macausla@newton.ccs.tuns.ca (Robert MacAusland) (03/12/90)
>This newest version of NuPak 2.0 is really interesting. I spent some time >with it last night, and I was *amazed*. It REALLY unpacks Mac "stuffit" >packed files. Yep, really. > >Lynda I don't think I've ever heard of NuPak. Where is it available? It sounds like an extremely useful utility. -- /* Robert MacAusland -> macausla@newton.ccs.tuns.ca */
dhom@spica.acs.calpoly.edu (David Hom) (03/12/90)
In article <90Mar11.192916est.57409@ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca> macausla@newton.ccs.tuns.ca (Robert MacAusland) writes: >>This newest version of NuPak 2.0 is really interesting. I spent some time >>with it last night, and I was *amazed*. It REALLY unpacks Mac "stuffit" >>packed files. Yep, really. >> >>Lynda >I don't think I've ever heard of NuPak. Where is it available? It sounds >like an extremely useful utility. >-- >/* Robert MacAusland -> macausla@newton.ccs.tuns.ca */ Here is a press release talking about NuPak 2.0. BTW, I mentioned to Joshua (the author) that Binscii and Binhex support would be great and he said he'd look into it. Dave dhom@cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu ------------ Frontier Technologies Breaks the Macintosh Barrier GROSSE ILE, Mich., February 27, 1990- Frontier Technologies takes unpacking technology to new heights with their resource fork packing program NuPak IIgs v2.0. This version now, while still allowing the user to pack files with resource forks, unpacks Macintosh Stuffit Archives with ease. Never before have IIgs users been able to directly access Macintosh archives so easily. Several new features of NuPak IIgs v2.0 are a preferences menu, the ability to select packing/unpacking devices from a menu, and splitting of Stuffit archived files into resource and data forks. "This new version will forever change the face of communication packing utilities," said Steven Yuhasz, president of Frontier Technologies. "It just goes to show that the Macintosh is not as far away as most people believe. I hope that this will futher close the gap between the IIgs and the Macintosh line. For years I've seen interesting text files in Stuffit format and wished I could unpack on the IIgs to view it. Now all people have that ability. I am proud that Frontier Technologies is the first to offer Stuffit archive support on the IIgs in a new and improved version of NuPak IIgs. Frontier Technologies is committed to giving people the best of both worlds." When used in combination with a program called Resource Spy, Icons, Fonts, and sound files can be extracted from Macintosh resource forks and utiltizied by such programs as Diced and Sound Studio. Additional features incorporated into NuPak IIgs v2.0 include greater disk access speed and compatibility with GS/OS 5.0.2. NuPak IIgs still does not support compression routines in the packing of archives as of yet, but the next revision may support dynamic LZW and Huffman compression routines as well as compatibility with some older Apple II packing/unpacking utilities. In the past, files with resource forks could only be archived by packing a whole disk at once. Now files such as CDEVS (i.e. Control Panel NDA) and NuPak IIgs can be packed in single files saving disk space and much frustration. NuPak IIgs is still the only program that packs files with resource forks and supports unpacking of Macintosh Stuffit archives on the IIgs. In the event of the release of a Macintosh FST, NuPak IIgs will be to directly unpack Stuffit archives from Macintosh Disks. NuPak IIgs 2.0 supports all of the popular unpacking formats such as NuFX, BLU, ACU and SIT or Macintosh Stuffit. In addition to that, it will unpack ShrinkIT archives in both disk and file format.It also supports unpacking of 5.25 disks as well as the Apple IIgs 3.5 inch standard. This program is fully compatible with industry standards and programs currently in use. NuPak IIgs is easy to use since it follows the human interface guidlines set by Apple Computer. NuPak IIgs 2.0 is availiable now on America On-line in the IIgs Utilities Section and on several bulletin board systems across the country. Best of all, this program is still in the Shareware Tradition. So, if the program is found to be unsatisfactory, there is no money spent. NuPak IIgs can be had for the Shareware fee of $15 after 2 weeks of use. For more information, contact Frontier Technologies on this service at screen name Frontier T. or at Frontier Technologies P.O. Box 165 Grosse Ile, MI. 48138-2009.
