roland@sics.se (Roland Karlsson) (10/26/87)
Oh no! Not yet an other way of distributing mac files. I am unfourtainly forced to download StuffIt. Some person (Thats the most positive word I can think of) may use this NEW PackIt format. Please don't. StuffIt may be better than PackIt. It may save some bytes on the net. But it is not worth it! I (and probably you) already have a working solution how to download with PackIt ( Using PackIt (on MAC), unpit (on UNIX), etc. ). ----- Please Tony Jacobs tell the net NOT to use your maybe very good program. In spite of the first lines I don't want to offend you. I just don't want to have one more way to download programs. Roland Karlsson
t-jacobs@utah-cs.UUCP (Tony Jacobs) (10/28/87)
In article <1562@sics.se> roland@sics.se (Roland Karlsson) writes: >Oh no! > >Not yet an other way of distributing mac files. > >I am unfourtainly forced to download StuffIt. Some person (Thats the most >positive word I can think of) may use this NEW PackIt format. Please don't. > >StuffIt may be better than PackIt. It may save some bytes on the net. But >it is not worth it! I (and probably you) already have a working solution how >to download with PackIt ( Using PackIt (on MAC), unpit (on UNIX), etc. ). > >----- > >Please Tony Jacobs tell the net NOT to use your maybe very good program. > >In spite of the first lines I don't want to offend you. I just don't >want to have one more way to download programs. > > Roland Karlsson You obviously haven't used or even looked at the program yet! First of all it is not my program, I wish it was, I would make some good bucks off it. I am quite sure it WILL become the new standard. Packit was better than nothing, just barely! If you would at least look you would notice that you can still un pack Packit files with Stuffit. Stuffit doesn't just save a few bytes, it can save TONS of them little buggers. I have seen files that packed twice as small as Packit. When you add up all the traffic that comes across the net, it will make a big difference. Stuffit is zillions of times more friendly when dealing with lots of small files. You can also unpack Packit files directly into Stuffit archives. The only reasons I can think of why switching to Stuffit would cause problems is for those folks who don't have Stuffit yet, and for those very few who use the password and encryption features of Packit. And of couse there are those out there who like it in their rut and don't like anything new and improved. Stuffit is free for downloading, only $15 for archiving. The cat is out of the bag and I doubt I could stop its spread if I wanted to. Tony Jacobs Center for Engineering Design University of Utah
david@hpsmtc1.UUCP (10/28/87)
Yes you should use Stuffit on your Mac...because it unpacks Packit III files! and furthermore you can see all of the files in a stuffit container and selectively extract them rather than the one at a time, read thru the first file to see the name of the next file bother in Packit (yeechhh!). So, you can unpack Packit files and stuffit files with Stuffit, plus you can pack whole directories (oops folders, that was a DOS flashback) by selecting the folder. The documentation includes the C data structures to the Stuffit format, so I would assume you could write a unix version to Unpit or unstuff to a Unix box. The Unpack option is on the menu bar about the middle of the screen.
isle@dartvax.UUCP (Ken Hancock) (10/28/87)
In article <1562@sics.se> roland@sics.se (Roland Karlsson) writes: >I am unfourtainly forced to download StuffIt. Some person (Thats the most >positive word I can think of) may use this NEW PackIt format. Please don't. > >StuffIt may be better than PackIt. It may save some bytes on the net. But >it is not worth it! I (and probably you) already have a working solution how >to download with PackIt ( Using PackIt (on MAC), unpit (on UNIX), etc. ). > I wish to differ. I think in long term, StuffIt will become more popular as can be seen already on BBS's, Compuserve, GEnie, etc. StuffIt is much easier to use, better packing, faster, and friendlier. I realize it may be an inconvenience to unstuff on the mac instead of xbin'ing and unpit'ing on UNIX, but in the long term, I think you'd like StuffIt much more if you gave it a try. It's fantastic for archiving old files/paint pictures, etc. Ken P.S. My $$$ is in the mail as soon as I get paid....*grin* -- Ken Hancock UUCP: isle@dartvax BITNET: isle@u2.dartmouth.edu DISCLAIMER: If people weren't so sue-happy, I wouldn't need one!
