, NL
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:31:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.154004.9009@crd.ge.com> davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes:
>  Actually it seems that WUARCHIVE used an old virus checker which gave
>a false positive and then went ballistic. This scares me for several
>reasons, not only did they get a lot of people to trash perfectly good
>versions of PKZIP (if there is such a thing) but they are checking with
>old software which may miss current virus infections.
>  Not a very good thing to happen at a major archive site, perhaps THE
>major archive site.
wuarchive isn't into checking anything that goes onto the
pub/MSDOS_UPLOADS area; this is only a service for the users, and one
which should be used with caution, which is why I run some four virus
checkers against anything I get from there. So I did two days ago, and
I did not find anything wrong with the file, except the heuristic
flags already mentioned for f-prot. the file was viurus-free from the
start, although some idiot who has not yet identified himself here or
anywhere else kept deleting the files despite numerous messages in
this area claiming that the file was safe.
there has been a lot of criticism lately from archive moderators of
the world writable dir at wuarchive; I for one think it's a good idea
an a nice way to exchange files fast and world-wide. yet you shoudl
always check any file you download from wherever. as well as I trust
Keith Petersen and Timo Salmi, I still will check the files I download
from my favourite sites. and so should everyone. as for those repeated
warnings on files in wuarchive's upload dir, I never encountered a
virus in any of them, not that I did not try ;-)
once again, wuarchive admins do not check files in the uploads dir,
it's your own job. criticizing them for providing the service they do
is not justified in this case,

best, ale.


-- 
________________________________________________________________
Ale de Boer, Department of English, University of Groningen
Oude Kijk in 't Jatstraat 26            E-mail: dboer@let.rug.nl
9712 EK  Groningen                      The Netherlands
Newsgroups: comp.compression
From: ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi)
Subject: Re: How to cite the FAQ
Organization: University of Vaasa, Finland
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:57:13 GMT

In article <1i9nvsINN2je@hpscit.sc.hp.com> susanm@hp-and.an.hp.com writes:
>I was wondering if anyone out there knows a standard
>format for citing the comp.compression FAQ or any FAQ for
>that matter.  Specifically, I do not know anything about the
>copyright status of postings to news groups on USENET.  
>I am writing my masters thesis on Ultrasound Image Compression 
>and will be making reference to this group's FAQ in the document.

In that case it is not only a copyright question but a question of
making a proper academic reference.  The media is so new that there
are no estbalished practices yet.  You could, naturally, ask the
author who is often reading this newsgroup.  But in general you
would be safest treating the FAQs as publicly presented material. 
Try something like:

Jean-Loup Gailly, "Comp.compression Frequently Asked Questions", An
electronic posting in a public UseNet newsgroup discussing
compression questions.  The referenced version was posted 27 Nov 92
14:55:40 GMT. 

In other words use common sense, and fairly common English.  There
is nothing wrong in writing out in the reference what kind of a
system it comes from.

Anyway.  Whatever the format or the medium from which you quote, the
prime directive of academic work is unambiguous: "Credit where
credit is due". 

..................................................................
Prof. Timo Salmi      Co-moderator of comp.archives.msdos.announce
Moderating at garbo.uwasa.fi anonymous FTP archives 128.214.87.1
Faculty of Accounting & Industrial Management; University of Vaasa
Internet: ts@uwasa.fi Bitnet: salmi@finfun   ; SF-65101, Finland
Newsgroups: comp.compression
From: dtl8v@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (Heracleitus)
Subject: Re: PKZIP 2.04c is shipping...
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:21:52 GMT


  So where's Info-Zip's version of it?  I heard they were done with
the 2.0 compression engine a long time ago and didn't experience the
same problems PKWare did.

Doug Lamb
dtl8v@Virginia.EDU
From: pgleason@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Pat Gleason)
Newsgroups: comp.compression
Subject: Re: PKZip 2.04c quick impressions
Date: 6 Jan 93 02:43:14 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

PKWARE has already confirmed one bug with the new PKZIP 2.04c.
It will not store a volume label. Just FYI.
Newsgroups: comp.compression
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: I have uploaded PKZip 2.04c to wuarchive
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:21:16 GMT

madler@cco.caltech.edu (Mark Adler) writes:
>>> I have uploaded PKZip 2.04c to wuarchive.wustl.edu in the
>>> pub/MSDOS_UPLOADS directory.  It's pkz204c.exe and pkz204c.txt.

>Well, what's there now are three empty directories with the names:

>Jan  5 09:54 WARNING_pkz204c.exe_contains_Maltese_Amoeba_virus
>Jan  5 09:57 pkz204c.exe_contains_Maltese_Amoeba_Virus__DO__NOT__USE__
>Jan  5 09:55 pkz204c.exe_is_a_hack_DO_NOT_USE_

Here's what I got from Scott Bartlett:

I downloaded the file PKZ204C.EXE from wuarchive this morning
(1/5/93).  I rountinely run VSHIELD v99 on my machine and no virus
were detected.  However, a fellow worker tried the programs on a
machine that has Norton Anti-Virus (part of the Norton Desktop for
Windows 2.0 release) running and it reported that the PKUNZIP,
PKZIPFIX, and ZIP2EXE files were infected with a strain of the
'Maltese Ambebo' virus. I then ran SCAN v99 on the PK files with no
virus reported. Likewise FluProtect (FP_206A.ZIP), ThunderByte
(TBAV205.ZIP/VSIG9214.ZIP), and VirX (VIRX26.ZIP) reported no virus
present, but one did flag the files as having non-standard exe-headers
that could be either a program bug or a virus. The PKZIP files are
compressed with PKLITE 1.20 (which is more recent than the
PKLTE115.ZIP generally available) and this new exe compression could
be causing the false-positive reading. I will look for other possible
answers, but would appreciate if you could pass along anything you
might see or hear (I do monitor comp.compression and
comp.archives.msdos.announce). Thanks for posting the original file
though.
 
P.S. All indications are that it is a false-positive alarm. But I
thought you might be curious/interested in the possiblity of a Virus.

[ end quote ]
-- 
Consider what might be fertilizing the greener grass across the fence.
Newsgroups: comp.compression
From: ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi)
Subject: Re: List of known bugs for pkzip2.04 please..
Keywords: pkzip bugs
Organization: University of Vaasa, Finland
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 08:43:09 GMT

In article <ksiew.726534504@munagin> ksiew@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (steven kok-hsien siew) writes:
> If I have left out any other bugs could someone please add it in for me.

Inadequacies in documentation
 - the maximal / maximum confusion
 - PKZIP.CFG examples and documentaion discrepancies
     off or disable?

Problems with PKZIP.CFG
  - Run with the switches like -+ or run with CFG options
    like EMS=off gives different kind of messages with the user left
    in dark whether it was really turned off or not (this mig turn off
    the user :-)
  - Incorrect .CFG keywords should cause error messages.  Do they?

These are what I have notices.  Others have notified of volume label
-$ bug, and there have been repoorts of difficulties on running
PKUNZIP from within batches, although I have noting firm on the
lattter.

   All the best, Timo

..................................................................
Prof. Timo Salmi      Co-moderator of comp.archives.msdos.announce
Moderating at garbo.uwasa.fi anonymous FTP archives 128.214.87.1
Faculty of Accounting & Industrial Management; University of Vaasa
Internet: ts@uwasa.fi Bitnet: salmi@finfun   ; SF-65101, Finland
From: ichoi@husc11.harvard.edu (Isaac Choi)
Newsgroups: comp.compression
Subject: ARJ 2.40 -- when?
Date: 9 Jan 93 22:18:08 GMT
Distribution: comp.compression
Organization: Harvard Arts and Sciences Computer Services, Cambridge, MA


I was just wondering, does anyone know (well, I guess Mr. Jung knows)
when ARJ 2.40 will be released? I mean in the next few months or next 
year or what? Not that I'm impatient, but just wondering!

Isaac Choi
ichoi@husc.harvard.edu
From: yenchee@csie.nctu.edu.tw (Yeng-Chee Su)
Subject: Re: WUARCHIVE CLAIMS PKZIP/UNZIP 2.04c IS A HACK
Organization: Computer Science & Information Engin., Chiao-Tung U, Taiwan, ROC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 01:09:03 GMT

Richard M. Hartman (hartman@ulogic.UUCP) wrote:
: tell if we've got the good one or the bad one?  Or better 
: Can someone post a UNIX "sum pkz204c.exe" result so we can 
: yet let us know where there is an ftp site w/ a guaranteed
: uninfected version??
  Here you are.  
    sum pkz204c.exe
    36332	185
  Or you can download it from ftp.csie.nctu.edu.tw.  I'm sure it's a virus
free version because I download it direct from PKWare BBS.  I've traced it
by debug, and I guarantee it's not infected. 

--
   ______________________________________________________________________
  /             National Chiao Tung University in Taiwan               / \
 |  Name: Yeng-Chee Su              Dept:  Computer Engineering       |__/
 |  Phone: +886-35-716843 (home)    E-mail: yenchee@csie.nctu.edu.tw  |
 |  Address: 5F, 9, 23 Lane, Dong Sun Street, HsinChu, Taiwan 30038   |___ 
  \___________________________________________________________________\__/
Newsgroups: comp.compression
Subject: Re: Another PKZIP 2.04C bug...
From: skriefal@eeyore.stcloud.msus.edu (Scott Kriefall)
Date: 10 Jan 93 23:38:13 -0600
Organization: St. Cloud State Univ., MN

> Were you running it from a batch file or other program (sounds like
> it...)?  This is something we've noted: random CRC errors and "Enter
> Disk #x of archive" messages.  If you then try to unzip the same file
> right from the command line, it works.  This might help you track it.
 
I had the same type of error ("Enter Disk 3 of archive") earlier 
today while trying to unzip an archive created with PKZip 1.1.  
Unforunately, I didn't keep the .zip I was trying to dearchive, so I 
am unable to check it.  This was from the *command line* - PKUNZIP 
was not being called from a batch file or or any other program. 

I'm _very_ seriously considering going back to PKZip 1.1 and PKUnzip
1.93a - at least until these bugs are fixed.
 
skriefal@eeyore.stcloud.msus.edu

Newsgroups: comp.compression
From: ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi)
Subject: Re: PKZIP 2.04c vs. ARJ 2.39b (and LHA/ZOO) Compression Results
Keywords: archive compress ARJ PKZIP LHA ZOO
Organization: University of Vaasa, Finland
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 05:41:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.233401.8915@rei.com> fox@rei.com (Fuzzy Fox) writes:
>ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) writes:
>>>Why not make an Info-ARJ???
>>Well there it is, out in the open.  Anyone with sufficient spare
>>time?  There already is
>>  35321 Nov 23 11:38 garbo.uwasa.fi:/unix/arcers/unarj230.tar.Z
>>so go for it!  It is a very worthwhile idea.
>
>Unfortunately, using this as starting code is not possible.  The source
>license for R. Jung's UNARJ program specifically disallows using it as a
>basis for an ARJ archiver program.

Time to contact the author about it, if anyone seriously consider
the project, right?

   All the best, Timo

..................................................................
Prof. Timo Salmi      Co-moderator of comp.archives.msdos.announce
Moderating at garbo.uwasa.fi anonymous FTP archives 128.214.87.1
Faculty of Accounting & Industrial Management; University of Vaasa
Internet: ts@uwasa.fi Bitnet: salmi@finfun   ; SF-65101, Finland

Newsgroups: comp.compression,comp.os.msdos.4dos
From: Alex.Strasheim@launchpad.unc.edu (Alex Strasheim)
Subject: Re: A note on using PKUNZIP 2.04c with 4DOS and Windows 3.1
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 17:14:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.155340.2434@uwasa.fi> ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) writes:
>In article <1993Jan9.104029.4203@sun1.ruf.uni-freiburg.de> hartnegg@sun1.ruf.uni-freiburg.de (Klaus Hartnegg) writes:
>>Please could people suspend using the new pkzip to compress
>>files to be put on bbs and ftp servers until pkware 
>>distributes a bug fixed version.
>
>After careful consideration I've already decided to adopt that
>solution at our site. 

Because 2.04c has so many problems, and because it can't write files that
are compatible with the earlier, reliable version, I think that the best
solution for individual users is probably to use the old pkzip and the new
pkunzip to handle zip files, and arj when using the zip format isn't
necessary.

But beyond that, I think that this new, buggy version of pkzip is going to
cause all kinds of problems.  It's inevitable that people will start
uploading 2.04c zips to bbs systems and to ftp archives.  Well run boards
and archives will translate or delete these files, but many others won't. 
And that means that a lot of people will have to download the new version,
and they'll run into problems when they try to use it.  It's one thing to
tell comp.compression readers that they need to use a command line switch
to disable dpmi, and quite another to say it to an average user.

It seems to me that two of the main prerequisites for a standard archiver
are reliability and ease of use;  because 2.04c is unreliable, users have
to use command-line switches to work around the bugs, and that makes it
difficult to use.  What's worse, the new version is going to make it
difficult or impossible to continue to use version 1.10 as a standard,
because many people (especially the majority of users for whom 2.04c works
just fine) will start uploading files zipped with the new program.

All of this would be irrelevant if pkware was able to fix the known bugs
in a timely fashion;  but what if it takes them six months or a year to
take care of these problems?

I don't know what would be involved in making arj the new standard format
for an ftp site like garbo, or how the net.community would respond to such
an action.  But in the long run, I think we'd all be better off using arj
instead of zip as a standard.  Pkware has dropped the ball.

Alex


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: comp.compression