gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) (09/05/90)
Good job, Marty. It's amazing how few of these people see what kind of restraints are created by making one of the default archival algorithms a proprietary one. Many "alternate platform" dearchival utilities for formats such as .SIT are written on the spur-of-the-moment by a programmer who sees a need for the tool. When all one has to do is find the documentation for a given open format, it's easy - compared to contacting the company and wading through the assorted legalese and red tape and cash output to license a proprietary format. I can't see how keeping the format proprietary is going to forward the progress of this kind of technology - instead, I can only see it aiding in the stagnation of it by hindering new development. For Aladdin, keeping the format proprietary is good. They maintain control, and can determine how the product evolves. This is the place that Leonard and his supporters are arguing from, and is often a good stance - one that Mac enthusiasts often argue from in support of Apple's ownership of the Macintosh interface. For the "Macintosh Community", keeping the format proprietary is bad. It stifles development by placing more obstacles in the path of the independent programmer, and makes the applications of companies which do license the technology dependent on the whims of Aladdin - a company whose first duty is (and let's be honest here, kids) to itself and it's financial supporters. This is where Marty and his supporters are arguing from. I support the existence of a open standard; and I strongly support the usage of an open standard for the storage of file in public archives. It isn't the cost of the tool for archival and dearchival that concerns me - it's whether or not I can -choose- my tool. That is the matter that a number of people here are concerned about, and that Marty is arguing for. Choice. -=- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Jim Gaynor - The Ohio State Univ. - IRCC - Facilities Mgmt. - OCES <whew!> | | Email [gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu], [gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu] | |_ "Don't tell me truth hurts, little girl; because it hurts like hell..." _|
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) (09/14/90)
In article <4432@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu> gaynor@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Jim Gaynor) writes: > > > It's amazing how few of these people see what kind of >restraints are created by making one of the default archival >algorithms a proprietary one. Its amazing to see the number of people that think this is something that is worth worrying about. I can probably count the number of compression utilities that read/write Stuffit archives on one hand. > Many "alternate platform" dearchival utilities for formats >such as .SIT are written on the spur-of-the-moment by a programmer who >sees a need for the tool. When all one has to do is find the >documentation for a given open format, it's easy - compared to >contacting the company and wading through the assorted legalese and >red tape and cash output to license a proprietary format. I can't see >how keeping the format proprietary is going to forward the progress of >this kind of technology - instead, I can only see it aiding in the >stagnation of it by hindering new development. As I indicated above, how many programmers are really running out and writing utilities for other platforms? I would suspect that the number is amazingly "low" and its probably not going to increase anytime soon and NOT because of any reasons given here, specially because the file format of Deluxe archives is propriatary to Alladin. > For Aladdin, keeping the format proprietary is good. They >maintain control, and can determine how the product evolves. This is >the place that Leonard and his supporters are arguing from, and is >often a good stance - one that Mac enthusiasts often argue from in >support of Apple's ownership of the Macintosh interface. > > For the "Macintosh Community", keeping the format proprietary >is bad. It stifles development by placing more obstacles in the path >of the independent programmer, and makes the applications of companies >which do license the technology dependent on the whims of Aladdin - a >company whose first duty is (and let's be honest here, kids) to itself >and it's financial supporters. This is where Marty and his supporters >are arguing from. I really doubt that if Alladin decided to publish the format of Deluxe Archives you would see ANY great increase in the number of compression utilities released. Get serious, doing compression routines is probably the most boring thing on earth to program. Which is probably why there are so few compression utilities in the first place. You can count most of the main ones on two hands. > I support the existence of a open standard; and I strongly >support the usage of an open standard for the storage of file in >public archives. It isn't the cost of the tool for archival and >dearchival that concerns me - it's whether or not I can -choose- my >tool. That is the matter that a number of people here are concerned >about, and that Marty is arguing for. > Choice. >| Jim Gaynor As I see it, you do have a choice, if you want to write Deluxe compatable utility, you call Alladin and chances are they will license the format. If they don't do that, than everyone has a right to complain. But I doubt if this will be the case. -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything) UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM