Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!labrea!jade!ucbcad!ames!elroy!mahendo!jplgodo!wlbr!scgvaxd!ashtate!dbase!drc
From: drc@dbase.UUCP (Dennis Cohen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Reasons to avoid StuffIt.
Message-ID: <256@dbase.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 4-Nov-87 09:32:43 EST
Article-I.D.: dbase.256
Posted: Wed Nov  4 09:32:43 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Nov-87 11:00:21 EST
References: <1562@sics.se> <7499@dartvax.UUCP> <7507@dartvax.UUCP> <2103@tekig4.TEK.COM>
Organization: Ashton Tate Development Center Glendale Cal.
Lines: 54
Keywords: stuffit packit binhex unpit
Summary: Didn't already exist

In article <2103@tekig4.TEK.COM>, bradn@tekig4.TEK.COM (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:
> 
> 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?
No, the unloader needs StuffIt rather than PackIt now as it will unpack either.

> 
> 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?
If other networks are any indication, StuffIt is becoming far more used than
PackIt very quickly.

> 
> 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?
Unpit is free, but it was written by a generous person to duplicate PackIt's
capabilities for people on the net.  Someone could do the same for StuffIt.  The
author included enough info in the docs to make that task reasonable.  Besides,
Unpit is not that readily available (I don't have it, yet).

> 
> 4) They are stable.  BinHex4.0 and UnPit have been in use long enough to
> demonstrate that they work.  Why test a new program?
If that's an argument then everyone should still be using MacWrite and MacPaint
rather than Word, WriteNow, FullPaint, and SuperPaint.  It's called progress.

> 
> 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?
> 
A file archiver did not yet exist!  StuffIt has a directory, you can add to and
delete files from existing archives, get a list of what's available, etc.
Besides, it even does a better job of compressing things.  What are some of
these "fantastically useful applications" as I'm having trouble coming up with
ideas for spare-time projects?  Everything I come up with is just an
evolutionary program, a better (?) way of doing something that some other
program already does.


Dennis Cohen
Ashton-Tate Glendale Development Center
dBASE Mac Development Team
--------------------------
Disclaimer:  Above opinions are MINE.  Leave my employers out of it, I do.