mdc@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) (09/16/90)
An issue for people maintaining public archives who may be considering
what format to store their archive files in:
If you use a format that is not public knowledge, noone can
easily write a program to convert directly to a new format.
For example: It would be hard to write:
STUFFIT DELUXE -> COMPACTOR conversion routines
because both formats are proprietary.
While it is possible to decompress and then recompress an
archive, it is a lot more trouble than running a conversion
routine that can simply create a new archive and delete the
old one.
It is also difficult to do the conversion on another platform
because "free" decompression tools typically run only on one
platform.
I therefore urge people who keep public archives to resist using
proprietary formats for their archives as in the future conversion to
a new standard will be harder.
Proposal for the Macintosh:
Stick with Stuffit 1.5.1 format for now. If a better format becomes
public knowledge, then wait for a 1.5.1 -> Better-Public-Format
program to appear. Then switch to the new Public-Format.
In this way vendors will be encouraged to make formats public to sell
to all the people who use public bboards to download.
Benefits:
Programmers will be able to manipulate archives without permission
from greedy companies.
Users will have a choice in compression/decompression tools.
Companies will have incentive to give decent documentation and support
to make it worth buying a proprietary product.
Public Archive maintainers will be able to use tools to convert from
one format to another directly.
Request:
If you believe these concerns are valid, please post this message to
as many bulletin boards and online services as possible so that others
can help keep public data in public formats.
Thank you.
--
Marty Connor, Marty's Computer Workshop, "Specializing in Macintosh Training"
126 Inman Street, Cambridge, MA 02139; (617) 491-6935
mdc@entity.com, or ...{harvard|uunet}!mit-eddie!spt!mdcclubmac@runxtsa.runx.oz.au (Australia's Largest Mac Users Group) (09/19/90)
In article <6050@spt.entity.com> mdc@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) writes: >Proposal for the Macintosh: >Stick with Stuffit 1.5.1 format for now. If a better format becomes >public knowledge, then wait for a 1.5.1 -> Better-Public-Format >program to appear. Then switch to the new Public-Format. >In this way vendors will be encouraged to make formats public to sell >to all the people who use public bboards to download. This is totally screwball. How many people seriously want to unstuff files on a Unix host? I compress all the binhex, download it using ZMODEM and use MacCompress to de-compress the binhex, then use StuffIt 1.5.1 to decode the binhex, then unstuff the resulting file. There is only one reason for not adopting Stuffit Deluxe archives, is that the format is not available to the infinitesimal group who want to unstuff on a machine other than a Macintosh. Since Stuffit Classic is still shareware, people can use the stuffit deluxe format, and only pay the shareware fee. I can bet that Marty didn't pay his shareware fee of $20, like the thousands of shareware sneaks out there that use Stuffit for free. >Benefits: >Programmers will be able to manipulate archives without permission >from greedy companies. Great Marty, now you're calling Aladdin greedy. Wow you must be the last American socialist... Did you expect Stuffit to evolve without money? The shareware scheme failed because people were too lousy to pay the $20. >Users will have a choice in compression/decompression tools. Users have had a choice for many moons. >Companies will have incentive to give decent documentation and support >to make it worth buying a proprietary product. It's already worth it to buy products like Stuffit Deluxe & DiskDoubler. >Request: >If you believe these concerns are valid, please post this message to >as many bulletin boards and online services as possible so that others >can help keep public data in public formats. Yes, lets hold back progress for the benefit of a handful of people that want to do unusual things with Macintosh shareware archives. This would be analogous to Apple withholding System software because it crashed on Mac clones.... _____________________________________________________________________________ | Jason Haines, Vice-President | | Club Mac - Australia's Largest Macintosh Users Group | | G.P.O. Box 4523, Sydney, New South Wales, AUSTRALIA, 2001 | | | | INTERNET:clubmac@runxtsa.runx.oz.au UUCP: uunet!runxtsa.runx.oz.au!clubmac | | ACSNet: clubmac@runxtsa.runx.oz | | | | Phone: (02) 743-6929 Club Mac BBS: (02) 907-9198 | | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | | "If that was his face, then he has a huge cleft in his chin" - Agent 86 | |_____________________________________________________________________________|
