🚀 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?
>
>Efficiency is not the only feature of a transfer program.  I have several
>reasons to stick with the current (BinHex, UnPit) packers:
>
>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.  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?

SuffIt will become widely available as more people use it.  Do you think
Packit appeared overnight?

>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?

The author of StuffIt, I believe, has allowed StuffIt to be free for
unpacking.  Packing will cost you $15.  Come on, you have a job....

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

Why?  Frankly becuase unPit isn't so good.  It's better than nothing, as
most things go, but StuffIt is better.  It does a better job, AND,
it should save the net time and money.  Also, if you're a Compuserve,
GEnie, Source, etc. user, it saves you a LOT of money....

Ken



-- 
Ken Hancock      UUCP: isle@dartvax
               BITNET: isle@u2.dartmouth.edu

DISCLAIMER: If people weren't so sue-happy, I wouldn't need one!