Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!amdahl!pyramid!octopus!vsi1!altnet!uunet!mcvax!ukc!eagle.ukc.ac.uk!rde
From: rde@ukc.ac.uk (R.D.Eager)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: ZOO availability (was: A Short History of Arching on Micros)
Message-ID: <5625@eagle.ukc.ac.uk>
Date: 15 Oct 88 12:59:40 GMT
References: <13593@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <4330109@hpindda.HP.COM> <6910@dasys1.UUCP> <5107@teddy.UUCP> <4314@bsu-cs.UUCP> <30666@oliveb.olivetti.com>
Reply-To: rde@ukc.ac.uk (R.D.Eager)
Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.
Lines: 48


I too have watched the ZOO/ARC discussion in silence so far. I now feel it
is time to put fingers to keyboard. There are two parts to this message;
first, about the ARC/PKARC fiasco..the second about ZOO.

First, I don't think either SEA or PKWARE are blameless in the affair, but
the one thing that really irritated me was the aggressive way in which Phil
Katz continually put down SEA's product. I am convinced that a major reason
for the later (incompatible) compression technique was that he could then
allow disinformation to be spread indicating that ARC was faulty in some
way, so that he could maximise his (fairly considerable) income from PKARC.
As for those who are now saying they will use Phil's new product before they
have even seen it, well, that is just plain stupid. It may be good, it may not;
to say you are going to use it anyway.....

Now I have blown off steam about that, on to part two. I think ZOO is a good
product, and Rahul makes some fair points about distribution. I have
changed exclusively to using ZOO, keeping only a copy of ARCE for extraction
purposes for stuff off the net. I would like to see eveyone using ZOO, since
Rahul is the only person to come out of this affair (if he was ever really
in it!) with any credibility.

I too understand Rahul's point about keeping the software low cost, and
making sure that Compuserve etc. don't rip people off. I also see that this
confusion is doing the universal acceptance of ZOO some damage, and I am
sad about that (I would like to see SEA and PKWARE lose out on this, and
in any case I believe ZOO is better). My suggestion is as follows.

1. Make it a condition that ZOO must be distributed in a complete and
   unmodified form, including documentation.

2. Make it crystal clear in the documentation that if anyone reading it
   has been charged more than $X for downloading, copying etc., then they
   have been ripped off.

This would make sure that only a few people would be charged over the odds
before Compuserve started to lose business and any good market image they
may have. Any alteration to the documentation would potentially attract
litigation.

I know this isn't a perfect solution, but I hope it's a starting point. I
really think the ZOO restrictions need revising, while respecting Rahul's
wishes.
-- 
           Bob Eager
           rde@ukc.UUCP
           ...!mcvax!ukc!rde
           Phone: +44 227 764000 ext 7589