Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!decwrl!apple!portal!sv!news From: leonardr@svc.portal.com (Leonard Rosenthol) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: StuffIt Deluxe Message-ID: <1990Sep3.221419.3494@svc.portal.com> Date: 3 Sep 90 22:14:19 GMT References: <2146@ux.acs.umn.edu> <1990Aug29.204448.23954@svc.portal.com> <5186@spt.entity.com> <1990Aug30.043630.4167@morrow.stanford.edu> <1990Aug31.170355.28215@svc.portal.com> <5224@spt.entity.com> <1990Sep2.185740.2049@svc.portal.com> <5299@spt.entity.com> Sender: news@svc.portal.com Reply-To: leonardr@svc.portal.com (Leonard Rosenthol) Organization: Software Ventures Corporation. Lines: 174 In article <5299@spt.entity.com>, mdc@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) writes: > ... > This article is in reply to article <1990Sep2.185740.2049@svc.portal.com> > from leonardr@svc.portal.com (Leonard Rosenthol) > > Leonard, first I appreciate your representing Alladin on the net. By > doing so you make it possible to have a public dialog that would be > much more difficult otherwise. > You are (presumably) representing the best interest of Alladin, else (for > business reasons) they would not have chosen you to speak for them. > To begin with, just to put things into perspective, I have ABSOLUTELY no financial interest in whether Aladdin succeeds or not. They are good friends of mine, and I want to see them succeed as they have some REALLY nice technology to put into users hands. I am not paid, nor do I expect to be, for supporting them. > Your last message is confusing is some ways. > In article <1990Sep2.185740.2049@svc.portal.com> leonardr@svc.portal.com > (Leonard Rosenthol) You write: > >I do think, however, that there is a difference between trying > >to raise issues and being a stubborn goat. > > Barnyard animals aside, I assume the implication is that I am being > stubborn. > > Perhaps. > > But Perhaps through my stubborness an important principle will be > protected. A principle of greater importance than the profits of one > small software company. > > Perhaps through this stubborness more people will see that if Alladin > is allowed to set a proprietary standard in compression/archiving for > the Macintosh Community, the people I represent (those without > financial interests in Alladin) will suffer a great setback. > I understand your position on the issue, but I am also looking at reality. At this time, I see three major contenders to replace Stuffit 1.5.1 as the 'industry standard' - Stuffit Classic/Deluxe, Disk Doubler and Compactor. All three of these products use a proprietary document format, and all three offer significant improvements over 1.5.1 including speed, better compression and support for hierarchical archives. Technology will not improve if we hold it hostige to such, seemly petty issues, as file formats. We allow other types of developers, word processors, spreadsheets, etc. to keep our data hostige in undocumented and/or proprietary formats (ever try to get the MSWord format from Microsoft??), why shouldn't companies such as Aladdin be treated the same?? > >I am listening to everything you that you say, and am in daily > >contact with Aladdin discussing what I see here. If there is a > >'middle-of-the-road' that exists, where we can all be happy, I hope > >we can find it. > > Have you considered that a 'middle-of-the-road' solution may not be > appropriate? Alladin is (in our view) attempting to gain proprietary > control of public data. This is a *very serious* situation. > NOT TRUE! Aladdin is trying to provide users with new technology and capabilities. They have invested in Stuffit, and they are trying to give something to all of the loyal users with Stuffit Classic & Deluxe. > Now Alladin is attempting to set a NEW STANDARD. One that has the > SAME BASIC NAME, and similar functionality. > The CRITICAL DIFFERENCE is that the FORMAT of the compressed file is > PROPRIETARY. > > So point 3 above (Public Format) is being removed. Thus: > > 1. Other implementors will be unable to implement algorithms to > encode/decode the new format. > > 2. Noone will be able to write better programs to create new > format stuffit files, except people Alladin feels (in its > own business interest) may do so. > > 3. Everybody PAYS ALLADIN for the right to create archives. > Aladdin is MORE THAN WILLING to work with anyone who wishes to produce stuffing/unstuffing software for both Macintosh and other platforms. At this time, a number of companies including Software Ventures (MicroPhone II), Freesoft (White Knight), CE Software (QuicKeys) have incorporated in some form that ability to create and unstuff both 1.5.1 and Classic/Deluxe archives. They are also working with others to create Classic/Deluxe compatible applications for other platforms including UNIX, DOS, Windows, etc. They want to provide solutions for other platforms, but admittedly they feel (and I agree with them) that it is their best interest to control who gets that information. As to playing for the right to create archives, that has ALWAYS been the case. Stuffit has always been a _SHAREWARE_ application, which required that you pay your shareware fee in order to create archives (you could unstuff for free, however). There is no change to this. Let's assume that Aladdin were to release Stuffit Classic as Freeware meaning that anyone could use it to create and unstuff both 1.5.1 and Classic/Deluxe archives without cost. Even though the format would still be proprietary, would this act of good will to the Mac community help to smooth things over? > Alladin is IN EFFECT abandoning the old format. > > 1. They have created a new format, and have created software > that uses as its primary format a new format. > > 2. They have named the new publicly-distributed version of their > program STUFFIT CLASSIC. But just as Coca-Cola changed the > formula for Coke Classic, Stuffit Classic will (presumably) > default to the a NEW FORMAT for data storage. > > 3. People will likely make both kinds of files, and upload them > to bboards - proliferating the new format furthur. > Sure. Just like every other developer changes the file format of its application every time a new version is release so as to support the new features that have been implemented, Aladdin is doing the same. When MSWord changed to Word 4.0, there was a period of time where people were distributing Word 3.0 and Word 4.0 and files and those w/o 4.0 couldn't read the former. That, as I said earlier, is the price of advancement. > 4. Other developers won't be able to write a general purpose tool to > deal with the both formats, so people will have to use what > Alladin gives. Advantage: Alladin. > Personally, I think that letting Aladdin maintain the format and the code is a good idea in some regards. I would much rather prefer to simply call a 'library' that they provide which is always kept up to date, than have to keep updating my code everytime they change something. If Aladdin were to make the format public, that might hinder them as they would have to maintain compat with that format so that other applications did not break with new versions since the 'user base' would have fit otherwise. Public formats are both good and bad, but I think that they hinder developers in moving forward - but I repeat myself again. > 1. Alladin could make their format public. Allowing it to > continue as a public compression/archiving standard. > I have talked with them at length about this possibility, and I do not see it happening. But you are certainly willing to continue to push them. Feel free to have your 'constituency' send mail, faxes, etc. to Aladdin letting them know how you feel. They are very willing to listen to user feedback, and the more the merrier. > 2. Some other competing designer could declare their format > as a possible new standard and make it public. They could > convert old format files to their new public format, allowing > people to gradually shift to their now public, and allow > other developers to decode their format. > > 3. Some combination of interested people could create a new > standard, and write tools to support it. GREAT! I think that if someone were willing to do this, then there would be no question. I would stand behind such an effort, providing that it was an application and format that the net could get behind. A format is only one part, applications (etc.) which used this format is another. > > Leonard, that is my current analysis of the situation. > I welcome your/Alladin's public response the the issues raised. > And now you have my response. > I also encourage others to share their views. You can make a difference. > I too would like to hear other feedback on this issue. Although Marty claims to be representing 'many', I don't really see this. If you are concerned about the issue, I would like to hear about it - either publically or via EMail. -- Leonard Rosenthol Software Ventures Corp. MicroPhone II Development Team