🚀 go-pugleaf

---
     I've just been made very aware of something that should've been pretty
obvious to me, and to us all.  I feel we're all being had.  It's probably too
late.  The trigger was the following interchange from INFO-MAC DIGEST (ARPA):

>> PackIt II files, when you attempt to unpack them with PackIt I, will give
>> you a "Not valid PackIt file" if they have been compressed during packing.
>> As this is a major time saver, it is one of the big advantages of PackIt II.
>> Also, as PackIt II can read PackIt I files fine, there really isn't much of
>> a reason not to use PackIt II.

> From the moderator:  Previous discussion on this net has pointed out that
> PackIt I is public domain, while PackIt II is shaeware.  For that reason
> files posted to public domain bboards and networks should use PackIt I (the
> author of PackIt has pointed this out himself).

     Well, there you have it.  Someone wrote a neat program, everybody started
using it, and the author says "Damn!  I could'a had a profit!"  So he does what
anyone who wishes to belatedly cash in does; he tries to change the standard.
How?  Add a feature!

     I remember thinking to myself when I first heard of the compression on
PackIt II that I didn't give a damn about the compression unless it was truly
impressive.  I also remember having to rearrange my disk files because the new
PackIt was much larger.  I was peeved, but I grabbed it in self-defense.

     The trouble is that this highway robbery is already working!  Remember
back when the PackIt-ed postings were few and far between?  When it was just as
often that people would simply paste together several BinHex-es into one file
and post it?  Now, I've seen SINGLE FILE POSTINGS PackIt-ed just for the
presumed compression.

     And presumed compression it is, folks.  Try this:  PackIt a few "typical"
things with and without compression.  See which version is smaller.  And by how
much.  In fact, I suggest people post their results; such benchmarking is done
with disk performance, why not with this? I have found the compression results
less than exhilarating, like in some cases LESS THAN 1%!  Are my experiences
typical?

     Before we as a group submit to such flinty-eyed commercialism, let us be
sure we all want to pay the $10 for the results!  And meanwhile, if at all
possible, use PackIt I as the standard multi-file combination method of prefer-
ence, and then only when actually needed.

-Brian Diehm
Tektronix, Inc. (SDA - Standard Disclaimers Apply.  Tektronix doesn't have any
                 official opinion about PackIt I, PackIt II, the Macintosh, the
                 cesium atom, or the Giant Rat of Sumatra.  Tektronix probably
                 doesn't know I'm posting this, nor would they probably care,
                 even though it's probably being done on their machine.)