Re: Utility to write DOS 3.3 disks under GS/OS?

[mjmahon@aol.com (Michael J. Mahon)]

Dave Althoff Jr replied:

>Michael J. Mahon (mjmahon@aol.com) wrote:
>
>: On a separate, but related, topic...
>
>: <flame>
>: Non-techie family members regularly forward emails to me
>: that contain JPG-encoded pictures that they "cannot open"
>: on their Macs or PCs (yes, they use both).
>
>: The source of the problem is almost always the automatic
>: invocation of a system-specific archiving or encoding format
>: for an email attachment.
>
>: This is nonsense.
>
>: Email is intended to be a universal medium, not a balkanized
>: medium of Mac-email users and PC-email users.  Base64 encoding
>: was adopted as a _generic_ encoding for binary information, and
>: it is very annoying to find Mac-sent email with BinHex encoded files.
>: Of course, there are programs for every platform which can handle
>: BinHex--but non-technical _users_ can't!
>
>AMEN!!  Base64 exists for a reason, let's use it!  Particularly since
>virtually any mail program on virtually any platform can handle it
>correctly.  There are reasons for using BinHex encoding, but not for a
>platform-independent file!

Glad we agree.

>: Archiving is another worthless distinction between the two camps.
>: Stuffit is a fine archiver, though is doesn't pack most files as well
>: as many Zip archivers.  Why can't we start a campaign to move to
>: a generic archiver?  I realize that it will take 5-10 years to get it
>: "mostly" done, for all practical purposes, but we need to get started.
>
>: I'm sure that Mac users will say that a new, "neutral" format must
>: be chosen so as not to favor the PC platform, but, let's face it,
>: with over 90% of the user base on PCs, it really does make more
>: sense for the minority platform to move into conformance with
>: the _de facto_ standards in use by the vast majority.
>
>
>Here I am going to disagree with you.
>
>For platform independent files, you're right...just use ZIP or GZIP and be
>done with it.  But there is a distinct advantage to using platform
>dependent archiving formats:  it makes no sense at all to unpack a
>Macintosh binary application on a PC, and likewise it is useless to unpack
>a Windows executable on MacOS or ProDOS.  This is why we have Shrinkit for
>ProDOS, Stuffit for MacOS, and PKZip for Windows.  You can look at the
>archive type and know what kind of a machine it is probably supposed to
>work on.  I have, for instance, a CD that contains QuickTime movie files,
>HTML files, and two archives:  one is a Stuffit archive (.SEA), the other
>is a ZIP archive (.EXE) (yes, they are both self-extracting).  I can look
>at the filename and know which machine the archive is for, which is useful
>as the wrong archive won't even work.  The archive, of course, contains
>the installer for the QuickTime codec needed for the video files.

I was referring to platform-independent files, like JPGs, not
applications.  I thought my example implied that, but I see
that I should have been more specific.

I agree that platform-specific archivers make some sense in the
context of platform-specific files, but generic archive formats should
be used for platform-independent files.

There are good reasons, however, for unpacking even platform-
specific files on a different platform.  For one thing, it allows the
documentation to be read without access to the execution
platform.  If source is contained in the archive, that also has
relevance to users of other platforms.

A measure of the utility of cross-platform archiving is some
percentage of the sales of Stuffit for the PC and Zip archivers
for the Mac (though, admittedly, most of the uses of these
archivers is to try to deal with the cross-platform email mess).

I note, however, that the only advantage you state for platform-specific
archivers is that it makes it easy to tell what platform the contained
files are for.  This is a very poor way to convey content.  There would
be no problem with using a single, non-platform-specific archiver
(with the capability of dealing with forked files, for example) but
attaching different file type suffixes to indicate anyplatform-specific
content.  (A simple example of a related solution is the use of
.SHK and .SDK suffixes for Shrinkit file archives and disk archives,
respectively.)

It is not likely that average users are going to routinely use multiple
archivers, so the best solution for the market is to standardize on
one that can handle almost everything well.

I regularly receive ZIP archives containing nothing but JPGs from
PC users, and Stuffit archives containing nothing but JPGs from
Mac users.  This is generaly the result of ordinary people using
the default configurations of their email clients.  _This_ is the
kind of situation that I think needs to change.

>: This would have the effect of making email with attachments almost
>: as easy as plain email, finally.
>
>: Not only would I stop getting most "I can't open this attachment"
>: pleas for help, but, more importantly, people who have given up
>: on sending pictures, etc., through email would slowly regain their
>: trust in it as a communication medium.

>Well, people won't regain trust in email as a communications medium so
>long as 90% of incoming email is SPAM.......

I'm sorry to hear that you are still having that problem.  I've been
averaging less than 20% spam for the last few months, and it
seems to be improving (crossing fingers and knocking on head ;-).

(BTW, I have never 1) changed my email address, or 2) munged my
email address for newsgroups.)

-michael

Check out amazing quality sound for 8-bit Apples on my
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/