🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Jan13.142958.11554@sics.se> ollef@sics.se (Olle Furberg) writes:
>
>In <252200004@peg> mididoc@peg.UUCP writes:
>
>>I thought the main aim behind archiver programs were to reduce (a)
>>storage and (b) net-traffic. Anthing wchich does it better is good.
>
>  You haven't understood the width of the problem yet!
>There are a lot of people who does the unpacking on non-Mac computers.
>
>  It's really short-sighted to think that everybody uses archiver
>programs in the same way as you. This remark has been made by several
>people but you (and some other guys) doesn't seem to take note of it.
>

I took note of it. I even replied that I didn't think that the
ability of people using their University and Company supplied
networks and computers efficiently mandated my paying 20-30% more
of *my* money to download over a phone line I pay for..

And I've never gotten a response to my question of why I should pay
20-30% higher download bills. I've got lots of responses. They
almost universally list the benefits *they* get from the use
of a public format. They have *never* mentioned why *I* should
pay for it. Not even in letters and posts responding to my
statements. 

The main purpose of an archiver is to reduce storage space and download
time. Stuffit 1.5.1 no longer does either of those adequately.

If you want us to stay with a publicly accessible format, maybe you
should make an effort to insure that publicly accessible formats
are efficient. Stuffit 1.5.1 is no longer efficient. A simple truth.

>   /Olle

jim

--
     __           __
     /  o         /      Jim Budler      jimb@silvlis.com      |  Proud
    /  /  /\/\   /__    Silvar-Lisco, Inc.  +1.408.991.6115    | MacIIsi
/__/  /  /   /  /__/   703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086 |  owner