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (09/20/90)
In article <2267@runxtsa.runx.oz.au> clubmac@runxtsa.runx.oz.au (Australia's Largest Mac Users Group) writes: >In article <6050@spt.entity.com> mdc@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) writes: >>Proposal for the Macintosh: >>Stick with Stuffit 1.5.1 format for now. If a better format becomes >>public knowledge, then wait for a 1.5.1 -> Better-Public-Format >>program to appear. Then switch to the new Public-Format. >>In this way vendors will be encouraged to make formats public to sell >>to all the people who use public bboards to download. > >This is totally screwball. How many people seriously want to unstuff files >on a Unix host? I compress all the binhex, download it using ZMODEM and use >MacCompress to de-compress the binhex, then use StuffIt 1.5.1 to decode the >binhex, then unstuff the resulting file. > >There is only one reason for not adopting Stuffit Deluxe archives, is that >the format is not available to the infinitesimal group who want to unstuff on >a machine other than a Macintosh. Since Stuffit Classic is still shareware, >people can use the stuffit deluxe format, and only pay the shareware fee. > >I can bet that Marty didn't pay his shareware fee of $20, like the thousands >of shareware sneaks out there that use Stuffit for free. *FLAME ON* You presumptious shithead. What makes you think that YOUR situation is universal, or even common? And where do you get off calling him a shareware sneak based on no evidence? *FLAME OFF* Here's another bunch of people who might want to stuff/unstuff on other than a Mac: archive maintainers and BBS operators. >>Benefits: >>Programmers will be able to manipulate archives without permission >>from greedy companies. > >Great Marty, now you're calling Aladdin greedy. Wow you must be the last >American socialist... > >Did you expect Stuffit to evolve without money? The shareware scheme failed >because people were too lousy to pay the $20. In many other cases, yes, but there were other reasons Stuffit is no longer shareware. (Hint: Ray Lau graduated high school) >>Companies will have incentive to give decent documentation and support >>to make it worth buying a proprietary product. > >It's already worth it to buy products like Stuffit Deluxe & DiskDoubler. In your not so humble (and incorrect, in MY NSHO) opinion. >>Request: >>If you believe these concerns are valid, please post this message to >>as many bulletin boards and online services as possible so that others >>can help keep public data in public formats. > >Yes, lets hold back progress for the benefit of a handful of people that >want to do unusual things with Macintosh shareware archives. This would be >analogous to Apple withholding System software because it crashed on Mac >clones.... We aren't asking for Aladdin to write a program to do all this stuff on non-macs-- only for them to make the information available to do so. If you want another software analog, it would be like Apple refusing to release Inside Mac so that only they and other big companies willing to pay to learn the interfaces could program it. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
denbeste@bgsuvax.UUCP (William C. DenBesten) (09/21/90)
In article <6050@spt.entity.com> mdc@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) writes: >Proposal for the Macintosh: >Stick with Stuffit 1.5.1 format for now. If a better format becomes >public knowledge, then wait for a 1.5.1 -> Better-Public-Format >program to appear. From article <2267@runxtsa.runx.oz.au>, by clubmac@runxtsa.runx.oz.au (Australia's Largest Mac Users Group): > How many people seriously want to unstuff files on a Unix host? Well, I for one, unbinhex and unstuff on my unix host. I am aware of maybe 20 other people at my site that do likewise. Your method (stuffit on mac) may be most common, but it is by no means universal. I even wrote a small shell script so that I can unpack and download a series of files. It is a little slower, but the computers deal with it while I am at lunch. I come back and it is done. It makes downloading very easy for me. > There is only one reason for not adopting Stuffit Deluxe archives, is that > the format is not available to the infinitesimal group who want to unstuff on > a machine other than a Macintosh. IMHO, the fact that compactor and stuffit deluxe are actively competing tells me that there is no concensus. They both have their advantages and are both viable choices (although I can't really say, since I have not seen compactor). This more than anything else tells me that we should wait for a winner to change. I could see using macbinary|compress|btoa but, coupled with the fact that the tools are not available on a mac (without a/ux) means that it really isn't a viable solution. Compress is a (9 to) 16 bit L-Z compactor, and btoa causes only ~25% growth (binhex and uuencode are ~33%). BTW, Before Jason accuses me, I paid for both stuffit & stuffit deluxe. -- William C. DenBesten is denbeste@bgsu.edu or denbesten@bgsuopie.bitnet
laird@slum.MV.COM (Laird Heal) (09/21/90)
In article <1990Sep20.013226.17253@eng.umd.edu>, russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: >In article <2267@runxtsa.runx.oz.au> clubmac@runxtsa.runx.oz.au (Australia's Largest Mac Users Group) writes: >>In article <6050@spt.entity.com> mdc@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) writes: >>>Proposal for the Macintosh: >>>Stick with Stuffit 1.5.1 format for now. If a better format becomes > >>This is totally screwball. How many people seriously want to unstuff files >>on a Unix host? I compress all the binhex, download it using ZMODEM and use >>MacCompress to de-compress the binhex, then use StuffIt 1.5.1 to decode the >>binhex, then unstuff the resulting file. [As an aside, compressing the binhex of a compressed file is not optimal. Un-BinHex to a MacBinary II Stuffit archive on the host, that's better.] >> >>There is only one reason for not adopting Stuffit Deluxe archives, is that >>the format is not available to the infinitesimal group who want to unstuff on >>a machine other than a Macintosh. Since Stuffit Classic is still shareware, >>people can use the stuffit deluxe format, and only pay the shareware fee. [Oh, to digress, is this a unix network or what?] >> >>I can bet that Marty didn't pay his shareware fee of $20, like the thousands >>of shareware sneaks out there that use Stuffit for free. >*FLAME ON* >You presumptious shithead. What makes you think that YOUR situation is >universal, or even common? And where do you get off calling him a shareware >sneak based on no evidence? >*FLAME OFF* > Oh, stop it! Do not prejudge the author on the basis of his previous articles! I was all set when I noticed the author, saying to myself "I said that the next time I get another one of THOSE from HIM I am slipping him into my Kill file - but then I realized he had something to say. I disagree with him, but he had something to say, and said it. On the other hand, if he does fly off with another abusive discourse on a trivial topic, then I'm going to have to learn how to use the kill file for once. While I'm here... In article <2267@runxtsa.runx.oz.au>, clubmac@runxtsa.runx.oz.au (Australia's Largest Mac Users Group) writes: >In article <6050@spt.entity.com> mdc@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) writes: >>Proposal for the Macintosh: > >[much initially almost abusive then almost reasonable discussion omitted] > >Yes, lets hold back progress for the benefit of a handful of people that Yes, let's hold back progress, if progress is the onsuit of closed computing! or let's make a stand in the pursuit of progress, if it is open standards and documentation of exactly what it is that the customer is getting. Do you have any software or hardware from a company that either went out of business or (should I mention Apple) decided to discontinue both production and support? Perhaps you did not mind being left in the cold but there is a better way, only if the relevant information is made available with the product. My serial port hard disk would not work with the 128K ROMs when I got it. It used a Davong controller board, but Davong was bankrupt and a fellow was repackaging them on his own. After debugging for an hour or so, I patched the Volume Manager with FEdit from the Macintosh Software Supplement distribution. I then called the vendor up to ask if he would like the patch. Man, when he called back did he ever want that patch! I cleaned it up to work on both ROMs before I sent it back to him, and all I asked for was the price of FEdit, and since I had heard about not getting the supposed upgrades even when sending the $40 in, I found FEdit Plus mail-order. The disk works with System 6, and surprisingly quickly, although I hardly ever use it any more. However, my point is that this fellow could not get the source code to his software. SCO, he said, had taken over support for Davong's customers and the source was all on Lisa disks. I offered to make some changes; I was running the Lisa Workshop (the last time I checked it still generated smaller code than MPW Pascal) but it was just unavailable to him. He was at the mercy of whatever bugs were in his binaries. It does not behoove us to put ourselves in that position if we do not have to. That is not progress. Laird Heal laird@slum.MV.COM Stay tuned for the exciting conclusion of this thread: (Salem, NH) +1 603 898 1406 same time, same channel. -- Laird Heal laird@slum.MV.COM The world is my office. (Salem, NH) +1 603 898 1406 <-----I charge for opinions, though.
Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (09/22/90)
Matthew T. Russotto writes in a message on 20 Sep 90 to Australias Largest Mac Users Group: MTR> *FLAME ON* You presumptious shithead. What makes you think that MTR> YOUR situation is universal, or even common? The same thing that makes the Unix folks out there think that _their_ situation is common enough to demand that the files with the name StuffIt on them forever remain in a documented format. I have to agree with Australia here. Accessing archives from foreign platforms is an unusual occurrence, one that Aladdin shouldn't lose sleep over just because they haven't accommodated it. As for BBS operators and archive maintainers, my experience is that BBS operators on IBMs and whatnot just ask me to check questionable files out for them. No problem. Is there an unsit on the IBM, for the 1.5.1 files? If not, it takes credence away from the argument that such a beast is necessary. It takes the wind out of the sails of those demanding such access. I've not seen such a beast, but then again, I'm not looking. Access to StuffIt files on foreign platforms? Will Aladdin be forced to support the Altair? How'z about the Apple II+? Apple III? I mean, undoubtedly *somebody* is getting .dlx files on his Commodore PET and wants to peek at them before he takes them to his Mac. Where does it end? I want an unStuffer for my Radio Shack Model 100! (You say, "If the file format was public, you could write your own." I say, the file format is Aladdin's. If they don't want to make it public, that's their choice. I can choose to use it, or not, for reasons of my own.) --Adam-- -- Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!200.2!Adam.Frix INET: Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG
clubmac@runxtsa.runx.oz.au (Macintosh Users Group) (09/22/90)
In article <1990Sep20.013226.17253@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: >*FLAME ON* >You presumptious shithead. What makes you think that YOUR situation is >universal, or even common? And where do you get off calling him a shareware >sneak based on no evidence? >*FLAME OFF* Great, name-calling. This really makes for a good discussion, doesn't it? Since I am flame-proof, I do not need to reply in kind. Most Mac users do not use UNIX-based stuffit-compatible tools, and I know this from vast experience with Mac users from all over Australia, and many in the U.S. After reading the mountains of drivel coming from people saying "Let's abandon the Stuffit format in favour of Compactor" (the format for which has not been made public), I just couldn't let it go on without commenting on the whole thread as the biggest wank in comp.sys.mac history. The comp.binaries.mac moderator has indicated that postings will remain in Stuffit 1.5.1 format. Most probably the info-mac archives will too. Of course, if Marty Connor wants to write a new suite of multi-platform compression tools for the public good, then we should support such an effort. It's obvious to anyone with any intelligence that compression tools that run on a range of machines & operating systems are a good thing. Now let's see something write it. >Here's another bunch of people who might want to stuff/unstuff on other than >a Mac: archive maintainers and BBS operators. Has anyone spoke to Aladdin regarding the licensing of the format for Stuffit Deluxe? _____________________________________________________________________________ | Jason Haines, Vice-President | | Club Mac - Australia's Largest Macintosh Users Group | | G.P.O. Box 4523, Sydney, New South Wales, AUSTRALIA, 2001 | | | | INTERNET:clubmac@runxtsa.runx.oz.au UUCP: uunet!runxtsa.runx.oz.au!clubmac | | ACSNet: clubmac@runxtsa.runx.oz | | | | Phone: (02) 743-6929 Club Mac BBS: (02) 907-9198 | | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | | "If that was his face, then he has a huge cleft in his chin" - Agent 86 | |_____________________________________________________________________________|
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (09/25/90)
In article <2283@runxtsa.runx.oz.au> clubmac@runxtsa.runx.oz.au (Macintosh Users Group) writes: >In article <1990Sep20.013226.17253@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: >Most Mac users do not use UNIX-based stuffit-compatible tools, and I know this >from vast experience with Mac users from all over Australia, and many in the >U.S. Most Mac users don't use Usenet, or BBSs. For compressing files that are not going to be made public, I don't care if you use the Compression Format from mars, number 3, on a rot13 file. I just think that files available on a network which consists mostly of Unix machines ought to be manipulable on Unix machines. >I just couldn't let it go on without commenting on the whole >thread as the biggest wank in comp.sys.mac history. The comp.binaries.mac >moderator has indicated that postings will remain in Stuffit 1.5.1 format. >Most probably the info-mac archives will too. I saw that. Good. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
rterry@hpcuhc.HP.COM (Ray Terry) (09/25/90)
>This is totally screwball. How many people seriously want to unstuff files >on a Unix host? Well, me for one... I know LOTS of Mac/Unix folks that use 'unsit' frequently. Ray =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ray Terry GEnie = R.Terry CIS = 71150,735 HPDesk = /HP4700 Domain = rterry@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com SysOp = MacScience BBS 408-866-4933 Packet = N6PHJ @ N6IIU.#NOCAL.CA.USA UUCP = ...!sun!hpda!hpcupt1!rterry UFGate = ...!apple!camphq!36!ray.terry =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
rterry@hpcuhc.HP.COM (Ray Terry) (09/25/90)
>Has anyone spoke to Aladdin regarding the licensing of the format for Stuffit >Deluxe? Not me personally, but, yes, others have. And, also, I think to Bill G. re Compactor, too. I've already asked Aladdin about updating unsit to handle Deluxe archives. Lets hope they do... Ray =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ray Terry GEnie = R.Terry CIS = 71150,735 HPDesk = /HP4700 Domain = rterry@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com SysOp = MacScience BBS 408-866-4933 Packet = N6PHJ @ N6IIU.#NOCAL.CA.USA UUCP = ...!sun!hpda!hpcupt1!rterry UFGate = ...!apple!camphq!36!ray.terry =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
laird@slum.MV.COM (Laird Heal) (09/25/90)
[I'll keep answering, folks, when four messages for changing to an unknown archive format arrive with none opposed. Give some men a gun, the first thing they'll do is try to shoot themselves in the foot...] In article <71882.26FAF85A@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG> Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) writes: > >[having a documented file format is not the general rule] > >(You say, "If the file format was public, you could write your own." I say, >the file format is Aladdin's. If they don't want to make it public, that's >their choice. I can choose to use it, or not, for reasons of my own.) > Let's choose not to use it here, for reasons of our very own. Even on the Macintosh, MPW tools allow me to enter the editor, pick up the BinHex data, put it into a window or use the Worksheet to xbin just the selection, and then automatically process that. I would rather not give up this capability. -- Laird Heal laird@slum.MV.COM The world is my office. (Salem, NH) +1 603 898 1406 <-----I charge for opinions, though.
