Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!sri-spam!rutgers!husc6!ut-sally!ut-ngp!auscso!mentat
From: mentat@auscso.UUCP (Robert Dorsett)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Reasons to avoid StuffIt.
Message-ID: <623@auscso.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 3-Nov-87 11:17:47 EST
Article-I.D.: auscso.623
Posted: Tue Nov  3 11:17:47 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Nov-87 05:28:36 EST
References: <1562@sics.se> <7499@dartvax.UUCP> <7507@dartvax.UUCP> <2103@tekig4.TEK.COM>
Reply-To: mentat@auscso.UUCP (Robert Dorsett)
Organization: Austin UNIX Users' Group, Austin, TX
Lines: 65
Keywords: stuffit packit binhex unpit

In article <2103@tekig4.TEK.COM> bradn@tekig4.UUCP (Bradford Needham) writes:
>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:

So why not trash your COMPUTER and go back to pencil/paper, typewriter/paper,
because it's "standardized"? :-)

>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?

Because it's so INCREDIBLY efficient.  It's at least three times as fast as
PackIt III, has MUCH more efficient data compression, has a much friendlier 
user environment, and has better error handling/diagnostics (i.e., you know 
what's going on when something screws up).

>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?

So let's dream up a form letter for such people.  Such a letter would read:
"Contact your local computer store or users group."  No big deal.  The "con-
fusing and frustrating experience" is something we have to go through once, 
when we're *first* getting started.  StuffIt is similar enough to PackIt
in philosophy of operation that the "replacement" notices should be sufficient
to get it used without undue problems.

And the fact remains: StuffIt is being used WIDELY already.  The BMUG BBS 
already has programs uploaded in StuffIt format, and several local BBS's 
*insist* on the format.  Mainly due to the length savings: one will spend
less time uploading/downloading the program, reducing inconvenience to
other users, and permitting more software to be stored on a disk with a 
given capacity.

>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?

Okay, so maybe 1 out of every 50 people will send in a couple of bucks to the
author.  So what?  I happen to think authors should stand some hope of being
rewarded for the work they do.  StuffIt clearly represents a deal more work
than PackIt.  The difference between "shareware" and "not shareware but 
freely accessible" (I got flamed on my use of "Public domain" recently :-)) is
that, after writing a program, the author sits down and writes a little notice
asking for money.  That's about it.  That implies a confidence in his work,
although I've seen the shareware label on some real trash.  I doubt if many
people enthusiastically write a program for the immensely profitable share-
ware market, so if altruism is your concern, no need to be. 

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

I've used StuffIt extensively the last couple of weeks, and haven't run into
a single error.  I suspect the algorithm is stable; the version differences
seem to deal with polishing the user interface (i.e., StuffIt 1.13 seems 
friendlier than StuffIt 0.97).


-- 
Robert Dorsett                  {allegra,ihnp4}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!walt!mentat
University of Texas at Austin	{allegra, ihnp4}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!auscso!mentat