Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:16565 news.admin:2326
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!ihnp4!ihlpf!straka
From: straka@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Straka)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,news.admin
Subject: Re: some (should-be) ground-rules for submissions to comp.binaries.*
Keywords: * XBIN FILENAME FIX *
Message-ID: <4878@ihlpf.ATT.COM>
Date: 27 May 88 12:47:15 GMT
References: <2689@utastro.UUCP> <8604@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>
Reply-To: straka@ihlpf.UUCP (55223-Straka,R.J.)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 24

In article <8604@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) writes:
>My 2 cents worth:
>
>I don't think StuffIt is a good choice for a standard of compressing
>files, since then every poster has to shell out $20.00 to be a legal
>user.  I am partial to use of UNIX-compatible tar and compress.  There

There are two issues here (as least as far as the net is comcerned.  One is
getting the binary to the moderator.  Compression is not crucial here.  Any
means of getting the binary to the moderator would not stress the bandwidth
of the network too much.

The moderator unpacks, unstuffits, or unhexifies the binaries, reviews them,
and only THEN stuffits them together for distribution on the net.  This way,
only the moderator is obliged to contribute the shareware fee.

I don't think there is much of an argument against Stuffit.  Of course, if
you want to help out the revenues of AT&T, Sprint, MCI, et al., then go right
ahead...  I would prefer to use the same resources to process MORE binaries
through the net for the same cost using Stuffit.
-- 
Rich Straka     ihnp4!ihlpf!straka

Advice for the day: "MSDOS - just say no."