Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.apps:4777 comp.sys.mac.misc:9876 comp.sys.mac.programmer:22866
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mixcom!llvvll
From: llvvll@mixcom.COM (James R. Macak)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL - Archive Standard
Summary: Don't make self-extracting archives
Message-ID: <391@mixcom.COM>
Date: 20 Mar 91 14:47:21 GMT
References: <6008@crystal9.UUCP>
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.apps
Distribution: comp
Organization: MIX Communications, Milwaukee, WI (Public access Usenet, Email)
Lines: 55

In article <6008@crystal9.UUCP> derosa@motcid.UUCP (John DeRosa) writes:

>Sumex Archival Standard for Macintosh - Revision 1.0
>====================================================

>4) If the document or folder is 20K or larger then compress 
>   the document/folder with Compactor as a self-extracting
>   archive (.sea).

>   Why not Stuffit, you might ask?  In this area I am 
>   bending to popular demand, Compactor seems to be more
>   widely used and is purported to be faster.  I personally 
>   prefer Stuffit as it incorporates BinHqx decoding.  A
>   large thank you to Raymond Lau for Stuffit that has
>   been so popular for so long.  He set the standards.  I
>   have been told that a later version of Compactor will
>   have BinHqx also.  How about batch modes and hqx file
>   recombining?
>
>   Why self-extracting, you might ask?  If the file is 
>   self extracting, then the receiver does not 
>   need Compactor when decompressing.  A simple double
>   click and, poof, a folder is born.

I think it would be better to _not_ use self-extracting archives as the
standard.

First of all, why add those extra K of self-extracting code to every single
file that is posted to sumex, the net, etc? Multiply that 15-20K (or whatever
it is) by hundreds of files and that redundant self-extracting code starts
adding up rather quickly.

Secondly, Compact Pro is shareware and there is even a freeware extractor
application. The same double click that launches the self-extracting archive
will launch the application that extracts the file in question. Remember, this
is the Mac, and it can do that for you. Let's take advantage of its
capabilities...    ;-)

Finally, I'm always more than a bit wary about launching an application that
I've just downloaded to my Mac without doing a virus check first. In the case
of self-extracting archives, I'll have to check the self-extracting archive
first, launch that archive, and then check the products of the
self-extraction. Seems like a real waste of effort to me.

Hence I'd recommend that self-extracting archives be banned under the proposed
standard. There are too many drawbacks to them and the proposed advantage is
questionable.

Jim


-- 
macak@mixcom.UUCP (James R. Macak)          "I'm curious, Doctor, why is it
uunet!uwm!mixcom!macak                       called 'M-5' and not 'M-1'?"
<< All my own opinions. >>