🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug12.012734.5064@cs.rose-hulman.edu>  
bohlkejh@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Jon H. Bohlke) writes:
> 
> Hey,
>    How do I unpack this stuff?  I have this ModPlayer.squfold file, what  
> utility do I use?
> 
> Jon

It's compressed with a utility called Squash. A free-ware decompressor  
called UnSquashOnly is available on the archives. There are some comments  
in the MOD Player FAQ (which is by now a decent candidate for sumbission  
to the archives itself) about which mode of UnSquashOnly to use (I believe  
it's Extract Bundle).

THIS IS EXACTLY WHY using non-standard file compression techniques is  
problematic. How many times has this question been asked now about this  
ONE file? While the goal of shrinking files as much as possible is a noble  
goal, it leads to all this confusion. My guess is that the net bandwidth  
of answering questions about files compressed by alternate compressors is  
larger than the amount of bandwidth saved by using a tighter compresstion  
technique! And the ironic thing is that it's EVERYBODY'S resources being  
affected - not just the supplier and user of the compressed file. Is this  
REALLY in our mutual best interests? A note in the README file about how  
to decompress the thing would be some help, but only if the README file  
gets downloaded/shipped around/read.

Things like Squash are great as long as all parties concerned are aware  
it's being used. But out in the open world I think the benefits go to  
waste. Maybe if the extension was UnSquashMe... :-)

Gordon


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------