earleh@dartvax.UUCP (Earle R. Horton) (01/21/87)
*********Overly sensitive Mac programmers, this is not for you.*********
Last chance to hit that "n" key before the flames start.
Go ahead. Make my day.
Let me get one thing straight from the start, I have nothing at all
against games. There is, however, something about the general type of
software posted on USENET and, indeed, sold in stores for the Macintosh
that seems to me to be frivolous and inducive to what John Dvorak calls
"user idiocy." I mean programs that allow you to fiddle with icons,
yet another miniFinder, something to make it sound like a typewriter,
etc. ad nauseam ad infinitum. I mean, maybe half the stuff is ok, like
terminal programs (hundreds so far), C code that puts up a demo window
and crashes my system when I try to use the zoom box, a desk accessory
calendar that seems to be incompatible with every Mac application ever
written. At least these are an attempt in the right direction (maybe.)
How about a program to balance my checkbook? Hmm? You know,
something useful like an inventory program I can use to keep track of
my VCR, TV, and vacuum cleaner serial numbers, in case my house gets
robbed and the burglar didn't take the floppies with the Mac. When
I bought my Macintosh, I was under the impression I was buying a
COMPUTER, a tool to make my life-style simpler and to aid me in my
work. I want programs that perform real-life useful functions, get
it? How about a shareware spreadsheet?
And documentation, that's another thing. Most of this stuff comes
as a 6000kByte binhex file, that turns into a 5000kByte PackIt file,
that I have to download (no unpit here). Then I unpack the thing,
and find that two-thirds of it is a MacWrite file describing the
program. The final program is about 2 kBytes after I have spent
the better part of an hour downloading it at 1200 baud. One program
even came with TWO MacWrite files, one set up for the LaserWriter and
one set up for the ImageWriter! Assuming the program is worth keeping
and the "shareware" fee is not a week's pay, you have no idea how
much trouble it is to unpack the files, convert the documentation
to "text-only", upload it again, and then force-feed the thing through
"qpr" (we have a QMS here, a real printer.) I don't even HAVE a
MacWrite disk, having erased mine on purpose about a week after buying
the Mac.
Think of it this way, PackIt II format files were not considered
to be the in thing to use for NET postings because of the shareware
nature of PackIt II. MacWrite is a COMMERCIAL PRODUCT since it is
no longer bundled with the basic Macintosh. The implication is
clear: no PackIt II files >>> no MacWrite files, thank you.
Gosh, I feel much better now!jdb@mordor.s1.gov (John Bruner) (01/21/87)
Regarding the content of USENET-distributed programs: you get what you pay for. Just as reading USENET can (usually) be justified by the 5% of postings that contain useful information, the "free" distribution of software that USENET provides can be justified by the gems that come out of it. (Yes, I know that USENET isn't free, but most end-users don't see the cost.) The definition of "useless" programs and "gems" is highly subjective, and I'm not foolish enough to say what programs I think belong in either category, so I'll pass along to the issue of documentation format. MacWrite is the closest thing to a universal Macintosh document standard that we have. Of all Macintosh users, the largest percentage of those who have any sort of word processing software can read MacWrite-format documents. MacWrite documentation can include pictures and other material which can't be included in "text-only" form. It is unfortunate that not everyone has MacWrite, but I don't believe that this justifies giving up the extra information by changing to text-only. (Speculation: I wonder how hard it would be to develop a program to display (only) and perhaps print MacWrite files. Would the removal of all editing capabilities greatly simplify it?) I agree that it is frustrating to concatenate multiple pieces of a single BinHex file and download it in order to discover what it contains. Perhaps we should try to encourage a standard format for software distribution which includes a plain text index of all of the items in the BinHex/PackIt file and a summary of the software's function. This index would ideally be small enough to accompany each part of a multi-part BinHex distribution (so that if part 2 arrives first you'll know if it is worth saving). -- John Bruner (S-1 Project, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) MILNET: jdb@mordor.s1.gov (415) 422-0758 UUCP: ...!ucbvax!decwrl!mordor!jdb ...!seismo!mordor!jdb
barmar@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Barry Margolin) (01/22/87)
In article <5582@dartvax.UUCP> earleh@dartvax.UUCP (Earle R. Horton) writes: > Think of it this way, PackIt II format files were not considered >to be the in thing to use for NET postings because of the shareware >nature of PackIt II. PackIt II is FREE. It is PackIt III that is shareware. Also, unpit is free. So, you don't have to spend a cent to unpack PackIt files. I've never heard of any moratorium against PackIt II format files, and unpit makes PackIt III files acceptable. -- Barry Margolin ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar
briand@tekig4.UUCP (01/24/87)
>PackIt II is FREE. It is PackIt III that is shareware. Also, unpit is >free. So, you don't have to spend a cent to unpack PackIt files. I've >never heard of any moratorium against PackIt II format files, and unpit >makes PackIt III files acceptable. At least when PackIt II was first distributed, it was SHAREWARE, not free. Your statement is in error. At the time PackIt II was distributed, the developer announced the forthcoming PackIt III which was also shareware. UnPit was specifically developed by someone (thanks!) so that files sent packed with PackIt II or III could be unpacked with a public-domain utility. If you want to pay for PackIt III and send stuff, OK, we can all use your posting now. -Brian Diehm Tektronix, Inc.
tdn@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Newton) (01/25/87)
> PackIt II is FREE. It is PackIt III that is shareware. Wrong. Both PackIt II and PackIt III are shareware. It is PackIt I which is free, and it can't decode the Huffman-compressed files which Packit-{II, III} and Unpit 0.3 are capable of generating. Posting PackIt-II-format compressed files to the net was an issue back in the days before Don Brown (CE Software) wrote a free PackIt-II file unpacker and I ported Unpit to the Mac. > and unpit makes PackIt III files acceptable. Actually, unpit doesn't make all PackIt III files acceptable. It currently is unable to deal with the encrypted files that PackIt III can generate, but this doesn't really matter in the context of the net since only fools would encrypt files that they wanted everyone to be able to download. With encryption off, PackIt III files look like PackIt II ones, which unpit knows how to decode. -- Thomas Newton