Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!rutgers!mcnc!decvax.dec.com!zinn!wgc386!slum!laird From: laird@slum.MV.COM (Laird Heal) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: StuffIt in the trash! Message-ID: <1990Sep18.021828.1904@slum.MV.COM> Date: 18 Sep 90 02:18:28 GMT References: <1990Sep4.182943.22627@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <2829@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM> Organization: dis Lines: 65 [Unfortunately, this topic seems to be one that must be continually rebutted lest the madding crowd actually convince someone that it is better to switch than to fight] In article <2829@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM>, ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) writes: >In article <1990Sep4.182943.22627@ccu.umanitoba.ca> umcarls9@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Charles Carlson) writes: >>2 years later we have StuffIt 1.6 and StuffIt Deluxe....Thats TWO FRIGGING! >>YEARS WITHOUT AN UPDATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >> [unstructured, um, ranting, omitted] >>As for its proprietary format: someone said that it will be given away, they >>just want to know who has it...How do they expect that? What about all >>these Unix machines that need the source code in order to make the binary? >>Or is Alladin planning on keeping around binaries for every flavour of CPU >>and operating system that someone might want to run it on? > > This sounds like a case of the tail wagging the dog. What > does the length of time between updates have to do with the Right. To me, the length of time between updates indicates that the product (Stuffit) matured. It did everything that was required. It itself needed no more bug fixes. It has been a long long time since there was a Stuffed file I could not unstuff, a characteristic of the early releases. > Stuffit 1.51 has always been shareware, thus the thinking that > you should not be using commercial software on public archives > is rather moot. Unless you were using the freeware versions > of Unstuffit, you should have paid for using Stuffit 1.51 long > ago. Irrelevant. Of course, it is termed "moot" anyway, but the cost of the Macintosh software is hardly an issue. It costs money, more or less. > The propriatary format of Deluxe Archives does not seem that big > a deal. If Alladin is willing to license the format to those > wishing to develop decompression utilities for other platforms, > I see nothing wrong with that either. Seems like good old > fashion capitolism to me... Course there are always going to > be those that want something good for nothing. > I disagree. I find xbin and unsit most convenient ways to manipulate files on the host. With the tools available for MPW, I can script the conversion of several files without having to point and click at each one. Stuffit 1.5.1 had a rudimentary time-saver like this, namely selecting several archives in the Finder, double-clicking and holding the Shift key down during startup. If we begin to use the Deluxe format, I must discard those tools and get by without any replacements. Any [de-]compression must then take place on the Macintosh. I presume that Alladin would not license the file format without compensation, i. e. payment, and that any utility to decompress a Stuffit Deluxe file would be distributed in binary, not source. That just would not help me - things are very non-standard here. Things are not broken now, but if we begin distributing BinHex'd Stuffit Deluxe archives, some things are going to be broken. There is a good point to distributing things in as compact a format as possible, but it is really much better to distribute them in as standard a format as possible. Ever since Stuffit began setting the Bundle bit right, it has been the way to go. It does our job for us, and we should stick with it. -- Laird Heal laird@slum.MV.COM Talk is cheap. (Salem, NH) +1 603 898 1406 Whiskey costs money.