Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!tektronix!tekig!tekig4!bradn
From: bradn@tekig4.TEK.COM (Bradford Needham)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Reasons to avoid StuffIt.
Message-ID: <2103@tekig4.TEK.COM>
Date: Mon, 2-Nov-87 14:14:57 EST
Article-I.D.: tekig4.2103
Posted: Mon Nov  2 14:14:57 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 6-Nov-87 01:35:23 EST
References: <1562@sics.se> <7499@dartvax.UUCP> <7507@dartvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: bradn@tekig4.UUCP (Bradford Needham)
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR.
Lines: 28
Keywords: stuffit packit binhex unpit
Summary: more packers means more problems

In article <7507@dartvax.UUCP> borscht@dartvax.UUCP (Andy J. Williams) writes:
>Why stick with the inefficient?

Efficiency is not the only feature of a transfer program.  I have several
reasons to stick with the current (BinHex, UnPit) packers:

1) Binary transfer is complex enough as it is.  To download programs from
the net, a user needs all of: Kermit (or similar), BinHex, and Packit (or
UnPit).  StuffIt adds yet another protocol to the minimum set.  Why complicate
matters?

2) They are widely available.  How many times have you seen requests for
BinHex on this newsgroup?  Remember all the confused and frustrated requests
for Packit?  Why repeat that experience?

3) They are free.  BinHex4.0 and UnPit are free programs.  StuffIt is
shareware (for the packer).  Why use a shareware program when a free one
is available?

4) They are stable.  BinHex4.0 and UnPit have been in use long enough to
demonstrate that they work.  Why test a new program?

To authors who would write yet another binary transfer protocol for the Mac:
There are so many fantastically useful applications that haven't been written;
why waste your creativity rewriting those that already exist?

Brad Needham
brupbe socatrdche bri