klaus@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) (07/28/90)
I havegot an upgrade notice for StuffIt. $55 is (to me) a lot of money, so I would like to know if it is really necessary to upgrade. The letter claims that StuffIt Deluxe will be necessary to get software from the net in the future. Is this lokely to be true? (I know, makin predictions is tricky, especially predictions about the future.) The new StuffIt has new and improved compression methods. The old StuffIt will of course be unable to uncompress some of the files compressed by the new one, but can files compressed by the new StuffIt using the old methods be uncompressed by the new one? It seems that the new methods will mostly be used for pictures. Will there be a freeware or shareware UnDeluxe? Klaus Kristiansen
isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ken Hancock) (07/29/90)
In article <1990Jul28.085949.16498@diku.dk> klaus@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) writes: >I havegot an upgrade notice for StuffIt. $55 is (to me) a lot of >money, so I would like to know if it is really necessary to >upgrade. The upgrade to StuffIt Deluxe for registered StuffIt owners is $40. (You can buy it new from MacConnection for $63). I've been playing with it a bit. One bus error and one dialog error in the first 5 minutes. And they told me they didn't need any more beta testers. Guess again. >The letter claims that StuffIt Deluxe will be necessary to get >software from the net in the future. Is this lokely to be true? >(I know, makin predictions is tricky, especially predictions >about the future.) No, it won't be. You can use UnStuffIt Deluxe. The good news is: o Custom compression optimizers for color and sound. o Magic Menu -- Stuff and Unstuff from the finder. o Three levels of compression. (I haven't compared speeds or compression with Diamond or Compactor yet) The bad news is: o Worst feature I've ever seen on a software product. Sign your name with a MacPaint-like pencil at startup along with your Name, Company, and Serial Number. I can't sign my name in MacPaint worth anything, can you? I can't believe they put such a STUPID feature in and made it MANDATORY. (You can't just leave it blank and hit "OK") o Bus Error in my first 5 minutes of playing with it. o I decided to reinstall after I didn't like my signature so I tried to reinstall over it. The SFPutFile had the bottom and left sides cropped off -- losing half of the buttons on the left and a couple on the bottom. Let's hope that the compression part is better debugged than the user interface. *sigh* 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... :-)
drew@cup.portal.com (Andrew E Wade) (07/29/90)
Re: upgrading to StuffIt Deluxe. There is a freeware UnStuffIt Deluxe. It's available on some local BBS's and, I assume, will be posted to usenet. -Drew
ching@brahms.amd.com (Mike Ching) (07/29/90)
In article <1990Jul28.085949.16498@diku.dk> klaus@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) writes: >... >The letter claims that StuffIt Deluxe will be necessary to get >software from the net in the future. Is this lokely to be true? The net has avoided *requiring* commercial software in the past and is likely to continue to do so. Sounds like pretty sleazy marketing to me. Mike Ching
kyt@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu (Kok Yong Tan) (07/30/90)
In article <1990Jul28.085949.16498@diku.dk> klaus@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) writes: > I havegot an upgrade notice for StuffIt. $55 is (to me) a lot of ... > <stuff deleted> ^^^ Wow! Aladdin's got to be kidding! A brand new Stuffit Deluxe from discount houses such as MacWarehouse only retails for $63. =============================================================================== Kok-Yong Tan can be contacted via: | "Oscularis fundamentum!" InterNet: kyt@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu | - Annoyed Latin scholar CompuServe: 75046,256 | America Online: Lallang | ===============================================================================
hwang@biolgy.wustl.edu (07/30/90)
In article <23412@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>, isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ken Hancock) writes: > In article <1990Jul28.085949.16498@diku.dk> klaus@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) writes: >>I havegot an upgrade notice for StuffIt. $55 is (to me) a lot of >>money, so I would like to know if it is really necessary to >>upgrade. > > The upgrade to StuffIt Deluxe for registered StuffIt owners is $40. > (You can buy it new from MacConnection for $63). Yes, but I just sent Aladdin my $25 shareware fee for StuffitIt 1.5.1 which would make the cost to me $65. > > I've been playing with it a bit. One bus error and one dialog error > in the first 5 minutes. And they told me they didn't need any more > beta testers. Guess again. > >>The letter claims that StuffIt Deluxe will be necessary to get >>software from the net in the future. Is this lokely to be true? >>(I know, makin predictions is tricky, especially predictions >>about the future.) > > No, it won't be. You can use UnStuffIt Deluxe. > Would someone be so kind as to post a source for UnStuffIt Deluxe? Thanks in advance. >(balance of message deleted) Carol
jsimon@voodoo.ucsb.edu (07/31/90)
-Message-Text-Follows- In article <23412@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>, isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ken Hancock) writes... > >I've been playing with it a bit. One bus error and one dialog error >in the first 5 minutes. And they told me they didn't need any more >beta testers. Guess again. > I've been using it almost every day for 2 weeks now with no errors and no problems. I think it's very elegant and I love the Magic Menu and Text Viewer (lets you view text files without unstuffing them). I recommend spending the $40 to upgrade. Jonathan Simon Physics Dept. U C S B
jinx@portia.Stanford.EDU (Dane Spearing) (07/31/90)
Does anyone know if StuffIt Deluxe comes with an "AutoUnstuffer" like StuffIt Classic used to have?!? You know, something that you could include in the stuffed file such that all one had to do is double click on the stuffed file and it would unstuff itself without needing StuffIt, UnStuffIt, or anything else? I believe it used to be part of the "StuffIt Utilities" shareware package.
macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Chris Silverberg) (08/04/90)
>The letter claims that StuffIt Deluxe will be necessary to get >software from the net in the future. Is this lokely to be true? >(I know, makin predictions is tricky, especially predictions >about the future.) > >The new StuffIt has new and improved compression methods. >The old StuffIt will of course be unable to uncompress some of >the files compressed by the new one, but can files compressed >by the new StuffIt using the old methods be uncompressed by >the new one? It seems that the new methods will mostly be used >for pictures. America Online now has Stuffic Classic, (the first public beta version) available for downloads. I just got it last night. It basically replaces Stuffit 1.5.1. In a way, it's really 1.6. This version has a more streamlined interface, and compresses and decompresses in both the new and old fasions. This is a shareware product for, I believe $25. The Deluxe version of course is jam packed with new features. So if you dont need all the features, then go with Classic. Alladin doesn't recommend stuffing important data with this beta version, but just from a couple hours of playing, it seems pretty stable. As for a Stuffit 1.5.1 upgrade to Classic, I'm not sure what the policy of Alladin will be when it is released as non-beta. - Chris ._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. Chris Silverberg AOL: Silverberg Worcester Polytechnic Institute GEnie: C.Silverberg INTERNET: macman@wpi.wpi.edu SYSOP: Main Street U.S.A. BBS FIDONET: 322/575.1 508.832.7725 (1200/2400)
macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Chris Silverberg) (08/04/90)
In article <1990Jul29.143716.20286@amd.com> ching@brahms.amd.com (Mike Ching) writes: >The net has avoided *requiring* commercial software in the past and is >likely to continue to do so. Sounds like pretty sleazy marketing to me. Well, I guess you could say that many services have required a shareware software product, which is a similar idea. In addition, when Stuffit Classic is released, (it's on public beta now), that will replace Stuffit 1.5 on the shareware market. Deluxe is for people who want the extra features and are willing to pay for it. ._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. Chris Silverberg AOL: Silverberg Worcester Polytechnic Institute GEnie: C.Silverberg INTERNET: macman@wpi.wpi.edu SYSOP: Main Street U.S.A. BBS FIDONET: 322/575.1 508.832.7725 (1200/2400)
armhold@steely.rutgers.edu (George Armhold) (08/06/90)
Is there a PD Stuffit/Unstuffit that will create a folder to dump the extracted files into automatically? I download software for the University Mac user group, so I often find myself spending a great deal of time making folders for all the new *.sit files, then manually unstuffiting them into the proper folders. A better solution would be a version of unsit for Unix that would write *.rsrc, *.data, and *.info files that were compatible with CAP's AUFS (this way I could just drag them over to the Mac, after my Unix machine had de-binhexed and un-stuffited them.) Anyone have any ideas/suggestions? -George
davea@kgw2.bwi.WEC.COM (Dave Alverson) (08/06/90)
In article <14349@wpi.wpi.edu> macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Chris Silverberg) writes: > >Well, I guess you could say that many services have required a shareware >software product, which is a similar idea. In addition, when Stuffit Classic Stuffit, Compactor and Stuffit Deluxe all have FREE extractors. -- Z Dave Alverson, Cincinnati & Mason, Ohio Z Address: davea@kgw2.bwi.WEC.COM
rapickering@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (08/06/90)
In article <Aug.5.23.40.26.1990.287@steely.rutgers.edu>, armhold@steely.rutgers.edu (George Armhold) writes: > Is there a PD Stuffit/Unstuffit that will create a folder to dump the > extracted files into automatically? I download software for the > University Mac user group, so I often find myself spending a great > deal of time making folders for all the new *.sit files, then manually > unstuffiting them into the proper folders. > > A better solution would be a version of unsit for Unix that would > write *.rsrc, *.data, and *.info files that were compatible with CAP's > AUFS (this way I could just drag them over to the Mac, after my Unix > machine had de-binhexed and un-stuffited them.) > > Anyone have any ideas/suggestions? > > -George Both situations can be solved. First get Boomerang. It's shareware (not freeware) and lets you create folders and do all sorts of file manipulation from within save dialog boxes. Any save dialog box!!! I use it all the time, especially for exactly what you want to do, create folders on the fly from within Stuffit. Second, there is a program at sumex (probably) called MCVERT, this allows you to unbinhex files on UNIX machines. In the same directory as MCVERT should be UNSIT for UNIX. The directory will be something like info-mac/unix (I think, just look around). -Rob
clarson@ux.acs.umn.edu (Chaz Larson) (08/07/90)
In article <14349@wpi.wpi.edu> macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Chris Silverberg) writes: >In addition, when Stuffit Classic >is released, (it's on public beta now) Stuffit Classic is in fact available now. I have a master disk at home to prove it. The current version of Stuffit Classic is basically the same as Stuffit 1.5.1, with minor additions to allow it to deal with Deluxe archives. The version Chris has - 1.6 - is a prerelease version of Stuffit Classic's next upgrade, which adds a subset of Deluxe's features, like hierarchy navigation. Ray Lau has released it to the public for wider testing. <chaz> -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "Must think...bubble pipe will relax me and I think..." - Flaming Carrot clarson@ux.acs.umn.edu AOL:Crowbone
macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Chris Silverberg) (08/08/90)
>Is there a PD Stuffit/Unstuffit that will create a folder to dump the >extracted files into automatically? I download software for the >University Mac user group, so I often find myself spending a great >deal of time making folders for all the new *.sit files, then manually >unstuffiting them into the proper folders. My suggestion is to get the DiskDoubler Expand version (DDExpand). It's freeware, and unstuffs as well. Just use the init, (or change the creator of the DDExpand application to "SIT!", and you'll be able to simply double click on a stuffit file and it will decompress automatically into a new folder. It's very fast. For $80, you can get the commercial version of DiskDoubler, which is an excellent product. We just recently had a demo at our user group meeting by both the author, and Guy Kawasaki. I'd say 1/3 of the members left the meeting with a purchased copy. ._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. Chris Silverberg AOL: Silverberg Worcester Polytechnic Institute GEnie: C.Silverberg INTERNET: macman@wpi.wpi.edu SYSOP: Main Street U.S.A. BBS FIDONET: 322/575.1 508.832.7725 (1200/2400)
nicolas@cnam.UUCP (Nicolas Berloquin) (08/08/90)
A lot of people have been using Stuffit to post software on the net.
This was ok when Stuffit was a shareware, which it is not anymore.
Have you tried Compactor? It is much faster than stuffit, it compresses
much tightier than stuffit, it works in background, and it costs $25 !
I'm a sysop on a french pro BBS (Calvacom yeah), and we've been using
compactor for a couple of months without any problem. And by the way, there is a free Extractor, which does the same kind of job as Unstuffit, but I
forgot one thing, Compactor uncompresses Stuffit archives as well, and Bill Goodman wrote a little utility that transforms stuffit archives to Compactor archives, (SitToCpt) with a gain of at least 20-25% in size.
So, why bother?
Nico...
Thought he was a man but he only was a muffin...
nicolas@cnam.cnam.frbose@milton.u.washington.edu (Rob Olsen) (08/09/90)
How good is DiskDoubler compared with MagicMenu witch comes with StuffIt Deluxe?I'm thinking of getting StuffIt Deluxe but I've also heard good things about DiskDoubler. How fast is it? Does it decompress SIT! files?
mosemann@hoss.unl.edu (Russell Mosemann) (08/09/90)
Is StuffIt Deluxe a wise investment now if StuffIt 1.6 is coming out soon? Even more interesting, is StuffIt a good investment since Compactor seems to be sneaking its way into popularity? From a recent blurb in MacWeek (7 August 1990, p. 138) Compactor ($25 shareware) is typically within a few percentage points of StuffIt Deluxe's *best* compression size and is almost twice as fast. [Emphasis mine, quote paraphrased] OK, OK, it doesn't have all of the Deluxe features. However, I only use StuffIt for uploading and downloading software from BBS's. I find the twice-as-fast aspect appealing. Russell mosemann@hoss.unl.edu P.S. I own StuffIt 1.5.1, so the upgrade would be $40 for me.
ramsey@rbdc (Ramsey Dow) (08/20/90)
mosemann@hoss.unl.edu (Russell Mosemann) writes: >Compactor ($25 shareware) is typically >within a few percentage points of StuffIt Deluxe's *best* compression size >and is almost twice as fast. [Emphasis mine, quote paraphrased] I've recently switched from StuffIt to Compactor. I really enjoy the added compression savings and speed increase. But I have a question: what is the proper suffix for a Compactor archive? Any GEnie people here who could shed some light? Thanks. -- "My damnable, reddening vision | Ramsey Dow, starving undergraduate That build a new world for my seeing; | A new world of reddness and darkness, | UUCP: ...!gatech!kd4nc!rbdc!ramsey A horrible coma called living." --HPL | Internet: woodward@phs.bgsm.wfu.edu
gall@yunexus.YorkU.CA (Norm Gall) (08/21/90)
ramsey@rbdc (Ramsey Dow) writes: | mosemann@hoss.unl.edu (Russell Mosemann) writes: | I've recently switched from StuffIt to Compactor. I really enjoy the | added compression savings and speed increase. But I have a question: | what is the proper suffix for a Compactor archive? Any GEnie people | here who could shed some light? Thanks. People seem to be using filename.cpt as a standard. nrg -- "It is not the task of philosophy to affirm or deny the existence of things, but rather to clarify what assertions or denials of existence signify, if anything." -- PMS Hacker
mosemann@hoss.unl.edu (Russell Mosemann) (08/22/90)
In <14119@yunexus.YorkU.CA> gall@yunexus.YorkU.CA (Norm Gall) writes: >ramsey@rbdc (Ramsey Dow) writes: > >| mosemann@hoss.unl.edu (Russell Mosemann) writes: >| I've recently switched from StuffIt to Compactor. I really enjoy the >| added compression savings and speed increase. But I have a question: >| what is the proper suffix for a Compactor archive? Any GEnie people >| here who could shed some light? Thanks. >People seem to be using filename.cpt as a standard. >nrg Whoa! I didn't write that. ramsey@rbdc (Ramsey Dow) wrote that. My typing is missing. I personally am sticking with StuffIt (at least for a while, I'm saving my pennies for something else). Please quote more carefully. Russell mosemann@hoss.unl.edu uunet!hoss.unl.edu!mosemann
starta@tosh.UUCP (John Starta) (08/22/90)
ramsey@rbdc (Ramsey Dow) writes: > I've recently switched from StuffIt to Compactor. I really enjoy the > added compression savings and speed increase. But I have a question: > what is the proper suffix for a Compactor archive? The proper suffix is ".cpt" (without the quotes, of course), this is according to the author. John
pillera@etd4260a.erim.org (Joe Pillera) (08/22/90)
I believe the correct suffix (ala the GEnie mac forum) is ".cpt". -Joe
phssra@mathcs.emory.edu (Scott Robert Anderson) (08/28/90)
In article <Ng60N3w162w@tosh.UUCP> starta@tosh.UUCP (John Starta) writes: >ramsey@rbdc (Ramsey Dow) writes: > >> I've recently switched from StuffIt to Compactor. I really enjoy the >> added compression savings and speed increase. But I have a question: >> what is the proper suffix for a Compactor archive? > >The proper suffix is ".cpt" (without the quotes, of course), this is >according to the author. > >John This is a contraction of the Macintosh file type 'CPCT'. Now, my question: what suffix are the online services using for StuffIt Deluxe files? They have a Mac file type of 'SITD', as opposed to the StuffIt Classic file type 'SIT!'. * * ** Scott Robert Anderson gatech!emoryu1!phssra * * * ** phssra@unix.cc.emory.edu phssra@emoryu1.bitnet * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
clarson@ux.acs.umn.edu (Chaz Larson) (08/28/90)
In article <6257@emory.mathcs.emory.edu> phssra@mathcs.emory.edu (Scott Robert Anderson) writes: >Now, my question: what suffix are the online services using for StuffIt Deluxe >files? They have a Mac file type of 'SITD', as opposed to the StuffIt Classic >file type 'SIT!'. The most common suffix I've seen is ".dlx". I have been known to use either ".dlx" or ".sitd". chaz -- -- Joan Rivers Slaughters Ninety-Five Chinese Physicists in drunken rampage. -spew clarson@ux.acs.umn.edu AOL:Crowbone
ar4@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Piper Keairnes) (08/29/90)
In <2146@ux.acs.umn.edu> clarson@ux.acs.umn.edu (Chaz Larson) writes: >The most common suffix I've seen is ".dlx". I have been known to use either >".dlx" or ".sitd". Since there is a utility called Unstuffit Deluxe that is available to everyone, then why should we not continue using the same old .sit extension. Unstuffit Deluxe works fine on the older type files, so what's the deal, eh? If everyone switches over to that utility there will be no mass confusion. I will admit that the Unstuffit Deluxe is not as nice as the old Unstuffit. Perhaps someone (Lau) will write a better one... available to the public. Disclaimer- There are my own opinions. Purdue doesn't acknowledge me. ----- Piper Keairnes ar4@sage.cc.purdue.edu
umcarls9@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Charles Carlson) (08/29/90)
In article <4388@sage.cc.purdue.edu> ar4@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Piper Keairnes) writes: >Since there is a utility called Unstuffit Deluxe that is available to >everyone, then why should we not continue using the same old .sit extension. >Unstuffit Deluxe works fine on the older type files, so what's the deal, eh? >If everyone switches over to that utility there will be no mass confusion. I >will admit that the Unstuffit Deluxe is not as nice as the old Unstuffit. >Perhaps someone (Lau) will write a better one... available to the public. Why should we all have to switch to a commercial program everytime we want to archive something just because everyone has the unstuffer for it? I for one am COMPLETELY POSITIVELY 100% AGAINST supporting a commercial program to replace the much needed shareware StuffIt program. You want everyone who will ever submit a program to any one of the archive sites to have to purchase a commercial program to do that, do you think anyone is going to buy a program just so they can share software with others? Granted, I'm sure most people, including myself never paid the shareware for StuffIt 1.5.1 anyways, but the for the occasional stuffing to send to a site, I don't feel too guilty. We now have Compactor to replace StuffIt, which is shareware, and is much faster and compresses tighter than StuffIt 1.5.1 so why not switch to that instead? Compactor also has an Uncompactor that others can use without having to pay a fee for. Having to use a commercial archiver to distribute public domain and shareware software is nuts! Can you imagine the uproar in the PC world if PKZIP went commercial??? Charles
antoine@cs.UAlberta.CA (Antoine Verheijen) (08/29/90)
In article <1990Aug29.052224.24927@ccu.umanitoba.ca> umcarls9@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Charles Carlson) writes: > >Why should we all have to switch to a commercial program everytime we want >to archive something just because everyone has the unstuffer for it? I think the suggestion is for everyone to start using UnStuffIt Deluxe for un-archiving since it is publically available (where?) to everyone. This way, it doesn't matter if StuffIt 1.5.1 or StuffIt Deluxe was used to archive. > We now have Compactor to replace StuffIt, which is shareware, and is >much faster and compresses tighter than StuffIt 1.5.1 so why not >switch to that instead? Compactor also has an Uncompactor that others >can use without having to pay a fee for. I can think of a couple of reasons not to: 1) (Un)Compactor will not run on a 512KE Mac (or smaller). There are still a fair number of them around. 2) Compactor uses unknown/undocumented data structures and compression methods. This eliminates the possibility of developing tools on other systems for processing compactor files (as is possible with StuffIt files) and makes it virtually impossible to try to recover partial contents in the case of a corrupted archive. Personally, I wish the PKZIP guys would produce a version of their product for the Mac. They know how to produce fast programs that provide very good compression results and (like Raymond Lau) they're not quite so quiet about what they're doing. Antoine Verheijen userapv@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca
weesh@grymoire.crd.ge.com (Darweesh) (08/29/90)
Someone mentioned something about having to pay to unstuff Stuffit Deluxe archives. There is an Unstuffit Deluxe program that comes on the disk that is free. Perhaps we'll see that pop-up at sumex or something. -Mike Darweesh weesh@crd.ge.com
macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Chris Silverberg) (08/29/90)
In article <1990Aug29.052224.24927@ccu.umanitoba.ca> umcarls9@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Charles Carlson) writes: >Why should we all have to switch to a commercial program everytime we want >to archive something just because everyone has the unstuffer for it? >I for one am COMPLETELY POSITIVELY 100% AGAINST supporting a commercial >program to replace the much needed shareware StuffIt program. I like DiskDoubler myself, but just in reply to your comments, Stuffit Classic is in beta form now, and soon to be released. It's $30 shareware... if you've already registered Stuffit 1.5.1, then you're registered with Stuffit Classic, which handels the basic newer compression formats handled by Stuffit Deluxe. - Chris ._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. Chris Silverberg AOL: Silverberg Worcester Polytechnic Institute GEnie: C.Silverberg INTERNET: macman@wpi.wpi.edu SYSOP: Main Street U.S.A. BBS FIDONET: 322/575.1 508.832.7725 (1200/2400)
Jim.Matthews@dartmouth.edu (Jim Matthews) (08/29/90)
In article <1990Aug29.093732.7927@cs.UAlberta.CA>, antoine@cs.UAlberta.CA (Antoine Verheijen) writes: > I can think of a couple of reasons not to (switch to Compactor): > > 2) Compactor uses unknown/undocumented data structures and compression > methods. This eliminates the possibility of developing tools on > other systems for processing compactor files (as is possible with > StuffIt files) and makes it virtually impossible to try to recover > partial contents in the case of a corrupted archive. This is also why the net should not switch to StuffIt! Deluxe. Alladin has stated that the file format of StuffIt! Deluxe will remain proprietary. Free unstuffing will be available, but only from Alladin. So I don't think you'll see a freeware unsit_deluxe, or at least not in source form. And programmers (like myself) who want to support auto-unstuffing in our programs will have to either license Alladin code or require that our users buy StuffIt! Deluxe and use its de-compression engine. The original StuffIt's compression is nearly as good as SD's, and having a documented file format is a great advantage. I don't see any good reasons to switch. Jim Matthews Dartmouth Software Development--
ar4@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Piper Keairnes) (08/29/90)
antoine@cs.UAlberta.CA (Antoine Verheijen) writes: >I think the suggestion is for everyone to start using UnStuffIt Deluxe for >un-archiving since it is publically available (where?) to everyone. This way, >it doesn't matter if StuffIt 1.5.1 or StuffIt Deluxe was used to archive. That WAS the original intent of my message. I'm sure that it will be publically available on ftp very soon. I know that several BBSs already have it on them. > 2) Compactor uses unknown/undocumented data structures and compression > methods. This eliminates the possibility of developing tools on > other systems for processing compactor files (as is possible with > StuffIt files) and makes it virtually impossible to try to recover > partial contents in the case of a corrupted archive. Come to think of it... I've never been able to recover a corrupted archive in Stuffit either. But then, corrupt is corrupt, eh? >Personally, I wish the PKZIP guys would produce a version of their product >for the Mac. They know how to produce fast programs that provide very good >compression results and (like Raymond Lau) they're not quite so quiet about >what they're doing. What kind of popular compression methods are there? Stuffit uses the LZW and Huffman compression methods. By the way, what does Stuffit do to make the difference between the the Faster-Fast-Better modes? And is it possible for someone to make an external customized compression that will out-perform Stuffit Deluxe? I hear about Compactor being faster and more efficient than Stuffit. Has anyone taken to finding out why? I think that Raymond Lau's products look very useful and very well designed. Now all he needs is a little kick in the read-end to improve the compression technology. ----- Piper Keairnes ar4@sage.cc.purdue.edu
CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu (Christopher Tate) (08/29/90)
In article <1990Aug29.052224.24927@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, umcarls9@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Charles Carlson) says: >Having to use a commercial archiver to distribute public domain and >shareware software is nuts! Can you imagine the uproar in the PC world >if PKZIP went commercial??? > >Charles Funny you should bring that up, since last I heard, the author of PKzip was working on a Mac version. I've seen the working archive header specs for the existing version for the PC, and it is set up to recognize not only PC archives, but also Mac, Vax/VMS, and several other machine types. From all I've heard, PKzip is significantly faster and more efficient than any other archive utility. Add to this the bonus that it's already well established in the PC world, and may therefore provide a means of porting files between the Mac and the PC, and you have a compelling reason to switch over to using PKzip instead of Stuffit or other similar utilities. The big caveat is, of course, that Mac PKzip hasn't put in an appearance yet. Does anyone have more recent news on this? ------- Christopher Tate | cxt105@psuvm.psu.edu | You can lead a horse to water, ..!psuvax1!psuvm.bitnet!cxt105 | but a vest has no sleeves. cxt105@psuvm.bitnet |
favorini-francis@cs.yale.edu (Francis Favorini) (08/29/90)
Someone mentioned PKZIP a while back. Is it my imagination or does this program (available for IBM PC's and clones) blow away any Mac program in speed, if not compression? It takes about 10 seconds for 100 K and regularly compresses files by at least 50%. It would be great if the authors would write a Mac version. Any comments? favorini@cs.yale.edu
dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) (08/29/90)
In article <1990Aug29.052224.24927@ccu.umanitoba.ca> umcarls9@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Charles Carlson) writes: >Granted, I'm sure most people, including myself never >paid the shareware for StuffIt 1.5.1 anyways I'm sure this is exactly why the new stuffit is commercial. >I for one am COMPLETELY POSITIVELY 100% AGAINST supporting a commercial >program to replace the much needed shareware StuffIt program. But not so completely and positively that you would pay Ray for his shareware program? Money talks, folks. Ray Lau did us all a great service with StuffIt. I for one was happy to pay him the measly $15 he was asking at the time. While I can see the rationale behind an occasional user not paying, that selfsame occasional user (and therefore occasional deadbeat) shouldn't complain about the emergence of a commercial standard. Besides, such people can pirate the commercial version as easily as the shareware version, so what's the big deal? -- Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu UUCP: uunet!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!s-dorner
umcarls9@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Charles Carlson) (08/29/90)
In article <1990Aug29.093732.7927@cs.UAlberta.CA> userapv@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Antoine Verheijen) writes: >In article <1990Aug29.052224.24927@ccu.umanitoba.ca> umcarls9@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Charles Carlson) writes: >> >> We now have Compactor to replace StuffIt, which is shareware, and is >>much faster and compresses tighter than StuffIt 1.5.1 so why not >>switch to that instead? Compactor also has an Uncompactor that others >>can use without having to pay a fee for. > >I can think of a couple of reasons not to: > > 1) (Un)Compactor will not run on a 512KE Mac (or smaller). There are still > a fair number of them around. > Ok, I didn't know Compactor will not run on 512KE machines. But why is that? Because of the ROMS, memory, or the need of system 6? From what I've converted from StuffIt>Compactor, there has been a 33% savings in disk space! That's quite alot when you are talking all the megabytes at these archive sites. I don't wish to cut the necks of people with the older machines, but all that disk space shouldn't be wasted so the few that still have un upgraded 512KEs can still run the software. Alot of the software seems to be getting big enough so it won't run on 512KE machines anyways. > 2) Compactor uses unknown/undocumented data structures and compression > methods. This eliminates the possibility of developing tools on > other systems for processing compactor files (as is possible with > StuffIt files) and makes it virtually impossible to try to recover > partial contents in the case of a corrupted archive. I just read that StuffIt Deluxe has a proprietary format as well, that they have vowed not to release. I think eventually there would be a better chance of getting the necessary info from a Shareware author than a commvercial one. >Personally, I wish the PKZIP guys would produce a version of their product >for the Mac. They know how to produce fast programs that provide very good >compression results and (like Raymond Lau) they're not quite so quiet about >what they're doing. I wish PKZIP would make a version for the Mac as well, and make the file structures compatable with the PC so both machines can decompress other's files.
leonardr@svc.portal.com (Leonard Rosenthol) (08/30/90)
In article <2146@ux.acs.umn.edu>, clarson@ux.acs.umn.edu (Chaz Larson) writes: > In article <6257@emory.mathcs.emory.edu> phssra@mathcs.emory.edu (Scott Robert Anderson) writes: > >Now, my question: what suffix are the online services using for StuffIt Deluxe > >files? They have a Mac file type of 'SITD', as opposed to the StuffIt Classic > >file type 'SIT!'. > > The most common suffix I've seen is ".dlx". I have been known to use either > ".dlx" or ".sitd". > I responded to Scott directly, but since it could be a major issue, let me also publically post some comments. Aladdin Systems, the publishers of Stuffit Deluxe (and soon to be Stuffit Classic), are recommending that you continue to use .sit for both 1.5.1 archives as well as Deluxe/Classic archives. Some of you probably picked up on the fact that I lumped the forthcoming Stuffit Classic in the same group as Stuffit Deluxe - there is a reason for this. Stuffit Classic, the shareware successor to Stuffit 1.5.1, will use the EXACT SAME file format as Deluxe. There are a couple of reasons for this - 1) The Deluxe format is both more flexible and more expandable for future enhancments, 2) The Deluxe format allows for navigation into the subheirarcies of an archive and 3) There is only ONE format out there. The only problem, that I can see, with the new file format is that it is proprietary which means that it will more difficult to write 'Unstuffers' for other platforms - though Aladdin has offered to work with developers on such projects! Leonard Rosenthol Aladdin Representative!?!? -- Leonard Rosenthol Software Ventures Corp. MicroPhone II Development Team
leonardr@svc.portal.com (Leonard Rosenthol) (08/30/90)
In article <4390@sage.cc.purdue.edu>, ar4@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Piper Keairnes) writes: > What kind of popular compression methods are there? Stuffit uses the LZW and > Huffman compression methods. By the way, what does Stuffit do to make the > difference between the the Faster-Fast-Better modes? And is it possible for > someone to make an external customized compression that will out-perform > Stuffit Deluxe? > Without going into the proprietary details, let it simply be said that difference in the modes has to do with the accuracy/precision used in the compression as well as some special 'checking' that is done on the data in the file. > I hear about Compactor being faster and more efficient than Stuffit. Has > anyone taken to finding out why? I think that Raymond Lau's products look > very useful and very well designed. Now all he needs is a little kick in the > read-end to improve the compression technology. > It is really interesting to see the comparisons of these two products because every time I see a new one, it always has results which are conflicting with the last one ;-) The reasons for a lot of this are that the compression is ENTIRELY dependant on the type of data that is compressed. The 'comparer' choose data which was important to them, and not so much a good statistical sample. Compactor has shown to currently be better at certain file types (code/binaries) while Stuffit excels at data type files (text, graphics, sound, etc.) Also, some of the comparisions have been between Compactor and Stuffit 1.5.1, and NOT Deluxe which give MUCH better compression and is faster. Another point is that Ray is certainly not sitting still, and although I can not comment on details, let it simply be said that the next version of Deluxe will KICK *SS in terms of both compression size and speed at which it can create such archives. Leonard Rosenthol Stuffit Javelin Catcher -- Leonard Rosenthol Software Ventures Corp. MicroPhone II Development Team
umcarls9@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Charles Carlson) (08/30/90)
In article <90241.105126CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu> CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu (Christopher Tate) writes: >Funny you should bring that up, since last I heard, the author of PKzip was >working on a Mac version. I've seen the working archive header specs for the > >From all I've heard, PKzip is significantly faster and more efficient than >any other archive utility. Add to this the bonus that it's already well >established in the PC world, and may therefore provide a means of porting >files between the Mac and the PC, and you have a compelling reason to switch >over to using PKzip instead of Stuffit or other similar utilities. > I heard that rumor a while back, but never heard anything else about it, so I thought it was just a rumor, hopefully not. I'm not sure how much faster and more efficient it is than Compactor or StuffIt Deluxe is, but atleast PKZIP is updated on a regular basis, and hasn't sat idle for 2 years like StuffIt has. Charles
mdc@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) (08/30/90)
In article <1990Aug29.204448.23954@svc.portal.com> leonardr@svc.portal.com (Leonard Rosenthol) writes: > ... >The only problem, that I can see, with the new file format >is that it is proprietary which means that it will more difficult to write >'Unstuffers' for other platforms - though Aladdin has offered to work with >developers on such projects! I strongly favor a BOYCOTT of STUFFIT DELUXE[TM] for the purposes of distributing software until such time as their format is public domain, and it has at least been decided that it can be implemented efficiently on other platforms. The current situation is just a cheap way for Alladin and Raymond Lau to try and pull off another defacto standard under the guise of being nice guys. Let's keep using a format that is known and usable, and send a message to Ray and Company that this game of getting people hooked and then charging them is NOT ACCEPTABLE for the distribution of software in public forums. I welcome discussion of this topic by other members of the Macintosh Community. -- 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
dane@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Dane Spearing) (08/30/90)
In article <5186@spt.entity.com> mdc@spt.UUCP (Marty Connor) writes: >I strongly favor a BOYCOTT of STUFFIT DELUXE[TM] for the purposes of >distributing software until such time as their format is public >domain, and it has at least been decided that it can be implemented >efficiently on other platforms. > >The current situation is just a cheap way for Alladin (sic) and Raymond Lau >to try and pull off another defacto standard under the guise of being >nice guys. > (stuff deleted) WOAH!!! Slow down there! Seems a few folks are getting a bit hot under the collar about Alladin coming about with a commercial version of StuffIt. First of all, let me say that I've been an avid and registered user of StuffIt Classic for quite a few years, and have been quite happy with it. Secondly, I did indeed purchase StuffIt Deluxe when it came out (albeit, at a cheaper price, being an already registered user), and am quite happy with it, as well. I'm afraid I'm not in favor of a boycott for the following reasons: (1) any public archive (eg - suemx) that is silly enough to encode/compress it's files with an only commrecially available product is just asking for failure. No public archive would be stupid enough to do it. Thus I sincerely doubt that the StuffIt Deluxe format will ever become as wide spread as StuffIt is now, and I think Aladdin knows it too. (2) StuffIt Deluxe can decode and *encode* files in the StuffIt Classic format, which is already public domain. Thus, anyone buying StuffIt Deluxe will still be able to uncompress and compress files in the old format to be uploaded to archives. (3) Aladdin isn't abandoning the old StuffIt in favor of the new. It is still being supported (as much as shareware ever is), and is still used as the dominant compression technique in most archives. (4) People seem to be overlooking the fact that StuffIt Deluxe also comes with a freely distributable product called "UnStuffIt Deluxe" which can (obviously) unstuff the new files. (The only thing I think I would like to see Alladin do is distribute this on the net - they've already authorized free distribution by people that have purchased StuffIt Deluxe). (5) Finally, I think that Aladdin has created and distributed StuffIt Deluxe more with the idea that it will be used as a personal archiving/backup/ file protection tool rather than become the "new standard" for public archival purposes. Disclaimer: I am in no way associated with Aladdin Systems, Inc. or any of it's associates. -- Dane Spearing | Dept of Geology | (415) 723-4092 <---------------------------| Stanford University |------------------------> dane@pangea.stanford.edu | Stanford, CA 94305 | #include <disclaim.h>
dwal@ellis.uchicago.edu (David Walton) (08/30/90)
In article <5186@spt.entity.com> mdc@spt.UUCP (Marty Connor) writes: >I strongly favor a BOYCOTT of STUFFIT DELUXE[TM] for the purposes of >distributing software until such time as their format is public >domain, and it has at least been decided that it can be implemented >efficiently on other platforms. > >The current situation is just a cheap way for Alladin and Raymond Lau >to try and pull off another defacto standard under the guise of being >nice guys. > >Let's keep using a format that is known and usable, and send a message >to Ray and Company that this game of getting people hooked and then >charging them is NOT ACCEPTABLE for the distribution of software in >public forums. I don't see how the world under Stuffit Deluxe would be that much different than with 1.5.1. To wit: * Stuffit 1.5.1 was Shareware, at least in theory requiring the user to pay a fee to use it. Stuffit Deluxe is commercial, again requiring the user to pay a fee to use it. Deluxe is not as easy to get without paying the fee (boy, what an outrage! Making folks pay for the software they use?!), is more expensive, and offers more features. * Stuffit 1.5.1 came with UnStuffit, a free utility for unstuffing archives so that those folks who wanted to download software didn't have to pay to do it. Deluxe has UnStuffit Deluxe for the same purpose, also free. * Stuffit 1.5.1's format was public. Other folks could therefore write utilities to uncompress Stuffit archives. Deluxe's format will be proprietary, with Aladdin giving it to people who they think have good reason to have it. The only difference is the last point. I see no a priori reason to think that they (Lau & Aladdin) will be unreasonably obnoxious or even close-lipped about who gets to see the Deluxe archive format. And what on earth does the ability to use this format _efficiently_ on other platforms have to do with it being public? Yes, it means that fewer people (probably fewer non-professional developer types) will be able to test it out immediately. That doesn't mean we'll never know if it works well on other platforms; it doesn't necessarily mean we'll even have to wait that much longer to know--unless Aladdin's writing an UnStuffit for another platform themselves, it's in their interest to get the format out to interested parties quickly, so there'll be more products to support the standard. Personally, I too would prefer that the standard were public, but I can also understand that Aladdin might rather not release it. And I think your accusations that Lau and Aladdin are trying to establish a standard so they can screw us all later are both premature and inflammatory. If Lau/Aladdin do end up doing this, then very likely someone will write a new standard. Used to be everything was .pit, not .sit, after all.... But then, this is just my $.02. Me, I'll wait for Macintosh ZIP. >Marty Connor, Marty's Computer Workshop, "Specializing in Macintosh Training" -- David Walton Internet: dwal@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago { Any opinions found herein are mine, not } Computing Organizations { those of my employers (or anybody else). }
anderson@Apple.COM (Clark Anderson) (08/30/90)
From: mdc@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor): >I strongly favor a BOYCOTT of STUFFIT DELUXE[TM] for the purposes of >distributing software until such time as their format is public >domain, and it has at least been decided that it can be implemented >efficiently on other platforms... >...Let's keep using a format that is known and usable, and send a message >to Ray and Company that this game of getting people hooked and then >charging them is NOT ACCEPTABLE for the distribution of software in >public forums... >Marty Connor, Marty's Computer Workshop, "Specializing in Macintosh Training" Many things came to mind when I read this mesage. I will share this: Marty, perhaps a more productive solution would be for you to sit down with a compiler and write a better software package than Ray's. You would then be free to distribute the software, source code or file formats in any way you wished. It would solve the problem, and you'd have contributed a better tool to the Macintosh community. Just my humble opinion. --clark -- ----------------------------------------------------------- Clark Anderson InterNet: anderson@apple.com PCB Software Tools AppleLink: C.ANDERSON Apple Computer, Inc BellNet: 408-974-4593 "I speak only for myself, much to my employer's relief..." -----------------------------------------------------------
nicolas@cnam.UUCP (Nicolas Berloquin) (08/30/90)
Somebody said that Compactor couldn't be used on the news since its algorithms
aren't public. I talked about that with Bill Goodman, and his policy is that he doesn't want to publish his algorithms until a lot of peoble start using compactor. He is totally aware of the problem, and I think, that if we start using it on the news, he will probably publish them soon.
Nico...
nicolas@cnam.cnam.frisle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ken Hancock) (08/30/90)
In article <1990Aug29.210453.24025@svc.portal.com> leonardr@svc.portal.com (Leonard Rosenthol) writes: > Another point is that Ray is certainly not sitting still, and although >I can not comment on details, let it simply be said that the next version >of Deluxe will KICK *SS in terms of both compression size and speed at which >it can create such archives. Leonard -- All the time while we were waiting for StuffIt Deluxe, you kept saying how it was going to be worth the wait. It wasn't. I think it's probably one of the worst $40 I've spent on software. Magic Menus are really nice. That's the only good thing I can say about it. It's slow as a dog. I've been comparing Compactor and SD's best a lot as I do uploads. Usually compactor is within a couple percent of SD's best and far faster. Personally, I don't want to change to another standard. I'm hoping that someone at Aladdin is going to get their butt in gear and do something about the speed. I'm willing to give them one more chance, because I'm one of those people who sent off my $20 simply because it was going to save me $$ downloading and I thought Ray certainly deserved the bucks. One more chance is all I'll wait for, though. After that, $25 goes out to Bill Goodman and StuffIt Deluxe goes into the circular file. 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... :-)
drc@claris.com (Dennis Cohen) (08/30/90)
mdc@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) writes: >I strongly favor a BOYCOTT of STUFFIT DELUXE[TM] for the purposes of >distributing software until such time as their format is public >domain, and it has at least been decided that it can be implemented >efficiently on other platforms. >The current situation is just a cheap way for Alladin and Raymond Lau >to try and pull off another defacto standard under the guise of being >nice guys. >Let's keep using a format that is known and usable, and send a message >to Ray and Company that this game of getting people hooked and then >charging them is NOT ACCEPTABLE for the distribution of software in >public forums. >I welcome discussion of this topic by other members of the Macintosh >Community. Well, Ray and Aladdin have just posted StuffIt 1.6 beta to America Online, CompuServe, and GEnie (among others) as the next shareware version and it both reads and writes Deluxe format. It doesn't include the scripting, viewers, or some of the other features of Deluxe but that is what differentiates a commercial version from a shareware version in this case -- IMHO, a not unreasonable positioning. There is nothing to preclude you or anyone else from continuing to use the old version, but that might prevent you from getting some new goodies with which to play. I know that I cross-load a number of items between services as a goodwill gesture, but if I have to unstuff and then restuff in a different format to make it available to you that it probably won't happen -- it takes long enough to upload a BinHexed file now, but at least that is a one step operation. When I worked at JPL we referred to people who dug their heels in against change and enhancement because there was some cost in time, effort, or dollars to convert "dinosaurs". There is a strong similarity here and I know that we (probably) aren't going to change your mind. Ray and the folks at Aladdin are good guys and will work with people to create the multiplatform utilities; however, they are trying to make a decent living in a suddenly competitive market and to publish their format openly while Salient (DiskDoubler) and the Compactor folks keep theirs proprietary just makes sense from a business standpoint -- you license the format for a token fee to those individuals and companies who aren't out trying to eat your lunch (token being just that -- keep the lawyers at bay by "protecting" your legal rights). -- Dennis Cohen Claris Corp. **************************************************** Disclaimer: Any opinions expressed above are _MINE_!
mdc@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) (08/30/90)
In article <44411@apple.Apple.COM> anderson@Apple.COM (Clark Anderson) writes: >Many things came to mind when I read this mesage. I will share this: >Marty, perhaps a more productive solution would be for you to sit >down with a compiler and write a better software package than Ray's. >You would then be free to distribute the software, source code or >file formats in any way you wished. It would solve the problem, and you'd >have contributed a better tool to the Macintosh community. Clark, many things come to mind when I read your message. I will share this: PUBLIC TOOLS FOR PUBLIC ARCHIVES. Perhaps you should consider that there are other ways of doing good in the world than writing code, and working for Apple. In my message I suggest that people NOT DISTRIBUTE SOFTWARE in PUBLIC FORUMS using Stuffit[TM] DELUXE. I do not want to use a format that is proprietary and thus must be begged out of Alladin (with non-disclosure, I suspect). I should be able to write an MPW tool to unstuff Stuffit Deluxe archives by reading the spec, and writing to it. No begging, and not promises to Alladin, Inc. I could indeed write some HUFFMAN/LZ compression program that took into account different data types and produced smaller files. I have written code that compresses sound files before. I choose NOT to at this time. I can also try to get people to see that the solution proposed by Alladin is flawed for PUBLIC ARCHIVES of software. This is somewhat of a guess, but your message seemed to want to say that writing code was the only valid response to proprietary actions by companies. How strangely convenient for someone working for a company who is known for protecting their user-interface with law suits and suing companies whose screens look the same. I think maybe you need to get a little wider view of the world than the inside of Apple Computer, Inc. Marty >Just my humble opinion. --clark Which I respect, though I don't agree with. -- 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
rad@genco.uucp (Bob Daniel) (08/30/90)
In article <1990Aug29.162542.9766@ccu.umanitoba.ca> umcarls9@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Charles Carlson) writes: >In article <1990Aug29.093732.7927@cs.UAlberta.CA> userapv@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Antoine Verheijen) writes: >>In article <1990Aug29.052224.24927@ccu.umanitoba.ca> umcarls9@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Charles Carlson) writes: >>> >> >> 1) (Un)Compactor will not run on a 512KE Mac (or smaller). There are still >> a fair number of them around. >> The author of Compactor is active on GEnie and he posted a patch to allow it to run on 512Ke's. The reasion it didn't work is because he was testing the system environs for a Plus rather that the current ROM. I'm sure he'll include the fix in the next version.
macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Chris Silverberg) (08/30/90)
In article <1990Aug29.160257.21228@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) writes: > >While I can see the rationale behind an occasional user not paying, >that selfsame occasional user (and therefore occasional deadbeat) >shouldn't complain about the emergence of a commercial standard. And for people who don't need all the features in the commercial version, the shareware version of Stuffit Classic will be release shortly for $30, free to registered users. ._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. Chris Silverberg AOL: Silverberg Worcester Polytechnic Institute GEnie: C.Silverberg INTERNET: macman@wpi.wpi.edu SYSOP: Main Street U.S.A. BBS FIDONET: 322/575.1 508.832.7725 (1200/2400)
mdc@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) (08/30/90)
In article <1990Aug30.052325.10540@midway.uchicago.edu> dwal@ellis.uchicago.edu (David Walton) writes: >I don't see how the world under Stuffit Deluxe would be that much >different than with 1.5.1. Ok, let's go point by point. >To wit: >* Stuffit 1.5.1 was Shareware, at least in theory requiring the user > to pay a fee to use it. Stuffit Deluxe is commercial, again > requiring the user to pay a fee to use it. Deluxe is not as easy > to get without paying the fee (boy, what an outrage! Making folks > pay for the software they use?!), is more expensive, and offers > more features. So the difference here is ShareWare vs. Commercial Software. Sounds like a big difference to me. No free distribution on nets. Less trial period. Return for refund, etc., etc. >* Stuffit 1.5.1 came with UnStuffit, a free utility for unstuffing > archives so that those folks who wanted to download software didn't > have to pay to do it. Deluxe has UnStuffit Deluxe for the same > purpose, also free. This is what retail people call a "teaser". In practical terms, should this format become prevalent, people will be COMPELLED to create public archive with a proprietary tool. >* Stuffit 1.5.1's format was public. Other folks could therefore > write utilities to uncompress Stuffit archives. Deluxe's format > will be proprietary, with Aladdin giving it to people who they > think have good reason to have it. This is TOTALLY CONTRARY to the concept of a PUBLIC FACILITY. It would seem people are too ready to let Alladin dicatate what and how easy it will be to create new software to manipulate archives. >The only difference is the last point. I see no a priori reason to >think that they (Lau & Aladdin) will be unreasonably obnoxious or even >close-lipped about who gets to see the Deluxe archive format. I contend, that for public archives this makes a GREAT difference. Imagine that someone implemented and patented a great new PLAY/RECORD CD format that only their machines could decode, AND your public library started buying music stored in this format. You might object. So, the company gives free PLAYERS for this format. But to record you have to buy their boxes. I think people might object. Public libraries are different that private homes. Does the word PROPRIETARY ring a bell? Suppose down the road after we convert public archives to Stuffit Deluxe Format, Alladin gets bought out by Symantec, (who bought out MacZap (remember the program that removed copy protection from programs to they could be installed on a hard disk?)), and Symantec decides to not let people have the format at all. We then have lots of megs or software in a proprietary format, and Ray and the sweeties at Alladin are out of the picture. >And what on earth does the ability to use this format _efficiently_ on >other platforms have to do with it being public? Yes, it means that >fewer people (probably fewer non-professional developer types) will be >able to test it out immediately. That doesn't mean we'll never know >if it works well on other platforms; it doesn't necessarily mean we'll >even have to wait that much longer to know--unless Aladdin's writing >an UnStuffit for another platform themselves, it's in their interest >to get the format out to interested parties quickly, so there'll be >more products to support the standard. Public formats mean that we don't have to count on the benevolence of people at companies to be nice. The format can be discussed and improved by the community; Not just one company. >Personally, I too would prefer that the standard were public, but I >can also understand that Aladdin might rather not release it. I understand too, and I believe their reasons are WRONG for PUBLIC ARCHIVES. >And I think your accusations that Lau and Aladdin are trying to establish a >standard so they can screw us all later are both premature and >inflammatory. Premature? Shall I wait until people have uploaded software in this new proprietary format? Inflamatory, well, that's more subjective. Sometimes to wake people up you have to get their attention. I think I have succeeded. I have however also attempted to address your points as directly as I can. >If Lau/Aladdin do end up doing this, then very likely >someone will write a new standard. Used to be everything was .pit, >not .sit, after all.... So let's save a little work. Notice that .PIT was public, and so Stuffit Author Raymond Lau could just implement the format in his program. >But then, this is just my $.02. Me, I'll wait for Macintosh ZIP. Good Idea. They seem to have a good thing going. >David Walton Internet: dwal@midway.uchicago.edu Marty -- 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
mdc@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) (08/31/90)
In article <11217@claris.com> drc@claris.com (Dennis Cohen) writes: >When I worked at JPL we referred to people who dug their heels in against >change and enhancement because there was some cost in time, effort, or dollars >to convert "dinosaurs". And here in Cambridge "we" call people who spend all their time in front of computers and can't seem to think about people who don't without confusion and disdain, "technodweebs". But, hey, what's in a name? Look, maybe you think it's always progress for companies to own what used to be free. Maybe you just decided it was easier to work for a company and let the company take care of you, and not have to worry about things outside the debugger. Fine. But when I need Alladin's Secret Decoder Ring to get stuff from a PUBLIC ARCHIVE, Damnit, I say enough. As I said before. I am opposed to people loading files onto public archives in proprietary formats. Alladin's and other people's. Can you deal with that? -- 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
phssra@mathcs.emory.edu (Scott Robert Anderson) (08/31/90)
In article <1990Aug29.162542.9766@ccu.umanitoba.ca> umcarls9@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Charles Carlson) writes: >In article <1990Aug29.093732.7927@cs.UAlberta.CA> userapv@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Antoine Verheijen) writes: >>In article <1990Aug29.052224.24927@ccu.umanitoba.ca> umcarls9@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Charles Carlson) writes: >>> >>> We now have Compactor to replace StuffIt, which is shareware, and is >>>much faster and compresses tighter than StuffIt 1.5.1 so why not >>>switch to that instead? Compactor also has an Uncompactor that others >>>can use without having to pay a fee for. >> >>I can think of a couple of reasons not to: >> >> 1) (Un)Compactor will not run on a 512KE Mac (or smaller). There are still >> a fair number of them around. >> > >Ok, I didn't know Compactor will not run on 512KE machines. >But why is that? Because of the ROMS, memory, or the need of system 6? I have communicated with Bill Goodman on this issue, and it appears that, amongst other things, Compactor requires more than 512K to achieve its significant size and speed reductions. Extractor (i.e. "UnCompactor"), on the other hand, could be made to work on a 512KE, and I believe that he is working on that now. Since Extractor is freeware, this would eliminate this argument against the use of Compactor. On the other hand, it will probably not be possible to make Extractor work on a Mac 512K, because it uses the HFS in some fundamental manner. >I don't wish to cut the necks of people with the >older machines, but all that disk space shouldn't be wasted so the few >that still have un upgraded 512KEs can still run the software. Alot of >the software seems to be getting big enough so it won't run on 512KE machines >anyways. We're talking public archives, here....you can do what you want on your own machine, but let the archive maintainers decide if, to save some disk space, they are going to cut off a small but still significant number of users from the many types of files which they still *can* use (e.g. many applications, graphics, text, sounds, ...). * * ** Scott Robert Anderson gatech!emoryu1!phssra * * * ** phssra@unix.cc.emory.edu phssra@emoryu1.bitnet * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
alexr@apple.com (Alexander M. Rosenberg) (08/31/90)
In article <5193@spt.entity.com> mdc@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) writes: > Fine. But when I need Alladin's Secret Decoder Ring to get stuff from > a PUBLIC ARCHIVE, Damnit, I say enough. Have you even tried to call Alladin? Propreitary means only that they know who has the information; it doesn't mean that they won't give it out. Stop whining about it. Call them. Let us know what happens. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Alexander M. Rosenberg - INTERNET: alexr@apple.com - Yoyodyne - - 330 1/2 Waverley St. - UUCP:ucbvax!apple!alexr - Propulsion - - Palo Alto, CA 94301 - - Systems - - (415) 329-8463 - Nobody is my employer so - :-) - - (408) 974-3110 - nobody cares what I say. - -
mdc@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) (08/31/90)
In article <9992@goofy.Apple.COM> alexr@apple.com (Alexander M. Rosenberg) writes: >Have you even tried to call Alladin? Propreitary means only that they know >who has the information; it doesn't mean that they won't give it out. Stop >whining about it. Call them. You're flat wrong. Proprietary can and often does mean that information will be withheld. Often selectively. Public Information *means* that one doesn't have to get permission to use information. Real freedom is being able to write code without getting permission from other people. >Let us know what happens. Since I am arguing against archiving public data in proprietary formats, I don't feel I should have to ask Alladin for their format. I argue that either it is documented publicly, no strings attached, or it is not appropriate for public archives. I am exercising free speech on this issue because I think it is important that people understand the implications of new formats on saving data. -- 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
dwal@ellis.uchicago.edu (David Walton) (08/31/90)
In article <5190@spt.entity.com> mdc@spt.UUCP (Marty Connor) argues some points I made about his call for a boycott of Stuffit Deluxe: I write: >>I don't see how the world under Stuffit Deluxe would be that much >>different than with 1.5.1. Marty says: >Ok, let's go point by point. I write: >>* Stuffit 1.5.1 was Shareware, at least in theory requiring the user >> to pay a fee to use it. Stuffit Deluxe is commercial Marty responds: >So the difference here is ShareWare vs. Commercial Software. Sounds >like a big difference to me. No free distribution on nets. Less >trial period. Return for refund, etc., etc. Except StuffIt Classic, which I believe understands both formats, is (will be) shareware. I then write: >>* Stuffit 1.5.1 came with UnStuffit, a free utility for unstuffing >> archives so that those folks who wanted to download software didn't >> have to pay to do it. Deluxe has UnStuffit Deluxe for the same >> purpose, also free. Marty responds: >This is what retail people call a "teaser". In practical terms, >should this format become prevalent, people will be COMPELLED to >create public archives with a proprietary tool. Only until a new standard was produced, which probably wouldn't take long if Aladdin were to pull the nasty secretive tactics that you imply. UnStuffit Deluxe will still be free, and it will still be able to decode existing Deluxe-format archives. I write: >>* Stuffit 1.5.1's format was public. Other folks could therefore >> write utilities to uncompress Stuffit archives. Deluxe's format >> will be proprietary, with Aladdin giving it to people who they >> think have good reason to have it. Marty responds: >This is TOTALLY CONTRARY to the concept of a PUBLIC FACILITY. >It would seem people are too ready to let Alladin dicatate what and >how easy it will be to create new software to manipulate archives. Yes, it's contrary to the idea of a public standard. I don't think it's sufficient reason to fly off the handle about Lau/Aladdin being part of a Great Communist Conspiracy To Control The Freedom Of Compression By Getting Us All Hooked On Stuffit And Then Blackmailing Us For More Dough And Leaching Out All Of Our Precious Bodily Fluids. If you're really concerned about the proprietary nature of the format, use Stuffit Classic format. I intend to. That is NOT the same thing as calling for a boycott of the Stuffit Deluxe product. >Does the word PROPRIETARY ring a bell? Suppose down the road after we >convert public archives to Stuffit Deluxe Format, Alladin gets bought >out by Symantec, (who bought out MacZap (remember the program that >removed copy protection from programs to they could be installed on a >hard disk?)), and Symantec decides to not let people have the format >at all. We then have lots of megs or software in a proprietary >format, and Ray and the sweeties at Alladin are out of the picture. So programmer folks will stop trying to make products that use Deluxe format and will instead use a new standard (or even the old Stuffit Classic format), and user folks will start encoding archives in a different format. And we'll all use our old copies of Un/Stuffit Deluxe to decode existing archives. Just because the software's proprietary doesn't mean we won't be able to decode it if IBM buys Aladdin and says that only Microsoft can see the format. True, subsequent programs won't be able to understand the old standard, as Stuffit did with Packit. This could cause isolated problems several years from now, when all copies of Stuffit Deluxe/Classic, etc. have disappeared from our hard disks through lack of use. But I suspect that by that time most software would have been converted to other formats. In any case, the decoding would have to be done one way or the other--it's merely a matter of which program you use. Sure, I'd rather use Stuffit to unpack .pit archives than have to use Packit, but using Packit won't kill me (except maybe on a IIfx...). >Public formats mean that we don't have to count on the benevolence of >people at companies to be nice. The format can be discussed and >improved by the community; Not just one company. True. I'd prefer that, too. But we can still decode the archives if necessary--see above. Finally, I write: >>And I think your accusations that Lau and Aladdin are trying to establish a >>standard so they can screw us all later are both premature and >>inflammatory. And Marty rejoins: >Premature? Shall I wait until people have uploaded software in this >new proprietary format? > >Inflamatory, well, that's more subjective. Sometimes to wake people >up you have to get their attention. I think I have succeeded. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ So would a Doberman pinscher relieving itself on my foot. The tone of your letter sounded like an accusation to me. If that was intentional, you haven't provided a lot of evidence to back yourself up. That I call both premature and inflammatory (but then, you already _know_ that, don't you?) In any case, this remains my (slightly bloated) $.02. >Marty Connor, Marty's Computer Workshop, "Specializing in Macintosh Training" -- David Walton Internet: dwal@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago { Any opinions found herein are mine, not } Computing Organizations { those of my employers (or anybody else). }
rad@genco.uucp (Bob Daniel) (08/31/90)
In article <5189@spt.entity.com> mdc@spt.UUCP (Marty Connor) writes: > >PUBLIC TOOLS FOR PUBLIC ARCHIVES. > What's the big deal!! Unstuffit and Stuffit Classic 1.6 can unstuff deluxe archives. The end result is that you CAN unsit deluxe files without having to pay Aladdin a dime. Seems like this is starting to turn into an unnecessary flame.
gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com (Gary Snow) (08/31/90)
In-Reply-To: message from favorini-francis@cs.yale.edu > Someone mentioned PKZIP a while back. Is it my imagination or does this > program (available for IBM PC's and clones) blow away any Mac program in > speed, if not compression? It takes about 10 seconds for 100 K and > regularly compresses files by at least 50%. It would be great if the > authors would write a Mac version. Any comments? I am sorry, but it is your imagination. At work we regularly deal with Stuffit and PKZip archives, and compressing the same file (the SAME file) with either program results in the stuffit archive being smaller.....and of course any timings on speed can not be stated, as there is a far difference in architecture between an 030 Mac and a 386 IBM. Gary --- UUCP: ogicse!clark!pro-freedom!gsnow | Pro-Freedom: 206/253-9389 ProLine: gsnow@pro-freedom | Vancouver, Wa ARPANet: crash!pro-freedom!gsnow@nosc.mil | Apple*Van InterNet: gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com | Vancouver Apple Users Group
alex@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Alex Pournelle) (08/31/90)
favorini-francis@cs.yale.edu (Francis Favorini) writes: >Someone mentioned PKZIP a while back. Is it my imagination or does this >program (available for IBM PC's and clones) blow away any Mac program in >speed, if not compression? It takes about 10 seconds for 100 K and >regularly compresses files by at least 50%. It would be great if the >authors would write a Mac version. Any comments? I hear that! Even on a IIfx, the performance of unstuffing in SIT 1.5.1 (where DID that psuedo-multiple decimal format for version numbers come from? Do mathematicians grind their teeth every time they see it?) leaves much to be desired. My poky-slow :-) 386sx/16 runs PKZIP and UNZIP with a much greater speed. I also happen to like the command-line interface, but it took some doing to remember all them obscure options! I too hope that Phil Katz gets PKZMac or whatever done. But portably handling resource forks, etc., between platforms might be a problem. Alex -- Alex Pournelle, freelance thinker Also: Workman & Associates, Data recovery for PCs, Macs, others ...elroy!grian!alex; BIX: alex; voice: (818) 791-7979 fax: (818) 794-2297 bbs: 791-1013; 8N1 24/12/3
Jim.Matthews@dartmouth.edu (Jim Matthews) (08/31/90)
In article <25@genco.uucp>, rad@genco.uucp (Bob Daniel) writes: > What's the big deal!! Unstuffit and Stuffit Classic 1.6 can unstuff deluxe > archives. The end result is that you CAN unsit deluxe files without having > to pay Aladdin a dime. Seems like this is starting to turn into an > unnecessary flame. Not publishing the StuffIt! Deluxe format *is* a big deal, because it makes users of the format dependent on Alladin for tools. I don't think that Alladin is out to get the Mac community, in fact I think the decision to keep the format secret makes a lot of sense from a business standpoint. But the community that has been using StuffIt! to archive freely distributed software would lose a lot of flexibility if it moved to a secret format. A couple of examples from personal experience: I have written a Mac FTP program that automatically de-binhexes and unstuffs files. This feature saves me and my users a lot of time (since unstuffing generally happens while the Mac is waiting for data) and hassle (since they only have to run one program). I couldn't have implemented this feature if the StuffIt! format wasn't public. I have also written a simple unstuffing application, and lo and behold it's four times faster than StuffIt! 1.5.1 (about the same speed as DDExpand). No one (besides Alladin) will ever write a faster Unstuffit Deluxe, because no one besides Alladin will have the information necessary to do so. I have spoken to folks from Alladin via e-mail and at MacWorld, and they have a few answers for these concerns. They seem willing to license the format to people who will implement unstuffing for other platforms (although I doubt they'll let the resulting code be freely distributed, as unsit is now). They're providing an interface to the StuffIt! Deluxe Engine for people like telecommunications vendors, but the calling interface is inappropriate for many applications (you tell it where the file is and it unstuffs it -- you can't feed it bits of the file at a time in order to interleave de-compression with file transfer). And the Engine can not be freely distributed. So while the people at Alladin are trying to be helpful, I think their commercial ambitions have made StuffIt! Deluxe inappropriate for use on the net. I think that what is needed is a high-performance alternative to StuffIt! 1.5.1 that uses the classic format and provides some of the interface goodies of StuffIt! Deluxe (like folder navigation). StuffIt! Classic 1.6 doesn't fit the bill, since it defaults to the deluxe format. Alternatively, if a Mac version of PKZip or some other high-quality, open- format archiver appeared it might make sense to switch to that. Jim Matthews Dartmouth Software Development --
leonardr@svc.portal.com (Leonard Rosenthol) (09/01/90)
In article <1990Aug30.043630.4167@morrow.stanford.edu>, dane@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Dane Spearing) writes: > > (2) StuffIt Deluxe can decode and *encode* files in the StuffIt Classic > format, which is already public domain. Thus, anyone buying StuffIt > Deluxe will still be able to uncompress and compress files in the > old format to be uploaded to archives. > I want to step in a correct a misconception that seems to be floating around and that is what is the difference between Stuffit Deluxe, Stuffit Classic and Stuffit 1.5.1. Deluxe, as is pretty obvious, is the new Commercial incarnation of Stuffit which is begin billed as the "personal archiving tool" which just happens to be related to the public archive standard. Stuffit Classic (1.6) will be, when it ships, the shareware successor to the current standard (1.5.1) - AND WILL USE THE SAME FILE FORMAT AS DELUXE! > (4) People seem to be overlooking the fact that StuffIt Deluxe also comes > with a freely distributable product called "UnStuffIt Deluxe" which > can (obviously) unstuff the new files. (The only thing I think I would > like to see Alladin do is distribute this on the net - they've already > authorized free distribution by people that have purchased StuffIt > Deluxe). > I have sent a copy off to the moderators of c.b.m and we shall see when it arrives... *** Although I am not an employee of Aladdin, I have been designated (by them) as the official Aladdin representitive to the net. All messages, mail, etc. about Aladdin products are forwarded to them for reference, but you get to deal with me for answers and support ;-) *** -- Leonard Rosenthol Software Ventures Corp. MicroPhone II Development Team
ramsey@rbdc (Ramsey Dow) (09/01/90)
nicolas@cnam.UUCP (Nicolas Berloquin) writes: >A lot of people have been using Stuffit to post software on the net. >This was ok when Stuffit was a shareware, which it is not anymore. >Have you tried Compactor? It is much faster than stuffit, it compresses >much tightier than stuffit, it works in background, and it costs $25 ! Right. Right. Right. I have also switched from StuffIt to Compactor. I am immensely satisfied with Compactor's abilities. One feature which Nicolas neglected to mention is Compactor's ability to go down into archived folders and add/remove files, etc. StuffIt's inability to muck with the innards of archived folders was one big turnoff for me. Once again, Compactor whoops StuffIt 1.5. >[...] Bill Goodman wrote a little utility that transforms stuffit archives >to Compactor archives, (SitToCpt) with a gain of at least 20-25% in size. Really? Where might one find this niffty little utility. Anyone with it feel inclined to ship off a copy to either Sumex or Rascal? > So, why bother? My thoughts exactly. > Nico... >nicolas@cnam.cnam.fr -- "Man is the original and basic | Ramsey Dow, starving undergraduate pollutant." --J. O'M. Bockris | UUCP: ...!gatech!kd4nc!rbdc!ramsey Environmental Chemistry, 1977 | Internet: woodward@phs.bgsm.wfu.edu
ar4@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Piper Keairnes) (09/01/90)
In <25930@cs.yale.edu> favorini-francis@cs.yale.edu (Francis Favorini) writes: >Someone mentioned PKZIP a while back. Is it my imagination or does this >program (available for IBM PC's and clones) blow away any Mac program in >speed, if not compression? It takes about 10 seconds for 100 K and >regularly compresses files by at least 50%. It would be great if the >authors would write a Mac version. Any comments? I suppose my question to this would be: Are Mac files different enough from what is encountered in the PC world to warrant the difference in compression/decompression speed, or is it just that the Mac programmers are using less efficient (time and space) algorithms? By DIFFERENT, I mean the existence of resource forks and data forks. ----- Piper Keairnes ar4@sage.cc.purdue.edu
mdc@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) (09/01/90)
In article <1990Aug31.170355.28215@svc.portal.com> leonardr@svc.portal.com (Leonard Rosenthol) writes: >Stuffit Classic (1.6) will be, when it ships, the shareware successor >to the currentstandard (1.5.1) - AND WILL USE THE SAME FILE FORMAT AS DELUXE! I think it is important for people to NOT USE 1.6 *FORMAT* FOR UPLOADING TO PUBLIC ARCHIVES until the format is available publicly and without restrictions. This of course means that someone probably has to support 1.5.1 files in some other program, since Alladin evidently will not support it. Note that even if the format is public: * Alladin can still make money buy writing a better program, offering better support, documentation, etc. But to a spec. * Freelance software writers can also make money (or just for fun) by writing to the same spec. >I have sent a copy off to the moderators of c.b.m and we shall see >when it arrives... >Leonard Rosenthol THIS DOES NOT FIX THE PROBLEM in that it prevents others from writing programs that unstuff this format without permission from Alladin. I will address this more completely in an upcoming message. I have received a lot of interesting mail on this issue from people. Thank you for your views, and I hope that you find the discussion as stimulating as I do. I firmly believe that diverse viewpoints are important, and should be heard. -- 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
Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (09/01/90)
Charles Carlson writes in a message on 08/29/90 at 05:22:24 ... CC> Why should we all have to switch to a commercial program everytime CC> we want to archive something just because everyone has the unstuffer CC> for it? I for one am COMPLETELY POSITIVELY 100% AGAINST supporting CC> a commercial program to replace the much needed shareware StuffIt CC> program. You want everyone who will ever submit a program CC> to any one of the archive sites to have to purchase a commercial CC> program to do that, do you think anyone is going to buy a program CC> just so they can share software with others? Granted, I'm sure CC> most people, including myself never paid the shareware for StuffIt CC> 1.5.1 anyways, but the for the occasional stuffing to send to CC> a site, I don't feel too guilty. We now have Compactor to CC> replace StuffIt, which is shareware, and is much faster and CC> compresses tighter than StuffIt 1.5.1 so why not switch to that CC> instead? Compactor also has an Uncompactor that others can CC> use without having to pay a fee for.... well, jeeeeeezus. Now I've heard it all. You object to a commercial program, and favor a shareware program instead? Are you aware that there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between a commercial product and a shareware product, except for the distribution methods?!?!?!?! What you're telling me is, you want something you can use for free. Well, bucko, that's too bad. You can't use StuffIt 1.5.1 or StuffIt Classic 1.6 for free. You gotta PAY for them. The fact that you were allowed to take one home without putting out the money up front doesn't mean diddly. You use it, you owe the money. That's right, I said StuffIt Classic 1.6. Deluxe isn't the be all and end all of StuffIt; there's a SHAREWARE version out (or will be soon--Aladdin Systems is releasing some public betas, so effectively, it's out), which lacks some bells and whistles but which otherwise performs the same functions as Deluxe. So, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE YOUR HATED COMMERCIALLY DISTRIBUTED ARCHIVER. There's NO NEED for you to go out and buy anything. Deluxe isn't REPLACING anything, rather it's ENHANCING the state of archiving. If you don't want the enhancements, so be it. You can steal StuffIt Classic 1.6 in the privacy of your own home. Have fun. --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
Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (09/01/90)
Jim Matthews writes in a message on 08/29/90 at 13:56:51 ... JM> The original StuffIt's compression is nearly as good as SD's, JM> and having a documented file format is a great advantage. JM> I don't see any good reasons to switch... Is it me, or did Aladdin put a pretty new face on the very same old compression routines????? --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
KPURCELL@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK (09/01/90)
Another solution might be to wait a while longer until the FSF (GNU) folks get their compression software sorted out. They plan on using Shannon-Fano trees rather than LZW, which Unisys claim to have a patent on the algorithm (rather than just the implementaion they describe). The FSF method would be completly free. Software patents are bad news, this one particularly so. Has Allandin started paying their dues to Unisys? Kevin Purcell | kpurcell@liverpool.ac.uk Surface Science Centre | Liverpool University | Omit needless words.
blm@6sceng.UUCP (Brian Matthews) (09/02/90)
In article <4390@sage.cc.purdue.edu> ar4@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Piper Keairnes) writes: |antoine@cs.UAlberta.CA (Antoine Verheijen) writes: |>I think the suggestion is for everyone to start using UnStuffIt Deluxe for |>un-archiving since it is publically available (where?) to everyone. This way, |>it doesn't matter if StuffIt 1.5.1 or StuffIt Deluxe was used to archive. |That WAS the original intent of my message. I'm sure that it will be |publically available on ftp very soon. I know that several BBSs already have |it on them. This means I have to have two programs where one now suffices, and even if UnStuffIt Deluxe is free, it will only be for a Mac. I can unstuff on Unix and PCs now. |> 2) Compactor uses unknown/undocumented data structures and compression |> methods. This eliminates the possibility of developing tools on |> other systems for processing compactor files (as is possible with |> StuffIt files) and makes it virtually impossible to try to recover |> partial contents in the case of a corrupted archive. So does StuffIt Deluxe. Add to that StuffIt's (and StuffIt Deluxe's) horrible user interface, and Compactor is looking much better. Now if Bill (Goodman, the author of Compactor) would release the file format or source code to do the compaction/decompaction, I could see Compactor becoming the new standard. -- Brian L. Matthews blm@6sceng.UUCP
Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (09/02/90)
Marty Connor writes in a message on 08/30/90 at 18:38:42 ... MC> Fine. But when I need Alladin's Secret Decoder Ring to get MC> stuff from a PUBLIC ARCHIVE, Damnit, I say enough.... All you need is Aladdin's UnStuffIt Deluxe, which is FREE. I understand you want to write your own tools to deal with archives, but I don't think anyone else should concern himself with your needs in this regard. You don't need Aladdin's Secret Decoder Ring. UnStuffIt Deluxe is a simple program. Sure, you want to do strange things with the archives, instead of just unStuffing them and getting the files out like normal people would do. I say, figure out the format yourself if you have such cravings. But nobody, NOBODY will ever have any trouble getting files out of new StuffIt archives. If that's your concern, it's a false one. --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
blm@6sceng.UUCP (Brian Matthews) (09/02/90)
In article <1990Aug30.052325.10540@midway.uchicago.edu> dwal@ellis.uchicago.edu (David Walton) writes: |I see no a priori reason to |think that they (Lau & Aladdin) will be unreasonably obnoxious or even |close-lipped about who gets to see the Deluxe archive format. The fact that they chose not to make it public is enough for me. If they don't want to be close-lipped about it, why not just publish it? -- Brian L. Matthews blm@6sceng.UUCP
Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (09/03/90)
Jim Matthews writes in a message to Bob Daniel on 08/31/90 ... JM> Not publishing the StuffIt! Deluxe format *is* a big deal, because JM> it makes users of the format dependent on Alladin for tools. JM> I don't think that Alladin is out to get the Mac community, JM> in fact I think the decision to keep the format secret makes JM> a lot of sense from a business standpoint. But the community JM> that has been using StuffIt! to archive freely distributed JM> software would lose a lot of flexibility if it moved to a secret JM> format. JM> A couple of examples from personal experience: JM> I have written a Mac FTP program that automatically de-binhexes JM> and unstuffs JM> files. This feature saves me and my users a lot of time (since JM> JM> unstuffing generally happens while the Mac is waiting for data) JM> and hassle (since they only have to run one program). I couldn't JM> have implemented this JM> feature if the StuffIt! format wasn't public. JM> I have also written a simple unstuffing application, and lo JM> and behold it's four times faster than StuffIt! 1.5.1 (about JM> the same speed as DDExpand). No one (besides Alladin) will ever JM> write a faster Unstuffit Deluxe, because JM> no one besides Alladin will have the information necessary to JM> do so.... Pardon me for sounding like Bill Gates, but... There may be many things you WANT to do with archives, but no one has guaranteed you a right to do them. You want to create tools to deal with archives. Well, if you can't, you can't. This doesn't make the public archives any less accessible. UnStuffIt Deluxe will always be available for free. (And if suddenly it's not, THEN we can discuss the merits of using that archiving format for public archives.) You will ALWAYS be able to get at those files. Just because you can't get to them in the manner YOU'D like to, doesn't mean diddly. I say, as long as the tool for getting at those public archives is publicly and freely available, then there's no problem using that particular archiving format. --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
leonardr@svc.portal.com (Leonard Rosenthol) (09/03/90)
In article <5224@spt.entity.com>, mdc@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) writes: > In article <1990Aug31.170355.28215@svc.portal.com> leonardr@svc.portal.com (Leonard Rosenthol) writes: > >Stuffit Classic (1.6) will be, when it ships, the shareware successor > >to the currentstandard (1.5.1) - AND WILL USE THE SAME FILE FORMAT AS DELUXE! > > I think it is important for people to NOT USE 1.6 *FORMAT* FOR > UPLOADING TO PUBLIC ARCHIVES until the format is available publicly > and without restrictions. This of course means that someone probably > has to support 1.5.1 files in some other program, since Alladin > evidently will not support it. > Both Stuffit Deluxe and Stuffit Classic will allow you to CREATE, MODIFY, or simply UNSTUFF 1.5.1 archives. They are not abandoning the format, since it is the history of the product and at this time is the 'industry standard' for public archives. You will always be able to create and work with 1.5.1 archives, but you will also get better compression methods, and heirarchical archives at a shareware level - not to mention being able to work with the Deluxe archives that you might encounter. > I firmly believe that diverse viewpoints are important, and should be > heard. > I am as much in favor of this discussion as you. This is a VERY important issue to the net, and to users at large, and it needs to be resolved. I do think, however, that there is a difference between trying to raise issues and being a stubborn goat. I am listening to everything you that you say, and am in daily contact with Aladdin discussing what I see here. If there is a 'middle-of-the-road' that exists, where we can all be happy, I hope we can find it. -- Leonard Rosenthol Software Ventures Corp. MicroPhone II Development Team
starta@tosh.UUCP (John Starta) (09/03/90)
blm@6sceng.UUCP (Brian Matthews) writes: > Compactor is looking much better. Now if Bill (Goodman, the author of > Compactor) would release the file format or source code to do the > compaction/decompaction, I could see Compactor becoming the new > standard. Why do you deem it important to obtain the source code for Compactor before you'll accept it as a standard? I fail to see the logic behind this. You either use the program (and pay the shareware fee), or you don't. John
a665@mindlink.UUCP (Anthon Pang) (09/03/90)
leonardr@svc.portal.com (Leonard Rosenthol) writes: > Aladdin is MORE THAN WILLING to work with anyone who wishes to > produce > stuffing/unstuffing software for both Macintosh and other platforms. At > this time, a number of companies including Software Ventures (MicroPhone > II), Freesoft (White Knight), CE Software (QuicKeys) have incorporated in > some form that ability to create and unstuff both 1.5.1 and Classic/Deluxe > archives. > They are also working with others to create Classic/Deluxe compatible > applications for other platforms including UNIX, DOS, Windows, etc. They > want to provide solutions for other platforms, but admittedly they feel (and > I agree with them) that it is their best interest to control who gets that > information. I joined this newsgroup in order to get more information on UnStuffIt for 2 reasons: The _only_ Amiga version of UnStuffIt (that I've encountered) can neither handle RLE compression or folders (in any way)...and it certainly doesn't handle Classic/Deluxe. Is there a "solution" for this platform? Secondly, our system runs under Xenix, and one of the fine tools on our board, is the ability to look in archives and extract files from archives...unfortunately not for .SIT files. For this reason, I was looking for a Xenix implementation or sufficient info, to craft our own. Since you mention neither of these platforms, are these being worked on (as we "speak")? If not, what are Alladin's requirements of an "interested party" wishing to make such a port?
ar4@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Piper Keairnes) (09/03/90)
In <504@6sceng.UUCP> blm@6sceng.UUCP (Brian Matthews) writes: >Add to that StuffIt's (and StuffIt Deluxe's) horrible user interface, and >Compactor is looking much better. Now if Bill (Goodman, the author of >Compactor) would release the file format or source code to do the >compaction/decompaction, I could see Compactor becoming the new >standard. If YOU were an author who had spent countless hours/weeks/years developing a program which you graciously donated to society, would you be so quick to make the source code public property as well? I would think that maybe the posting of the distinct details that would allow new DECOMPRESSION programs to be written, but I believe that any author has the complete right and privilege to keep his work private. On top of that, Compactor apparently uses a "better" algorithm than Stuffit. Now if his code were to be released, what would keep Stuffit (or some other product) from "adopting" the improved methods, therefore increasing the competition? I find it very hard to believe that there are users out in the community who EXPECT that an author will do exactly what they want. Criticism, critique, and suggestion may help the author continue a product, but flamming will not. Just a few words of concern on behalf of software authors out there in the world... ----- Piper Keairnes ar4@sage.cc.purdue.edu
mdc@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) (09/03/90)
... This article is in reply to article <1990Sep2.185740.2049@svc.portal.com> from leonardr@svc.portal.com (Leonard Rosenthol) Leonard, first I appreciate your representing Alladin on the net. By doing so you make it possible to have a public dialog that would be much more difficult otherwise. I am representing many people who feel it is inappropriate to have public archives stored in proprietary formats. You are (presumably) representing the best interest of Alladin, else (for business reasons) they would not have chosen you to speak for them. Your last message is confusing is some ways. In article <1990Sep2.185740.2049@svc.portal.com> leonardr@svc.portal.com (Leonard Rosenthol) You write: > I am as much in favor of this discussion as you. This is a VERY >important issue to the net, and to users at large, and it needs to be >resolved. This much I agree with. This issue is important, and needs to be resolved, at least for now. But then you say: >I do think, however, that there is a difference between trying >to raise issues and being a stubborn goat. Barnyard animals aside, I assume the implication is that I am being stubborn. Perhaps. But Perhaps through my stubborness an important principle will be protected. A principle of greater importance than the profits of one small software company. Perhaps through this stubborness more people will see that if Alladin is allowed to set a proprietary standard in compression/archiving for the Macintosh Community, the people I represent (those without financial interests in Alladin) will suffer a great setback. >I am listening to everything you that you say, and am in daily >contact with Aladdin discussing what I see here. If there is a >'middle-of-the-road' that exists, where we can all be happy, I hope >we can find it. Have you considered that a 'middle-of-the-road' solution may not be appropriate? Alladin is (in our view) attempting to gain proprietary control of public data. This is a *very serious* situation. Consider the following argument: Alladin (Ray Lau) created the Macintosh archiving/compression standard in the following way: 1. Raymond Lau Created a program which INCORPORATED important PREVIOUS STANDARDS (BINHEX/PACKIT) 2. He distributed it using public distribution methods with no copy protection. (bboards/shareware) 3. He published the format allowing ANYONE to implement the decoding/encoding if they should desire. 4. People were thus able to make UNIX versions to unstuff files at will. MPW tools to do unstuffing appeared. Communications programs could unstuff files on the fly. Now Alladin is attempting to set a NEW STANDARD. One that has the SAME BASIC NAME, and similar functionality. The CRITICAL DIFFERENCE is that the FORMAT of the compressed file is PROPRIETARY. So point 3 above (Public Format) is being removed. Thus: 1. Other implementors will be unable to implement algorithms to encode/decode the new format. 2. Noone will be able to write better programs to create new format stuffit files, except people Alladin feels (in its own business interest) may do so. 3. Everybody PAYS ALLADIN for the right to create archives. Example: How many years did ADOBE withhold the secret to TYPE 1 FONTS in postscript from other type companies, leading to a monopoly on good output at small-sized low-resolution for that company. Developers could make Type 3 fonts - but I'm sure they would have preferred to be equal players in the font arena. In article <1990Sep2.185740.2049@svc.portal.com> leonardr@svc.portal.com (Leonard Rosenthol) writes: > Both Stuffit Deluxe and Stuffit Classic will allow you to CREATE, >MODIFY, or simply UNSTUFF 1.5.1 archives. They are not abandoning the format, >since it is the history of the product and at this time is the 'industry >standard' for public archives. You will always be able to create and work >with 1.5.1 archives, but you will also get better compression methods, and >heirarchical archives at a shareware level - not to mention being able to >work with the Deluxe archives that you might encounter. >Leonard Rosenthol >Software Ventures Corp. >MicroPhone II Development Team Alladin is IN EFFECT abandoning the old format. 1. They have created a new format, and have created software that uses as its primary format a new format. 2. They have named the new publicly-distributed version of their program STUFFIT CLASSIC. But just as Coca-Cola changed the formula for Coke Classic, Stuffit Classic will (presumably) default to the a NEW FORMAT for data storage. 3. People will likely make both kinds of files, and upload them to bboards - proliferating the new format furthur. 4. Other developers won't be able to write a general purpose tool to deal with the both formats, so people will have to use what Alladin gives. Advantage: Alladin. It is by this logic that I conclude that Alladin is in effect creating a new proprietary standard for Macintosh data compression/archiving. My primary goal is to make sure that public archives are stored in a public format that developers may freely implement software to manipulate any way they choose, and without interference from any company. This could be achieved in a number of ways: 1. Alladin could make their format public. Allowing it to continue as a public compression/archiving standard. 2. Some other competing designer could declare their format as a possible new standard and make it public. They could convert old format files to their new public format, allowing people to gradually shift to their now public, and allow other developers to decode their format. 3. Some combination of interested people could create a new standard, and write tools to support it. Leonard, that is my current analysis of the situation. I welcome your/Alladin's public response the the issues raised. I also encourage others to share their views. You can make a difference. -- 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
blm@6sceng.UUCP (Brian Matthews) (09/04/90)
In article <25@genco.uucp> rad@genco. (Bob Daniel) writes: |What's the big deal!! Unstuffit and Stuffit Classic 1.6 can unstuff deluxe |archives. Once again for those of you not paying attention: But not on UNIX, or VMS, or an Amiga, or a PC, all of which I can do now, because the Stuffit 1.5.1 format is documented and freely available. It also means that if, for instance, I hate StuffIt's user interface (which I do), I can't write my own. An MPW tool for instance. By not publicly documenting the file format, Aladdin is locking everybody in to their tools. I claim this is a Bad Thing. -- Brian L. Matthews blm@6sceng.UUCP
pip@pro-freedom.cts.com (David Pipgras) (09/04/90)
In-Reply-To: message from mdc@spt.entity.com You guys raise some interesting comments, but, I must say (no flame intended) that this is a seemingly pointless argument. StuffIt Deluxe can work with the 1.5.1 archives, true enough. This allows owners to create old or new file formats. UnStuffIt Deluxe is available by many FTP so that non-owners can unstuff files. This is exactly like 1.5.1 when Raymond Lau said "to use StuffIt, pay me. If you don't want to pay for stuffit, use the unstuffit DA". This is the same for Stuffit Deluxe. If "competing" businesses want to create new utilities, let them. Apple demans that you license it's products, as do just about every other commercial product available. This is business. They want to make money from someone else's ideas, then the SHOULD pay to use that idea. As for the new/old file format debate, so what? Stuffit Deluxe can create both, and the Unstuffit deluxe is available to you free of charge. Use it. As the Macintosh software librarian of our user group, AppleVan, I have converted all of our files available on our BBS to the new format. Why? Becuase it saved a lot of disk space over the the 1.5.1 version, which is extreamly valuable. In reducing the file size, it does now take less time to up/download each file, and reduces time for everyone, both waiting and using. If it at all matters, leave it to personal preference, the users who wish to "Convert" will those who don't, don't. Dave s. UUCP: .. !crash!pro-freedom!pip ARPA: crash!pro-freedom!pip@nosc.mil INET: pip@pro-freedom.cts.com
pip@pro-freedom.cts.com (David Pipgras) (09/04/90)
In-Reply-To: message from ar4@sage.cc.purdue.edu In <504@6sceng.UUCP> blm@6sceng.UUCP (Brian Matthews) writes: >Add to that StuffIt's (and StuffIt Deluxe's) horrible user interface, and >Compactor is looking much better. Now if Bill (Goodman, the author of >Compactor) would release the file format or source code to do the >compaction/decompaction, I could see Compactor becoming the new >standard. If YOU were an author who had spent countless hours/weeks/years developing a program which you graciously donated to society, would you be so quick to make the source code public property as well? I would think that maybe the posting of the distinct details that would allow new DECOMPRESSION programs to be written, but I believe that any author has the complete right and privilege to keep his work private. On top of that, Compactor apparently uses a "better" algorithm than Stuffit. Now if his code were to be released, what would keep Stuffit (or some other product) from "adopting" the improved methods, therefore increasing the competition? I find it very hard to believe that there are users out in the community who EXPECT that an author will do exactly what they want. Criticism, critique, and suggestion may help the author continue a product, but flamming will not. Just a few words of concern on behalf of software authors out there in the world... >>>>>Thank you!<<<<< That is what I was attempting to say in my last message. Dave s. UUCP: .. !crash!pro-freedom!pip ARPA: crash!pro-freedom!pip@nosc.mil INET: pip@pro-freedom.cts.com
tempest@walleye.ecst.csuchico.edu (Kenneth K.F. Lui) (09/04/90)
In article <90244.165133KPURCELL@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK> KPURCELL@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK writes:
They plan on using Shannon-Fano trees rather than LZW, which Unisys claim to
have a patent on the algorithm (rather than just the implementaion they
describe). The FSF method would be completly free.
This would be a great idea. Can't wait until it's finished.
Has Allandin started paying their dues to Unisys?
I thought this subject was settled in comp.gnu.misc. The author of
compress posted a message saying to the effect that Unisys has no
right to claim royalty fees from those who use compress' algorithm
or subsequent derived works. The algorithm used by compress is
in effect, different than Unisys'.
Ken
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Kenneth K.F. Lui | Other paths you can use: tempest@csuchico,
tempest@csuchico.edu | tempest@{cscihp|walleye}.csuchico.edu
__________________________|__________________________________________________isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ken Hancock) (09/04/90)
As for me, I switched to StuffIt to lower my online costs. My guess is most online services see it the same way. Whichever program gives the best compression given a relatively fair tradeoff in time, will become the standard. This has proved to be the case with GEnie as it's switched largely to Compactor. 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... :-)
leonardr@svc.portal.com (Leonard Rosenthol) (09/04/90)
In article <5299@spt.entity.com>, mdc@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) writes: > ... > This article is in reply to article <1990Sep2.185740.2049@svc.portal.com> > from leonardr@svc.portal.com (Leonard Rosenthol) > > Leonard, first I appreciate your representing Alladin on the net. By > doing so you make it possible to have a public dialog that would be > much more difficult otherwise. > You are (presumably) representing the best interest of Alladin, else (for > business reasons) they would not have chosen you to speak for them. > To begin with, just to put things into perspective, I have ABSOLUTELY no financial interest in whether Aladdin succeeds or not. They are good friends of mine, and I want to see them succeed as they have some REALLY nice technology to put into users hands. I am not paid, nor do I expect to be, for supporting them. > Your last message is confusing is some ways. > In article <1990Sep2.185740.2049@svc.portal.com> leonardr@svc.portal.com > (Leonard Rosenthol) You write: > >I do think, however, that there is a difference between trying > >to raise issues and being a stubborn goat. > > Barnyard animals aside, I assume the implication is that I am being > stubborn. > > Perhaps. > > But Perhaps through my stubborness an important principle will be > protected. A principle of greater importance than the profits of one > small software company. > > Perhaps through this stubborness more people will see that if Alladin > is allowed to set a proprietary standard in compression/archiving for > the Macintosh Community, the people I represent (those without > financial interests in Alladin) will suffer a great setback. > I understand your position on the issue, but I am also looking at reality. At this time, I see three major contenders to replace Stuffit 1.5.1 as the 'industry standard' - Stuffit Classic/Deluxe, Disk Doubler and Compactor. All three of these products use a proprietary document format, and all three offer significant improvements over 1.5.1 including speed, better compression and support for hierarchical archives. Technology will not improve if we hold it hostige to such, seemly petty issues, as file formats. We allow other types of developers, word processors, spreadsheets, etc. to keep our data hostige in undocumented and/or proprietary formats (ever try to get the MSWord format from Microsoft??), why shouldn't companies such as Aladdin be treated the same?? > >I am listening to everything you that you say, and am in daily > >contact with Aladdin discussing what I see here. If there is a > >'middle-of-the-road' that exists, where we can all be happy, I hope > >we can find it. > > Have you considered that a 'middle-of-the-road' solution may not be > appropriate? Alladin is (in our view) attempting to gain proprietary > control of public data. This is a *very serious* situation. > NOT TRUE! Aladdin is trying to provide users with new technology and capabilities. They have invested in Stuffit, and they are trying to give something to all of the loyal users with Stuffit Classic & Deluxe. > Now Alladin is attempting to set a NEW STANDARD. One that has the > SAME BASIC NAME, and similar functionality. > The CRITICAL DIFFERENCE is that the FORMAT of the compressed file is > PROPRIETARY. > > So point 3 above (Public Format) is being removed. Thus: > > 1. Other implementors will be unable to implement algorithms to > encode/decode the new format. > > 2. Noone will be able to write better programs to create new > format stuffit files, except people Alladin feels (in its > own business interest) may do so. > > 3. Everybody PAYS ALLADIN for the right to create archives. > Aladdin is MORE THAN WILLING to work with anyone who wishes to produce stuffing/unstuffing software for both Macintosh and other platforms. At this time, a number of companies including Software Ventures (MicroPhone II), Freesoft (White Knight), CE Software (QuicKeys) have incorporated in some form that ability to create and unstuff both 1.5.1 and Classic/Deluxe archives. They are also working with others to create Classic/Deluxe compatible applications for other platforms including UNIX, DOS, Windows, etc. They want to provide solutions for other platforms, but admittedly they feel (and I agree with them) that it is their best interest to control who gets that information. As to playing for the right to create archives, that has ALWAYS been the case. Stuffit has always been a _SHAREWARE_ application, which required that you pay your shareware fee in order to create archives (you could unstuff for free, however). There is no change to this. Let's assume that Aladdin were to release Stuffit Classic as Freeware meaning that anyone could use it to create and unstuff both 1.5.1 and Classic/Deluxe archives without cost. Even though the format would still be proprietary, would this act of good will to the Mac community help to smooth things over? > Alladin is IN EFFECT abandoning the old format. > > 1. They have created a new format, and have created software > that uses as its primary format a new format. > > 2. They have named the new publicly-distributed version of their > program STUFFIT CLASSIC. But just as Coca-Cola changed the > formula for Coke Classic, Stuffit Classic will (presumably) > default to the a NEW FORMAT for data storage. > > 3. People will likely make both kinds of files, and upload them > to bboards - proliferating the new format furthur. > Sure. Just like every other developer changes the file format of its application every time a new version is release so as to support the new features that have been implemented, Aladdin is doing the same. When MSWord changed to Word 4.0, there was a period of time where people were distributing Word 3.0 and Word 4.0 and files and those w/o 4.0 couldn't read the former. That, as I said earlier, is the price of advancement. > 4. Other developers won't be able to write a general purpose tool to > deal with the both formats, so people will have to use what > Alladin gives. Advantage: Alladin. > Personally, I think that letting Aladdin maintain the format and the code is a good idea in some regards. I would much rather prefer to simply call a 'library' that they provide which is always kept up to date, than have to keep updating my code everytime they change something. If Aladdin were to make the format public, that might hinder them as they would have to maintain compat with that format so that other applications did not break with new versions since the 'user base' would have fit otherwise. Public formats are both good and bad, but I think that they hinder developers in moving forward - but I repeat myself again. > 1. Alladin could make their format public. Allowing it to > continue as a public compression/archiving standard. > I have talked with them at length about this possibility, and I do not see it happening. But you are certainly willing to continue to push them. Feel free to have your 'constituency' send mail, faxes, etc. to Aladdin letting them know how you feel. They are very willing to listen to user feedback, and the more the merrier. > 2. Some other competing designer could declare their format > as a possible new standard and make it public. They could > convert old format files to their new public format, allowing > people to gradually shift to their now public, and allow > other developers to decode their format. > > 3. Some combination of interested people could create a new > standard, and write tools to support it. GREAT! I think that if someone were willing to do this, then there would be no question. I would stand behind such an effort, providing that it was an application and format that the net could get behind. A format is only one part, applications (etc.) which used this format is another. > > Leonard, that is my current analysis of the situation. > I welcome your/Alladin's public response the the issues raised. > And now you have my response. > I also encourage others to share their views. You can make a difference. > I too would like to hear other feedback on this issue. Although Marty claims to be representing 'many', I don't really see this. If you are concerned about the issue, I would like to hear about it - either publically or via EMail. -- Leonard Rosenthol Software Ventures Corp. MicroPhone II Development Team
tempest@walleye.ecst.csuchico.edu (Kenneth K.F. Lui) (09/04/90)
In article <1990Sep3.221419.3494@svc.portal.com> leonardr@svc.portal.com (Leonard Rosenthol) writes:
[...]
petty issues, as file formats. We allow other types of developers, word
processors, spreadsheets, etc. to keep our data hostige in undocumented
and/or proprietary formats (ever try to get the MSWord format from
Microsoft??), why shouldn't companies such as Aladdin be treated the same??
Perhaps this is different in the way archiving programs are used on the
net and in the personal computing community. When one algorithm comes
out, there are those who feel they can make it a little faster and more
efficient, saying "hey, my version's faster--people should use it."
On the other hand, if a new format comes out and catches on, others will
want to port to other platforms. This is good--not bad. Leonard, what
you give above is a very good analogy to what's currently happening. I
feel that there are those who are concerned about what happens when the
day comes when either Aladdin or its owner (if it ever gets bought out)
decides that "hey, the format and algorithm belong to us; and any entity
that has it is violating our rights--we want to be compensated because
it has our property." That fear is valid because Aladdin is still
a small company and its future in the long run is uncertain. One will
never think of something like this happening to Microsoft for its WORD
format. It's clear that Microsoft doesn't mind having public documents
stored in WORD format and Microsoft won't be taken over anytime soon.
So, I see that it is the future of Aladdin that concerns others. They
have no reason other than what I mentioned above because the tools are
available to create and extract from the Deluxe format; these tools
are freely available and have no limits on terms of usage; multi-
platforms are possible because:
Aladdin is MORE THAN WILLING to work with anyone who wishes to produce
stuffing/unstuffing software for both Macintosh and other platforms.
[...]
They are also working with others to create Classic/Deluxe compatible
applications for other platforms including UNIX, DOS, Windows, etc. They
want to provide solutions for other platforms, but admittedly they feel (and
I agree with them) that it is their best interest to control who gets that
information.
Aladdin is trying to provide users with new technology
and capabilities. They have invested in Stuffit, and they are trying to
give something to all of the loyal users with Stuffit Classic & Deluxe.
I also see Deluxe giving users a lot of good technology, but I feel that
there is one area where they missed it: the format for plug-in modules.
The ability to add new compression modules, optimizers, and decoders are
fantastic ideas; however, what happened to those of us who want to write
our own personal modules? Certainly, the manual could have mentioned
where to get more info about writing modules, but it's nowhere to be
found. It's like saying GNU EMACS is an extensible editor/application
but leaving out the instructions on how to write apps that live within
it. I haven't called Aladdin regarding this, but I plan to in the
near future.
...
Classic/Deluxe archives without cost. Even though the format would still
be proprietary, would this act of good will to the Mac community help to
smooth things over?
No, there will always be those who are never satisfied. We are talking
about how easy it is for programmers to do the porting, etc, and the
fate of the format. Even giving away StuffIt Deluxe away for free
won't do it because it's not the application that's in question, it's
the format and algorithms used. But then what about Compactor? It uses
a proprietary format and yet, GEnie uses it. You can argue that GEnie
is not a public net like Usenet: GEnie will have to pay if someone ever
decides to sue, not its users (well, not directly anyway). Lots of
people want to protect themselves in preparation for that day and
proprietary stuff worries them. Hmm, the Mac was a proprietary platform
when it came out in '84... never mind, I was writing out loud.
If Aladdin were to make the format public, that might hinder them
as they would have to maintain compat with that format so that other
applications did not break with new versions since the 'user base' would
have fit otherwise. Public formats are both good and bad, but I think that
they hinder developers in moving forward - but I repeat myself again.
This depends upon the company in question. While Aladdin has more control
over its format and algorithms, it doesn't permit others to critique or
improve them as quickly. There are thousands of people on the net; there
are only a handful at Aladdin. No question, having a proprietary format
gives them more control. I don't see it providing a better way to "moving
forward." Moving forward according to Aladdin, yes; but not what others
may want. I never saw a request of features posted on the net by anyone
at Aladdin asking what users would like to see in a future version of
StuffIt. If it has in the past, I'm sorry to be ignorant of it. Witness
the existence of Compactor and how GEnie ultimately embraced its use. It
seems that the Deluxe Better algorithm needs a little more moving forward.
I have talked with them at length about this possibility, and I do
not see it happening. But you are certainly willing to continue to push
It won't do Aladdin any good to release its format and algorithm, and I
also don't see their release into the public domain. Releasing it only
provides other compression writers like Bill Goodman of Compactor and
those who wrote Disk Doubler more leverage. It's a tough world out
there and StuffIt Deluxe would be seriously compromised as a money-
earning product if its format and algorithm were placed in the public
domain.
[About a totally public-domain archiver.]
GREAT! I think that if someone were willing to do this, then there
would be no question. I would stand behind such an effort, providing that
it was an application and format that the net could get behind. A format
is only one part, applications (etc.) which used this format is another.
"That boy was our only hope." -- Ben Kenobi
"No, there is another." -- Yoda
Both paraphrased. There is still another and that's FSF's proposal for
a compression standard. I read on a comp.sys.mac.* newsgroup recently
that it will be based on Shannon-Fano trees rather than LZW--ala PKZip.
We can be sure that everything that FSF puts out will be free and its
source will be available. We can wait for that (though I don't know
how long we will have to wait), or have someone write one. It's
likely if someone were to write it, he/she won't do it without some
sort of compensation. But then there's the FSF, so it may be possible!
I too would like to hear other feedback on this issue. Although
Marty claims to be representing 'many', I don't really see this. If you
are concerned about the issue, I would like to hear about it - either
publically or via EMail.
This is my feedback. I don't really care about an archiver's format
and algorithm as long as it compresses optimally for my application.
If something happens to such an archiver in the future that conflicts
with my interests, I will use something else--hey, it's no big deal.
I can see Marty's concerns and others who feel the same way. Sorry
to be so long-winded. This message got a little longer than I
expected.
Ken
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Kenneth K.F. Lui | Other paths you can use: tempest@csuchico,
tempest@csuchico.edu | tempest@{cscihp|walleye}.csuchico.edu
__________________________|__________________________________________________macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Chris Silverberg) (09/04/90)
In article <5299@spt.entity.com> mdc@spt.UUCP (Marty Connor) writes: >Alladin (Ray Lau) created the Macintosh archiving/compression standard >in the following way: > > 1. Raymond Lau Created a program which INCORPORATED important > PREVIOUS STANDARDS (BINHEX/PACKIT) Further on he writes: >Alladin is IN EFFECT abandoning the old format. > > 1. They have created a new format, and have created software > that uses as its primary format a new format. So how is this approach different than the original Stuffit... you say that Stuffit Deluxe and Classic both default to the new standard. Well, I seem to also remember Stuffit 1.5 "defaulting to the new standard". I couldn't default to Packit format or Binhex... - Chris ._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. Chris Silverberg AOL: Silverberg Worcester Polytechnic Institute GEnie: C.Silverberg INTERNET: macman@wpi.wpi.edu SYSOP: Main Street U.S.A. BBS FIDONET: 322/575.1 508.832.7725 (1200/2400)
macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Chris Silverberg) (09/04/90)
In article <504@6sceng.UUCP> blm@6sceng.UUCP (Brian Matthews) writes: >This means I have to have two programs where one now suffices, and even >if UnStuffIt Deluxe is free, it will only be for a Mac. I can unstuff >on Unix and PCs now. >|> 2) Compactor uses unknown/undocumented data structures and compression >|> methods. This eliminates the possibility of developing tools on >|> other systems for processing compactor files (as is possible with >|> StuffIt files) and makes it virtually impossible to try to recover >|> partial contents in the case of a corrupted archive. >So does StuffIt Deluxe. I think the implication was that Stuffit Deluxe does at least two CRC checks when making an archive, while it's not know what Compactor does to maintain its data integrity. >Add to that StuffIt's (and StuffIt Deluxe's) horrible user interface, and >Compactor is looking much better. Now if Bill (Goodman, the author of >Compactor) would release the file format or source code to do the >compaction/decompaction, I could see Compactor becoming the new >standard. Interface is a subjective opinion, so i'm not going to win any arguments over this issue, but IMHO, i've found Stuffit to have an excellent interface, easy to use and understand, while Compactor's average window was a bit displeasing... just me though... - Chris ._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. Chris Silverberg AOL: Silverberg Worcester Polytechnic Institute GEnie: C.Silverberg INTERNET: macman@wpi.wpi.edu SYSOP: Main Street U.S.A. BBS FIDONET: 322/575.1 508.832.7725 (1200/2400)
das@Apple.COM (David Shayer) (09/05/90)
Regarding Mr. Conner's attitude towards Stuffit... *** FLAME ON *** While I have sympathy for people who have survived a lobotomy, I'd suggest that he listen to the dozens of folks who have suggested that he stick with the old format. Marty, are you hard of hearing, or just stupid? If you like the old, non-proprietary format, then use it! If you have this much passion, get a real issue, like homelessness. Anyone can whine about a problem, few can actually solve them. *** FLAME OFF ***
vturner@nmsu.EDU (Vaughan Turner) (09/05/90)
This is how flame wars start. At times this discussion has seemed to go the way of the flame wars, but the people involved have recovered rather nicely, and have recognized the other's viewpoint, for the most part. I can see both sides, and am not sure which side of the fence to reside on, but I have avoided comment because I felt I had nothing to add. I am interested in what Aladdin has to say, and I am also interested in the arguments others have against them. I don't understand why you think flaming someone over the internet (in this case) was more useful than emailing him directly and explaining your viewpoint that way. Come to think of it, I wonder why I'm posting this? Maybe to dissuade others from flaming over the net. If you don't want to read, just ignore articles with the subject: Re: Stuffit Deluxe If you want to flame me (I tried to be as non-offensive as possible, :-), flame me via e-mail. Thank you for your attention, Vaughan -- Vaughan Turner BITNET: mcswvt@nmsuvm1.bitnet Box 3AT Computer Center preferred--> INTERNET: vturner@nmsu.edu Las Cruces, NM 88001 You lose... Thanks for playing! -Nature
blm@6sceng.UUCP (Brian Matthews) (09/05/90)
In article <4405@sage.cc.purdue.edu> ar4@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Piper Keairnes) writes: |In <504@6sceng.UUCP> blm@6sceng.UUCP (Brian Matthews) writes: |>Add to that StuffIt's (and StuffIt Deluxe's) horrible user interface, and |>Compactor is looking much better. Now if Bill (Goodman, the author of |>Compactor) would release the file format or source code to do the |>compaction/decompaction, I could see Compactor becoming the new |>standard. |I find it very hard to believe that there are users out in the community who |EXPECT that an author will do exactly what they want. Criticism, critique, |and suggestion may help the author continue a product, but flamming will |not. Huh? How do you get from what I wrote to my flamming (whatever that is) that I EXPECT an author to do what I want? I simply said that if Bill releases the file format, Compactor would stand a good chance of becoming the Mac archiving standard. If that's not what Bill wants, that's his choice. But then users also have the choice not to use his software. |If YOU were an author who had spent countless hours/weeks/years developing |a program which you graciously donated to society, would you be so quick to |make the source code public property as well? Who said anything about making the source code public property? You can release source code and retain copyright on the code. |I would think that maybe the posting of the distinct details that would |allow new DECOMPRESSION programs to be written, but I believe that any |author has the complete right and privilege to keep his work private. Did you actually bother to read what I wrote? It appears not, so I'll quote a relevant portion again: "if Bill [...] would release the file format". In other words, exactly what you suggested. If you're not going to bother to take the time to read what someone writes, don't waste everyone else's time following up to it. -- Brian L. Matthews blm@6sceng.UUCP
mdc@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) (09/05/90)
In article <44527@apple.Apple.COM> das@Apple.COM (David Shayer) writes: >Regarding Mr. Conner's attitude towards Stuffit... The name's Connor. -- 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
dane@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Dane Spearing) (09/05/90)
In article <5357@spt.entity.com> mdc@spt.UUCP (Marty Connor) writes: >In article <44527@apple.Apple.COM> das@Apple.COM (David Shayer) writes: >>Regarding Mr. Conner's attitude towards Stuffit... > >The name's Connor. > Fine attitude from a guy who's been spelling Aladdin "A-l-l-a-d-i-n". Check your own spelling, buck-o. -- Dane Spearing | Dept of Geology | (415) 723-4092 <---------------------------| Stanford University |------------------------> dane@pangea.stanford.edu | Stanford, CA 94305 | #include <disclaim.h>
pillera@etd4260a.erim.org (Joe Pillera) (09/05/90)
Jeepers. This compression war is really getting nasty. Hopefully
these exchanges will calm down a little...
--
-----
Joe Pillera ERIM
pillera@etd4260a.erim.org Image Processing Systems Division
(313) 994-1200 x2754 P.O. Box 8618
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48107-8618
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are solely those of Joe Pillera,
and not of ERIM or its affiliates.ching@brahms.amd.com (Mike Ching) (09/06/90)
In article <Aug.5.23.40.26.1990.287@steely.rutgers.edu> armhold@steely.rutgers.edu (George Armhold) writes: >Is there a PD Stuffit/Unstuffit that will create a folder to dump the >extracted files into automatically? I download software for the >University Mac user group, so I often find myself spending a great >deal of time making folders for all the new *.sit files, then manually >unstuffiting them into the proper folders. > Disk Doubler Expand will unstuff into a folder. The only disadvantage is that an archive containing a single compressed file still creates a folder (an understandable limitation). However, I really like being able to select 20 tech notes and unstuff them all without further intervention. Mike Ching
6600patb@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Pat Breitenbach) (09/06/90)
In article <68934.26E3FE5C@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG> Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) writes: >Jim Matthews writes in a message on 08/29/90 at 13:56:51 ... >JM> The original StuffIt's compression is nearly as good as SD's, >JM> and having a documented file format is a great advantage. >JM> I don't see any good reasons to switch... >Is it me, or did Aladdin put a pretty new face on the very same old compression >routines????? >--Adam-- > It's you. The compression routines are new and not the same as far as I can tell, but that's just from reading the discussion. -Patrick Internet: 6600patb@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu
das@Apple.COM (David Shayer) (09/06/90)
In article <5357@spt.entity.com> mdc@spt.UUCP (Marty Connor) writes: >The name's Connor. Yeah, whatever.
slumlord@slum.MV.COM (Laird Heal) (09/06/90)
In article <5216@spt.entity.com>, mdc@spt.UUCP (Marty Connor) writes: >In article <9992@goofy.Apple.COM> alexr@apple.com (Alexander M. Rosenberg) >writes: > >>Have you even tried to call Alladin? Propreitary means only that they know >>who has the information; it doesn't mean that they won't give it out. Stop >>whining about it. Call them. > >You're flat wrong. Proprietary can and often does mean that >information will be withheld. Often selectively. > >Public Information *means* that one doesn't have to get permission to >use information. > >Real freedom is being able to write code without getting permission from >other people. > >[discussion omitted] This discussion is getting sidetracked into philosophy. The current method works. Tools both on Macintosh and net hosts handle the files. I have unsit sitting around here: where is unsitd? If one wanted to change - well atob and btoa are better than BinHex, featuring a means of recovering some errors and smaller ASCII files, and there are other archivers: tar for Macintosh (holding nose) comes with source code as does a version of compress (an MPW tool). The pieces are there, and we could do it all better, but what is here works. Any analogy to dinosaurs is inappropriate. Sure, let's consider our options but let's not stick our noses out and wait for them to be broken. You could get the file format released in a second if you convinced Alladin that they would make more money that way. They would, unless they plan to write unsitd themselves and sell it to each of us on our so-compatible Uxxx computers. Nobody ever wrote a program to create Stuffit archives except for Stuffit, is that right? What do they have to lose? If Stuffit Deluxe handles other archives in proprietary formats, by the way, those other companies may have specified the Stuffit Deluxe format be kept under nondisclosure. Laird Heal laird@slum.MV.COM Freedom is never free. (Salem, NH) (603) 898-1406 -- Laird J. Heal {root, slumlord, laird}@slum.MV.COM (Salem, NH) (603) 898-1406
Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (09/08/90)
MC> My primary goal is to make sure that public archives are stored MC> in a public format that developers may freely implement software MC> to manipulate any way they choose, and without interference MC> from any company.... But earlier in this same post, you mentioned how StuffIt 1.5.1 was great because, for one, it was distributed via public methods (bulletin boards, etc.--the shareware route). In effect, then, StuffIt 1.5.1 was _not_ distributed "without interference from any company." Ray Lau asked for money for SIT 1.5.1 and earlier. Morally, each and every one of us was obligated to pay him if we used the product. So, while the format may have been public, the application to create the archives has _never_ been public. Yet, you support this format. So I ask: do you support a program as long as its file format is made public, regardless of whether the program itself is free or not? What I'm getting at here is, for public archives, shouldn't the whole shebang be freely and publicly distributed? The archiver, the unarchiver, and the format? If Joe Programmer must pay (at least has the moral obligation to pay) Ray Lau/Aladdin in order to use the program which archives his Neat-O Program in order that he may publicly and freely distribute his work, isn't that just as bad as your not having access to the file format for that archive in order to retrieve Joe's program files? --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
Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (09/08/90)
PK> If YOU were an author who had spent countless hours/weeks/years PK> developing a program which you graciously donated to society, PK> would you be so quick to make the source code public property PK> as well?... I don't know Marty Connor at all, but I strongly suspect that his answer to the above question is "yes." For a stronger feeling for Marty's side of this issue, I suggest you pick up the book _Hackers_ by Steven Levy and read the first part, True Hackers. Or swing by Lotus headquarters when Richard Stallman et al. are marching, and engage them in some conversation. Now, I myself tend to agree with you, that the fruits of my labor are mine to enjoy and that I'm under no obligation to freely distribute anything I may work on. Of course, the net is under no obligation to accept my stuff as their standard for maintaining public archives, either. --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
Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (09/08/90)
KKL> I feel that there are those who are concerned about what happens KKL> when the day comes when either Aladdin or its owner (if it ever KKL> gets bought out) decides that "hey, the format and algorithm KKL> belong to us; and any entity that has it is violating our rights--we KKL> want to be compensated because it has our property." That fear KKL> is valid because Aladdin is still a small company and its future KKL> in the long run is uncertain. One will never think of something KKL> like this happening to Microsoft for its WORD format. It's KKL> clear that Microsoft doesn't mind having public documents stored KKL> in WORD format and Microsoft won't be taken over anytime soon. There's a good point in that. If one demands that the format for an archiver be made public simply because public archives are storing documents in that format, then one should also lobby against the use of Word, MacWrite (II), etc. files as read.me docs. Of course, you see where that leads--to the lowest common denominator, plain text with no pictures, no formatting, etc. And I for one am willing to pay a little bit _not_ to live in a lowest common denominator world. --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
Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (09/08/90)
DS> Regarding Mr. Conner's attitude towards Stuffit... DS> *** FLAME ON *** DS> While I have sympathy for people who have survived a lobotomy, I'd DS> suggest that he listen to the dozens of folks who have suggested DS> that he stick with the old format. DS> Marty, are you hard of hearing, or just stupid? If you like the DS> old, non-proprietary format, then use it! DS> If you have this much passion, get a real issue, like homelessness. An DS> yone can whine about a problem, few can actually solve them... But Marty's not talking about his personal use of StuffIt. He's talking about all those files that OTHER PEOPLE post on the net, and his own access (or lack of same) to them. He wants the net to use a standard for which he knows the format, so that he can do whatever he wants with those files on whatever platform he wants. So: **FLAME ON** READ WHAT PEOPLE WRITE, THINK ABOUT IT, _THEN_ COMPOSE YOUR REPLY. It will come out much more coherent, and relevant to the subject matter at hand. **FLAME OFF** --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
hammen@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Robert Hammen) (09/08/90)
>>Is there a PD Stuffit/Unstuffit that will create a folder to dump the >>extracted files into automatically? >Disk Doubler Expand will unstuff into a folder. However, DDExpand (I know the 2.x versions, and I think the 3.0 version as well) has a bug that swaps the creation and modification dates. Sloppy... I recommend that you get your hands on StuffIt Classic. Aladdin has posted "public betas" to all of the major commercial networks (what, not yooznet?). It will do what you want. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// / Robert Hammen | Macintosh enthusiast & publishing guru, looking for a job / / hammen@ddsw1.mcs.com | 70701.2104@compuserve.com | GEnie: R.HAMMEN / /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
laird@chinet.chi.il.us (Laird J. Heal) (09/08/90)
In article <44527@apple.Apple.COM>, das@Apple.COM (David Shayer writes >Regarding Mr. Conner's attitude towards Stuffit... > >*** FLAME ON *** > >While I have sympathy for people who have survived a lobotomy, >I'd suggest that he listen to the dozens of folks who have >suggested that he stick with the old format. > >Marty, are you hard of hearing, or just stupid? If you like >the old, non-proprietary format, then use it! > >If you have this much passion, get a real issue, like homelessness. >Anyone can whine about a problem, few can actually solve them. > >*** FLAME OFF *** Quite to the contrary, I found Mr. Connor's postings, while a little lengthy in the best Usenet tradition, well founded and to the point. There seem to be some people stubbornly insisting that it would be better to shift to the new Stuffit format, which was after all the previous practice. Sometimes, in a democracy, things get decided on a voice vote, and here on the net this is at least a democracy, if not an anarchy. While news.groups is full of this kind of talk, I feel it is pertinent to comp.sys.mac.misc to discuss keeping the file format in comp.binaries. mac in the old, open, format. There is no comp.binaries.mac.d and every so often there is a need to discuss the charter of that group. I would like to compliment you on the gentlemanly tone of your flame, but I feel that you are more confused on the issues than Mr. Connor, who simply sounded like he deserved a good toasting - what he had to say was very relevant, although as I said before philosophy belongs in a Cambridge coffeehouse and what we should discuss here is what it would cost everyone to switch from something that works to something that is new and different. Hee Hee - replies will fall on deaf ears, as I am just visiting my old account on Chinet for the weekend, and news on my home machine is still not really reliable, just installing it and I was going to turn it off for the weekend except that my latest attempt to fix it sent all new articles to /dev/null... Laird Heal laird@slum.MV.COM (Salem, NH) (603) 898-1406
wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) (09/10/90)
In article <69948.26EB0E75@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG> Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) writes: >But Marty's not talking about his personal use of StuffIt. He's talking about >all those files that OTHER PEOPLE post on the net, and his own access (or lack >of same) to them. He wants the net to use a standard for which he knows the >format, so that he can do whatever he wants with those files on whatever platform >he wants. I may be coming into this discussion late, but why hasn't anyone talked about StuffIt Classic, which packs and unpacks StuffIt Deluxe archives and is distributed on the same terms as StuffIt 1.5.1? It seems to me that when copies of StuffIt Classic are more common then there shouldn't be a problem with StuffIt Deluxe files. -- Mark Wilkins
dkletter@adobe.COM (It's all fun and games until someone PUTS AN EYE OUT) (09/12/90)
i've heard a lot of mentions of a utility called "Compactor" or whatever. is this shareware/freeware? is there some way i could get it if i don't have access to Compu$erve or GEnie or whatever? thanks.--d -- "Ein zwei drei vier... Steve oh yeah."
Adam.Frix@p2.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) (09/13/90)
Mark Wilkins writes in a message on 10 Sep 90: MW> I may be coming into this discussion late, but why hasn't MW> anyone talked about StuffIt Classic, which packs and unpacks MW> StuffIt Deluxe archives and is distributed on the same terms MW> as StuffIt 1.5.1? MW> It seems to me that when copies of StuffIt Classic are more MW> common then there shouldn't be a problem with StuffIt Deluxe MW> files... But there's no version of StuffIt which runs on a Unix box. Marty et al. want to get the archives on a foreign (non-Mac) platform, and decode the .hqx file. But what they then have is a file usable only on a Mac. Not so, necessarily; with the 1.5.1 format available, Marty et al. have access to tools written for Unix which can go into those archives (while still on the Unix box), find out what files are in it, and even extract things like Read.me files, which they can indeed read. But the Deluxe format isn't public knowledge, so Marty et al. have no way of knowing where in that archive the files are, how to find filenames, where to go to extract whatever files they want, etc. Remember, they want to do this on a foreign platform, and there's no Aladdin-sanctioned Unix UnStuffIt or whatever (yet?). They would write their own tools, if only they knew the format. So they lobby for public formats for public archives. Sounds fair. However, from my end, I don't see where bitching at Aladdin is the thing to do. Nobody ever promised that the format with the name "StuffIt" would eternally be available publicly. Just because it has been for several years, doesn't mean it should be forever. So if Aladdin doesn't come up with a solution, I think it'll be up to one of the Unix guys to write the emacs of archivers. (Where's Richard Stallman?) Just make sure it can easily be incorporated into DOS, Mac, Amiga, etc. archive programs. StuffIt already has the ability to handle plug-in tools; I think public pressure would force them to adapt the Usenet standard, if there was one, and create a module. And, of course, since comp.binaries.* is theoretically moderated, such a public format could be enforced. --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
bytebug@dhw68k.cts.com (Roger L. Long) (09/16/90)
In article <6408@adobe.UUCP> dkletter@adobe.UUCP writes: >i've heard a lot of mentions of a utility called "Compactor" or whatever. >is this shareware/freeware? is there some way i could get it if i don't >have access to Compu$erve or GEnie or whatever? Compactor, and a couple of associated utilities, will be posted on comp.binaries.mac following the current posting of Solarian II 1.03, which is being posted in Compactor format. -- Roger L. Long bytebug@dhw68k.cts.com
wscott@ecn.purdue.edu (Wayne H Scott) (09/18/90)
One question:
Does Compactor use a publicly documented format?
I would like to write a UNIX decompress routine for Compactor archives.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Wayne Scott | INTERNET: wscott@en.ecn.purdue.edu
Electrical Engineering | BITNET: wscott%ea.ecn.purdue.edu@purccvm
Purdue University | UUCP: {purdue, pur-ee}!en.ecn.purdue.edu!wscottrterry@hpcuhc.HP.COM (Ray Terry) (09/23/90)
>> Does Compactor use a publicly documented format? >> I would like to write a UNIX decompress routine for Compactor archives. I've already contacted the author of Compactor attempting to convice him to do this. Why not add fuel to the fire and do the same? Ray