Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!giza.cis.ohio-state.edu!francis From: francis@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (RD Francis) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: StuffIt in the trash! Message-ID: <83444@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Date: 5 Sep 90 14:58:24 GMT References: <1990Sep4.182943.22627@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <24059@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Organization: Ohio State Computer Science Lines: 128 In article <24059@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ken Hancock) writes: >In article <1990Sep4.182943.22627@ccu.umanitoba.ca> umcarls9@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Charles Carlson) writes: >>One other thing that no one has mentioned yet about StuffIt is its history! >> >>I'm not sure of exact dates here, but I got my Mac SE exactly 2 years ago, >>and StuffIt 1.5.1 was the current version at the time....Now almost >>2 years later we have StuffIt 1.6 and StuffIt Deluxe....Thats TWO FRIGGING! >>YEARS WITHOUT AN UPDATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >>To me, thats a totally unacceptable time to go without any updates whatsoever! > >Yeah, except you're forgetting one thing. Raymond Lau was in high school. Gee, Ken, take the words right out of my mouth, why don't you? :-) I'll add to what Ken said that Stuffit was frequently updated up to 1.5.1, and that it wasn't too long after that (to the best of my recollection) that we heard that Ray was making arrangements with Aladdin to continue with Stuffit. Presumably, his arrangements with Aladdin are helping him through college; presumably, StuffIt as shareware alone would have been unable to provide him with as much assistance through college. A few other comments on this subject. First, a number of people have complained about the user interface of StuffIt. Personally, its user interface is one of the things that immediately endeared it to me. People have complained about the fact that you can't see into the folders, which is viewed as a necessity for the program by some. Saving while maintaining a hierarchical structure at all was one of the later additions to StuffIt. PD/shareware add-on tools have been developed to let users see what's in the folders, as I recall. I find it difficult to believe that the lack of an ability to see inside folders would suddenly stop this program from being as useful as in the past. If you don't like that feature, don't buy the software. Oh, but you *have* to buy it to send something to the archives legitimately, don't you? I won't follow this argument any further, as it's already been covered by others. To sum up the pertinent points in this debate: 1) StuffIt is currently the format of preference for most public archives of Macintosh software. 2) StuffIt is being updated, and fitted with a new file format. 3) the old format was publicly known, while the new one will not be. 4) Neither of the other tools currently available (DiskDoubler and Compacter) currently have publicly available file formats). 5) All four tools (includes both old and new StuffIt) have publicly available decompression tools for the Mac. A few clarifications of others' points (I hope): 1) If StuffIt Deluxe is going to be able to store files in the current StuffIt format, why don't we simply go on using that format? While this idea certainly has its merits, I believe the concern is that, since an extra step (switching formats) will be necessary in either StuffIt Deluxe ot StuffIt Classic in order to save files in the current format, some people will neglect to do so, and will submit files to public archives in the deluxe format. This creates two problems: confusion, and public files stored in a format not known to the public. 2) the shareware/commercial debate. A number of people are laboring under the potential misconception that the fact that the StuffIt Deluxe program is commercial is a problem. Some people may have a problem with that; however, given the existence of a shareware product that con duplicate the most pertinent aspects of SD (StuffIt Classic 1.6), and the existence of a free UnStuffIt program, it's difficult not to paint those objector with the "software pirate" brush. The only people who might have a valid argument are those who believe that shareware as it is generally considered ("Pay me if you use this program, or stop using it") is an invalid concept, and stating that a program is shareware is merely a *request* for payment if the program is used, rather than a demand. This is another debate entirely. I suggest that, for the purposes of the StuffIt argument, the majority opinion be assumed (which I believe is the "required to pay" opinion), rather than trying to run several interlinked debates at once. 3) "So if everyone can unstuff these files for free, and there is still a shareware alternative for stuffing the files, what's the big deal about a non-public format?" A public format allows for the manipulation of the files involved on other systems. I've never seen any programs that stuff files in StuffIt's format other than StuffIt itself; however, I have seen a number of programs on multiple platforms that make use of information that is only available thanks to the fact that the StuffIt format is publicly available. Personal opinion: we're succumbing to the process of a luxury becoming a necessity. I can imagine that a number of people have come to rely on such things as unsit (C program to unstuff files); however, I suspect that if such tools were unavilable, while many people would be inconvenienced, few would be unable to access stuffed files. End of personal opinion. In any case, the big deal is simply that the ability to access StuffIt files on other systems or with other programs is lost if we leave the current (old) StuffIt format. 4) The Compacter source code subdebate. If the author of Compacter happened to decide to release hsi source code, I doubt anyone would mind. However, the important request was for the format of the files so that other programs could be written to access his compacted files and uncompact them, or examine them, as is currently done with old format StuffIt files. OK, time for some more opinions. The author of Compacter has already gone on record, according to one poster, as saying that if his program becomes highly used, he'll release the file format. If this happens, the debate takes on a new tone, as far as I'm concerned, especially since some have reported that Compacter is a more efficient compression program than StuffIt (old format, at least). Right now? Leonard, you listening? Leonard suggested that releasing StuffIt Classic 1.6 as freeware might resolve this debate. However, I suggest that, rather than that, the debate would be more successfully resolved by the release of StuffIt Classic with the classic StuffIt format file being the default. Thus, users of StuffIt Classic would be less likely to accidentally save files in the Deluxe format, which is the ultimate current source of our problems, as far as I can see. Other part of my opinion? We'll probably wind up seeing files in all four formats in the archives af various locations before this whole mess is done. Will we like it? Probably not. Until a consensus can be reached (which could take a while), I doubt it can be effectively avoided without adding significantly to the chores of the maintainers of the various archives. Good luck, everyone. -- R David Francis francis@cis.ohio-state.edu