Hi Goba,
I know the link, which unfortuntely pointed "only" to an "ugly" commandline-tool
(who reads the text till the end? ;). That's the reason why I've moved the para
about the "colorful" tools to almost the top.
Cu,
Thomas
Gabor Hojtsy wrote:
> > the arguments for both gz and bzip2 make s
> the arguments for both gz and bzip2 make sense to me (user-friendliness
and
> dl-size).
>
> We Austrians tend alsways to a compromise ;)
>
> If it stays at bzip2: Why not write a link at the doc-download-page to the
> somewhere mentioned FAQ-Page, and list there some Freeware for Win like
> Ulti
Hi all,
the arguments for both gz and bzip2 make sense to me (user-friendliness and
dl-size).
We Austrians tend alsways to a compromise ;)
If it stays at bzip2: Why not write a link at the doc-download-page to the
somewhere mentioned FAQ-Page, and list there some Freeware for Win like
UltimateZ
> Let's agree to disagree :)
> I still think .zip or .tar.gz is the right way to go for Windows users.
I can understand why it's important, but I don't like
the idea. BTW it seems most of the guys think that .tar.gz
should be back...
Goba
Let's agree to disagree :)
I still think .zip or .tar.gz is the right way to go for Windows users.
Andi
At 09:10 08/04/2002 +0200, Gabor Hojtsy wrote:
> > I definitely would go for either .zip or .tar.gz. I think .zip on Windows
> > is preferable but as .tar.gz is supported by Winzip it's OK too
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Mark Kronsbein wrote:
>
>
> > BTW why don't we provide a .doc format of the manual?
>
> Because Word has problems with documents over 100 Pages ;)
And it can not be easily generated.
Derick
---
Gabor Hojtsy wrote:
> BTW why don't we provide a .doc format of the manual?
because people would start to *work* on the doc version
and hand in modifications or even translations in doc format ;o
--
Hartmut Holzgraefe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.six.de/ +49-711-99091-77
> BTW why don't we provide a .doc format of the manual?
Because Word has problems with documents over 100 Pages ;)
SCNR
Mark
--
German Gabber Network @ http://www.gabber.de
Infos und Tips zu PHP http://www.php-homepage.de
gt;From: Gabor Hojtsy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > >Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 11:46 PM
> > >To: Sander Roobol; Simone Cortesi
> > >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; PHP Documentation
> > >List
> > >Subject: Re: [PHP-DOC] Bug
, April 07, 2002 11:46 PM
> >To: Sander Roobol; Simone Cortesi
> >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; PHP Documentation
> >List
> >Subject: Re: [PHP-DOC] Bug #16476 Updated: unpacking
> >
> >
> > > >> > Anyway, the
> I definitely would go for either .zip or .tar.gz. I think .zip on Windows
> is preferable but as .tar.gz is supported by Winzip it's OK too.
> I don't think it's right to start educating windows users like Gabor says.
> It has nothing to do with bzip2 being hard but with the fact that barely
> a
D]]
>Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 11:46 PM
>To: Sander Roobol; Simone Cortesi
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; PHP Documentation
>List
>Subject: Re: [PHP-DOC] Bug #16476 Updated: unpacking
>
>
> > >> > Anyway, the files unpack j
]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; PHP Documentation
List
Subject: Re: [PHP-DOC] Bug #16476 Updated: unpacking
> >> > Anyway, the files unpack just fine on w2k with the right tools
> >> [tm] (i
> >> > used cygwin, bunzip2). If it doesn't work for you your tools are
> >>
> >> > Anyway, the files unpack just fine on w2k with the right tools
> >> [tm] (i
> >> > used cygwin, bunzip2). If it doesn't work for you your tools are
> >> broken
> >> > or you don't know how to use them.
> >>
> >> Again, as nobody on windows is familiar with bzip2, which is
> >> perfectly
Although bzip2 is better I must vote +1 for .tar.gz
Supporting how to use bunzip2 on windows is a bit of
a pain. Hopefully that will change one day.
Regards,
Philip
On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Sander Roobol wrote:
> On 2002.04.07 20:30 Simone Cortesi wrote:
> > At 20.19 07/04/02 +0200, [EMAIL PROTEC
On 2002.04.07 20:30 Simone Cortesi wrote:
> At 20.19 07/04/02 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> > Anyway, the files unpack just fine on w2k with the right tools
>> [tm] (i
>> > used cygwin, bunzip2). If it doesn't work for you your tools are
>> broken
>> > or you don't know how to use them.
At 20.19 07/04/02 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Anyway, the files unpack just fine on w2k with the right tools [tm] (i
> > used cygwin, bunzip2). If it doesn't work for you your tools are broken
> > or you don't know how to use them.
>
>Again, as nobody on windows is familiar with bzip2, wh
On 7 Apr 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> winzip and winrar suck and aren't available on every platform and have
> bad compression.
winzip can decompress tar.gz just fine, and winzip is installed at almost
every box. Why the f*ck is the manual compressed with bzip2 then? No
single windows user
18 matches
Mail list logo
