Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!wuarchive!udel!brahms.udel.edu!weave
From: weave@brahms.udel.edu (Ken Weaverling)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Don't post stuff using stuffit
Summary: I agree, and I own Deluxe as well
Message-ID: <17116@brahms.udel.edu>
Date: 31 Dec 90 17:48:22 GMT
References: <40227@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <8bTek_u00aw301AtdE@andrew.cmu.edu>
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 75


OK, here comes my two cents....

This thread has broken down into many general topics, of which different 
arguments apply to each.

1) Don't post using stuffit deluxe
2) The merits (or lack of) using Stuffit as an archiver
3) The speed and compression capability of Stuffit Deluxe

The one we should be most concerned about and to concentrate on is #1. 

I am a registered user of Stuffit Deluxe, but I DO NOT think it should be
used to post stuff to the net with, for the following reason below...

In article <1990Dec29.043759.24299@svc.portal.com> daven@svc.portal.com writes:
>
>The Aladdin people (publisher's of StuffIt Deluxe) are willing to place
>the StuffIt Deluxe file formats and compression alogrithms in escrow.
>Should Aladdin go out of business completely, then CIS can gain the
>necessary information on how to extract files from all the Deluxe archives
>in their libraries.

Bingo. Read that again. This indicates that the file formats for Deluxe
archives ARE NOT PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE.  That means no free compatible un-
stuffing utilities for PCs and UNIX.  On the other hand, Stuffit 1.5.1 
format must be available since we have unstuff programs for UNIX and MS/DOS
around.

Archived files that are posted under UNIX, DOS, or Mac should be easily
unarchived on all three systems. DOS ZIP files meet this. Unix compress
tar files meet this requirement, and so do old Stuffit archives. 

This reason is why I'm against compactor as well...

>Neil went on to state that StuffIt 1.5.1 file formats and compression
>techniques being public knowledge made it a more than acceptable format
>for use on CIS. He then went on to state that Compactor's author was
>unable to reach an agreement with CIS on placing his file formats and
>compression techniques into escrow. 

Another point about Compactor, which I've never tried... Does the license
allow you to keep it for free for unarchival purposes only? If not, then 
that's another blow against it.


In article <8bTek_u00aw301AtdE@andrew.cmu.edu> 
	 vd09+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent M. Del Vecchio) writes:
>
>>Why not MacCompress?  It's free.
>Have you compared MacCompress with other programs in terms of compression and
>speed?  Unix compress is really getting outdated as well (in terms of both
>compression AND speed, though the latter is rarely noticed as Unix boxes get
>faster and faster and some newer methods are even slower.  Personally, I never
>use compress any more under Unix--I uncompress and then use either LHarc or
>Squeeze, which uses something called Miller-Wegman encoding.  Unfortunately,
>neither is nearly fast enough to run reasonably on a Mac, though Stuffit Deluxe
>tries the former.

I am hesitant to answer this one for fear this will break into another 
thread regarding UNIX compression techniques, but my argument is the same
as for stuffit.  The #1 concern should be universal ability to unarchive
on multiple platforms and should be free.

Now I did put lharc on my UNIX box, but don't use it. I do occasionally
get one of my users lharc'ing files and then uuto'ing the archive to me.
When I extract it, damn lharc chown's the individual files back to the
original user and I have to su to root to get them to be owned by me. (A
curse of being Sys V I guess :-). I briefly looked at the flags of lharc
and didn't see anything similar to the o flag of tar.

I mean, for pete sake, I even have compress for my Prime running PRIMOS.
I doubt I'll ever see lharc on THAT box!!!!
-- 
>>>---> Ken Weaverling  >>>---->  weave@brahms.udel.edu