Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ysub!psuvm!art100 Organization: Penn State University Date: Monday, 24 Jun 1991 21:38:41 EDT From: Andy Tefft Message-ID: <91175.213841ART100@psuvm.psu.edu> Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: Heatseeker References: <910621184230.584787@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL> <1991Jun22.023810.26366@mcs.anl.gov> <16484@smoke.brl.mil> My initial worry regarding this program is not viruses (mostly because I no hard drive, keep pristine archive copies of almost everything I use, and have a hard time believing that anyone would distribute a virus in such a blatant manner) but rather how safely it performs its functions. We've all heard of the bugs that copy II+ has seen, and it has to be the most-used prodos 8 file utility program, and indeed prodos disks once in a while just get screwed up for no apparent reason (there is always *some* reason...). Now we have a program that apparently uses non-standard methods of accessing files (i.e. not the normal prodos mli calls, otherwise it would be as slow as any other program) which has not yet been thoroughly tested. This simple fact has made me a bit nervous, so I will not be using it for a while (in fact, probably not in its current form) for anything I consider "important," although I do plan to test it heavily. In fact, this is the ONE utility program i have been waiting for, ever since having to copy hundreds of 3-block files into subdirectories on 5.25" disks (which takes longer and longer and longer as the directory grows). By the way, it's rather irrelevant, but I was disappointed at the way the original post came across, i.e. blatant advertising. Probably a more humble approach would have caused less worry. Well, I guess bad press is still press...