🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2103@tekig4.TEK.COM> bradn@tekig4.UUCP (Bradford Needham) writes:
>In article <7507@dartvax.UUCP> borscht@dartvax.UUCP (Andy J. Williams) writes:
>>Why stick with the inefficient?
>
>1) Binary transfer is complex enough as it is.  To download programs from
>the net, a user needs all of: Kermit (or similar), BinHex, and Packit (or
>UnPit).  StuffIt adds yet another protocol to the minimum set.  Why complicate
>matters?

Stuffit does not add to the minimum set, it replaces Packit.

>2) They are widely available.  How many times have you seen requests for
>BinHex on this newsgroup?  Remember all the confused and frustrated requests
>for Packit?  Why repeat that experience?

Stuffit is available on this net, Genie, Compuserve, and others.  How much
wider can you get?

>3) They are free.  BinHex4.0 and UnPit are free programs.  StuffIt is
>shareware (for the packer).  Why use a shareware program when a free one
>is available?

If the shareware program is much, much better, then it is worth it in both time
savings and thus money saved.

>4) They are stable.  BinHex4.0 and UnPit have been in use long enough to
>demonstrate that they work.  Why test a new program?

Stuffit is a not in beta test, it has gone through testing before release, it's
stable.

>To authors who would write yet another binary transfer protocol for the Mac:
>There are so many fantastically useful applications that haven't been written;
>why waste your creativity rewriting those that already exist?
>
>Brad Needham
>bradn@tekig4.TEK.COM

Packit is useful but far from fantastic. Stuffit is fantastic. It is not a
binary transfer protocol it is a file compacting program. Why innovate, why
improve things. I guess MicroSoft just wasted all their creativity rewriting
another wordprocessor!

Come on Brad, are you really that afraid of a little change, or imrovement?

-- 
Tony Jacobs * Center for Engineering Design * U of U * t-jacobs@ced.utah.edu