Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!ucsdhub!sdcsvax!ucbvax!decvax!dartvax!bono
From: bono@dartvax.UUCP (Christopher North)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Reasons to avoid StuffIt.
Message-ID: <7566@dartvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Nov-87 12:22:04 EST
Article-I.D.: dartvax.7566
Posted: Thu Nov  5 12:22:04 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Nov-87 15:01:09 EST
References: <1562@sics.se> <7499@dartvax.UUCP> <7507@dartvax.UUCP> <2103@tekig4.TEK.COM>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Lines: 17
Keywords: stuffit packit binhex unpit
Summary: My opinion


Well it is time for me to add my opinion on Stuffit vs. Packit.
First of All...Packit too is shareware for the packer so it is
not a completely costless protocol.  Now what I don't understand
is why people are resisting a 'better' procedure.  Stuffit makes
files smaller.  That means a lot to many people.  To me ...it
means that I don't have to free up as much room on my communications
disk to do a download.  It also means that I can archive files on disks
and put a lot more  files on a disk.  AND...it means that files sent
over the .net are smaller and thus save money in transmission times.
Stuffit gets my vote.  Say yes to progress and no to old stuffies!

-- 
Chris North
Dartmouth College                    or                320 Mammoth Road
Hanover NH  03755                                      Manchester, NH  03103
CSNET: bono@dartmouth.edu