🚀 go-pugleaf

> I don't like pk(x)arc either, but primarily because of the arrogance of
> its author.  I have no problem with Phil Katz writing a set of fast ARC-
> compatible utilities for the PC.  If he had done just that, he would be
> in healthy competition with Vern Buerg and his set of fast ARCA, ARCE,
> ARCV, and ARCF utilities, and everyone would benefit.
> 
> But, no.  Katz had to come up with an "improved" compression method that
> only his programs could extract.  Then he had the arrogance to continue
> calling them .ARC files, knowing full well that people using the more
> prevalent SEA-compatible ARC programs would not be able to extract them.
> Only after much user screaming did he provide a means of "turning off"
> his new compression method.  Thanks a lot, Phil.

Arrogance? For making improvements and using a common extension name?
System Enhancement Associates did the same as they evolved to v5.12
with improvements that were not always backward compatible.  Why this
attack on Katz?  He was simply being practical, as was SEA.

The argument about extension names holds fascinating possibilities.
Does this mean Lotus has a lock on .wks?  Digital Research with its
CPM can closeout .com?  Who owns .exe and .bat?

As for .arc, for those whose C compiler experience encompasses 
Borland and Microsoft, a few years ago the powers were Lattice
and Computer Innovations. With CI's compiler came an archiving
utility called ARCH.  It's syntax was much like SEA's and their
extension was .arc.  When SEA co-opted this extension with a
completely incompatible archiver were they being arrogant?

Let's agree to discuss the pros and cons of which archiver to
use without accusing the authors of nonexistent transgressions.