Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!wuarchive!rex!uflorida!gatech!udel!oscar.ccm.udel.edu!johnston
From: johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Don't post stuff using stuffit
Message-ID: <40227@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Date: 29 Dec 90 21:51:07 GMT
Sender: usenet@ee.udel.edu
Organization: Univ. of Delaware, CCM
Lines: 86
Nntp-Posting-Host: oscar.ccm.udel.edu

In article <1990Dec29.195417.20150@silvlis.com>, jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) writes...

I apologize in advance for perpetuating this for those who are bored.  
It may be that I feel a tinge of guilt for sparking another round of
StuffIt-bashing by starting the 'Installer from Hell' thread.  These
will be my last words on the subject, I promise!  ;-)

Mr. Budler made some good points, but misrepresented the nature of 
StuffIt's (both Classic and Deluxe) handling of virus checking.  

[debate on the drawbacks of self-extracting archives omitted]

>And I think the current (Stuffit Deluxe 1.0) method of virus checking is
>inadequate. Why?, cause it's too old. Updates are too infrequent.

This is not relevant.  If you enable the detect "All (Both Viruses and 
Anomalies)" option then the user is protected by a scheme similar to that
used by the Gate-Keeper-Aid, which alerts the user when it detects any 
behavior "like" that of a virus.  It is thus of greater generality than
is implied in Mr. Budler's characterization.  Moreover, when the alert 
is issued during unstuffing, the user is presented with a dialog box 
that sends the file straight to the his/her virus elimination application.  
Mine is configured to send problem files straight to Disinfectant 2.4, 
which is current, I think.  

I think this represents a significant, and generous, contribution on 
the part of Aladdin, who could have reserved this feature for the
commercial version of the software.

>>StuffIt Classic, (and Deluxe), on the other hand, include virus checking 
>>during dearchiving that can be updated with new versions of the software.  
> 
>Not often enough.

Not necessary, either.

>I'm not sure I agree. Given that I think about 3 new virus have appeared
>since Stuffit Deluxe 1.0 came out, I prefer trusting GateKeeper, or
>Disinfectant, or SAM.
>When (if) the archiver is adaptable, like Virus Detective or SAM II,
>or updated as frequently as Disinfectant, I might trust the virus
>checking in the archiver.

Well ... I would argue that "adaptable" virus detection is a "sophisticated-
user-only" feature.  Even if everybody downloads the latest search
strings at the instant they are uploaded by their authors (bless them),
this technique still lacks the generality and convenience of the
approach taken by StuffIt.  It can't replace Disinfectant and GateKeeper,
of course, but it enforces the virus check.  I often copy downloaded
files directly to floppies or make copies for friends.  GateKeeper
and the Disinfectant init don't search all incoming files for viri,
they merely attempt to catch them in the act.  If I fail to check incoming
files with Disinfectant, I may be protected, but those who get copies
of the files from me fend for themselves.  I like the convenience of 
handling this automatically, within the context of the scripted
dearchive routines enabled by Deluxe.

No virus protection scheme is perfect, but by combining a GateKeeper-like 
catch-all with built-in launch of the Disinfectant application of your choice,
StuffIt comes as close as is currently possible.  ( And makes it EASY. )

>Meanwhile I have the others, and don't feel the need for it in the archiver
>at all.

That is fine for you and the rest of the "power-users" on the net.  
The original issue in this thread was the question of what makes for an 
appropriate archive format for ALL the users who take advantage of
usenet archives.  Even computer-illiterate idiots like me.  Virus handling 
is just one of the StuffIt advantages that *everybody* can benefit from.

Others have pointed out that the "known" SIT format has enabled 
unSIT utilities to be made available for unix and the IBM PC -- giving
PC users access to Mac ftp archives as well.  I like being able to
take advantage of PC files archived in known formats like arc and zip.
It is only reasonable that PC users get to enjoy the same advantages.

( I was particularly glad to see that StuffIt Deluxe allows alternate format
handling to be directly incorporated as extension modules.)  I look forward
to replacing the 4 plus megs of PD dearchiving software that currently
resides redundantly as stand-alone binaries or .exe files on my hard disk.

Compactor just offers yet another good, but inflexible and proprietary,
file compression solution.  Why not MacCompress?  It's free.

-- Bill (johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu)
-- 38 Chambers St.; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949