clarson@ux.acs.umn.edu (Chaz Larson) (09/25/90)
In article <1990Sep20.013226.17253@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: > >We aren't asking for Aladdin to write a program to do all this stuff on >non-macs-- only for them to make the information available to do so. If >you want another software analog, it would be like Apple refusing to release >Inside Mac so that only they and other big companies willing to pay to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >learn the interfaces could program it. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The Alladin InterNet Rep remarked that if you want to write a tool to work with Deluxe archives, feel free to contact Alladin for details. He did not mention anything about these details being available _only_ to "big companies willing to pay". Later today I will call Aladdin myself to get these details, and will report my findings. chaz -- -- "I Am The Reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln", Insists Prince. -spew clarson@ux.acs.umn.edu AOL:Crowbone
hammen@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Robert Hammen) (09/27/90)
>>Has anyone spoke to Aladdin regarding the licensing of the format for Stuffit >>Deluxe? >Not me personally, but, yes, others have. And, also, I think to Bill G. re >Compactor, too. It is interesting to note that CompuServe is undergoing the Great Compression Debate as well. From what I understand, they've tentatively decided to allow any format (StuffIt Deluxe, DiskDoubler, Compacter) to be used for uploaded files provided a) a PD decompression utility is available, and b) CompuServe is given either commented source or well-documented file formats, in case the program authors are unwilling or unable to update their software for new machines and new versions of operating systems. Evidently Bill Goodman (Compacter author) is adamantly opposed to giving out his file format (or at least this was stated in one message in the thread. I've not asked him personally to verify that statement). Robert
kenh@hscfsas1.harvard.edu (Ken Hancock) (09/27/90)
In article <1990Sep27.043830.4907@ddsw1.MCS.COM> hammen@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Robert Hammen) writes: >software for new machines and new versions of operating systems. Evidently >Bill Goodman (Compacter author) is adamantly opposed to giving out his >file format (or at least this was stated in one message in the thread. I've >not asked him personally to verify that statement). I have. He lives in Boston and is active on the Boston Computer Society BBS. His feeling, and I agree with him, is there's no reason for him to release his format when no one else is. Why give all his commercial competitors that advantage? Ken -- Ken Hancock | This account needs a new home in MA... Isle Systems | Can you provide a link for it? isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu | It doesn't bite... :-)
jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) (09/28/90)
In article <1990Sep27.043830.4907@ddsw1.MCS.COM> hammen@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Robert Hammen) writes: > >It is interesting to note that CompuServe is undergoing the Great Compression >Debate as well. From what I understand, they've tentatively decided to >allow any format (StuffIt Deluxe, DiskDoubler, Compacter) to be used for >uploaded files provided a) a PD decompression utility is available, and b) >CompuServe is given either commented source or well-documented file formats, >in case the program authors are unwilling or unable to update their >software for new machines and new versions of operating systems. Evidently >Bill Goodman (Compacter author) is adamantly opposed to giving out his >file format (or at least this was stated in one message in the thread. I've >not asked him personally to verify that statement). > >Robert Last I heard Bill Goodman was willing to place source code in a trust, and was just negotiating over the trigger which would allow the code to be released from the escrow. Even after Bill G. publically stated this there were still people discussing his supposed refusal. So I wouldn't be surprised at your impression. We'll just have to wait on official announcements. Other than that, and the fact that the great compression wars have been a little quiet over there lately, you are substantially correct. Maybe the final negotiations are being conducted in private. jim -- Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com +1.408.991.6115 Silvar-Lisco, Inc. 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086
Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (09/30/90)
Laird Heal writes in a message on 25 Sep 90: >(You say, "If the file format was public, you could write your own." I say, >the file format is Aladdin's. If they don't want to make it public, that's >their choice. I can choose to use it, or not, for reasons of my own.) > LH> Let's choose not to use it here, for reasons of our very own. LH> LH> Even on the Macintosh, MPW tools allow me to enter the editor, LH> pick up the BinHex data, put it into a window or use the Worksheet LH> to xbin just the selection, and then automatically process LH> that. I would rather not give up LH> this capability.... That's exactly my point. If enough people take your point of view (and I remain absolutely neutral on that issue), then Aladdin will be forced to handle things differently. I don't claim to pass judgment on your point of view as opposed to any other. I just say you can, for your own reasons, choose to use StuffIt Deluxe or not. --Adam-- -- Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!200.2!Adam.Frix INET: Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG