🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Apr7.211742.21905@eff.org> hshubs@eff.org (Howard Shubs) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.185649.4991@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>   ANyone can get Unstuffit Deluxe? I've never understood THIS viewpoint. 
>>First of all, downline is a Godly utility which will convert Stuffit
>
>Sounds to me like you've got more of a complaint with the programmers
>of these lesser utilities than you do with Aladdin.  Myself, I never
>create 1.5.1 archives.  If that means that you can't deal with it,
>that's your problem.  _I_ can deal with almost any archive intended
>for a Macintosh which someone sends my way.  Putting your head in the
>sand and refusing to deal with new superior technology is one of the
>attitudes that I refuse to respect.
>
>Flexibility is to be respected, OTOH.

I guess the original poster just complained about the unavailability
of the universal uncompressor. Everyone will accept the superior
technology if it has a better performance and *ease of use*. You may
be happy with million of uncompressors for each archive format on your
desktop, but I am not. 

If people don't use the superior archive scheme due to the lack of the 
easy way for uncompression, this archive scheme will die. That's all.

(For the new Stuffit, Aladdin provided the Stuffit Extractor, and it
is very handy. It can uncompress all the stuffit format and compactor
format. )

>>and although I would prefer Compact Pro, it seems that it has only released
>>it's algorithm to the Public Domain recently? I heard somethign about this,
>
>Compact Pro is not PD.  It's shareware.  Do you understand the difference?

The original poster asked about the algorithm, not the program. I also
don't know whether algorithm is PD or not. But there *is* a unix side
uncompacter, and the source is available.


-- 
Takeshi Miyazaki (miyazaki@ee.princeton.edu)