Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!oucsace!bchurch
From: bchurch@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Bob Church)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: Apple File Exchange (apology to Matt)
Summary: Let the vendors do it.
Message-ID: <1890@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU>
Date: 9 Sep 90 01:01:14 GMT
References: <1990Aug31.062233.10716@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <1990Sep7.152829.15533@eng.umd.edu>
Organization: Ohio University CS Dept., Athens
Lines: 22

In article <1990Sep7.152829.15533@eng.umd.edu>, russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
> 
> Yuck-- AFE on the mac side is a kludge.  IMO, Apple should have external
> file systems (equivalent of FSTs), so ANY program can read Prodos and MS-DOS
> disks (Dayna does this for MS-DOS, no one does it for prodos). Something
> like AFE should do file format translations only, NOT disk format translations.
Just my opinion here, but I think Apple has taken the best option. They give you
a way to convert from Apple to Mac with the System tools. It may not be the best
but it works. More importantly, it encourages individual vendors to create their
own xfer programs. Since these people have access to all of their source codes
this should cut down on bugs etc. If Apple were to try to provide FSTs for every
program a couple of things would happen. Lots of bugs because they are not as
familiar with the programs, and new developers would be discouraged from coming
up with their own formats. Apples policies have always been ( once again, IMHO )
to provide a minimum software package with the computer and to encourage 3rd
party people to develop by providing needed information and keeping software
competition (from Apple, that is) to a minimum. When I look at Publish-IT!,
Copy II+, Beagle Bros/Timeout, AE, etc. I can't help but think that it's a
policy that works.

bob church
bchurch.oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu