a112@mindlink.UUCP (Greg Bastow) (03/03/90)
The following message was captured from PKWare BBS (414-352-7176) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Message #10130 "Amiga Messages" (RECEIVED) Date: 16-Feb-90 16:09 From: Phil Katz To: Harvey Harbicht Subj: ZIPWARP Next Reply is Message #10138 >>P.S. Is there ever going to be a ZIPWARP? Or an option on ZIP to treat the entire disk as one file? Well, that would be nice, but at the current rate I doubt it. To date, I can count the total number of PKAZIP registrations on my fingers! The writing of PKAZIP took a considerable amount of my time and expense. PKAZIP does everything that our MS-DOS software PKZIP, PKUNZIP, PKZFIND and StupenDOS can, and somethings that can't even be done with any of our MS-DOS software, with a registration cost less than PKZIP/PKUNZIP for MS-DOS alone! Yet, the response from the Amiga community in general has been one of discontent, criticism, paranoia, hysteria, misinformation, and complaint. I have just spent a bunch of money to buy am Amiga at PKWARE so we can fully support PKAZIP, yet with the registrations received so far for PKAZIP, I can barely buy a few boxes of diskettes. If this is all the incentive there is for one to write software for the Amiga, then I think that ZIPWARP, CLI versions, AREXX interfaces and whatever other programs everyone wants but won't register are a long, long way off. I have plenty of MS-DOS projects in the works which when they are released, won't slap me in the face. >Phil> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- With this type of repsonce of PkaZip for the Amiga, we may never see all the updates that we want. I for one am about to 'register' my copy, to support this software, as I do want to see updates to it. Greg Bastow / Amass For the Amiga / 604-538-3839 -> A long distance data number \ / Tunnel-Vision BBS -> A long distance BBS \/ 'Amiga - for the most of us'
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (03/04/90)
In <1247@mindlink.UUCP>, a112@mindlink.UUCP (Greg Bastow) writes: >[...] The writing of PKAZIP took a considerable amount of my >time and expense. >[...] >Yet, the response from the Amiga community in general has been >one of discontent, criticism, paranoia, hysteria, misinformation, >and complaint. I have just spent a bunch of money to buy am >Amiga at PKWARE so we can fully support PKAZIP, yet with the >registrations received so far for PKAZIP, I can barely buy a few >boxes of diskettes. Here we go again. Is it paranoia, hysteria, or discontent to say "This program has a flaw that will cause me not to use it."? Is it criticism to say that a program is unusable to me because of that flaw? I sure won't use it unless I can use it from a script, without having to manually intervene and muck about with the mouse. >If this is all the incentive there is for one to write software >for the Amiga, then I think that ZIPWARP, CLI versions, AREXX >interfaces and whatever other programs everyone wants but won't >register are a long, long way off. I have plenty of MS-DOS >projects in the works which when they are released, won't slap me >in the face. If CLI versions, ie. versions runnable from a script, are a long way off, then so is any registration fee from any but the most casual user of archivers, who may or may not use the program enough to feel compelled to register anyway. It's up to the author. He sets the conditions and writes the program. I choose to not bother with it. Simple. -larry -- Gallium Arsenide is the technology of the future; always has been, always will be. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
plouff@kali.enet.dec.com (03/06/90)
Having seen this thread and also the PKAZIP 1.01 package just posted to comp.binaries.amiga, I couldn't resist. Phil Katz has earned a reputation for writing small, fast programs, and it's a shame to see him complaning about Amigans. But browsing the README file, it strikes me that (quotes preceded by '>>') Katz would have more to complain about >>You must have zip.license in the S: >>directory to operate PKAZip. if the program were customer friendly >> Planned Improvements >> -------------------- >> >>- Ability to extract Reduced files and complete. Wes -- Wes Plouff, Digital Equipment Corp, Maynard, Mass. plouff%kali.enet.dec@decwrl.dec.com "Who came out with that term, 'MULTIMEDIA', btw??? I prefer amiga's old slang: DEMO." -Viet Ho in comp.sys.amiga
phoenix@ms.uky.edu (R'ykandar Korra'ti) (03/06/90)
[Line eater? What line ea
Personally, I'd like PkaZip a lot more if it didn't need more than 400K
to compress two 20K files stored on floppy.
I ran PkaZip with around 400K free, told it to compress two (2) 20K
(20K) files. Ran out of RAM and gave me a visit from the guru. Ran it again
(everything else idenical, save for moving stuff out of RAM) with 500K, and
it worked.
500K to compress two 20K files is not what I consider to be acceptable
performance. Mr. Katz may be a good programmer in the MS-DOS world, but if
this is what he considers "good" AmigaDOS code, I'd like to refer him to
the ARP people, and others of their ilk, so he'll know what to compare
himself against.
- R'ykandar.
--
| R'ykandar Korra'ti | Editor, LOW ORBIT | PLink: Skywise | CIS 72406,370 |
| Elfinkind, Unite! | phoenix@ms.uky.edu | phoenix%ms.uky.edu@ukcc.bitnet |
| "Careful, mom, the toys are loose!" - from The Wizard of Speed and Time |jonathan.forbes@canremote.uucp (JONATHAN FORBES) (03/06/90)
Well, until PKAZIP surpasses LHARC, there is no reason why the whole world should switch to it. Not only is LHARC *free*, it's also faster, and almost always produces smaller files (even the Lharc by Paolo Zibetti, although LharcA 0.99 is much much faster.) And with the onset of Lharc 2 (new algorithm), there will be even less reason to switch. Currently, I only use PKAZIP to convert those archives to .LZH format. Obviously if the author wants a Shareware contribution for continued use, he's entitled to one, but until PKAZIP comes out with a command line interface, and gains enough speed to be competetive with LHARC, there is little point in using it. --- * Via ProDoor 3.1R
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (03/06/90)
In <14146@cbnewsc.ATT.COM>, dalka@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (kenneth.j.dalka) writes: >I happen to like to new pkazip. I find it amazing that someone >who has lived in the MSDOS world for so long could write something >that has such an amiga-like interface on the first try. I do agree >that it needs a CLI interface but I'm willing to do without it given >what the tool can do. I have complaints about a lot of tools and >if the worst thing I can think of about pkazip is that it has a >user-friendly graphical interface while lacking an "experts" CLI >interface, then pkazip is far above the compitetion. It isn't just that you can't use it from a CLI. It's that it cannot be invoked as part of a script, or as part of a pipe, or with redirection. The people who do a lot of shuffling of data enable you to have the programs you see on comp.sources.amiga or comp.binaries.amiga, or on the various commercial services, need the ability to automate much of the process. The inability to run it from a script means it's far down the list in the competition. Additionally, much of the manipulation of data is done on Unix machines, and last I heard, there was no ZIP utility available for Unix. Combine these two 'features', and you end up with something that is right out of the competition, and into the category of nuisance, because there are people who like it and will use it. >BTW, things I have noticed is that is compresses better than arc >but is usually %1 to %3 worse than lharc. However it is much faster >than lharc. Counting the time to muck about with it? -larry -- Gallium Arsenide is the technology of the future; always has been, always will be. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
dalka@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (kenneth.j.dalka) (03/07/90)
I happen to like to new pkazip. I find it amazing that someone who has lived in the MSDOS world for so long could write something that has such an amiga-like interface on the first try. I do agree that it needs a CLI interface but I'm willing to do without it given what the tool can do. I have complaints about a lot of tools and if the worst thing I can think of about pkazip is that it has a user-friendly graphical interface while lacking an "experts" CLI interface, then pkazip is far above the compitetion. BTW, things I have noticed is that is compresses better than arc but is usually %1 to %3 worse than lharc. However it is much faster than lharc. -- Ken Dalka (Bell Labs) att!ihlpz!dalka IH 4H-416 (312) 979-6930
Randy.Coghill@f70.n140.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Randy Coghill) (03/07/90)
Greg, I can understand where Phil is coming from, but I can see where the Amiga community is coming from also. PKAZIP in its current incarnation is useless to most Amiga users. We require/want a CLI version....We never asked for anything more/less. I run a BBS here and I have blocked out .ZIP files from my BBS as I am not using ZIP and most of my users are not either. I waited patiently for ZIP to arrive on the Amiga and it severely disappointed me to find that it was in the Intuition format. Would it now have been more logical/easier to do a CLI version first then add the GUI later if users warranted it? I know i would have sent in my registration had it been a functional (read useful program). I run a Paragon BBS and with every other archiver it allows me to view files, archive messages for download and Zip never fulfilled the need. I am sorry that Phil is not happy with the Amiga users support, but they are not about to pay for something that the can't/won't use do to the way the programmer does things. If you are on PKWare's BBS again soon perhaps you could forward this message or just tell him what the Amiga users feel. Randy -- Randy Coghill - via FidoNet node 1:140/22 UUCP: alberta!dvinci!weyr!70!Randy.Coghill Internet: Randy.Coghill@f70.n140.z1.FIDONET.ORG Standard Disclaimers Apply...
chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (Chris Lang) (03/07/90)
In article <14146@cbnewsc.ATT.COM> dalka@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (kenneth.j.dalka) writes: > >I happen to like to new pkazip. I find it amazing that someone >who has lived in the MSDOS world for so long could write something >that has such an amiga-like interface on the first try. It's not so surprising when you read the credits and see that the Amiga version was done by someone else....presumably someone with previous Amiga experience, namely Dennis Hoffman. > I have complaints about a lot of tools and >if the worst thing I can think of about pkazip is that it has a >user-friendly graphical interface while lacking an "experts" CLI >interface, then pkazip is far above the compitetion. It does have a very nice Intuitionalized interface, BUT...I really wish the time had been spent on something that could better benefit from it. An archiver is almost one of those tools like "dir" that you expect to have right there when you need it...PKAZip definitely is not "right there" when you need it. I hope that, instead of taking peoples' remarks about the program negatively, the PKWare people take the added effort to put in a command line interface...THEN they will probably see the praise and money the product would deserve. -Chris ----- Chris Lang University of Michigan, College of Engineering home: 4622 Bursley work: National Center for Manufacturing Sciences Ann Arbor, MI 48109 900 Victors Way, Suite 226 (313) 763-1832 Ann Arbor, MI 48108 chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (313) 995-0300 "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
grx1042@uoft02.utoledo.edu (Steve Snodgrass) (03/07/90)
In article <14451@s.ms.uky.edu>, phoenix@ms.uky.edu (R'ykandar Korra'ti) writes: > performance. Mr. Katz may be a good programmer in the MS-DOS world, but if > this is what he considers "good" AmigaDOS code, I'd like to refer him to > the ARP people, and others of their ilk, so he'll know what to compare > himself against. I tend to agree with the criticisms of PKAZip. From the looks of Lharc, LhArcA, and LHWarp, PKAZip is going to be (is being) blown out of the water by Lharc and its relatives/descendants anyway. And 90K for a compression program is ridiculous. /\=======================================================================/\ \/ Reality: Steve Snodgrass |"Volts embodied intent, and Amps were the \/ /\ -^-^- Cyberspace -^-^- | runners who carried out those intentions, /\ \/ GRX1042@uoft02.utoledo.edu| against the Ohms." -Gregory Benford, ToL \/ /\ GRX1042@uoft02.BITNET | Sleep is a luxury, spare time a myth. -me /\ \/ uoft02::GRX1042 (DECnet) | Recumbent Amigas - the only way to hack. \/
dfrancis@tronsbox.UUCP (Dennis Francis Heffernan) (03/07/90)
RE PKAZip It's not that I have any problem with the ZIP format. It's that the program is overblown. The author mentioned all the wonderful things it does, but IMHO, it shouldn't do all those things. I'm not going to use a file archiver as a directory utility. The program takes up too much disk space to fit on my WorkBench disk (I'm a floppy user) and takes up too much RAM to use most of the time unless I start shutting things down (I only have one meg). I don't see why I should register when I don't use the software. Future upgrades might change my mind, but I'm not going to pay in advance for them. --dfh ...uunet!tronsbox!dfrancis "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." -Albert Einstein
apang@undergrad.cs.ubc.ca (Anthon 'Amiga' Pang) (03/07/90)
In article <55.25f441b5@uoft02.utoledo.edu> grx1042@uoft02.utoledo.edu (Steve Snodgrass) writes: >I tend to agree with the criticisms of PKAZip. From the looks of Lharc, >LhArcA, and LHWarp, PKAZip is going to be (is being) blown out of the water by >Lharc and its relatives/descendants anyway. And 90K for a compression program >is ridiculous. Maybe on an Amiga without a harddrive, but with 3.5M RAM & 65M HD, it doesn't make that much difference to _some_ users :). (Here on our Un*x machines, "zoo" is 89K and "lharc" is 165K !) The size of the executable won't blow it away...it'll be judged/accepted on its relative compression efficiency (% reduction), speed, and the user interface (not particularly in that order), before it comes down to size of the binaries. Archivers come & go. In time, the majority will determine how frequently you use a particular archiver...at least, until a "better" archiver appears. I, personally, will not switch from "zoo" until a CLI oriented archiver comes along, that's faster AND achieves similar/better compression AND provides a similar list of switches & modifiers AND has a Un*x version as well ...so, I'm hard to please :-) But, I am indifferent with regards to PKAZIP...it's possible it will one day become the "people's archiver" (I didn't say how probable, though :) Some may have the need to zip/unzip files for transferring to/from MSD*S machines (where P.K. boasts its popularity). And, then, there's some Amigans who have yet to double click the CLI icon... Enough rambling...better start studying for tomorrow's "mid-term" exam.
grx1042@uoft02.utoledo.edu (Steve Snodgrass) (03/08/90)
In article <1990Mar7.075452.17153@undergrad.cs.ubc.ca>, apang@undergrad.cs.ubc.ca (Anthon 'Amiga' Pang) writes: > The size of the executable won't blow it away...it'll be judged/accepted on > its relative compression efficiency (% reduction), speed, and the user > interface (not particularly in that order), before it comes down to size of > the binaries. Archivers come & go. In time, the majority will determine how That's not my main point. I agree that an archiver is going to be judged on speed, compression, and interface. The fact that PKZip is 90K (or thereabouts) was just a side comment. I regularly use Lharc 1.10 as my main means of compression. Speed is not that much of an object to me, and Lharc gets good compression. PKZip's interface, for me, immediately rules out using it. I deal almost exclusively with the CLI. If they had written it as a command-line program, you could've used one of the many disk utilities available that handle calling of archiving programs. LhArcA is out, now, with a graphic interface, (although it seems to have some problems with PAL on A2500s, but I'm sure that will be fixed), and is very fast for Huffman encoding. I haven't compared it to Zip though. Then there is PKZip's ridiculous requirement that you have some damn license file in your S: directory. Sigh. All in all, my main gripe is hardly with Zip's file size. > Some may have the need to zip/unzip files for transferring to/from MSD*S > machines (where P.K. boasts its popularity). And, then, there's some Lharc is available on PCs, in fact it originated there. /\=======================================================================/\ \/ Reality: Steve Snodgrass |"Volts embodied intent, and Amps were the \/ /\ -^-^- Cyberspace -^-^- | runners who carried out those intentions, /\ \/ GRX1042@uoft02.utoledo.edu| against the Ohms." -Gregory Benford, ToL \/ /\ GRX1042@uoft02.BITNET | Sleep is a luxury, spare time a myth. -me /\ \/ uoft02::GRX1042 (DECnet) | Recumbent Amigas - the only way to hack. \/
dalka@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (kenneth.j.dalka) (03/08/90)
> last I heard, there was no ZIP utility available for Unix. Combine these two
There was an "unzip" that came accross netnews not too long ago that
works with UNIX.
--
Ken Dalka (Bell Labs)
att!ihlpz!dalka
IH 4H-416 (312) 979-6930jte@sai.UUCP (John Evans) (03/09/90)
I think PKware did a excellent job in their porting to the Amiga. The interface is very Amiga, unlike most ports of popular MSdos packages. I think that workbench users will be very happy with it. There are many users that do not use the CLI at all. PKzip is so popular in the MSdos world that at lease it makes it easy to transfer packed files to and from the Amiga. What is missing, as many has said, is a CLI mode and also the self extracting capability of the MSdos version. In fact if they were to provide self extracting capability they would have a one up on many Amiga compression routines since you do not need a separate program to decompress, you just execute the archive and it extracts itself!
wfh58@leah.Albany.Edu (William F. Hammond) (03/10/90)
In article <195@sai.UUCP>, jte@sai.UUCP (John Evans) writes: > . . . > What is missing, as many has said, is a CLI mode and also the self extracting > capability of the MSdos version. In fact if they were to provide self > extracting capability they would have a one up on many Amiga compression > routines since you do not need a separate program to decompress, you just > execute the archive and it extracts itself! The only way that I would execute a self-extracting archive is if 1) I could afford to have an unexpected crash; 2) All of my resources were write protected except for ram: 3) I personally knew the creator of the archive and knew about everyone with whom the archive creator had shared software. It's a dangerous world out there, and there is no point doing unnecessarily dangerous things. Self-extracting archives are a safe idea only in utopia or within a very secure office environment. They are never a good idea. -- Bill
tron1@tronsbox.UUCP (HIM) (03/10/90)
>In article <14146@cbnewsc.ATT.COM> dalka@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (kenneth.j.dalka) >writes: >> >>I happen to like to new pkazip. I find it amazing that someone >>who has lived in the MSDOS world for so long could write something >>that has such an amiga-like interface on the first try. Sounds to me like the ideal solution would be to have the command line driven interface standaloine , and then provide an (optional) Intuition front end. For example, "Dmaster" lets me use a intuition fromt end to zoo/arc when I want it , Arexx can do the job as well. Then everyone is happy. (BTW -- Despite my remarks re: Asdg , FACII is probably the only peice of software I have seen that takes this approach - [ I think it does anyway .. I have only seen it at users groups] - it is my impression the the Intuition interface "Facction" and "SatisFacction" are stand-alone.) **************************************************************************** Canadian Engineer Sees Face Of Bigfoot In a Tostada. Everything I say is Copr. 1990, except the stuff I stole from someone else and the stuff I don't want responsibility for. Kenneth J. Jamieson: Xanadu Enterprises Inc. "Professional Amiga Software" UUCP: tron1@tronsbox.UUCP BEST PATH ---> uunet!tronsbox!tron1 Sysop, Romantic Encounters BBS - (201)759-8450 / (201)759-8568 ****************************************************************************
jonathan.forbes@canremote.uucp (JONATHAN FORBES) (03/10/90)
Self extracting files? I hope that idea doesn't catch on; think how easy it would be for someone to install a virus into a supposedly "self-extracting" file, which wiped out your hard drive. Besides, SFX files take up more space, and everyone has ZIP, anyway. --- * Via ProDoor 3.1R
erk@americ.UUCP (Erick Parsons) (03/11/90)
>From: dfrancis@tronsbox.UUCP (Dennis Francis Heffernan)Message-ID: <25f4ac65:5446.1comp.sys.amiga;1@tronsbox.UUCP> > > It's not that I have any problem with the ZIP format. It's that the >program is overblown. The author mentioned all the wonderful things it does, Agreed, I was shocked by the size of the executable when I de-scrunged it myself. The only reason that I even included it in my C directory is: 1. It was the only program that would unzip a file that I wanted 2. It is admitedly very nicely done. I wish all programs that run on their own screen would center themselves in a more rowed screen !!!! > I don't see why I should register when I don't use the software. >Future upgrades might change my mind, but I'm