Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!midway!ellis.uchicago.edu!dwal
From: dwal@ellis.uchicago.edu (David Walton)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: StuffIt Deluxe
Message-ID: <1990Aug31.011920.872@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 31 Aug 90 01:19:20 GMT
References: <5186@spt.entity.com> <1990Aug30.052325.10540@midway.uchicago.edu> <5190@spt.entity.com>
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator)
Organization: U. Chicago Computing Organizations, Academic and Public Comp.
Lines: 122

In article <5190@spt.entity.com> mdc@spt.UUCP (Marty Connor) argues
some points I made about his call for a boycott of Stuffit Deluxe:

I write:
>>I don't see how the world under Stuffit Deluxe would be that much
>>different than with 1.5.1.

Marty says:
>Ok, let's go point by point.


I write:
>>*  Stuffit 1.5.1 was Shareware, at least in theory requiring the user
>>   to pay a fee to use it.  Stuffit Deluxe is commercial

Marty responds:
>So the difference here is ShareWare vs. Commercial Software.  Sounds
>like a big difference to me.  No free distribution on nets.  Less
>trial period.  Return for refund, etc., etc.

Except StuffIt Classic, which I believe understands both formats, is
(will be) shareware.


I then write:
>>*  Stuffit 1.5.1 came with UnStuffit, a free utility for unstuffing
>>   archives so that those folks who wanted to download software didn't
>>   have to pay to do it.  Deluxe has UnStuffit Deluxe for the same
>>   purpose, also free.

Marty responds:
>This is what retail people call a "teaser".  In practical terms,
>should this format become prevalent, people will be COMPELLED to
>create public archives with a proprietary tool.

Only until a new standard was produced, which probably wouldn't take
long if Aladdin were to pull the nasty secretive tactics that you
imply.  UnStuffit Deluxe will still be free, and it will still be able
to decode existing Deluxe-format archives.


I write:
>>*  Stuffit 1.5.1's format was public.  Other folks could therefore
>>   write utilities to uncompress Stuffit archives.  Deluxe's format
>>   will be proprietary, with Aladdin giving it to people who they
>>   think have good reason to have it.

Marty responds:
>This is TOTALLY CONTRARY to the concept of a PUBLIC FACILITY.
>It would seem people are too ready to let Alladin dicatate what and
>how easy it will be to create new software to manipulate archives.

Yes, it's contrary to the idea of a public standard.  I don't think
it's sufficient reason to fly off the handle about Lau/Aladdin being
part of a Great Communist Conspiracy To Control The Freedom Of
Compression By Getting Us All Hooked On Stuffit And Then Blackmailing
Us For More Dough And Leaching Out All Of Our Precious Bodily Fluids.
If you're really concerned about the proprietary nature of the format,
use Stuffit Classic format.  I intend to.  That is NOT the same thing
as calling for a boycott of the Stuffit Deluxe product.


>Does the word PROPRIETARY ring a bell?  Suppose down the road after we
>convert public archives to Stuffit Deluxe Format, Alladin gets bought
>out by Symantec, (who bought out MacZap (remember the program that
>removed copy protection from programs to they could be installed on a
>hard disk?)), and Symantec decides to not let people have the format
>at all.  We then have lots of megs or software in a proprietary
>format, and Ray and the sweeties at Alladin are out of the picture.

So programmer folks will stop trying to make products that use Deluxe
format and will instead use a new standard (or even the old Stuffit
Classic format), and user folks will start encoding archives in a
different format.  And we'll all use our old copies of Un/Stuffit
Deluxe to decode existing archives.  Just because the software's
proprietary doesn't mean we won't be able to decode it if IBM buys
Aladdin and says that only Microsoft can see the format.  True,
subsequent programs won't be able to understand the old standard, as
Stuffit did with Packit.  This could cause isolated problems several
years from now, when all copies of Stuffit Deluxe/Classic, etc. have
disappeared from our hard disks through lack of use.  But I suspect
that by that time most software would have been converted to other
formats.  In any case, the decoding would have to be done one way or
the other--it's merely a matter of which program you use.  Sure, I'd
rather use Stuffit to unpack .pit archives than have to use Packit,
but using Packit won't kill me (except maybe on a IIfx...).

>Public formats mean that we don't have to count on the benevolence of
>people at companies to be nice.  The format can be discussed and
>improved by the community;  Not just one company.

True.  I'd prefer that, too.  But we can still decode the archives if
necessary--see above.


Finally, I write:
>>And I think your accusations that Lau and Aladdin are trying to establish a
>>standard so they can screw us all later are both premature and
>>inflammatory.

And Marty rejoins:
>Premature?  Shall I wait until people have uploaded software in this
>new proprietary format?
>
>Inflamatory, well, that's more subjective.  Sometimes to wake people
>up you have to get their attention.  I think I have succeeded.
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So would a Doberman pinscher relieving itself on my foot.

The tone of your letter sounded like an accusation to me.  If that was
intentional, you haven't provided a lot of evidence to back yourself
up.  That I call both premature and inflammatory (but then, you
already _know_ that, don't you?)

In any case, this remains my (slightly bloated) $.02.


>Marty Connor, Marty's Computer Workshop,  "Specializing in Macintosh Training"
--
David Walton            Internet: dwal@midway.uchicago.edu
University of Chicago   {  Any opinions found herein are mine, not  }
Computing Organizations {  those of my employers (or anybody else). }