delaneyg@wnre.aecl.ca (Grant Delaney) (03/12/90)
This is like taking the work of other's and trying to make a buck on it. All the work on shrinkit (which this is obviously based on) has been done by Andy. Let use not forget the problems that ANDY went through to start to go for a comercial product with L & L. The only thing you appear to be getting it stuffit. My suggestion is send the money to Andy he did most of the work anyway. Remember the Great Flap before!!! Grant Delaney
kadickey@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kent Andrew Dickey) (03/13/90)
In article <104*delaneyg@wnre.aecl.ca> delaneyg@wnre.aecl.ca (Grant Delaney) writes: >This is like taking the work of other's and trying to make a buck on it. All >the work on shrinkit (which this is obviously based on) has been done by >Andy. Let use not forget the problems that ANDY went through to >start to go for a comercial product with L & L. The only thing you appear >to be getting it stuffit. My suggestion is send the money to Andy he did >most of the work anyway. Remember the Great Flap before!!! > >Grant Delaney This NuPak thing looks like a really bad deal... Andy has been working very hard on ShrinkIt 3.0, and GS/ShrinkIt.... this competition might be enough to make Andy stop his work. It's a bad feeling in business when a competitor beats you out with a product, but this is even worse since Andy has been doing it for FREE! I just hope this NuPak doesn't steal any of Andy's code...that would be really lame. Kent Dickey kadickey@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
cs122aw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Alfter) (03/13/90)
In article <14458@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> kadickey@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kent Andrew Dickey) writes: >This NuPak thing looks like a really bad deal... Indeed it does. It doesn't even support the classic IIs! ProDOS 8 may not know what to do with resource forks and such, but I think the ability to read StuffIt and BinHex on the II on the II could be useful; sometimes I port stuff between the IIe in my dorm room and the SE/30s downstairs. Andy Nicholas, on the other hand, has busted his ass to make ShrinkIt usable on as little as a 64K II Plus! I really appreciate the efforts of people who like to keep the older machines plugging along. (As for me, I have a 128K enhanced IIe.) >Andy has been working very hard on ShrinkIt 3.0, and GS/ShrinkIt.... >this competition might be enough to make Andy stop his work. It's a bad >feeling in business when a competitor beats you out with a product, but >this is even worse since Andy has been doing it for FREE! Indeed it may very well have that effect. Why would I write a program if I knew I could get it from someone else? ShrinkIt is copyrighted, right? If it is ever discovered that NuPak uses any ShrinkIt code, I hope Andy registered his ShrinkIt copyright and can raise the money for a lawyer to take the NuPak folks to court. (Yeah, right--pay for a lawyer on the pittance your folks send from home! :-) ) >I just hope this NuPak doesn't steal any of Andy's code...that would be >really lame. 'Nuff said. One last note. There's a UNIX clone out called GNU. (BTW, GNU is one of those three-letter acronyms they speak of in rec.humor--it means "GNU's Not UNIX" :-) Anyway, whenever one of the guys responsible for GNU comes on the net, his .sig always says "Support Free Software." I think we should all do that. If you get hold of a copy of NuPak, don't send in your shareware fee. If you haven't gotten a copy, don't bother. I'm sure someone else (you listening, Andy?) is bright enough to give us BinHex and StuffIt some other way, should there be a need for it. (You can always live without, of course, and send uncompressed files!) Scott Alfter------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet: cs122aw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu _/_ Apple II: the power to be your best! alfter@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu/ v \ saa33413@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ( ( A keyboard--how quaint! Bitnet: free0066@uiucvmd.bitnet \_^_/ --M. Scott, STIV
ccasts2@prism.gatech.EDU (Sheldon Simms) (03/13/90)
In article <1990Mar12.202529.12084@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> cs122aw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Alfter) writes: >Anyway, whenever one of the guys responsible for GNU comes on the net, his .sig >always says "Support Free Software." I think we should all do that. If you >get hold of a copy of NuPak, don't send in your shareware fee. If you haven't ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ NuPak is NOT free software. If you use any shareware program and don't send in your shareware fee, you are STEALING the program. The GNU people don't mean for you to not pay for software that you should pay for. They mean for you to use and write free software. Shareware is not free software. Sheldon Simms ccasts2@prism.gatech.edu
nicholaA@batman.moravian.EDU (Andy Nicholas) (03/13/90)
In article <104*delaneyg@wnre.aecl.ca>, delaneyg@wnre.aecl.ca (Grant Delaney) writes: > This is like taking the work of other's and trying to make a buck on it. All > the work on shrinkit (which this is obviously based on) has been done by > Andy. Let use not forget the problems that ANDY went through to > start to go for a comercial product with L & L. The only thing you appear > to be getting it stuffit. My suggestion is send the money to Andy he did > most of the work anyway. Remember the Great Flap before!!! I wasn't going to say this before, but could we just let this thing go? This basically just drags up a lot of fairly painful memories that I could just as soon do without. We've resolved this once before... I don't know what the legal status of Andy and Kent's code is (free, public domain, copyrighted, what?), but I don't think they would object to having Joshua put it into NuPak. Besides, supposedly Joshua is starting to rewrite a large part of it in assembler anyway. The thing which confuses the life out of me, though, is that gs/shrinkit will do everything NuPak will do (and much more) and do it faster and in most cases much more cleanly, and it'll do it for free. Why are these guys BOTHERING to write NuPak? I mean, sheesh, Josh is dependant on Kent and Andy to make sure that he can pack files... I'd much rather see someone as bright and energetic as Joshua doing something that he can make a great contribution with.. well, sure, unstuffing is important, and it's not like I feel I have "competition" (how can I? shrinkit is free...), it's just that I think Joshua could do SO MUCH BETTER if he would work on something which needs working on, ya know? You know, like Excel/GS, Wingz/GS, or something like that... oh well, at least these Frontier Tech guys keep me on my toes. I kept having to check the files that it produced to make sure that they were standard NuFX files and nothign strange was going on. Joshua Thompson, the author of NuPak basically took Andy McFadden and Kent Dickey's C code and made a program with a nice user-interface. Then he took the ARC (or compress, both will work) C source and added that to get it to unstuff stuffit files. It's really not that hard if you have a working C compiler... it's harder to do in assembler.. which is what I did in gs/shrinkit. That was one of the 'big secrets'... gs/shrinkit unstuffs stuffit files. There are a few 'other secrets' as well, but could we just stop this 'trying to make a buck off of so-and-so's code talk? See, even Raymond Lau, the author of Stuffit "cheated" - the source code which he used for Stuffing files came either from unix compress or from ARC. So much so, that the little idosyncracies that make unix COMPRESS what it is STILL exist in StuffIt 1.5.1 to this very day. The unix compress sources were public domain, Ray used them (or ARC, I don't know which). Ray made a great product. Ray is now selling stuff based on that product. What I'd kinda like to know, however, is how Ray can get away with selling Stuffit Deluxe which unZIPs ZIP files when the only unzipping code which is available for public use is the stuff by samuel smith (might have gotten that name wrong) which strictly prohibits commercial redistribution of his C code. Who knows, Ray might have gotten permission or wrote it himself...??? (I don't want to impugn Ray Lau, I respect the guy a whole lot). I feel that archive utilities that are going to be used by everyone and his brother should be free. They contribute to the II user's sense of community. Anything that not everyone NEEDS (like, say, a backup program based on shrinkit or a terminal program which has an 'auto-extract' feature), I think is pretty fair game for commercial or shareware stuff... although I despise shareware. Right now, I need to write the segmented memory management routines so that gs/shrinkit won't go doing mindnumbingly stupid things like trying to allocate _MaxBlock to do stuff. You can use a fragmented memory situation better with my stuff... actually, some to think of it, this is one of the last major things I need to do before gs/shrinkit is almost done. Gee, think about that... finished... I thought I'd never hear that word... > Grant Delaney andy -- Yeah!
nicholaA@batman.moravian.EDU (Andy Nicholas) (03/13/90)
In article <14458@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, kadickey@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kent Andrew Dickey) writes: >>This is like taking the work of other's and trying to make a buck on it. All >>the work on shrinkit (which this is obviously based on) has been done by >>Andy. Let use not forget the problems that ANDY went through to >>start to go for a comercial product with L & L. The only thing you appear >>to be getting it stuffit. My suggestion is send the money to Andy he did >>most of the work anyway. Remember the Great Flap before!!! ... and zoom! ... off we went... > This NuPak thing looks like a really bad deal... Not really.. Joshua seemes to have spent at least 4-5 months writing it. He uses C, so he technically has an unfair advantage because I'm writing everything in assembler, but then again, my stuff is faster. > Andy has been working very hard on ShrinkIt 3.0, and GS/ShrinkIt.... Yes. That's definitely true. :-) > this competition might be enough to make Andy stop his work. It's a bad > feeling in business when a competitor beats you out with a product, but > this is even worse since Andy has been doing it for FREE! Not really... I don't "need" the money to survive (I will need money once I graduate, but that's what "real jobs" are for). At this point, I just want to get gs/shrinkit FINISHED and out the door. I've worked so hard on it for so long that after a while it starts to become unbearable. At least ShrinkIt 3.0 is going out... (hooooo ray) > I just hope this NuPak doesn't steal any of Andy's code...that would be > really lame. No, actually Kent, he's using your C code... Andy McFadden's NuLIB code. Well, even if Joshua had dissassembled all of shrinkit and had used the standard decoder (because nupak 2.0 is FAR faster than nupak 1.0 in unpacking), there wouldn't be any way that I could prove it and it's not worth pursuing anyway since shrinkit and gs/shrinkit are free programs. I just hope that Joshua doesn't start encoding files in some non-standard format that gs/shrinkit can't decode... that would confuse a whole lot of people... and *REALLY* annoy me. >Kent Dickey andy -- Yeah!