not going to pay in advance for >them. As far as registering the program with a shareware donation, if you don't use the program you don't have to register it. My understanding of the shareware theory has always been.. Try it a couple of times and if you find that you use it a LOT send me XX.XX amount of dollars. To require anybody to send a shareware contribution would IMHO exclude them from the privelages of using this net for the purposes of distribution. I've sent a total of ONE shareware contribution to date. It was a program that I would consider worth the 25.00 sent were I to pick it up off the store shelves. That was JRComm by Jack Radigan. BTW another program that takes advantage of a more rowed screen !! I will consider paying a contribution for the PKAzip when I start seeing more zip files on BBS's around here. For now lharc and zoo seem to be very predominant and I feel that the BBS sys ops are getting tired of changing formats every week for every new scheme. > --dfh ...uunet!tronsbox!dfrancis -- -------------------------------------------------//------------------------- (ames att sun)!pacbell! ----> sactoh0!pacengr!americ!erk Multitasking, ucbvax!ucdavis!csusac! --/ // Never leave uunet!msac! -/ Erick Parsons \Sacramento Ca Home Without it --------------------------------------------\X/----------------------------- Please Don't Wait...
chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (Chris Lang) (03/12/90)
In article <90031103231016@masnet.uucp> jonathan.forbes@canremote.uucp (JONATHAN FORBES) writes: >Besides, SFX files take up more space, and everyone has ZIP, anyway. Speak for yourself. A lot of people don't have ZIP and a good many of the ones who do have it don't like it. OTOH, it IS a better alternative than self-extracting stuff. I am still totally unclear as to why people put things into self-extracting archives; all it seems to do is add to the file size. I mean, I can type "zoo x// SpamZoo" as quickly as I can type "SpamSFX", and I have a lot more control over what happens with the ZOO (ARC, LZH, ZIP) file, as well. -Chris ----- Chris Lang, University of Michigan, College of Engineering +1 313 763 1832 4622 Bursley, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109 chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu WORK: National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, 900 Victors Way, Suite 226, Ann Arbor, MI, 48108 +1 313 995 0300 "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
jbaker@gmu90x.gmu.edu (jbaker) (03/13/90)
In article <2675@leah.Albany.Edu> wfh58@leah.Albany.Edu (William F. Hammond) writes: >It's a dangerous world out there, and there is no point doing unnecessarily >dangerous things. Self-extracting archives are a safe idea only in utopia >or within a very secure office environment. They are never a good idea. > -- Bill How is a self-extracting file archive any more dangerous than the executable inside the archive? For some reason everyone was scared of PAK, even after an un-archiver was written for those who were afraid of PAK files. But trojan horses can just as easily be attached to the program you un-zoo or un-lharc... John Baker jbaker@gmuvax.gmu.edu
chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (Chris Lang) (03/13/90)
In article <2605@gmu90x.gmu.edu> jbaker@gmu90x.UUCP (John Baker) writes: >In article <2675@leah.Albany.Edu> wfh58@leah.Albany.Edu (William F. Hammond) writes: >How is a self-extracting file archive any more dangerous than the executable >inside the archive? For some reason everyone was scared of PAK, even after >an un-archiver was written for those who were afraid of PAK files. But >trojan horses can just as easily be attached to the program you un-zoo or >un-lharc... I thought this was covered, but... The reason a self-extracting file is more dangerous is that you have no control over it. You either run it or you don't. If I un-ZOO an archive, I can do whatever I want to with the final executable. Assuming I trust the authors of the archiving program, there is no danger to my system unbtil I CHOOSE to run a program. With a self-extracter, there is no telling what it might do. >John Baker >jbaker@gmuvax.gmu.edu -Chris ----- Chris Lang, University of Michigan, College of Engineering +1 313 763 1832 4622 Bursley, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109 chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu WORK: National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, 900 Victors Way, Suite 226, Ann Arbor, MI, 48108 +1 313 995 0300 "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
