Re: unshrinking .sit files?

[nathan@visi.com (Nathan Mates)]

In article <jreiter-2608960811290001@remote-05.modems.comet.net>,
Jordan Reiter <jreiter@comet.net> wrote:
>In article <4vr7ri$57d@darla.visi.com>, nathan@visi.com (Nathan Mates) wrote:
>>   I rather prefer archive formats (zip, tar, gzip, NuFX, unix
>>compress, lha, etc) that have source code publically available so that
>>someone _could_ write and/or port an unpacker if they wanted. Most mac
>>programmers don't stop to give a hoot about the rest of the world,
>>though.

>I understand that you are a person who prefers PC's and Apple II's, but
>regardless I feel you bash Macintosh too much. As the only other platform
>which in anyway supports the Prodos file system, I feel your attakcs on
>the Macintosh line a bit excessive.

   Hmmm. I don't think it would be that hard to get Linux (unix
variant for PCs, DEC Alphas, SPARCs, 680x0s, etc) to read the ProDOS
file system. Just because something has some half assed support is no
reason to keep from bashing its 1) Obvious and 2) Serious faults.

   Note that for this and the last time you tried to tell me to stop
bashing the mac, I stated _CONCRETE REASONS_ why the Mac has done
things wrong. Deal with the facts I state, or all you appear to be
flaming just for the hell of it.

   Once again, to reiterate: Macs add resource forks to files, making
them near impossible for newbies to unpack under ProDOS 8. Stuffit
is proprietary and newer (i.e. pretty much all) .sit files CAN'T be
unpacked on the Apple II. Being able to write to a ProDOS disk is
useless if you can't do jack with it. 

Nathan Mates

--
<*> Nathan Mates http://www.visi.com/~nathan/      <*>
# What are the facts? Again and again and again-- what are the _facts_?
# Shun wishful thinking, avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors
# think-- what are the facts, and to how many decimal places?  -R.A. Heinlein