nicholaA@batman.moravian.EDU (Andy Nicholas) (03/13/90)
In article <1990Mar12.202529.12084@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, cs122aw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Alfter) writes: >>This NuPak thing looks like a really bad deal... > > Indeed it does. It doesn't even support the classic IIs! ProDOS 8 may not > know what to do with resource forks and such, but I think the ability to read > StuffIt and BinHex on the II on the II could be useful; sometimes I port stuff > between the IIe in my dorm room and the SE/30s downstairs. Andy Nicholas, on > the other hand, has busted his ass to make ShrinkIt usable on as little as a > 64K II Plus! I really appreciate the efforts of people who like to keep the > older machines plugging along. (As for me, I have a 128K enhanced IIe.) Nupak is a shrinkit compatible archiving program (so far). Anything you create with nupak should be able to be extracted with gs/shrinkit. I don't really mind this at all.. although the situation could get markedly worse if joshua decides to start doing stuff "his own way" and puts archives into strange formats which no one can read... after all, that's why I wrote the NuFX documentation, so people could freely use the format. I just hope no one abuses that format, though. If anyone wants a copy of the latest NuFX docs, send me a letter and an address... I have to xerox it out of the call -apple article I did. That's the current documentation as far as anyone else is concerned. I'll be sending Apple the updated stuff for that article sometime... well, soon. :) > Indeed it may very well have that effect. Why would I write a program if I > knew I could get it from someone else? ShrinkIt is copyrighted, right? If it > is ever discovered that NuPak uses any ShrinkIt code, I hope Andy registered > his ShrinkIt copyright and can raise the money for a lawyer to take the NuPak > folks to court. (Yeah, right--pay for a lawyer on the pittance your folks > send from home! :-) ) Actually, I did formally copyright shrinkit... the registration number is something like TXu 393-996. Suing rarely accomplishes anything but feeding lawyers and sapping your energy. I would far prefer to just move on and write something else. > get hold of a copy of NuPak, don't send in your shareware fee. If you haven't > gotten a copy, don't bother. I'm sure someone else (you listening, Andy?) is > bright enough to give us BinHex and StuffIt some other way, should there be a > need for it. (You can always live without, of course, and send uncompressed > files!) Well, actually, yes... gs/shrinkit currently supports unstuffing... The decoder is written in assembler and are rather quick when decoding... the unstuffing requires an extra 64k available and I'm currently trying to get the unstuffing to work in a 768k machine (unshrinking does, but not unstuffing... too little memory). I wrote the dehuffing routines in assembler also. they were a real trip to write. Wouldn't a standalone unbinhex utility be better right now than something bundled into shrinkit? And, if any of you turkeys think for one blasted moment that after all this work I'm going to sit here and throw in the towel, y'all have another thing coming. andy -- Yeah!
danield@pro-grouch.cts.com (Daniel Davidson) (03/14/90)
In-Reply-To: message from ccasts2@prism.gatech.EDU >>always says "Support Free Software." I think we should all do that. If you >>get hold of a copy of NuPak, don't send in your shareware fee. If you >>haven't > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >NuPak is NOT free software. If you use any shareware program and don't send >in your shareware fee, you are STEALING the program. The GNU people don't Calm down a sec, and read the original message again. The original message was sugesting that people *NOT* use the Shareware Program, and just wait for ShrinkIt 3.0 what is suposed to be *FREE*. Scott Alfter (the orginal poster) was not sugesting that people steal the Shareware program, but that they wait for the free program. Daniel _______________________________________________________________________________ BITNET : danield%pro-grouch.cts.com@nosc.mil | ProLine: danield@pro-grouch UUCP: crash!pnet01!pro-grouch!danield | INET:danield@pro-grouch.cts.com ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-grouch!danield@nosc.mil| All opinions here in are MINE!!