borscht@dartvax.UUCP (Andy J. Williams) (10/28/87)
In article <7499@dartvax.UUCP> isle@dartvax.UUCP (Ken Hancock) writes: >In article <1562@sics.se> roland@sics.se (Roland Karlsson) writes: >>I am unfourtainly forced to download StuffIt. Some person (Thats the most >>positive word I can think of) may use this NEW PackIt format. Please don't. >> >>StuffIt may be better than PackIt. It may save some bytes on the net. But >>it is not worth it! I (and probably you) already have a working solution how >>to download with PackIt ( Using PackIt (on MAC), unpit (on UNIX), etc. ). >> > >I wish to differ. I think in long term, StuffIt will become more popular >as can be seen already on BBS's, Compuserve, GEnie, etc. StuffIt is >much easier to use, better packing, faster, and friendlier. I realize it >may be an inconvenience to unstuff on the mac instead of xbin'ing and >unpit'ing on UNIX, but in the long term, I think you'd like StuffIt >much more if you gave it a try. It's fantastic for archiving old >files/paint pictures, etc. >Ken I agree completely. I too had a working solution but I now see a better one. Why stick with the inefficient? And the best part is the ability to add to an archive and remove whatever you want from it. It simply is a better tool. Maybe someone should get on the ball and write up a new unpit on UNIX... It's kinda like continuing to use MacWrite when you have MS Word 3.01... you don't want to switch since all your files are written in Write... but since it is better, you will see it more often, more files saved as Word Docs... Hey, it's progress... This message was NOT a paid for political announcement. (tho' it sure sounded like one...) >P.S. My $$$ is in the mail as soon as I get paid....*grin* He means, as soon as I pay him back the $$ I owe him... :):):):):):):):):) DISCLAIMER: I am not affiliated with anything at all. I am just a satisfied customer. -Andy P.S. As soon as I recover from paying Ken back, I will have my $$ in the mail... -- Disclaimer: You better like my opinions, my mother can beat up your mother... Andy J. Williams borscht@dartmouth.edu vive spam and borscht! {ihnp4,decvax,linus}!dartvax!borscht
verber@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Mark A. Verber) (10/29/87)
Another interesting packing program that is out there is the CITIBundler. This was written by the guys at CITI at Univ of Mich. It doesn't have a very impressive user interface, but it will bundle up directories and restore directories. They have a stand alone applications as when as MPW tools. It is great for packing up a large number of files that should go into specific locations. As far as I know it is free, and sources are availible. Cheers, Mark
reynolds@sauron.Columbia.NCR.COM (John Reynolds) (10/30/87)
As an example of the compression capabilities of StuffIt 1.10 as we try to reduce net bandwidth, I did a little experiment. I downloaded the Teltnuag game from the net over the last couple of days after appending the pieces together. A binhex file of approx. 205K was the result. After unBinhexing the file a PackIt file of about 175K resulted. Unpacking yielded nearly 175K of files, some application and some text based documents. I then created a StuffIt archive from the same files. The StuffIt archive came to 87K. Very Impressive if you ask me! As an aside, I found the package very convenient to use. This is one piece of shareware I will be glad to pay for. -- -John D. Reynolds reynolds@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM
drc@dbase.UUCP (Dennis Cohen) (11/02/87)
In article <1562@sics.se>, roland@sics.se (Roland Karlsson) writes: > Oh no! > > Not yet an other way of distributing mac files. > > I am unfourtainly forced to download StuffIt. Some person (Thats the most > positive word I can think of) may use this NEW PackIt format. Please don't. > > StuffIt may be better than PackIt. It may save some bytes on the net. But > it is not worth it! I (and probably you) already have a working solution how > to download with PackIt ( Using PackIt (on MAC), unpit (on UNIX), etc. ). > > ----- > > Please Tony Jacobs tell the net NOT to use your maybe very good program. > > In spite of the first lines I don't want to offend you. I just don't > want to have one more way to download programs. > > Roland Karlsson I say, why not? It is an archiver rather than just a compressor, it's faster, it generates (usually much) smaller files, and it's free to those who only use it to decompress archives which relieves the general marketplace of either having to find an alternative or not paying the shareware fee (and the vast majority of this net has not from the number of registrations which Harry received). Every complaint registered against PackIt in the past was answered by Raymond Lau's StuffIt program and I think it should be given a chance. It's an unwillingness to progress such as that expressed above that made the dinosaurs extinct. Dennis Cohen Ashton-Tate Glendale Development Center dBASE Mac Development Team -------------------------- Disclaimer: Opinions expressed above are my own. I don't know what (if any) opinions my employer might have on any subject under discussion.
pgn@usceast.UUCP (Paul Nevai) (11/04/87)
This argument about dumping StuffIt in favor of the goood ol' PackIt III is becoming ridiculous. PackIt III served its purpose but now we have a better program. PERIOD As far as I am concerned I am for progress! Have Orthogonal Polynomials Will Travel Paul Nevai N410106@univscvm.BITNET (PREFERRED) Carolina Research Professor .../!wright/!usceast/!pgn (UUCP) Department of Mathematics pgn@cs.scarolina.edu.CSNET University of South Carolina 73057,172.Compu$erve Columbia, S.C. 29208 1-(803)-777-3776.office U.S.A. 1-(803)-777-4226.secy