paule@pro-graphics.cts.com (Paul Ermisch) (03/13/90)
In-Reply-To: message from chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu > I am still totally unclear as to why people put things into self-extracting > archives; It's the chicken-or-the-egg paradox -- some folks don't have the archive extraction program required. We use it for our user group BBS for beginners. Only the archiving programs are put into a self-executing archive format. They can download the archive program in .PAK format (the ONLY self-extracting archive format on Amiga) and have everything they need right away. This is the only good reason to use such things, IMO. ProLine: paule@pro-graphics UUCP: ...crash!pro-graphics!paule ARPA/DDN: pro-graphics!paule@nosc.mil Internet: paule@pro-graphics.cts.com
GWO110%URIACC.BITNET@brownvm.brown.edu (F. Michael Theilig) (03/16/90)
On 13 Mar 90 05:00:00 GMT chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (Chris Lang) said: >In article <2605@gmu90x.gmu.edu> jbaker@gmu90x.UUCP (John Baker) writes: >>In article <2675@leah.Albany.Edu> wfh58@leah.Albany.Edu (William F. Hammond) > writes: >>How is a self-extracting file archive any more dangerous than the executable >>inside the archive? For some reason everyone was scared of PAK, even after [Stuff deleted] > >I thought this was covered, but... The reason a self-extracting file is more >dangerous is that you have no control over it. You either run it or you >don't. If I un-ZOO an archive, I can do whatever I want to with the final >executable. Assuming I trust the authors of the archiving program, there is >no danger to my system unbtil I CHOOSE to run a program. With a >self-extracter, >there is no telling what it might do. > I think I see your point, but I don't agree. Being too afraid to execute the actual program is exactly the same as being too afraid to un archieve it. It's not doing you any good. Of course I may be a bit over confidant, as in the two years I've own an Amiga, I've never ever Ever EVER gotten a virus. >>John Baker >>jbaker@gmuvax.gmu.edu > > -Chris >----- >Chris Lang, University of Michigan, College of Engineering +1 313 763 1832 > 4622 Bursley, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109 chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu >WORK: National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, > 900 Victors Way, Suite 226, Ann Arbor, MI, 48108 +1 313 995 0300 >"I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
tron1@tronsbox.UUCP (HIM) (03/16/90)
>>From: dfrancis@tronsbox.UUCP (Dennis Francis Heffernan)Message-ID: >><25f4ac65:5446.1comp.sys.amiga;1@tronsbox.UUCP> >> >> It's not that I have any problem with the ZIP format. It's that the >>program is overblown. The author mentioned all the wonderful things it does, True -- Personally, I dont think that is in itself a bad thing , but a trimmer CLI version as WELL would be welcome. >> I don't see why I should register when I don't use the software. >>Future upgrades might change my mind, but I'm not going to pay in advance for >>them. No reason to do it at all Dennis. I have send a few shareware contributions (DBW Render is one).... and in one notable case I have FAR exceeded what the author asked for. This was W. Hawes's "BATTLEMECH" game. Bar far this is the BEST Amiga program written of its type, commercial or otherwise , the upgrades have been very useful. Every update I got a cfard for like 6$ for the upgrade , OR 2$ and a floppy , I would often send 15$ AND a floppy. The point is , GOOD shareware is , IMHO supported by the users. **************************************************************************** "Killer Psychotic Ewoks From Saturn Raped My Daughter" Reveals Tina Turner. -- National Enquirer Photo Exclusive. Everything I say is Copr. 1990, except the stuff I stole from someone else and the stuff I don't want responsibility for. Kenneth J. Jamieson: Xanadu Enterprises Inc. "Professional Amiga Software" UUCP: tron1@tronsbox.UUCP BEST PATH ---> uunet!tronsbox!tron1 Sysop, Romantic Encounters BBS - (201)759-8450 / (201)759-8568 ****************************************************************************