cwilson@NISC.SRI.COM (Chan Wilson) (03/14/90)
In article <1990Mar12.202529.12084@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> cs122aw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Alfter) writes: >In article <14458@phoenix.Princeton> (Kent Dickey) writes: >>This NuPak thing looks like a really bad deal... > >Indeed it does. It doesn't even support the classic IIs! ProDOS 8 may not [slurp] > >>Andy has been working very hard on ShrinkIt 3.0, and GS/ShrinkIt.... >>this competition might be enough to make Andy stop his work. It's a bad >>feeling in business when a competitor beats you out with a product, but >>this is even worse since Andy has been doing it for FREE! [slurp] Ya know, the moment I saw of that, I thought of the Unix program called Unsit that lets you unstuff Stuffit archives on unixy systems. Although I haven't done it yet, it might be real interesting to port the code over to APW C (or whatever) and make it work. <heh heh heh...> [slurp] > If you >get hold of a copy of NuPak, don't send in your shareware fee. If you haven't >gotten a copy, don't bother. Uhm.. if you're gonna do this, remember to not use it. You're legally bound to send the shareware fee in if you use the program. > I'm sure someone else (you listening, Andy?) is >bright enough to give us BinHex and StuffIt some other way, should there be a >need for it. (You can always live without, of course, and send uncompressed >files!) Well, the hard (?) part is done; there are already C versions of the above two, all they need is porting over. (I'll get to this eventually, if no one beats me to it. It be a good excuse to learn C, anyway. :) >Scott Alfter --Chan ................ Chan Wilson -- cwilson@nisc.sri.com <!> I don't speak for SRI. Janitor/Architect of comp.binaries.apple2 archive on wuarchive.wustl.edu "And now, the penguin on top of the television set will explode." ................
RXBROWN@UALR.BITNET ("MR.FANTASTIC") (03/14/90)
I don't know why you people are complaining about NuPak. If people want to use it they will, but we all know that Shrinkit works, and does its job well. I am going to get NuPak to see what its like, and see if I can unpack some Stuffit files. That does not mean I am going to stop using Shrinkit. Robert Brown Apple // the golden age.
fadden@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Andy McFadden) (03/15/90)
In article <1206@batman.moravian.EDU> nicholaA@batman.moravian.EDU (Andy Nicholas) writes: >In article <104*delaneyg@wnre.aecl.ca>, delaneyg@wnre.aecl.ca (Grant Delaney) writes: >> This is like taking the work of other's and trying to make a buck on it. All [snip] It's beginning to look that way. >I wasn't going to say this before, but could we just let this thing go? Not yet. >This basically just drags up a lot of fairly painful memories that I could just >as soon do without. We've resolved this once before... I don't know what the >legal status of Andy and Kent's code is (free, public domain, copyrighted, >what?), but I don't think they would object to having Joshua put it into >NuPak. NuLib is a copyrighted, Freeware product. The compression code is copyrighted by Kent, the rest by me. The copyright appears on both the product help screens and in EVERY source file. I wouldn't object to somebody using it if somebody would ask me about it first. This is the first I've heard of it... > Besides, supposedly Joshua is starting to rewrite a large part of >it in assembler anyway. ...in which case I would have no right to complain. But for the moment, it looks like I do. >> Grant Delaney > >andy Does "Joshua" have an internet address (or a full name)? Don't send any money around until I figure out what's going on... (I don't have the best memory, but I don't remember talking to anybody named Joshua about using NuLib code... wait and see). -- fadden@cory.berkeley.edu (Andy McFadden) ...!ucbvax!cory!fadden
nicholaA@batman.moravian.EDU (Andy Nicholas) (03/15/90)
In article <23054@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, fadden@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Andy McFadden) writes: > NuLib is a copyrighted, Freeware product. The compression code is > copyrighted by Kent, the rest by me. The copyright appears on both > the product help screens and in EVERY source file. > > I wouldn't object to somebody using it if somebody would ask me about it > first. This is the first I've heard of it... > > Does "Joshua" have an internet address (or a full name)? Don't send any > money around until I figure out what's going on... Yes, the fellow's name is Joshua Thompson, he has an America Online account, JOSHUAT2, and he also has an internet account. Grant Delaney sent me email with the account name, but I think I killed that mail a while ago... in any case, Grant, could you please post Joshua's interNet address? > (I don't have the best memory, but I don't remember talking to anybody > named Joshua about using NuLib code... wait and see). I kinda didn't think so... I was wondering if Joshua had asked anyone about using your code. I had assumed that he did, but I guessI was mistaken. And, thank you, I'd like to stay as far away from this issue as possible. andy -- Yeah!