umcarls9@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Charles Carlson) (09/05/90)
One other thing that no one has mentioned yet about StuffIt is its history! I'm not sure of exact dates here, but I got my Mac SE exactly 2 years ago, and StuffIt 1.5.1 was the current version at the time....Now almost 2 years later we have StuffIt 1.6 and StuffIt Deluxe....Thats TWO FRIGGING! YEARS WITHOUT AN UPDATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! To me, thats a totally unacceptable time to go without any updates whatsoever! Especially since StuffIt was severely lacking in features <needed! features, such as the ability to peek into folders and extract selected files!> And now that some serious competition is nipping Ol' Ray in the buttski, he finally gets off it and does something about it! I refuse to support any company/individual that practices in this manner! I also agree with the people who are saying 'no commercial software should be used to archive the software on public access sites'. I think its rather hypocritcal to be supporting the free distribution of software, the shareware and freeware world, then using a commercial program to distribute it with! Especially since there is a quite acceptable alternative! As for its proprietary format: someone said that it will be given away, they just want to know who has it...How do they expect that? What about all these Unix machines that need the source code in order to make the binary? Or is Alladin planning on keeping around binaries for every flavour of CPU and operating system that someone might want to run it on? Charles
isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ken Hancock) (09/05/90)
In article <1990Sep4.182943.22627@ccu.umanitoba.ca> umcarls9@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Charles Carlson) writes: >One other thing that no one has mentioned yet about StuffIt is its history! > >I'm not sure of exact dates here, but I got my Mac SE exactly 2 years ago, >and StuffIt 1.5.1 was the current version at the time....Now almost >2 years later we have StuffIt 1.6 and StuffIt Deluxe....Thats TWO FRIGGING! >YEARS WITHOUT AN UPDATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >To me, thats a totally unacceptable time to go without any updates whatsoever! Yeah, except you're forgetting one thing. Raymond Lau was in high school. I hate to rain on your parades, but some things are more important than making sure you get your updates. Raymond saw a need for something better than PackIt, so he did it. He asked a measly 20 bucks for something that has probably saved me countless hours and over $100 dollars in downloading costs. He isn't a professional software programmer, he's in college now. Maybe when he gets out, he'll have the time to dedicate more time to StuffIt -- maybe it'll even become his profession. I think it's pretty pathetic that everyone is sitting here whining about the evils of the compression world, all the while sitting here on our butts doing nothing about it. Many of us are professional programmers. Many of us have had much more experience than Raymond Lau. But who was the one who sat down and did something? It wasn't us (Bill Goodman excepted). Stop moaning and whining. If you want a standard just the way you think it should be, then do it. Write something better and faster than StuffIt with just as many features. Publish the format. Make it free. Hey, I'll switch. Until then, I'll go with what I think is best. Hopefully, places where I upload or download from will do the same. If they don't, then I don't have to use their resources. -- 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... :-)
francis@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (RD Francis) (09/05/90)
In article <24059@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ken Hancock) writes: >In article <1990Sep4.182943.22627@ccu.umanitoba.ca> umcarls9@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Charles Carlson) writes: >>One other thing that no one has mentioned yet about StuffIt is its history! >> >>I'm not sure of exact dates here, but I got my Mac SE exactly 2 years ago, >>and StuffIt 1.5.1 was the current version at the time....Now almost >>2 years later we have StuffIt 1.6 and StuffIt Deluxe....Thats TWO FRIGGING! >>YEARS WITHOUT AN UPDATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >>To me, thats a totally unacceptable time to go without any updates whatsoever! > >Yeah, except you're forgetting one thing. Raymond Lau was in high school. Gee, Ken, take the words right out of my mouth, why don't you? :-) I'll add to what Ken said that Stuffit was frequently updated up to 1.5.1, and that it wasn't too long after that (to the best of my recollection) that we heard that Ray was making arrangements with Aladdin to continue with Stuffit. Presumably, his arrangements with Aladdin are helping him through college; presumably, StuffIt as shareware alone would have been unable to provide him with as much assistance through college. A few other comments on this subject. First, a number of people have complained about the user interface of StuffIt. Personally, its user interface is one of the things that immediately endeared it to me. People have complained about the fact that you can't see into the folders, which is viewed as a necessity for the program by some. Saving while maintaining a hierarchical structure at all was one of the later additions to StuffIt. PD/shareware add-on tools have been developed to let users see what's in the folders, as I recall. I find it difficult to believe that the lack of an ability to see inside folders would suddenly stop this program from being as useful as in the past. If you don't like that feature, don't buy the software. Oh, but you *have* to buy it to send something to the archives legitimately, don't you? I won't follow this argument any further, as it's already been covered by others. To sum up the pertinent points in this debate: 1) StuffIt is currently the format of preference for most public archives of Macintosh software. 2) StuffIt is being updated, and fitted with a new file format. 3) the old format was publicly known, while the new one will not be. 4) Neither of the other tools currently available (DiskDoubler and Compacter) currently have publicly available file formats). 5) All four tools (includes both old and new StuffIt) have publicly available decompression tools for the Mac. A few clarifications of others' points (I hope): 1) If StuffIt Deluxe is going to be able to store files in the current StuffIt format, why don't we simply go on using that format? While this idea certainly has its merits, I believe the concern is that, since an extra step (switching formats) will be necessary in either StuffIt Deluxe ot StuffIt Classic in order to save files in the current format, some people will neglect to do so, and will submit files to public archives in the deluxe format. This creates two problems: confusion, and public files stored in a format not known to the public. 2) the shareware/commercial debate. A number of people are laboring under the potential misconception that the fact that the StuffIt Deluxe program is commercial is a problem. Some people may have a problem with that; however, given the existence of a shareware product that con duplicate the most pertinent aspects of SD (StuffIt Classic 1.6), and the existence of a free UnStuffIt program, it's difficult not to paint those objector with the "software pirate" brush. The only people who might have a valid argument are those who believe that shareware as it is generally considered ("Pay me if you use this program, or stop using it") is an invalid concept, and stating that a program is shareware is merely a *request* for payment if the program is used, rather than a demand. This is another debate entirely. I suggest that, for the purposes of the StuffIt argument, the majority opinion be assumed (which I believe is the "required to pay" opinion), rather than trying to run several interlinked debates at once. 3) "So if everyone can unstuff these files for free, and there is still a shareware alternative for stuffing the files, what's the big deal about a non-public format?" A public format allows for the manipulation of the files involved on other systems. I've never seen any programs that stuff files in StuffIt's format other than StuffIt itself; however, I have seen a number of programs on multiple platforms that make use of information that is only available thanks to the fact that the StuffIt format is publicly available. Personal opinion: we're succumbing to the process of a luxury becoming a necessity. I can imagine that a number of people have come to rely on such things as unsit (C program to unstuff files); however, I suspect that if such tools were unavilable, while many people would be inconvenienced, few would be unable to access stuffed files. End of personal opinion. In any case, the big deal is simply that the ability to access StuffIt files on other systems or with other programs is lost if we leave the current (old) StuffIt format. 4) The Compacter source code subdebate. If the author of Compacter happened to decide to release hsi source code, I doubt anyone would mind. However, the important request was for the format of the files so that other programs could be written to access his compacted files and uncompact them, or examine them, as is currently done with old format StuffIt files. OK, time for some more opinions. The author of Compacter has already gone on record, according to one poster, as saying that if his program becomes highly used, he'll release the file format. If this happens, the debate takes on a new tone, as far as I'm concerned, especially since some have reported that Compacter is a more efficient compression program than StuffIt (old format, at least). Right now? Leonard, you listening? Leonard suggested that releasing StuffIt Classic 1.6 as freeware might resolve this debate. However, I suggest that, rather than that, the debate would be more successfully resolved by the release of StuffIt Classic with the classic StuffIt format file being the default. Thus, users of StuffIt Classic would be less likely to accidentally save files in the Deluxe format, which is the ultimate current source of our problems, as far as I can see. Other part of my opinion? We'll probably wind up seeing files in all four formats in the archives af various locations before this whole mess is done. Will we like it? Probably not. Until a consensus can be reached (which could take a while), I doubt it can be effectively avoided without adding significantly to the chores of the maintainers of the various archives. Good luck, everyone. -- R David Francis francis@cis.ohio-state.edu
msmiller@gonzoville.Eng.Sun.COM (Mark Miller) (09/06/90)
I was all set to get StuffIt Deluxe but then I heard all this ranting about how unstable it was and all. Well, I decided to get DiskDoubler instead - since UnStuff tools would always be around and free. DD is truely slick. It will automagically expand files when they get opened from applications (or the APPL itself) and then recompress when the program finishes. It doesn't have all the archive management power of StuffIt, but for ease-of-use it's hard to beat. It's basically transparent, but can save you tons of space. For instance, the "101 Buttons & Macros" stack is like 850K normally, it compressed down to around 450K. I rarely use it, but like to keep it on my hard drive for when I need it. Now it's not as painful to keep around and I don't have to go through extra steps to access it. This is also a great way to keep your online help files around without havingthem eat up megs and megs of disk. Joe-Bob says: "Check out DiskDoubler". -MSM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mark S. Miller "Different "In a nation ruled by swine, UUCP: msmiller@Sun.COM things all pigs are upward mobile." GEnie/AOL: MSMILLER vary" - Hunter S. Thompson
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) (09/14/90)
In article <1990Sep4.182943.22627@ccu.umanitoba.ca> umcarls9@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Charles Carlson) writes: >One other thing that no one has mentioned yet about StuffIt is its history! > >I'm not sure of exact dates here, but I got my Mac SE exactly 2 years ago, >and StuffIt 1.5.1 was the current version at the time....Now almost >2 years later we have StuffIt 1.6 and StuffIt Deluxe....Thats TWO FRIGGING! >YEARS WITHOUT AN UPDATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >To me, thats a totally unacceptable time to go without any updates whatsoever! >Especially since StuffIt was severely lacking in features <needed! features, >such as the ability to peek into folders and extract selected files!> >be used to archive the software on public access sites'. I think its >rather hypocritcal to be supporting the free distribution of software, >the shareware and freeware world, then using a commercial program to >distribute it with! Especially since there is a quite acceptable alternative! >As for its proprietary format: someone said that it will be given away, they >just want to know who has it...How do they expect that? What about all >these Unix machines that need the source code in order to make the binary? >Or is Alladin planning on keeping around binaries for every flavour of CPU >and operating system that someone might want to run it on? >Charles This sounds like a case of the tail wagging the dog. What does the length of time between updates have to do with the problem at hand. No one else in that two years was out running around creating new compression utilities till this year. The idea of peeking into folders that you thought you needed for so long probably only came to mind now that Deluxe does indeed incorporate that feature. Stuffit 1.51 has always been shareware, thus the thinking that you should not be using commercial software on public archives is rather moot. Unless you were using the freeware versions of Unstuffit, you should have paid for using Stuffit 1.51 long ago. The propriatary format of Deluxe Archives does not seem that big a deal. If Alladin is willing to license the format to those wishing to develop decompression utilities for other platforms, I see nothing wrong with that either. Seems like good old fashion capitolism to me... Course there are always going to be those that want something good for nothing. -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything) UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) (09/14/90)
In article <2550@east.East.Sun.COM> msmiller@Sun.COM (Mark Miller) writes: >I was all set to get StuffIt Deluxe but then I heard all this ranting >about how unstable it was and all. > I've been using Deluxe for several weeks now without any problems. I don't know who suggested that Deluxe was unstable, but its performed pretty solidly for me and will be updated within the next few weeks to fix some minor problems (that I don`t think I've run into) . You also say using DD saved you 400K (the part of the msg I deleted) or so Deluxes Magic Menu would probably have saved you more.. IMHO -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything) UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM
umcarls9@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Charles Carlson) (09/15/90)
In article <2829@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM> ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) writes: > does the length of time between updates have to do with the > problem at hand. No one else in that two years was out running > around creating new compression utilities till this year. Maybe other's finally got sick of waiting as well? And saw the need for some thing better, so they wrote it? > The idea of peeking into folders that you thought you needed > for so long probably only came to mind now that Deluxe does > indeed incorporate that feature. Haven't been around very long have you? There was a utility written quite awhile back that would allow you to look into folders, it just didn't suddenly come to mind one day...I had been using this feature on IBM archivers long before I got the Mac. <2 years ago> > Stuffit 1.51 has always been shareware, thus the thinking that > you should not be using commercial software on public archives > is rather moot. Unless you were using the freeware versions > of Unstuffit, you should have paid for using Stuffit 1.51 long > ago. Thats not the point. Shareware software can be freely distributed and tried out...You can't do that with commercial software.
c3ar@zaphod.uchicago.edu (Walter C3arlip) (09/15/90)
In article <2829@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM> ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) writes: > > The propriatary format of Deluxe Archives does not seem that big > a deal. If Alladin is willing to license the format to those > wishing to develop decompression utilities for other platforms, > I see nothing wrong with that either. Seems like good old > fashion capitolism to me... Course there are always going to > be those that want something good for nothing. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >-- >Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 Yes, but as an archive keeper I *provide* something good for nothing! Hence, I object to someone else making a profit off of *my* work. I firmly believe that public archives on usenet/internet should stick with compression algorithms that are in the public domain. --Walter _____________________________________________________________________________ Walter Carlip **** c3ar@finite.chi.il.us **** (the "3" is invisible) **** c3ar%finite.chi.il.us@gargoyle.uchicago.edu **** _____________________________________________________________________________
ar4@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Piper Keairnes) (09/15/90)
In c3ar@zaphod.uchicago.edu (Walter C3arlip) writes: >Yes, but as an archive keeper I *provide* something good for nothing! >Hence, I object to someone else making a profit off of *my* work. I >firmly believe that public archives on usenet/internet should stick with >compression algorithms that are in the public domain. I think that this really hits on an answer to this entire discussion. 1. Public archives SHOULD stick with public domain compression software 2. Developers of compression software should NOT BE REQUIRED, by users, to make their software public domain. There... are we done yet? --- Piper Keairnes ** Purdue University Computing Center ** ar4@sage.cc.purdue.edu ** Unisys Corporation Co-op Student ** ** Macintosh Programmer/ Specialist **
Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (09/17/90)
Charles Carlson writes in a message to Norman Goodger on 14 Sep 90: CC> Thats not the point. Shareware software can be freely distributed CC> and tried out...You can't do that with commercial software. CC> ... But that's not the point. There are people who WILL NOT support any "commercial" software for any use, choosing instead to support/use the shareware version/alternatives. The question which immediately comes to mind is, why? Continued use of a shareware product is NO DIFFERENT than the continued use of a commercial product--in each case, the user is obligated to pay. If you and some others are going to make a huge stink about "being able to try it out before you buy it" and how that is such an overriding factor, first to be considered above all others, then that's your problem. But I submit that most people will only support a standard based on a shareware product because they can get the shareware product without having to go into a store, stick it into their pockets, and leave without paying for it. It's much easier for these types to download it anonymously (more or less) and use it wihtout paying with no one else watching--to them, it doesn't promote the same guilt feelings. Besides, you can get almost _any_ commercially distributed software package with some kind of money back guarantee--if not from the middleman, then certainly such terms can be arranged with the publishing house. No software company I've ever asked has refused to offer such a guarantee, and MacConnection et al. jumped on that bandwagon themselves some time ago. So your "try before you buy" theory holds very little water. To say that shareware is better to use as a standard than commercialware just shows the speaker's ignorance toward the ethics in the matter. --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
laird@slum.MV.COM (Laird Heal) (09/18/90)
[Unfortunately, this topic seems to be one that must be continually rebutted lest the madding crowd actually convince someone that it is better to switch than to fight] In article <2829@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM>, ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) writes: >In article <1990Sep4.182943.22627@ccu.umanitoba.ca> umcarls9@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Charles Carlson) writes: >>2 years later we have StuffIt 1.6 and StuffIt Deluxe....Thats TWO FRIGGING! >>YEARS WITHOUT AN UPDATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >> [unstructured, um, ranting, omitted] >>As for its proprietary format: someone said that it will be given away, they >>just want to know who has it...How do they expect that? What about all >>these Unix machines that need the source code in order to make the binary? >>Or is Alladin planning on keeping around binaries for every flavour of CPU >>and operating system that someone might want to run it on? > > This sounds like a case of the tail wagging the dog. What > does the length of time between updates have to do with the Right. To me, the length of time between updates indicates that the product (Stuffit) matured. It did everything that was required. It itself needed no more bug fixes. It has been a long long time since there was a Stuffed file I could not unstuff, a characteristic of the early releases. > Stuffit 1.51 has always been shareware, thus the thinking that > you should not be using commercial software on public archives > is rather moot. Unless you were using the freeware versions > of Unstuffit, you should have paid for using Stuffit 1.51 long > ago. Irrelevant. Of course, it is termed "moot" anyway, but the cost of the Macintosh software is hardly an issue. It costs money, more or less. > The propriatary format of Deluxe Archives does not seem that big > a deal. If Alladin is willing to license the format to those > wishing to develop decompression utilities for other platforms, > I see nothing wrong with that either. Seems like good old > fashion capitolism to me... Course there are always going to > be those that want something good for nothing. > I disagree. I find xbin and unsit most convenient ways to manipulate files on the host. With the tools available for MPW, I can script the conversion of several files without having to point and click at each one. Stuffit 1.5.1 had a rudimentary time-saver like this, namely selecting several archives in the Finder, double-clicking and holding the Shift key down during startup. If we begin to use the Deluxe format, I must discard those tools and get by without any replacements. Any [de-]compression must then take place on the Macintosh. I presume that Alladin would not license the file format without compensation, i. e. payment, and that any utility to decompress a Stuffit Deluxe file would be distributed in binary, not source. That just would not help me - things are very non-standard here. Things are not broken now, but if we begin distributing BinHex'd Stuffit Deluxe archives, some things are going to be broken. There is a good point to distributing things in as compact a format as possible, but it is really much better to distribute them in as standard a format as possible. Ever since Stuffit began setting the Bundle bit right, it has been the way to go. It does our job for us, and we should stick with it. -- Laird Heal laird@slum.MV.COM Talk is cheap. (Salem, NH) +1 603 898 1406 Whiskey costs money.
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) (09/19/90)
In article <1990Sep14.214853.3622@midway.uchicago.edu> c3ar@zaphod.uchicago.edu (Walter C3arlip) writes: >> fashion capitolism to me... Course there are always going to >> be those that want something good for nothing. >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >Yes, but as an archive keeper I *provide* something good for nothing! >Hence, I object to someone else making a profit off of *my* work. I >firmly believe that public archives on usenet/internet should stick with >compression algorithms that are in the public domain. > >--Walter > I don't ever recall that just because Ray Lau published the format to Stuffit 1.51 archives means that its in the public domain. If you really want PD file formats, use Compress..` Now there is a fast and small archiver for you...:-) -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything) UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM
isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ken Hancock) (09/19/90)
In article <1990Sep18.021828.1904@slum.MV.COM> laird@slum.MV.COM (Laird Heal) writes: >If we begin to use the Deluxe format, I must discard those tools and get >by without any replacements. Any [de-]compression must then take place on >the Macintosh. I presume that Alladin would not license the file format >without compensation, i. e. payment, and that any utility to decompress a >Stuffit Deluxe file would be distributed in binary, not source. That just >would not help me - things are very non-standard here. This entire thread is getting plain irritating. Everyone is talking about "ifs" and "presumes." Is there anyone who has even bothered to do any research like call Alladin and ask about other platform development? Alladin might charge you. That would stink and certainly lend strength to the argument not to switch. Alladin might ask you to sign a NDA and give you the file format so you can develop whatever you want. That wouldn't be much of a problem. 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... :-)
mdc@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) (09/20/90)
In article <24394@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ken Hancock) writes: >This entire thread is getting plain irritating. Everyone is talking about >"ifs" and "presumes." Is there anyone who has even bothered to do any >research like call Alladin and ask about other platform development? >... >Ken Aladdin's net rep said that Aladdin considers the format proprietary, and indicated that at least for the present he doesn't see them publishing it. But, you miss the point here. All this talk about what Aladdin might or might not do is not relevant. What if they change their mind later? If the format is public they can't decide that they don't want to be nice today/this-week/this-year and make people sign more restrictive agreements. Public formats mean a few people can't make it tough for everyone. Something to think about... -- 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!mdc
macman@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chris Silverberg) (09/20/90)
In article <6288@spt.entity.com> mdc@spt.UUCP (Marty Connor) writes: >But, you miss the point here. All this talk about what Aladdin might >or might not do is not relevant. What if they change their mind >later? What if, what if, what if.... (hearing this ALOT huh?) Well, if Aladdin did decide to be mr big brother then we would just have to adopt a new compression standard... but Aladdin's been very helpful so far, and I'm pretty damn sure the will continue to support their product as well as they have. I'm sure they'll even come up with some of their own unix tools, or find others to write them... Point is, we now have some damn good compression programs for the Mac... the time to start using one of these standards is now... if archive A continues to use old Stuffit, while archive B uses something new (ie Stuffit, DiskDoubler or Compactor), then i'll choose B's site, and be much more apt to recommend B as a better site. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Chris Silverberg INTERNET: macman@wpi.wpi.edu Worcester Polytechnic Institute Main Street USA 508-832-7725 (sysop) America Online: Silverberg WMUG BBS 508-832-5844 (sysop) "Ask me about TeleFinder... A Macintosh BBS with a Macintosh interface"
isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ken Hancock) (09/20/90)
In article <6288@spt.entity.com> mdc@spt.UUCP (Marty Connor) writes: >Aladdin's net rep said that Aladdin considers the format proprietary, >and indicated that at least for the present he doesn't see them >publishing it. Who said anything about publishing? I didn't. I said that it was quite conceivable that Aladdin would be happy to allow people to do other platform developement without any large licensing fees, just a non-disclosure agreement from the developer. Simple enough. >But, you miss the point here. All this talk about what Aladdin might >or might not do is not relevant. What if they change their mind >later? Ok, what it? What if Aladdin says, "Great, Marty...that would be fine if you write a unsit for UNIX environments." Fine. You write it, release it, and then 6 months down the line they change their mind. It's already distributed. You going to delete your copy and ask everyone to delete theirs? I wouldn't delete my copy. Chances are, they wouldn't change their mind. If they did, who cares? It won't make a difference... 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... :-)
barnett@grymoire.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) (09/20/90)
>Who said anything about publishing? I didn't. I said that it was >quite conceivable that Aladdin would be happy to allow people to >do other platform developement without any large licensing fees, >just a non-disclosure agreement from the developer. Simple enough. I don't think it is simple. How would you distribute it to a Unix machine without the sources? I do not want binary programs for the dozen different architectures we have here. If I can't get the sources, I personally don't want it. I don't mind buying a binary from a vendor that supports it. But then this is no longer an open standard, but a proprietary one. And yes, I install Stuffit/binhex files onto a AppleShare server without using a Mac. I don't want bulletin boards to use proprietary formats. -- Bruce G. Barnett barnett@crd.ge.com uunet!crdgw1!barnett
macman@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chris Silverberg) (09/20/90)
In article <BARNETT.90Sep20104021@grymoire.crd.ge.com> barnett@crdgw1.ge.com writes: >And yes, I install Stuffit/binhex files onto a AppleShare server without >using a Mac. I don't want bulletin boards to use proprietary formats. Probably too late for that... As a BBS operator myself, most sysops seem to be adopting new standards or multiple standards. Alot of sysops have taken advantage of Sit-to-Cpt to convert their Stuffit libraries to Compactor libraries. Others have used DeluxeConv to convert to the new versions of Stuffit. And even some BBS's have opted to use DiskDoubler as a standard. A majority of opposition to the new compressions are coming from Mac users who also love unix, and occasionally find an unsit on another platform useful... but as it comes down to making libraries smaller, quicker to transfer, and faster to compress/decompress, sysops are converting their libraries as we speak... =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Chris Silverberg INTERNET: macman@wpi.wpi.edu Worcester Polytechnic Institute Main Street USA 508-832-7725 (sysop) America Online: Silverberg WMUG BBS 508-832-5844 (sysop) "Ask me about TeleFinder... A Macintosh BBS with a Macintosh interface"
jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) (09/21/90)
In article <24486@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ken Hancock) writes: >In article <6288@spt.entity.com> mdc@spt.UUCP (Marty Connor) writes: >>Aladdin's net rep said that Aladdin considers the format proprietary, >>and indicated that at least for the present he doesn't see them >>publishing it. >Who said anything about publishing? I didn't. I said that it was >quite conceivable that Aladdin would be happy to allow people to >do other platform developement without any large licensing fees, >just a non-disclosure agreement from the developer. Simple enough. But how are you going to distribute unsit for Unix on the net in source without disclosing? If you can't distribute it in source it doesn't help the problem much. > >Ok, what it? What if Aladdin says, "Great, Marty...that would be fine >if you write a unsit for UNIX environments." Fine. You write it, >release it, And how would he release. In source code, right. Now, doesn't the distribution of this source code constitute publishing the format of Stuffit Deluxe? > and then 6 months down the line they change their mind. >It's already distributed. You going to delete your copy and ask >everyone to delete theirs? I wouldn't delete my copy. Yes, he could ask that. And if the source code or binaries were distributed with this as a condition, he and Aladdin could legally expect it. Oh, its not enforceable. Now we're back to the ethics, again. >Chances are, they wouldn't change their mind. If they did, who >cares? It won't make a difference... It would if they changed their mind about what constitutes the format of Stuffit Deluxe, and started this whole thing over again. > >Ken > I think it's all a moot point anyway. The archivists have probably made up their minds already. I know of at least one who has announced he is switching to Compactor because he can use the extra disk. Either the archives will stay Stuffit 1.51, a new public domain format will be found, or the archivists will vote with *their* disk drives for the format(s) of their choice. In the latter case, people who batch their uncompressing on their host machines will have to change their methodology. Personally, since I pay my phone bill from my host to my Mac, I prefer to batch the decompression stage on the Mac. jim -- Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com +1.408.991.6115 Silvar-Lisco, Inc. 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086
leonardr@svc.portal.com (09/24/90)
In article <24394@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ken Hancock) writes: > >This entire thread is getting plain irritating. Everyone is talking about >"ifs" and "presumes." Is there anyone who has even bothered to do any >research like call Alladin and ask about other platform development? > At this time Aladdin is working with a couple of people in the development of non-Macintosh Stuffit Deluxe compatible products, so it is indeed happening. I am aware of UNIX, VMS and DOS/Windows products. >Alladin might charge you. That would stink and certainly lend strength >to the argument not to switch. > >Alladin might ask you to sign a NDA and give you the file format so >you can develop whatever you want. That wouldn't be much of a problem. > I am afraid that I am not at liberty to comment on details of the agreements, other than to say that each contract is unique based on the end result. If you have a product/project where you would like to be able to work with Deluxe archives, feel free to contact Aladdin for details. Leonard Rosenthol Aladdin Internet Rep.
leonardr@svc.portal.com (09/24/90)
In article <15799@wpi.WPI.EDU> macman@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chris Silverberg) writes: >In article <BARNETT.90Sep20104021@grymoire.crd.ge.com> barnett@crdgw1.ge.com writes: > >>And yes, I install Stuffit/binhex files onto a AppleShare server without >>using a Mac. I don't want bulletin boards to use proprietary formats. > >Probably too late for that... As a BBS operator myself, most sysops seem >to be adopting new standards or multiple standards. Alot of sysops have >taken advantage of Sit-to-Cpt to convert their Stuffit libraries to Compactor >libraries. Others have used DeluxeConv to convert to the new versions of >Stuffit. And even some BBS's have opted to use DiskDoubler as a standard. > I have to agree with Chris on this one...At this time all the major services (Compuserve, GEnie, and AOL) have agreed to adopt the new Stuffit Deluxe format as soon as Stuffit Classic 1.6 is released and users will have access to it. GEnie has also approved the distribution of Compactor archives. And as Chris says, individual BBS's will choose to do what they find is best for them - some are going to Deluxe, some to Compactor, some to DD, and some are not bothering to standardize and are excepting them all.... Given the current positions of the different compression vendors, I don't see any of them making for the format public and as such we are going to either live in the past, bow to 'proprietary formats' or play the PC game of 'multiple formats'....It is already happening and our bickering is not doing anything but fanning the flames... Leonard Rosenthol Software Ventures/Aladdin Rep.