309425 Messages !rf Forum messages: 209743 to 211613 Start at what message number (N for new to you): 209425 #: 209743 S9/Hot Topic [S] 05-Sep-88 19:03:45 Sb: #SEA/PK Fm: John Wilson 76414,624 To: Charles McGuinness 76701,11 (X) I hate to disagree, but the suit is anything but a private matter. It is hardly a private matter when it affects more than the two parties involved. Any of us who use either program are affected and, at least, have a passing interest, if not a vital one. (And for a private matter, it's generating a whole lot of discussion!) There is 1 Reply. #: 209745 S9/Hot Topic [S] 05-Sep-88 19:04:17 Sb: #SEA/PK Fm: John Wilson 76414,624 To: Howard Cherniack 75026,3723 (X) Of course it came from spontaneous combustion! Where else do these things come from? :-) SPeaking of copyright infrigements, seen Neil Young's video "This Notes For You"? Wicked! To the point, but wicked. There is 1 Reply. #: 209796 S9/Hot Topic [S] 05-Sep-88 23:10:22 Sb: #209743-#SEA/PK Fm: Charles McGuinness 76701,11 To: John Wilson 76414,624 (X) Ummm, well, how, exactly, as a typical user, has this suit affected you? Other than piquing your interest, of course. It hasn't, as of yet, affected me in the least that I know of. I still use *ARC*.* as before. -- charles There are 2 Replies. #: 210112 S9/Hot Topic [S] 07-Sep-88 02:02:38 Sb: #PK settlement details Fm: gene saunders 72265,23 To: Robert Blacher 72677,3305 (X) There is a file in the PK361.EXE program which deals with the agreement. I'm sure this file is the result of pressure from SEA's attorneys. PK361.EXE (hope I got the name right) is a self-extracting version of the PKPAK series. Me? Well, I'm *forcing* myself to type PKPAK instead of PKARC and PKX instead of PKXARC (sorry, Phil .. but I couldn't handle typing PKUNPAK, so I renamed to PKX). I also painstaking went through my menuing program and changed all occurences of the now-defunct ARC files. Somehow I feel better now, having done so. Now, Phil (if you're listening), could you at least change the default suffix from ARC to PAK? Even an environment variable (SET PK=PAK) would be fine. After seeing the settlement, I have removed all SEA programs from my system. Usually I would keep a copy around "just in case", but not this time. Good luck, Phil. 'Tis still the fastest compression program available. There are 4 Replies. #: 210119 S9/Hot Topic [S] 07-Sep-88 02:38:27 Sb: #209745-#SEA/PK Fm: Howard Cherniack 75026,3723 To: John Wilson 76414,624 (X) I gather that our rip-off cable company is going to give us MuchMusic (Canadian MTV, for our American friends) "free"--it will certainly be worth twiddling the dials to be able to see this video, about which I've heard so much. --H There is 1 Reply. #: 210209 S9/Hot Topic [S] 07-Sep-88 11:30:36 Sb: #210112-#PK settlement details Fm: David C. Frier 76314,207 To: gene saunders 72265,23 (X) Gene: I just said "This one's for you, Phil!" and changed the PKPAK and PKUNPAK back to PKARC and PKXARC. Come and get me, Thom. --David There is 1 Reply. #: 210214 S9/Hot Topic [S] 07-Sep-88 11:54:00 Sb: #210112-PK settlement details Fm: Ross Greenberg [MagNet] 72241,36 To: gene saunders 72265,23 (X) (From my understanding, the PR was supposed to include the actual judgement (not the secret agreement) as well. A copy of the judgement has recently been uploaded to MagNet's UTILFORUM and EDITORIAL forum for those interested in seeing some more legal stuff) #: 210234 S9/Hot Topic [S] 07-Sep-88 13:54:41 Sb: #210112-#PK settlement details Fm: Andrew Foray 72617,1167 To: gene saunders 72265,23 (X) The file you refer to is definitely NOT the result of any actions by SEA. The file claims to have been entered by PKWARE's tech writer, and contains her own biased comments. PKWARE, Inc. are the people who wanted it kept confidential in the first place. I am still bound by my agreement not to discuss the settlement terms, but am available for other questions about the facts of this situation. (Strange how they can keep me quiet but feel free to disclose what portions of the facts they wish) Taking this legal action was not a decision we took lightly. We regret being forced into this situation by PKWARE. It is always difficult to take on a larger company in court. However, they had clearly STOLEN our code. (As shown by testimony of the expert witness and admitted by PKWARE under oath) Under these conditions, the only course left to protect our rights was legal action. Just because ARC is shareware, free to non-comercial users, doesn't mean it can be stolen by a commercial company out to make money. If anyone has any questions about this matter, feel free to contact me online or call Thom or myself at (201) 473-5153. There are 2 Replies. #: 210276 S9/Hot Topic [S] 07-Sep-88 18:17:36 Sb: #210112-#PK settlement details Fm: michael shapiro 71450,2771 To: gene saunders 72265,23 (X) I am sorry to come into this so late, but good you briefly tell me the dispute and resolution? Thanks so much. ms There is 1 Reply. #: 210282 S9/Hot Topic [S] 07-Sep-88 18:30:00 Sb: #210234-#PK settlement details Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: Andrew Foray 72617,1167 (X) Welcome to IBMSW. It is good to have a representative of SEA here. Could you state SEA's position on programs that read the ARC header to display a directory of an ARC or search for a file name there or ... Thanks. - Barry There is 1 Reply. #: 210384 S9/Hot Topic [S] 08-Sep-88 04:59:43 Sb: #210234-#PK settlement details Fm: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 To: Andrew Foray 72617,1167 (X) Another welcome to you. I suggest you insert 'SEA' in your name, perhaps after the last name, "Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167". People will recognize you more readily. I think you will find the interaction you get will be beneficial, both to your image, and to your understanding of your users. -er There is 1 Reply. #: 210536 S9/Hot Topic [S] 08-Sep-88 18:35:11 Sb: #PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: All Including *before* this legal action cropped up. ARCE.COM and ARCV.COM are all the extracting user needs, and ARC.EXE (plus optionally ARCA.COM if you want) are all the builder needs. Vernware has always given you the speed you need... what else has PK every really brought to the party except rogue formats and the outstretched palm? I suspect in-the-know CIS types are well aware of the foregoing, but after reading some of these hot(air)head flames about Poor Phil and Bye Bye SEA, I feel the occasional need to get it off my chest. TMN There are 3 Replies. #: 210567 S9/Hot Topic [S] 08-Sep-88 21:11:25 Sb: #210536-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Dave Hoagland 70007,3352 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) Tom...In all fairness, not only do Phil Katz's utilities outperform the others available, it wasn't *that* many years ago that ARC itself was a "rogue" format, with ARCed files not being acceptable for posting on the IBM DLs of CIS... And later versions of SEA's ARC were in temporary "disfavor" on some occasions when new compression schemes were added. I could be wrong, I believe that Phil was also the first to release a "self-unpacking" version to the end users, so they could create their own self-unpacking archives. ...DaveH There is 1 Reply. #: 210572 S9/Hot Topic [S] 08-Sep-88 21:23:15 Sb: #210536-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Jim McKeown 74666,511 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) I'm not a PK lover, Tom, and it's obviously true that PKWare was never *necessary*, but it provided substantial enhancement over both ARC and ARC-*. At certain times at least, PK was faster than any of the others, but the main problem I had was that ARCA didn't replace dupes, but tacked the addition on the end. That precluded me from using it. ARC was such a pig on creation that it really shouldn't be considered an adequate substitute. jcm There is 1 Reply. #: 210600 S9/Hot Topic [S] 08-Sep-88 22:58:08 Sb: #210536-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Roger Schlafly 76067,511 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) You are right, PK*** was never necessary. Those of us still using VisiCalc on a CP/M card in an Apple II think a lot of the current software is unnecessary. Roger There are 2 Replies. #: 210620 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 00:37:51 Sb: #ethics Fm: Will Lenton 73310,1671 To: Sysop (X) Connie, You've been really upfront with me about this before--bootleg software. We kn know where I stand (a lot of software was sent to me by a family member who is a very serious programmer, when I mailed his parents my Commodre 128... it seemed like a great exchange at the time) (now that I want to be a professional in the industry, I am slowly replacing all the copied software I have and need with legitimate software (slow, because it costs a lot to buy the stuff I have been nejoying and learning on for two years with insufficient compunction)). I am beginning, perhaps a little late, to have very strong feelings about using copied software. I am helping a friend I used to work for set up a computer system. He's a doctor, and they're not known for being scrupulous--and he's a friend, too, and I want to help. However, he's using a copied set of DW for wp... running into problems. I am doing the best I can to help. It is of great benefit for me to be able to address the problems we' re running into, especially just by way of learning... and yet, because he's using copies, I just don't feel right asking for help here. What can I do? Do I help? (and push him to buy his own set of whatever he wants to own in the end...) Should I tell him we're just S.O.L. because we're using copied software? (tempting...) Press for more : Thanks for the advice! (I hope you don't feel too much like Dear Abby)! Will There are 3 Replies. #: 210624 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 01:06:28 Sb: #210620-#ethics Fm: SysOp Conrad Kageyama 76703,1010 To: Will Lenton 73310,1671 (X) Will... you ain't gonna like my answer: Let your conscience be your guide. We all know copied/pirated software is a no-no. We all know that a lot of our "friends" think we are the lowest form of skunk if we happen to have tons of expensive software that we won't share (give). I, for one, can state that I have in fact lost two "friends" because I wouldn't give them copies of Lotus 123 and Wordperfect, thus "forcing" them to spend several hundred dollars to buy their own copies (they not only wanted copies of the software, they insisted on copies of the manuals). I will also tell you that I was approached by a Lotus 123 consultant/teacher about importing techniques that I used a long time ago. I told him the commands to use and he asked for more detail, to which I replied that it was covered in the manual (I just happened to be too busy at the moment to detail it for him). He (a guy who was teaching 123 classes for a living) then tells me that he's using a pirated copy of 123 and doesn't have the manual.... The righteous answer is that you shouldn't support pirated software, of course. But I try to live in the real world and realize that it's tough out there and that YOU have to live in YOUR environment. Hence, you gotta go with what makes you the most comfortable. Press for more : In closing, I guess I should say that I am definitely no saint. I started with a pirated copy of Lotus 123 and Dbase II (didn't know it was a no-no back then). I learned the proper ethic as a member of the old IBMSIG, and scraped together the nickels and dimes to buy a legit copy of 123 as soon as I could (I junked dBase II.....). Nowadays, I try to make it clear with friends that I've known right out of the gate that I won't give away software; with new groups of folks, I oftentimes don't even mention that I'm computer literate... connie There are 2 Replies. #: 210628 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 01:38:14 Sb: #209796-#SEA/PK Fm: Alan Rowberg 76703,4421 To: Charles McGuinness 76701,11 (X) SIMTEL on Bitnet has announced they are phasing ARC out of their libraries entirely. That will effect a lot of folks -- most inter-university program file sharing on the network, and the DoD sponsors of the library. You can do what you like on your PC, but the global boat has been rocked. There are 2 Replies. #: 210647 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 03:51:26 Sb: #210624-#ethics Fm: michael shapiro 71450,2771 To: SysOp Conrad Kageyama 76703,1010 (X) My experience is that I start out with pirated software but that it turns into a free trial. If I use the software a lot I buy it, in order to get supported updates etc. Lotus says that there are 10 million copies loaded while they have sold 3 million. But if there weren't 10 million copies in use they would never have sold 3 million ( at least not the last two years). Same for WP. There are pirated copies everywhere yet they still sell enough to employ 300 programmers. Maybe the copying is really not hurting the biggies. I think they should sell manuals alone, to try and make some money. There are no shortage of substitute manuals in the book stores anyway. I notice Microsoft publishing its own "substitute manual" eg its book on windows which is almost a clone of the manual. MIke There are 2 Replies. #: 210649 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 04:05:54 Sb: #210647-#ethics Fm: SysOp Conrad Kageyama 76703,1010 To: michael shapiro 71450,2771 (X) Oh, I tend to agree with you, and I'm sure a lot of folks do it that way, BUT, it's still illegal. That's why I told Will no way can I tell him what to do. Piracy *is* rampant though. Just as the purchase of condoms used to be a "whispered" item, such was the case with how-to books that were targeted at pirated copies. Now, however, folks just brazenly walk into a computer store and announce they have a pirated copy of WP and want a book to learn how to use it. No more shame... owell.... connie There is 1 Reply. #: 210663 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 07:26:46 Sb: #210600-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: SysOp Chris Dunford 76703,2002 To: Roger Schlafly 76067,511 (X) Roger - not really a good analogy. ARCA and ARCE are arguably as good as PK* (I've seen ARCA produce smaller ARCs than PK* regularly, and it's comparable in speed). It's certainly open for debate which one you like better, but they are really comparable programs--not the case with CP/M Visicalc vs current software, as you imply. -Chris There is 1 Reply. #: 210675 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 08:18:41 Sb: #210384-PK settlement details Fm: David C. Frier 76314,207 To: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 (X) Earle: "I think you will find the interaction you get will be beneficial, both to your image, and to your understanding of your users. -er" Right you are, but then they have no way to go but up. --David #: 210686 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 09:40:35 Sb: #210624-ethics Fm: Will Lenton 73310,1671 To: SysOp Conrad Kageyama 76703,1010 (X) Thanks a lot, guys! I guess I'd better clean up my own "backyard" before I start worrying about anyone else's... but, if it comes to it, I may suggest that problems which arise simply may not be dealt with, since unauthorized users are not entitled to customer support... Thanks again! Have a great weekend!!! Will #: 210688 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 09:55:26 Sb: #210567-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Dave Hoagland 70007,3352 (X) > outperform the others available... Are you including or excluding Vern and Wayne's stuff? I ran tests and they were a dead heat (not suprising!). The chief difference there was located to the right of the dollar sign. > ARC itself was a "rogue" format... Agreed, but it filled a void and was a quantum leap in the state of packaging sophistication in the PC world. PK* was nothing more than an assiduously hyped third party clone of ARC when it performed fully compatibly, and a positive nuisance when squashing was added. The evolution of SEA ARC from experiment to the full "crunching" version took about a year and a half. By that time it was becoming accepted on BBS's everywhere, simply because ARCs were being uploaded by the zillions. There was some grousing about the product's changes during that time, but nothing compared to the squashing furor. When BBS's accepted ARC, IBMNET followed suit wisely. > Phil was also the first to release a "self-unpacking" version... Could well be, I can't remember offhand. Self-extractors are a Very Bad Thing, Press for more : though, as you probably know, so if Phil wants credit for that particular mistake he's welcome to it. There are 5 Replies. #: 210689 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 10:07:50 Sb: #210572-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Jim McKeown 74666,511 (X) The enhancement PK added was speed, but so had V+W beforehand. The only useful thing ARC.EXE and PKARC had that Vern didn't was member replacement. I grant freely that if your setup required lots of high speed member replacements, PK was an improvement. Mine didn't, nor did most of the folks I know. Certainly for straightforward stuff like an extraction utility to let users get at files in your data libraries or distribution diskettes, for instance, PK was totally superfluous (until he inflicted squashing on us that is). And for building distribution archives or other such things one typically does at longer intervals, either ARC.EXE or ARCA.COM is plenty. What a shame it is that SEA used Computer Innovations' old C86+ for ARC! Most of the standard program's molasses derives from the piggy I/O runtime, not the logic itself. When one compiles their published source (ohhhh, yeah, they did that didn't they! Boy, what incompetent villains ), it runs as fast as compress or zoo on Unix boxes for instance. There is 1 Reply. #: 210691 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 10:09:35 Sb: #210600-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Roger Schlafly 76067,511 (X) That sounds like irony - I always had a tin ear for irony. (I wish I had a nickel for every time I've thought of that!) Perhaps you could spell out what you mean. #: 210706 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 11:15:51 Sb: #210689-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Jim McKeown 74666,511 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) I think you're trying to obfuscate, Tom. First I did the timings, there are three operations (put into ARC, extract from ARC, and display directory). When I did the timings, PK* compared to ARC-* was two to four times faster on the first two and about 25% slower in the directory. Thus while it is true ARC-* had added speed beforehand, PK* added more speed. As for member replacement, I never said it affected extraction -- because it obviously doesn't. However I have difficulty believing anyone who created many ARCs wouldn't need replacement a lot of the time. I don't believe that many people are that organized that they never need to update a file in an ARC. As far as "high speed" no way would I bother with ARCing at the speed ARC gave me for sticking stuff in ARCs. (It doesn't really matter what the cause of the turtle imitation was.) jcm There is 1 Reply. #: 210709 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 11:16:53 Sb: #210628-#SEA/PK Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: Alan Rowberg 76703,4421 (X) Did SIMTEL say why they were dropping ARC. And what are they replacing it with? - Barry There is 1 Reply. #: 210716 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 12:37:20 Sb: #210688-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Dave Hoagland 70007,3352 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) Tom...I've found PK's versions to be faster. Most assuredly not a "dead heat". Squashing is now pretty well accepted, and a number of the files in the DL's are "squashed" these days. Vern's ARC-E includes the ability to "unsquash"... I also recall, as I mentioned, at least one released version (and possibly more) of SEA's ARC that were unsuitable for using on files to be uploaded to the DL's for a period of time after a new compression scheme was added. It was definitely in the "rogue" category for a while. I disagree that "Self-extractors are a Very Bad Thing". Sounds like you're attempting to present an opinion as fact... ...DaveH There is 1 Reply. #: 210718 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 13:12:34 Sb: #210209-#PK settlement details Fm: Jeff Green 73240,1042 To: David C. Frier 76314,207 (X) David: After testing PKARC and PKXARC and not believing the speed difference from $#@'s stuff, I removed all reference to the ARC extension once and for all, renaming PKXARC to PKX and PKARC to just PK, if just to eliminate typing. With what has happened, it seems almost prophetic now... If only I could eliminate any reference to ARC. I'll second the motion for renaming the archive extension, Phil. ;-) Jeff There is 1 Reply. #: 210719 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 13:12:47 Sb: #210688-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Jeff Green 73240,1042 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) Excuse me for butting in (but that's the nature of this beast)... > PK* was nothing more than an assiduously hyped third party clone of ARC > when it performed fully compatibly, and a positive nuisance when squashing > was added. No, the nuisance was only evident when using SEA's programs to extract squashed files from a superior (and downward compatable) product's work. Nobody will claim that squashing is flawed, I haven't had a single problem in all the time I have used PK* utilities as it related to squashed files or anything else, and that's several times daily. Why don't the competing programmers upgrade to include squashing? No technical reason that I'm privy to . Since we're mentioning nuisances, how about using SEA's programs and having to wait and wait and wait and wait... Or having to download a new version of SEA* each month to handle a file format change, or as a BBS sysop having to upgrade archives each time one of these changes came out to keep all files compatable. ANY unbiased user would chose PK* over SEA* simply on the basis of performance, and that just stuck in SEA's craw causing litigationitis, and ultimately justified disgust and contempt at SEAcrap by many of the computing world. Sometimes things stick in my craw as well. Humble apologies for sour grapes. Press for more : There are 2 Replies. #: 210720 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 13:13:03 Sb: #210620-#ethics Fm: Jeff Green 73240,1042 To: Will Lenton 73310,1671 (X) Will, My standard practice with clients who stand by their decision to use bootleg software is to tell them that in the end they will pay much more for bootleg versions than they will to upgrade, since much of what they pay me for is training, integration with other products or methods, and the quick answers they want to questions about use and problems that require immediate help. Many of my clients are computer illiterate, by choice mind you, they don't want to be bothered with reading a technical or user's manual, they would much rather pay me for telephone support to answer a quick question than to spend an hour or two reading a manual they won't remember anyway. However, if they're using a bootleg copy it severely limits my options. First, if it's a new software product TO ME, I have to digest the manual (which I do at no charge, by the way, to contract clients), be able to call customer support with serial numbers (if asked), and possibly refer to the manual for something passed by originally. None of these options is available to me, and therefore to the client, with bootleg copies without documentation. If they take my advice, I don't really lose money because they take the product more seriously when they've paid for it, and get the software they need (as a result of my recommendations for their objectives) and use it a lot more extensively because they have confidence in both service and support. If they Press for more : don't take my advice, they ultimately learn that the extra time I have to spend in support costs them more than the upgrade, just like I told them previously. Sometimes, however, I realize that most people who use bootleg software aren't going to be willing to pay my bills anyway, and I refuse the job. Hope that helps. There is 1 Reply. #: 210722 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 13:44:29 Sb: #210620-#ethics Fm: J. W. Rider 72426,1640 To: Will Lenton 73310,1671 (X) Rest assured that you are not the only person in the world who strives to become legitimate. The real problem is trying to convince your *friend* that software theft (there is no value in euphemisms at this point) is a BAD practice. I find it amazing that people who should no better think nothing is wrong with copying software with abandon. I do have to wince a little when they ask me if I have NEVER done it. My general response is that what I did in my youth has no bearing on my professional practices -- I get no percentage on the software they buy, and my services are required less. Unless your *friend* is running a one-person office, it is *impossible* to hide the fact that software is copied. Eventually, some "disgruntled employee" might tattle on a business with flagrant copyright violations -rest assured that the complaint will sound worse than the actual practice. Financially, the impact may be minimal -- buying a legitimate copy of the product. For a professional, the accusation, whether true or not, can be devastating. Any medical professional that pirates programs might also phony up lab reports. Recommend an economic alternative -- Borland's Sprint comes to mind. There is 1 Reply. #: 210732 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 14:53:28 Sb: #210718-#PK settlement details Fm: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 To: Jeff Green 73240,1042 (X) Jeff (& all) - Pardon for the question, but I see a lot of heat aimed at SEA but I'm not sure what it is that they've done to cause such ire. Could you educate me? One does have to considered that while early versions of ARC weren't compatible they did all the front end work before there was anything else out there except the ARCx series. One wonders that if without SEA if there would be any ARC at all but rather further extensions to LU and squeeze (which weren't always compatible). And of course with a new method from PKWare one will have no choice but to pay if one wishes to unpack them. I think it's unfortunate when there's no free utility for such a basic function. Mostly confused I reckon. There are 4 Replies. #: 210766 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 18:42:18 Sb: #210716-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Dave Hoagland 70007,3352 (X) Do you have any numbers indicating that PKXARC is materially faster than ARCE, in latest versions? If so I'd like to see them. From there, we could compute the "kilobytes per second per dollar requested" statistic. Agreed that Vern and now SEA have incorporated squashing into their repertoire, primarily to shut off the flow of anguished user confusion. During the year or so that the authorized agents neglected Katz's little brainstorm, it was a major nuisance. Now it's a footnote. Also agreed that the ARC format went through a couple of convulsions during its development; the one "oops" incident I can remember lasted a couple of months. But how was PK any better? It was always his responsibility to accept the existing formats, not to innovate without coordination. SEA may not be able to boast the world's smoothest product history (as if they were supposed to, or something!) but PKware is in no position to throw stones. Self-extractors are bad for two compelling reasons: they ask that I download something and execute it as-is with no overall integrity checking -- this is a Don't Even Ask for both Trojan and transmission error reasons; and they give me no options about what I want done with the contents. I will never distribute any of my work in self extracting format, nor accept any for inclusion on a library I control. I will download self extractors and extract them myself where the archive format supports it; Zoo has something like this although it Press for more : is far from convenient as is (I am bugging Rahul to clean that up). I don't know of any way to do it with ARC. There are 3 Replies. #: 210767 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 18:48:10 Sb: #210719-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Jeff Green 73240,1042 (X) You should not use SEA and "wait and wait and wait" under normal circumstances. The customary PK-free way to get work done is to use ARCE and ARCA for everything but the occasional oddball archive manipulation (selective member delete etc). Try it, you will blaze. The point to keeping SEA around is that it is the standard, when you have trouble with an archive you feed it to SEA and record the result. Personally I haven't had occasion to run anything but Vern's stuff in over a year. Your mistake (and here is where PK's "assiduous hype" comes in) is in assuming that the consumer choice is between SEA and PK. It isn't, and never has been. It's between (Buerg + optionally SEA) and PK, and for my money the left side wins big. There is 1 Reply. #: 210769 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 18:59:08 Sb: #210706-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Jim McKeown 74666,511 (X) Certainly not trying to obfuscate, Jim. You and I both know that PKARC's popularity over the past year or two has nothing to do with its timings against contemporary versions of ARCA and ARCE. It derives solely from Katz's energetic publicity campaign comparing his timings with ARC.EXE's poor CIC86-burdened timings, as though Buergware didn't exist. The difference is that while Vern & company labored in relative obscurity and handed their nicely crafted miniatures out for free, Katz plugged away at the public perception. The result is that while a few cognoscenti used ARCE/A and passed it around, most folks thought PK was Moses in the wilderness. [Insert sentence about The Topic That Will Not Be Named here.] There are 2 Replies. #: 210770 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 19:04:15 Sb: #210628-SEA/PK Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Alan Rowberg 76703,4421 (X) Yeah, I read that. Peterson says he's contacting Katz to use "whatever format he develops" in the future[!] and promising the Internet now that ARC will go at that time. Now THAT'S what I call putting the user's interest first, eh? Let me suggest a good file extension for Simtel to use: .VPW. #: 210772 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 19:11:16 Sb: #210732-#PK settlement details Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 (X) A lot of it seems to be generalized dudgeon at SEA going to court in the first place. This comes on the heels of the "look and feel" lawsuits by Apple et al., and the user community is feeling its oats about anything smacking of legal restraint... forget the merits. Some of the rest is from people who thought PKware was the only way to manipulate ARC's fast. You can't blame PK for being content to let that mistaken notion lie... There is 1 Reply. #: 210800 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 20:43:14 Sb: #210732-#PK settlement details Fm: Harvey Nehgila 70655,114 To: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 (X) Some of the things that probably contribute to the heat, in no particular order: 1) The misperception that SEA is much larger than PK tends to push people's David/Goliath sympathy button automatically. 2) There is considerable lingering disatisfaction among past paying shareware customers of SEA that the level of service & support was substandard. 3) A certain amount of residual ill will got generated by Thom's activities in Fidonet. While he was extremely giving of both his time and his code, he could be extremely ruthless when crossed, and his most remembered piece of software turned out to be an automatic censorship utility. And he was extremely ungracious to any software author that dared to improve on his products, ranging from simple namecalling to unproved allegations of plagarism. Prior to his departure to go form another net, he referred to himself as a lone professional amongst amateurs, despite the fact that the "amateur's" programs all worked faster, better, and had no confusing strings attached. For Fidonetters, the PK case is just deja vu with lawyers thrown in. 4) It's widely known that ARC is an extremely derivative work, based largely on the public domain work of Lemple, Ziv, Welch, and Kent Williams, with look&feel (and name) thrown in from the compiler SEA happened to be using at Press for more : the time. There's widespread feeling that SEA has effectively captured a body of PD work for their own commercial use, while doing nothing to advance it, and using the legal system to prevent someone else from advancing it. There are 2 Replies. #: 210801 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 20:58:17 Sb: #210719-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: DaveK 76556,2203 To: Jeff Green 73240,1042 (X) As I recall, a certain party was reluctant to release information on the specs for squashing for a time, and then released only the barest minimum after some pressure/negative commentary. There was a reason that it wasn't included in other programs for a time, other than the violation of a standard. Ciao, DaveK There are 2 Replies. #: 210802 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 20:58:52 Sb: #PK settlement details Fm: Dan Gillmor 73240,334 To: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 (X) Don, I've leaped into this thread very late. What's this argument all about, anyway. I've used PK and ARC and both seem OK. What are the differences and why should I or anyone else care? Dan There is 1 Reply. #: 210807 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 21:22:09 Sb: #210801-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Robert Blacher 72677,3305 To: DaveK 76556,2203 (X) Oh, you can be more blunt than that. A lot of people had to bash Phil Katz around for quite a while to get him to release *any* info on the "squash" variation. What was ultimately released was sketchy at best. It wasn't actually until someone else (Richard Byrne) figured out squash and released full, well-commented Turbo Pascal code for unsquashing that the method was finally fully documented. The relevance of all this is not merely historical. When/if Phil releases PKPAK+ (or whatever), it will be interesting to see whether he tries to make it as proprietary as SEA now believes ARC(tm) to be. There have been some preliminary indications that Katz intends to publish full specs for his new format and even some sample code. *IF* that turns out to be the case, it would make BBS use of his new program quite attractive. PLEASE all -- notice the BIG *IF* in that last sentence. There are 2 Replies. #: 210808 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 21:25:00 Sb: #210800-#PK settlement details Fm: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 To: Harvey Nehgila 70655,114 (X) Harvey - As for support I received the same thing from SEA that I did from PKware; a cancelled check. No paid invoice, no printed docs, no updates, nada. Can't speak to activities on Fidonet tho I think some of the strings in PKware are at best less than professional (subjective). As for PD work being used for commercial purposes I don't know. As I understand it the compression methods are still there for people to use. It seems that cases involving appropriation of copyrighted code have raised barely a ripple. Seems like what we have is a problem with the legal system. There is 1 Reply. #: 210810 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 21:39:15 Sb: #210802-#PK settlement details Fm: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 To: Dan Gillmor 73240,334 (X) Dan - That's a question that could have a very long answer. In a nutshell SEA (ARC) sued PKware on a number of issues. The case never went to court and was "settled". The debate centers on who to hang and how soon it should be done. Sentiment is running very heavy against SEA. Personally I'm trying to remain open minded as I think we don't have enough solid info to go on and I think it's going to take some time for that info to develop. Speaking of info there are two background files known to be correct; PKSEA and PKSUIT in library 8. There have been additional files and I have spent this week trying to verify their accuracy. I have been unable to do so and one result of my attempt is a gut feeling that they might not be accurate. This is not a fact, only a feeling. There is 1 Reply. #: 210823 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 22:14:20 Sb: #210282-#PK settlement details Fm: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 To: Barry Simon 76004,1664 (X) Our intent is to allow shareware authors to write ARC compatable utilities without problems. Our policy is that if you wish to use our code to produce a utility to look into an ARC file and list its contents, go right ahead. We will take no action against a shareware author of a program to look into ARC files. (Not while I have anything to say about it) ARC itself is and will remain shareware. For non-commercial use a license fee is optional. ARC is available free on other operating systems (non IBM-pc) We are trying to develop a policy that is FAIR to all parties. We want to: 1. Allow shareware authors to write ARC utilities. 2. Prevent commercial exploitation of our work without our permission. 3. Minimize the effects on our users. If anyone, especially other shareware authors, has any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Untill recently I thought shareware was a valid method of software distribution. What am I missing? There are 4 Replies. #: 210825 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 22:17:03 Sb: #210663-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Roger Schlafly 76067,511 To: SysOp Chris Dunford 76703,2002 (X) Chris, the point is that hardly any new product is really "necessary". People can usually get by with what they have. ARC certainly wasn't necessary, as we had the LBR and SQ programs. Necessity is not a reasonable standard for judging new programs. Roger There is 1 Reply. #: 210831 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 22:29:25 Sb: #210825-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: SysOp Chris Dunford 76703,2002 To: Roger Schlafly 76067,511 (X) Roger - I think you've missed Tom's point. He's not saying that improvements on ARC weren't desirable, but that there has always been a viable alternative to PK*, namely Vern's free ARCE and ARCA. It isn't that PK* was unecessary because ARC was fine, but because ARCE and ARCA *were* fine. -Chris There are 5 Replies. #: 210845 S9/Hot Topic [S] 09-Sep-88 23:46:41 Sb: #210831-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Basil Copeland/CRC 74240,1161 To: SysOp Chris Dunford 76703,2002 (X) I know we've been through this before...but can't remember how it turned out. At one time, at least, I did not perceive ARCA/E as being free at all. True, Vern did not ask for money for himself, but he did ask the user to send a contribution to SEA. I definitely remember making the choice to register PKetc, in part because I felt obliged to pay something for which ever program I used. Maybe Vern no longer says send $ to SEA. But I'm sure he once did. -Basil There is 1 Reply. #: 210853 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 00:41:28 Sb: #210647-#ethics Fm: Pete Peterson (WPCorp) 72067,3552 To: michael shapiro 71450,2771 (X) We have about 150 programmers. Pete There are 2 Replies. #: 210860 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 01:30:35 Sb: #210800-#PK settlement details Fm: Larry Crimmins 74745,1630 To: Harvey Nehgila 70655,114 (X) Excellent list, Harvey! I would like register a vote strongly AGAINST changing the .ARC extension in PK's products!! It's too late, SEA. ".ARC" is the de facto generic extension for compressed files. Try copyrighting ".BAS", ".PAS", ".WKS", ".FOR", or ".COB". We only have 3 positions to work with. If companies start claiming the most logical abbreviations or mnemonic extensions, it will cramp the few emerging compatibility standards there are. Cheesh, I hate to see another lazy company try to grab market share by legal tricks rather than by product quality. There is 1 Reply. #: 210864 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 01:48:29 Sb: #210769-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Jim McKeown 74666,511 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) I don't know anything of the kind, Tom. I've already outlined why people who were in full possession of the facts would believe PK* was superior. I haven't taken a poll (nor do I believe you have), but I see no reason to believe people were using a superior utility just because of publicity. Certainly the users around here were encouraged to use ARC-*, but I'd bet a lot of them have been using PK*. I don't believe that was out of ignorance. jcm #: 210873 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 02:37:16 Sb: #210769-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: George Figge 76656,1563 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) One wonders, Tom, how you can so clearly read people's minds as to know exactly why they chose the other product. Especially the murky minds of non-cognoscenti who just lindly buy whatever is hyped the most. If your necessity criterion were applied in businss at large as a rationale for shutting down competition, we would live in a very different world, wouldn't we? And under a very different system. Seems odd, if you are so confidet that the horse you're backing is the fastest, that you are so happy to see the race called off. The marketplace has always provided a pretty good test, although we may not think so when it moves counter to our personal choice. Mind you, I'm not arguing about the legal merits of this particular case, about which I know at least as little as anyone else. Just the "necessity" test and your characterization of people who happen to disagree with you. Now I wonder (grin) what I'm about to hear that "you and I both know." There is 1 Reply. #: 210883 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 06:40:50 Sb: #210823-PK settlement details Fm: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 (X) And what would your position be on a shareware developer who writes an installation utility that un-archives an archived set of files to his user's harddisk, without the user having to resort to ARC or PKUNPAK or whatever. I'm talking about an installation program that is specific to the shareware program being installed, so that it could not be used to extract from other ARC'd files. #: 210902 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 09:45:44 Sb: #PK settlement details Fm: Basil Copeland/CRC 74240,1161 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 (X) Your representation of SEA's positon is still a little murky, I suppose in part because it is not clear what PK did that caused you to sue him. There is source code in the public domain for decompressing ARC files. There's a copy of a program called DARC of that nature right here (probably in DL 3). Why haven't you sued either CIS, or the person who wrote that program for violating SEA's copyright? For that matter, just what is it that SEA claims copyright to? As you've probably observed, there is the feeling among many that the original ARC merely took some compression algorithms already in the public domain, and repackaged them. So it is hard to imagine that you can claim a copyright to the compression algorithms. Some of us (I include myself in this category) are trying hard to be fair and objective about this. But the pc community has a long tradition of being user-oriented, and suspicious of any actions that seem to run counter to user interests. Unlike some, I've never labored under the misimpression that the SEA vs. PK fight was a David & Goliath fight; I've known all along that SEA was a small shop. But PK was good for the user; his stuff was clearly BETTER than SEA's from the user point of view. Thus SEA's actions appear to run counter to the user's interest. That is why there is so much distrust and suspicion about SEA's motives. Press for more : We're ethical around here, and if PK did something unethical, that'll cause a lot of us who use his programs to pause and ponder. But try and see it from a user's point of view. If you won't, or can't, you'll not have much success in repairing SEA's damaged reputation. -Basil There are 4 Replies. #: 210904 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 09:56:35 Sb: #210902-PK settlement details Fm: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 To: Basil Copeland/CRC 74240,1161 (X) Basil - Important issues and very well put. Thank you. #: 210905 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 10:10:48 Sb: #210860-#PK settlement details Fm: Paul Watson 76056,1751 To: Larry Crimmins 74745,1630 (X) The more absurd reality is perhaps the fact that you only have three (3) characters to use anyway. One would think that in this day and age of advanced systems and artificial intelligence, we could overcome absurd hacks like 8.3 filenames. Paul There are 2 Replies. #: 210911 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 10:21:31 Sb: #210873-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: George Figge 76656,1563 (X) So you and Jim McKeown don't think PK*'s popularity stems from its well-advertised timings against ARC.EXE, as opposed to any kind of comparison between PK* and the relatively little-known ARCA/E/V set. Interesting. At any rate, let's not degenerate off into personal flaming. My statement stands: PK* was never necessary, just widely distributed. There are 4 Replies. #: 210912 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 10:25:51 Sb: #210823-PK settlement details Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 (X) Does your policy extend beyond programs that "look into" ARC files, and/or "list the directory"? How about programs that *build* ARC files, or otherwise manipulate them substantially? #: 210913 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 10:27:09 Sb: #210831-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: SysOp Chris Dunford 76703,2002 (X) That's basically it, Chris. (How much do you charge for this sort of thing? ) #: 210914 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 10:29:21 Sb: #210845-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Basil Copeland/CRC 74240,1161 (X) I think he said if you wanted to, you could send $5 to SEA. I got the impression that line was there primarily to establish that he himself WASN'T accepting contributions. Since SEA distributes ARCE.COM as part of their kit now (or used to, haven't checked the latest), it would be moot in that case. #: 210924 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 11:27:17 Sb: #210766-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Dave Hoagland 70007,3352 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) Chuckle...Just ran some comparisons using a Model 80-111, dearcing a 720676 byte text file (actually archived CIS messages) under DOS 4.0 and utilizing TIMEIT for timing purposes. Times (rounded to 1/100ths of seconds) are as follows: ARC (SEA) Ver. 5.22 136.06 seconds ARC-E (V. Beurg) Ver. 3.1c 29.12 seconds PKUNPAK 19.10 seconds Hardly looks like a dead heat to me, with PKUNPAK fully 50% faster than the next fastest (ARC-E) and SEA's ARC totally out of the ballpark. At this point, I really don't see it's worth pursuing the matter any further. I don't know what it is that you really have against PK, but it's obvious that the performance difference I've noticed is very real and very measurable... ...DaveH There is 1 Reply. #: 210928 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 11:44:35 Sb: #210709-#SEA/PK Fm: Alan Rowberg 76703,4421 To: Barry Simon 76004,1664 (X) They chose not to say in the annoucement, but they will use the new PK product, so we can guess why. There is 1 Reply. #: 210940 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 12:56:58 Sb: #210276-#PK settlement details Fm: gene saunders 72265,23 To: michael shapiro 71450,2771 (X) I wouldn't be the person to comment, I'm afraid. This thread deals with a question concerning the details of the lawsuit brought by SEA against Phil Katz, concerning the ARC (file compression) program. One reply pointed to the PCMAGNET forum here on CompuServe (thanks, Ross), for details about the settlement. Suppose I'll take a peek ... There is 1 Reply. #: 210948 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 13:39:36 Sb: #210911-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: George Figge 76656,1563 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) Far be it from me to flame, Tom. I can't say why Jim or anyone else made their choice. I know I made mine based on discussions in this forum. And I still don't understand your necessity doctrine. Was a Chevrolet necessary once we had a Ford? Are all those brands of bread at the supermarket necessary? Is a 25MHz 386 machine necessary to a single user, and if not, should we campaign against them? I used to hear the necessity doctrine propounded when PC's were just getting started. MIS people would often point out that they were not necessary and that the mainframe could do the job. Take a look around the world. Even some governments that have long managed by decreeing what was necessary seem to be picking up on the benefits of wider choice in a (slightly more) open market. And the nice thing about it is that you don't have to explain your selection or carry on about the crazy reasons behind someone else's choice. If that other guy is silly enough to get hyped into buying a Ford when a Chevy is obviously better, so be it. Just keep buying Chevy's and everything will work out with time. As Joe Isuzu says, "Trust me." There is 1 Reply. #: 210955 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 14:21:20 Sb: #210902-#PK settlement details Fm: Scott Bussinger 72247,2671 To: Basil Copeland/CRC 74240,1161 (X) "So it is hard to imagine that you can claim a copyright to the compression algorithms." I'm no lawyer, but as I understand it an algorithm can _never_ be copyrighted -- only the expression of that algorithm. I haven't been following this argument closely, but I've never heard or seen any indication of the PK software "stealing" code from SEA. Were copyrights really the basis for SEA's case? ARC and PK* and ARCA/E/V have so minimal a user interface, that it's hard to believe anyone would try to pursue a "look and feel" type of argument. Be seeing you. There are 3 Replies. #: 210983 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 16:41:19 Sb: #210649-ethics Fm: michael shapiro 71450,2771 To: SysOp Conrad Kageyama 76703,1010 (X) I think MIcrosoft has the right attitude which seems to be if people are going to pirate and then goout and buy manuals, I may as well sell them one myself. A little like shareware. Perhaps that is one answer. The company should say go ahead copy we will offer you a manual and no support for the following price. A lower price way in. Mike #: 210985 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 16:41:30 Sb: #210853-#ethics Fm: michael shapiro 71450,2771 To: Pete Peterson (WPCorp) 72067,3552 (X) Sorry to have misstated your numbers. 150 is no small matter either, especially considering the recent nature of the beginning of the Bed Time Story. I remember you or Don saying something about 150 programmers working on OS/2 while 5.0 was in beta. I assumed there were at least the OS/2 number trying to get that 5.0 release out. Your personal WP, but especially your student-academic pricing policy goes far to meet my idea that companies ought to offer alternate cheaper ways into their products, and that that would help avoid the piracy. I also restate that the existence of so many pirated copies, is one of the reasons that WP has become a standard, not that that is a justification, just a fact in my opinion. BTW your customer service saves time by not checking registration numbers. Perhaps they should in a small percentage of cases just to wake the pirates up. MIke There is 1 Reply. #: 210986 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 16:41:35 Sb: #210853-#ethics Fm: michael shapiro 71450,2771 To: Pete Peterson (WPCorp) 72067,3552 (X) Also BTW, no here seems to think (including many library devotees) that your Program Editor is an adequate programming tool, compared to what is available. Would your own programmers be better off with a more powerful tool? Mike There are 4 Replies. #: 210988 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 16:41:44 Sb: #210940-PK settlement details Fm: michael shapiro 71450,2771 To: gene saunders 72265,23 (X) Thanks Gene, see you over on PC Magnet. Mike #: 210989 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 16:49:28 Sb: #210732-#PK settlement details Fm: Jeff Green 73240,1042 To: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 (X) Your note was educational, I had not followed recent developments at PKWare, I am still using versions 3.5 and waiting for the smoke to clear before upgrading. Perhaps a note of "heat" should be directed there as well, I fully agree that such a basic function should be public. If that's not the case, I'll not use PKWare again either. The cause for heat directed at SEA is not one of non-sympathy for protecting financial and intellectual investment and profits in developed products, but that this suit appears to go far afield of those goals. The claim that the "ARC" name and file extension is subject to copyright protection is ridiculous at best. When PKWare far surpassed performance of the ARC utility (by a factor of at least 3), ARC was seen as an inferior product and removed from most (I hope I'm safe speaking for the masses) libraries in favor of PKWare. The concept of an Archive was around long before SEA came along, and their attempts to restrict further enhancement of the standard they set seems to be a fatal case of sour grapes. It is a blow against both capitalism and entrepeneurism, and leaves a bad taste in my mouth, especially when the methods employed were already in the public domain and available to all. They are biting the hand that enabled them to set a standard. I see a few alternatives to that course of action by SEA. One, they could recognize that the squashing method was effective and acceptable, and employ it. Two, they could improve the speed of their product by more effective Press for more : coding. If they couldn't do that, it was doubtful they could maintain their spot on top of the hill for long anyway. Three, both 1 and 2. This industry *DEPENDS* on advancing methods, their chicken approach of litigation and stifling enhancement leaves me cold. Hence the need for heat. There are 2 Replies. #: 210990 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 16:49:39 Sb: #210767-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Jeff Green 73240,1042 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) IMHO, Tom, I have never needed to use Buerg's versions, PKWare has always done the job so well and so fast that another option to SEA's programs was unnecessary, though I have the utmost respect for Vern's proven abilities. PK just filled the niche first, and I haven't run anything but PK's stuff in at least as long as that. I have daily need for selective member delete and similar functions. For me to try to contest your biased claims would indeed be "assiduous hype." The choice (one I didn't make alone, but along with thousands and thousands of fellow computer users) was obvious to me, and I stand by it and thank PK for saving me time and money. Use what you want, what I object to is someone standing in the way of saving me more time and money, and that's what SEA is doing. There are 2 Replies. #: 210991 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 16:49:46 Sb: #210801-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Jeff Green 73240,1042 To: DaveK 76556,2203 (X) I can see that PK had something up his sleeve by not releasing the specifics on squashing for a time. You imply that he stole the code, right? I'd still like to see some proof, and that's not available either. If Phil did something wrong, I'll be persuaded. I haven't found anything other than claims and rumors to support that theory yet. There are 2 Replies. #: 210997 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 17:17:10 Sb: #210911-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Jeff Green 73240,1042 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) Gee, Tom, I never saw those PKWare press releases. Do you have a spare that could be sent along? Imagine, being so brash as to attempt to educate the BBS and professional world to the merits of a program that I could see with only my own two eyes... I'm ashamed of myself. There is 1 Reply. #: 210998 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 17:17:16 Sb: #210831-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Jeff Green 73240,1042 To: SysOp Chris Dunford 76703,2002 (X) And yet ARCE and ARCA weren't enough for some tasks. One still had to revert to SEA to perform a few necessary functions on ARC files, until PKWare came along. #: 210999 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 17:20:40 Sb: #210990-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: SysOp Conrad Kageyama 76703,1010 To: Jeff Green 73240,1042 (X) Jeff... just to set the record straight, Vern's ARCx series predates PKware by a considerable amount of time. Vern had ARC-E and ARCA in place when LBRs were still out there (memory fails me, but I think it was done in '84 originally)... connie There is 1 Reply. #: 211008 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 18:31:44 Sb: #210986-#ethics Fm: Dave Hoagland 70007,3352 To: michael shapiro 71450,2771 (X) Frankly, I prefer WP's PE to Brief and Kedit for some specific applications (such as manipulating text containing control characters). Also, at the price (included in an outstanding set of programs as part of WP Library) I feel that PE is an outstanding value, and quite a "sleeper". It's far more powerful than one might expect of an editor included in a package of that nature (but then I find most of the WP Library utilities to be outstanding). However, generally when I want a heavyweight, I'll go with Kedit, especially in the latest release...it's use of EMS and the new "all" command are really slick, just to mention a couple of features. ...DaveH There is 1 Reply. #: 211011 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 18:56:44 Sb: #210989-#PK settlement details Fm: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 To: Jeff Green 73240,1042 (X) Jeff - I don't *think* that anyone is claiming that the name ARC is copyrighted but it is a registered trademark. It's also my understanding that the trademark isn't for a file extension but rather a program name. This isn't too unusual; I can think of very few software product names that aren't trademarked such as Borland's Turbo Pascal or Sprint. SEA did publish source code with the format and compressions methods. However the squashing method was not made public and was thus unknown. If my memory serves me it was only after some reverse engineering and very heavy pressure that the compression specs were released. Upon released it was added to ARC-E tho I have no idea if it will be used by SEA. Oh, and as far as I know only the squash method was disclosed, there was never was nor has been any source available from PKWare. I think the actual complaints were very specific and if they had any basis in fact it presents a different picture. Of course I don't know if they had any basis in fact but then I don't know if it was sour grapes or a blow to capitalism and given all those don't knows I'm gonna try and remain as open and objective as possible. There are 3 Replies. #: 211012 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 19:00:54 Sb: #210999-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Jeff Green 73240,1042 To: SysOp Conrad Kageyama 76703,1010 (X) Conrad... Thanks for setting me straight on that point. I can now even remember using one or the other, but always had to revert back to SEA to perform selective file management inside the archive. Thanks again. #: 211015 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 19:10:30 Sb: #210924-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Dave Hoagland 70007,3352 (X) Real, measurable, but significant from the user's standpoint? I doubt it. It's the {VB | PK} vs SEA distinction that's significant. Now compare price tags and filesizes. (I think ARCE is something like 7k) There are 2 Replies. #: 211016 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 19:18:07 Sb: #210990-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Jeff Green 73240,1042 (X) ARCE was out before PK-anything, so if you were up to date on all the software since ARC appeared, the issue would be whether and why to replace SEA+Buerg with PK. It was for me, and the answer was, why bother. If you came to the party late you probably thought it was PK vs SEA since they did the advertising. I don't blame you. Doesn't change my assertion however. Yes I am biased! This is a biased thread! Mothers hide your small children, get them to safety in the basement rec room! If you want certified cholestorol-free unbiased threads, GO DULLFORUM or stay out of S9/Hot Topic. Anyway, yes I dislike PKARC and prefer the originals from SEA and VB because I know something about the provenance of all three, have followed them from birth and have my own strong opinions. Doesn't change my assertion however (is there an echo-o-o-o in here-ere-ere-ere? ), which was that PK* was never NECESSARY. Lots of folks seem to think it was. There are 4 Replies. #: 211017 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 19:24:38 Sb: #210948-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: George Figge 76656,1563 (X) My reference to "necessity" in this thread is not a doctrine, it is a simple assertion. A lot of people are flaming SEA for daring to take PK to court, regardless of the merits, under the mistaken assumption that Phil Katz came out of the wilderness bearing the first and only tool with which users could manipulate ARC files FAST!, and that SEA in its wrath at superior technology sought to oppress PK mightily, etc. Bunk. That's my point. If PK had chosen a career as a shoe clerk instead of ever writing a line of code, I (and others) would still be manipulating ARC files at lightning speed every day, using the freeware Buerg utilities. And the much-maligned ARC.EXE CIC86+ induced slowness really, truly, honestly doesn't MATTER for operations you do once a week or month or day. #: 211018 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 19:26:45 Sb: #210997-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Jeff Green 73240,1042 (X) And it is written, thine BBS's shall be press releases unto Gid-e-on, and thine Sysops shall be even as unto account managers. Here endeth the lesson. Collection box is in the back, on the left. #: 211019 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 19:30:00 Sb: #210989-PK settlement details Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Jeff Green 73240,1042 (X) Certainly some boards advanced PKARC to the primary or recommended spot, but I never ran into one that didn't keep a copy of ARC.EXE around for user reference. I'm sure there were some blatantly political exceptions of course. #: 211020 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 19:31:12 Sb: #211011-#PK settlement details Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 (X) Don, I believe the latest ARC.EXE will decode squashed ARC entries. Haven't tried it myself though. TMN There is 1 Reply. #: 211026 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 20:19:25 Sb: #211015-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Paul Mayer (GRAB Plus) 70040,645 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) Tom; I really had to jump into this thread. A long time ago I was the sysop of one of Chicagos most popular RBBS systems. This was in the CP/M days, we will call it BPC (Before PC). We were making ARC files long before SEA or anyone else in the "IBM World" hit the scene, BPC. Now someone comes along and likes the file extension ARC, which was started BPC and decides well hell, I'll get a trademark on this name. Now remember, this is only a file extension, which was to denote that the file was indeed an ARChive file. Ok fine SEA is producing the program that uses their new trademark "ARC" name. Now, remember this name was in use BPC and I might point out in PUBLIC DOMAIN ARChive programs that created files with an ARC extension. Along comes Buerg, Katz, and anyone else that can write improved code and do a better job. Why does SEA have the right to say that they can not use a name that has been around longer that their trademark which I personally don't think is deserved? How can you say that a faster ARChive system is not needed? When you use it to store information that is not needed on a daily basis and unpack it when needed, why should we wait around for a slow system? Do you really think the SYSOPS of the multitude of BBS systems choose to use PKWARE over SEA because of promotions? NO WAY, they usually check out uploaded programs and don't really have the time to waste! Time is a precious commodity and by the scoreboard, PKWARE saves a lot of it when you use a system a lot! No I can't see how you can say that PK* was not necessary, because I work in the fast lane, and I don't want to be held back by some slow ARCade program. Sorry - Paul Press for more : There are 2 Replies. #: 211031 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 20:54:45 Sb: #210911-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Ed Fitzgerald 72447,1631 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) I can't vouch for anyone else, but I started using Verns' stuff when I found it was faster than SEA's, and I switched (after a considerable amount of hesitation) to Katz' when I found it was faster than Vern's. Period. There are 2 Replies. #: 211037 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 21:09:38 Sb: #210905-PK settlement details Fm: Charles Hart 72755,500 To: Paul Watson 76056,1751 (X) Watch it there, Bub! You think you've seen flaming over the SEA/PK stuff, just start agitating for changing the great Mainframe_To_CP/M_To_DOS tradition of 8.3 as the file name..... #: 211041 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 21:35:42 Sb: #211016-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: George Figge 76656,1563 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) Gee, Tom, there you go again (grin). You know, I've gone back to check the thread and can't find where anyone ever said the PK stuff, or the ARC stuff, for that matter, *was* necessary. You've just sort of set up your own straw man and are beating the living daylights out of him. I was amused that you didn't find any significance in Dave Hoagland's results showing that ARCE took 50% more time than PK. You just calmly fell back to the next foxhole, cost effectiveness. Of course, you would have to put all those wasted waiting man-nanoseconds into the calculation (grin). I think even you would admit that if you came on the scene with no prior knowledge and got the same test results Dave did, you would have selected PK. In other words, you would have made your choice based on the products, not on historical sympathy to one party or the other. There is 1 Reply. #: 211042 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 21:38:02 Sb: #210955-PK settlement details Fm: Basil Copeland/CRC 74240,1161 To: Scott Bussinger 72247,2671 (X) I'm still not sure what the real basis for the SEA suit was (who is????). But if I recall correctly, Foray all but said that PK DID steal SEA code. On the other hand, SEA's "representatives" have left a lot of people confused with what their beef really is, so who knows? -Basil #: 211043 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 21:38:15 Sb: #211015-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Basil Copeland/CRC 74240,1161 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) > Real, measurable, but significant from the user's standpoint? > I doubt it. Come on, Tom, who are you to judge what is significant from some OTHER user's standpoint. A 50% difference in speed, especially when you are doing a lot of disk maintenance, and want to be done with it, IS significant to some of us. Maybe not to you. But if some of the rest of us beg to differ, can you refuse us the right to make our own assessments of what is significant, and what is not? I'm not denying Vern's real contribution to the user community, mind you. But what makes things tick is the freedom to choose. Any attempt to narrow the range of choices smacks of elitism. You may not mean it that way, but that's the way it comes across. I'll decide for myself whether PK* was necessary, thank you. I don't need someone else to make that decision for me. -Basil There is 1 Reply. #: 211050 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 22:15:27 Sb: #210985-#ethics Fm: Pete Peterson (WPCorp) 72067,3552 To: michael shapiro 71450,2771 (X) One of us was misquoted, I guess. The PC DOS WP programers numbered about 35 when we were in the last days of 5.0. Now that number is down to 18 or 20 (which is still a very big programming group for us). The OS/2 WP group was about 4 early in the year, and is now up to 15 or 16 (which is still quite big for us). We do have other PC DOS programmers working on the other products as well. Then there's about 20 in the VAX division, 25 in UNIX, 15 on the Mac, and the rest in 370 VM, Amiga, Atari, and Apple II. Pete There are 2 Replies. #: 211051 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 22:15:34 Sb: #210986-#ethics Fm: Pete Peterson (WPCorp) 72067,3552 To: michael shapiro 71450,2771 (X) Our programmers are writing practically for DOS in Assembly and using 386 machines for the most part. They're happy, I guess, or they would change things. Pete There is 1 Reply. #: 211065 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 22:31:26 Sb: #210986-#ethics Fm: Pete Peterson (WPCorp) 72067,3552 To: michael shapiro 71450,2771 (X) I reread my message after sending and noticed I left out the "everything" after practically. I meant to say we wrote "practically everything for DOS in assembly." I'm not sure assembly is practical, but we like it. Pete There is 1 Reply. #: 211067 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 22:35:42 Sb: #211026-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: SysOp Chris Dunford 76703,2002 To: Paul Mayer (GRAB Plus) 70040,645 (X) Paul - you too have missed Tom's point (Tom really doesn't need me to speak his woids, but I'm here and he isn't). He hasn't said that ARC is the be-all and end-all of archivers, just that PK* isn't the only alternative to ARC and never has been. Also, as far as I know, SEA has claimed a trademark on ARC as the name of a program, not as a file extension. Big difference. -Chris There is 1 Reply. #: 211072 S9/Hot Topic [S] 10-Sep-88 23:05:23 Sb: #211067-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Paul Mayer (GRAB Plus) 70040,645 To: SysOp Chris Dunford 76703,2002 (X) Chris; Yes, but it seems that SEA has made a big deal of PKWARE using the three letters ARC in their name PKARC with the attention on the ARC as well as the file extension ARC. At least that is what I have read in the script from the legal procedings. I just can't see where the big deal is? PKWARE has made a much faster packing and unpacking program have they not? And in light of the speed differences how can one think that the code (as has been rumored) been stolen? Now I have heard that some legal minds are getting together to file petitions to stop or remove the trademark ARC that SEA has applied. I just wonder if SEA had any idea of what a bag of worms this whole deal could turn into? I also wonder if SEA had ever talked to Phil Katz or did they just hire an attorney and jump in both feet first? I do prefer speed when it comes to an application like the ARChive program and so far the fastest I have seen had been PKARC or as is now called PKPAK. What the heck, I wrote GRAB Plus (tm) several years ago, put it out as shareware and now read the magazines there are a handful of commercial GRAB's out now! I applied for a trademark for GRAB and I noticed that where some of the others had "grabs the address from your screen" in their ads before have now removed the word GRAB. Is this because their afraid I will sue them? Gee all I do this for is because I like it not because of the money. It keeps my mind off of the real problems of life and believe me 45 years with 11 1/2 of those in the Army I saw a lot that I have to purge with this keyboard! So, it's just a shame that quality programming was shut out so simply! Paul Press for more : #: 211106 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 02:17:02 Sb: #210823-PK settlement details Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 (X) Thank you for your information. I'd be interested in your response to the further questions raised by Bob and Basil. As a shareware author, I've had problems with the idea of using arcs to distribute my programs, because with the potential of limited sales, I can't really afford the per copy royalty fees that seem to be required to use your dearcer. - Barry #: 211109 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 02:17:17 Sb: #210928-#SEA/PK Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: Alan Rowberg 76703,4421 (X) I must say that I find such a position totally absurd. Katz hasn't released his new product. How can someone decide to switch to it? - Barry There are 2 Replies. #: 211113 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 02:17:39 Sb: #210831-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: SysOp Chris Dunford 76703,2002 (X) Chris - It must be admitted that ARC* were a little later than PK* in adding the considerable speed. When the first really fast versions of PK came out, I did speed tests and started using PK and registered it. Then when ARC* came back up to speed, I did some more tests and found them about eqaul but saw no reason to switch. - Barry #: 211114 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 02:17:44 Sb: #210808-#PK settlement details Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 (X) I too had nothing from either PK or SEA for my registration other than a cancelled check. - Barry There are 2 Replies. #: 211115 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 02:17:50 Sb: #210902-#PK settlement details Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: Basil Copeland/CRC 74240,1161 (X) Mr. Foray already clearly stated in message 210234 that SEA sued PKWARE because "they had clearly STOLEN our code. (As shown by testimony of the expert witness and admitted by PKWARE under oath) Under these conditions, the only course left to protect our rights was legal action. Just because ARC is shareware, free to non-comercial users, doesn't mean it can be stolen by a commercial company out to make money." Their claims don't make it so but SEA is clearly stating that their main reason for suing is that they believed that their code had been stolen. - Barry There is 1 Reply. #: 211119 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 03:25:03 Sb: #211020-#PK settlement details Fm: Ed Fitzgerald 72447,1631 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) The latest SEA ARC extractor *IS* Vern's ARC-E. There is 1 Reply. #: 211139 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 08:50:50 Sb: #211114-#PK settlement details Fm: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 To: Barry Simon 76004,1664 (X) Barry - Aw heck, as long as I'm on the soapbox I should clarify that I don't expect a singing telegram when I register shareware but I do expect a receipt. While a cancelled check is one of the best receipts going I still expect some sort of ack that you would expect, and get, in a "traditional" transaction. There's gotta be a price break where a receipt doesn't make sense but I don't think SEA or PK fall into that low price area. There are 3 Replies. #: 211142 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 09:24:50 Sb: #210688-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: David C. Frier 76314,207 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) Tom: Self-extractors are a Very Bad Thing? Sez you! I deliver software to clients all the time using self extractors. It's positively the easiest way to get a tyro to handle un-arcing the files. Would you care to add any facts in support of your apparently arbitrary claim? --David There are 2 Replies. #: 211143 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 09:24:56 Sb: #210766-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: David C. Frier 76314,207 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) Tom: You may not have noticed this, but if you get a PK* self-extractor, it works just like PKXARC or PKUNPAK. Suppose you get FOO.EXE which is a selfextractor. FOO/t will run a CRC check. FOO/v will give you a listing. FOO/h will put up a help screen. And so on. Honestly, you'd do well to stick to trashing things about which you know a little more. --David There is 1 Reply. #: 211144 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 09:25:01 Sb: #210991-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: David C. Frier 76314,207 To: Jeff Green 73240,1042 (X) Jeff: If Phil stole the code for squashing, I'd sure like to know from whom, since his is still the only program that does it! --David There is 1 Reply. #: 211145 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 09:25:08 Sb: #210732-#PK settlement details Fm: David C. Frier 76314,207 To: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 (X) Don: While I don't possess any specific knowledge of Phil's plans, I think it most probable that PK+ will come with a complete documentation of the file format and maybe even some sample code. Along with Phil's explicit best wishes to any developers who wish to write code that handles the new format. While SEA is offering to "license" the use of "their" file format for $1, price increases to follow, I'm sure. --David There are 2 Replies. #: 211148 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 09:40:25 Sb: #211145-PK settlement details Fm: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 To: David C. Frier 76314,207 (X) David - That could very well be, but one of the things I've been trying to keep in mind is that none of us (as far as I know) *knows* for a fact that those things will happen. Rather we tend to transfer personal preferences to theoretical possibilities. I dunno, but I think it's a good time to wait and see. #: 211154 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 10:01:55 Sb: #SEA/PK/ARC* Fm: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 To: all To quote thomas aquinas: Timeo hominem unius libri -er There is 1 Reply. #: 211155 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 10:02:22 Sb: #SEA/PK/ARC* Fm: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 To: all Without taking sides I'd like to setout a few of my own observations. 1. SEAware has apparently been content to update its program quite rarely. This may be in part due to the problems encountered with a trojan hack operated on one of the versions posted. At that time they said they would not release a new version for some time to avoid such incidents. On the other hand, the image is of a company, and thus of some large impersonal organization, which has been lazy, lethargic, smug and complacent, as well as being greedy. 2. SEAware erred in not moving to a better C compiler in order to speed up the execution times. Since license fees had been collected, no plea of poverty can be advanced. 3. PKware curried favor with the bbs operators and thus became the unsung hero to them, and to their users. 4. PKware erred in keeping the details of the squashing algorithm secret, releasing them only when reverse engineering made this quite useless. However, SEAware releasd source for its code when the product was introduced. 5. PKware released a potentially dangerous version, 3.6, without warning their users of the inherent problems due to their playing with self-modifying code. The excuse of foiling hackers is of no solace to those whose systems were crashed. 6. SEAware has taken a first step in establishing a relationship with users here on compuserve through the presence of one of its principals. It is to be noted that PKware has not made the same gesture or effort. 7. SEAware has said, unequivocally, that PKware was guilty of pirating code, and that this was admitted by PKware. Given this statement, and the seriousness of it, and that no action has been made, or threatened for libel by PKware, one must conclude that this assertion is accepted. -er There are 3 Replies. #: 211159 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 10:12:20 Sb: #211139-PK settlement details Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 (X) While we are on the subject, I should say that acknowledgement of registration is one of the REQUIREMENTS that ASP places on members. Interestingly enough, when the subject first came up several members were violently opposed but after suitable discussion were converted to the sensibleness of the rule. - Barry #: 211162 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 10:20:33 Sb: #211109-#SEA/PK Fm: Alan Rowberg 76703,4421 To: Barry Simon 76004,1664 (X) It may not be the most reasonable position, but lots of folks decided to buy IBM's PS/2 before IBM released it. I bought Procomm Plus before it was released, in fact, and did not feel I was doing something absurd. But I admit the SIMTEL decision was a little quick, and used it to show C H A R L E S how the lawsuit did indeed effect some users. There is 1 Reply. #: 211168 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 11:20:29 Sb: #209796-SEA/PK Fm: John Wilson 76414,624 To: Charles McGuinness 76701,11 (X) The effect of this sort of thing isn't immediate, but longer term in the sense that it stifles competition. The point has been made elsewhere in this thread that most users were waiting for an upgrade from SEA that would compete with ??ARC.* in speed and compression. What came was a lawsuit. Until the details of the settlement are released (and some have leaked out, I hear) it is impossible to tell what effect it will have on whether you and I can continue to expect support for the unmentionable past January 1. Instead of reacting to a market, as the theorists of the free market insist they should have, SEA took refuge in the courts. If ya can't beat 'em on the streets...! There is, it seems to me, a little too much charging off to the courts these days, a little too much money being spend on litigation and a little to little being spend to *compete*. One way or the other, as consumers of software, we pay for it. The theory of a free market says the best way to protect your investment is to build a better mousetrap than the other guy. The reality, in this industry (having conned thier way, in Canada at any rate, into 50 year copyrights) is that they guy with the better mousetrap gets sued. SEA isn't the only one, just the latest. ttfn. John #: 211170 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 11:21:55 Sb: #210119-SEA/PK Fm: John Wilson 76414,624 To: Howard Cherniack 75026,3723 (X) "rip-off cable company"?? Nahh, they explained it to me....they get paid and I don't have to watch the trash they send down the coax into my home. Simple. Meanwhile, they're working on the horrible ghosting on PBS. They'll get it cleared up the day that pigs fly. #: 211178 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 11:44:11 Sb: #211050-#ethics Fm: Stu Bloom 72267,3201 To: Pete Peterson (WPCorp) 72067,3552 (X) What about Apricot? Stu There is 1 Reply. #: 211179 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 11:44:19 Sb: #210986-#ethics Fm: Stu Bloom 72267,3201 To: michael shapiro 71450,2771 (X) I'm not sure you're summarizing the conversation all that accurately, Michael. There are those of us who feel that WP's PE has its place and that other tools like Brief have their place. I use both. I would not want to use PE for the things I use Brief for (although I have on occasion and done so successfully) or use Brief for the things I use PE for (with the same parenthetical comment). Either will do big programming jobs - IMHO, Brief does them better. Either can be used for small-to-intermediate jobs - IMHO, PE is a better choice. Stu There is 1 Reply. #: 211194 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 13:06:14 Sb: #211154-SEA/PK/ARC* Fm: gene saunders 72265,23 To: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 (X) > "Timeo hominem unius libri" I fear the man of one book. #: 211200 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 13:42:19 Sb: #211031-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: M. Glusberg 70040,441 To: Ed Fitzgerald 72447,1631 (X) ditto. #: 211206 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 14:33:25 Sb: #210955-#PK settlement details Fm: Vic Wagner/Metadigm 76046,3004 To: Scott Bussinger 72247,2671 (X) "algorithm can _never_ be copyrighted".......Dunno, can't be PATENTED, but copyright is another thing altogether. There is 1 Reply. #: 211207 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 14:51:51 Sb: #211011-#PK settlement details Fm: Jeff Green 73240,1042 To: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 (X) I'm going to try to remain open as well, in light of rumors of a proprietary method in new PKWare, which doesn't do much to enhance availability to all users. That alone might make up my mind if it is confirmed . My reaction to having the ARC extension and file format as proprietary came from a message concerning a contempt of court challenge by SEA against PKWare for continuing to use ARC files or the ARC extension. I don't know the validity of that, and in all the hush-hush it's hard to confirm the details that make all the difference. For now, I'll just stick with what I'm using until the industry decides what it's going to do in the future, and that based strictly on performance and features. There is 1 Reply. #: 211208 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 14:51:58 Sb: #211016-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Jeff Green 73240,1042 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) The heat won't drive me away, Tom, and I'll remain in the "lots of folks" group. For me ARCA and ARCE didn't provide enough features, though they are fine utilities. I simply ran out of patience waiting for ARC to perform its duties, and PKARC was a sorely needed breath of fresh air. Since then I have other reasons to dislike SEA. #: 211209 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 14:52:04 Sb: #211144-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Jeff Green 73240,1042 To: David C. Frier 76314,207 If Phil stole the code for *anything* I'd like to know for sure. I haven't heard any contention that such is the case. #: 211215 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 15:18:12 Sb: #211155-SEA/PK/ARC* Fm: SysOp Conrad Kageyama 76703,1010 To: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 (X) Earle... looks like a good analysis to me. The key, of course, is Foray's statement in public forum that PKware stole the code from SEA and admitted it under oath. If that is indeed fact, then the suit was of course justified, regardless of how much PKware improved the state of the art with his PK* products... connie #: 211219 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 15:52:29 Sb: #TM Database Fm: Paul Mayer (GRAB Plus) 70040,645 To: ALL I read that there was a database on CIS that has the information on all of the Trade Marks in the US. Does anyone know how to access this database? Paul There is 1 Reply. #: 211224 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 16:05:31 Sb: #SEA is Wrong Fm: Mark Welch [GAGS & LPCRv 76137,2643 To: All SEA v. PKWare Is The Wrong Issue Over the past few months, I've watched "the shareware industry coming of age" -- the lawsuit between System Enhancement Associates (SEA) and PKWare. From the beginning, I was upset at SEA, but not because it was suing PKWare (which might well have stolen SEA's code). Instead, I'm upset because SEA is a lousy software company, and because SEA is now making some preposterous legal claims. For two years, SEA collected registration checks for ARC, but didn't release any updates or communicate with its users. Meanwhile, competitors developed faster, tighter compression programs. When SEA saw how much money its competitors were making, it didn't enhance its program to match the market, and it didn't try to recover the goodwill of its upset customers. Instead, it sued its major competitor. After the suit was settled, SEA made clear its position: no firm may develop programs that access or use the .ARC file format unless they are licensed by SEA. No firm may use the "ARC" designation to describe its products unless licensed by SEA. SEA's claims are unreasonable, and are not supported by the law. The .ARC file format can't be copyrighted. The file format was based on earlier archive file formats, and incorporates public-domain compression algorithms. Even if SEA made changes from the earlier formats, a non-expressive file format is not copyrightable, just as a blank accounting form is not copyrightable. If SEA wanted exclusive rights to its file format, Press for more : it should have applied for a patent. The "ARC" program name and file suffix can't be trademarked, either, although SEA recently applied for registration. "ARC" was used as a file suffix by CP/M and other archive programs long before SEA appeared. In addition, "ARC" is the obvious threeletter suffix for an "archive" file: it's a descriptive, generic term, not a trademark identifying SEA's product. Most BBSs and on-line services use non-SEA programs to access .ARC files, since SEA's program was slower and less efficient. (Continued in next message) There are 2 Replies. #: 211225 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 16:05:32 Sb: #211109-#SEA/PK Fm: John Wilson 76414,624 To: Barry Simon 76004,1664 (X) Something new about absurdity in this??? (grin) Gotta give SEA credit, they gave us something to talk about in the dog days of summer! There is 1 Reply. #: 211226 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 16:05:49 Sb: #211114-PK settlement details Fm: John Wilson 76414,624 To: Barry Simon 76004,1664 (X) You mean your bank still sends you cancelled cheques? Nahh, you're kidding, of course. Oh, yeah, I forgot...you don't live with the Canadian banking system where a $10 service charge is levied for closing an account containing $4. (And while that may be an exaggeration, it isn't much of one!) #: 211227 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 16:06:00 Sb: #210905-#PK settlement details Fm: John Wilson 76414,624 To: Paul Watson 76056,1751 (X) Whaddyamean change the 8.3 file names! My gosh, its fundamental to the whole thing! Fundamentalist Computerists? (grin) There is 1 Reply. #: 211228 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 16:06:33 Sb: #211011-PK settlement details Fm: John Wilson 76414,624 To: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 (X) Ok, given that ARC is trademarked, which is the say the package ARC not the file extention. The only protection that offers, as I understand it, is that no one else will use the name or one than can be reasonable expected to confuse a consumer into believing that someone other than SEA is selling the program, hence a compression program called ARK would likely be in the mud. PKARC may cut a little close, but anyone who has been around for a while (or on a BBS a few times) knows that the two products are different. This whole thing is going around in circles, but it is giving me some good practise for the approaching federal election (Canuck version)! Occasionally I think that some of us are getting very good at arguing white is black on this topic, without full knowledge of what the colours are. (I include myself in that.) But it is *fun*! #: 211229 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 16:07:29 Sb: #210688-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: John Wilson 76414,624 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) >Self-Extractions are a Very Bad Thing. For whom? Just a question, as I use self extractions quite a bit with no problems or complaints from users. >I ran tests and they were in a dead heat (not surprising!). It does surprise me, actually. PK is faster in the tests I ran, although not by the significant factor that it is over ARC itself. Part of the problem here is that with SEA you have to go to 3rd party utilities to get any decent kind of performance where PK's is built in. With all due respect and gratitude to Wayne and Vern, the speedups should be packaged with the program itself. >a positive nusiance when squashing was added. Well, I haven't been around that long but I started with PK, my disk space is scare and I like squashing. A nuisance for one is a convienience (pardon my spelling) for another. As to the necessity of PK*, of course it isn't necessary but then ARC wasn't either. They are conviencences (did I get it right there?) for sysops and for those of us who transmit files or have to move large files from machine to machine. The argument is entirely beside the point of the *pattern* taking place in the computer world, that is if you're afraid of competition you sue. SEA is the latest and smallest to try this stunt. And their continuing apparant claim to things like file extentions and formats makes me nervous, particularly when big boys like Lotus appear to agree. Press for more : In one respect, the argument isn't about the necessity of ANY program, but rather what this pattern of running to the courts means to me, as a user, in the future. (Not to mention what it means to me as a programmer who may inadvertantly stomp of someone's alleged rights.) There is 1 Reply. #: 211230 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 16:07:53 Sb: #211016-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: John Wilson 76414,624 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) Tom, (sigh) the fact that lots of people seem to think that PK* was/is neccesary makes it so. Tis the essence of choice in a free market, and a lot of people made that choice. To say that they are wrong and you are right is stating a personal opinion *not* proving a point. Personally, the first packing program I was exposed to was PK* and while I have evaluated ARC and Vern's and Wayne's utilities I have seen no reason to recommend that we change. Also, in terms of speed, we're dealing with files that exceed 2.5 meg so the 15-25% speed difference is important as is the smaller size of squashed files. FOR ME! If ARC works fine for you and you're happy with it, great! If PK* works for me, then that should be ok, too. There are 2 Replies. #: 211231 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 16:08:05 Sb: #210807-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: John Wilson 76414,624 To: Robert Blacher 72677,3305 (X) All of which goes to prove that a certian level of stupidity is not SEA/Lotus/Apple/other litigator's exclusive domain. (What would we do without the big ifs ands or buts [or ors for that matter]) #: 211234 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 16:08:42 Sb: #210831-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: John Wilson 76414,624 To: SysOp Chris Dunford 76703,2002 (X) Chris, I rather think that Tom is missing a point or two as well, like if the reason for the slowness of ARC is the complier, why haven't they recompiled using something less obscure and faster, say MSC or TurboC. (I know you can't answer that, but it remains a valid question [and I should ask SEA]) Yes, Verns utilities are out there and do their job very well (what of his doesn't|oh thank you for LIST!). For the most part, however, PK* does it inside the program and for some of us that is convienent. (I'm not aware that ARCE/A are past tense now, are they?) Saying that because of the necessity of using a couple of narrowly distributed routines for ARC makes PK* unnessecary is stretching things a bit. (I say narrowly because I normally have to call about 6 BBS's before finding any new releases, largely in the hope of avoiding connect charges here. That hope is ususally vain.) While it seems that SEA needs all the partisans it can get now, I don't think an apples and oranges discussion is to the point, although I'll gladly join in. ttfn There is 1 Reply. #: 211235 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 16:08:53 Sb: #211115-#PK settlement details Fm: John Wilson 76414,624 To: Barry Simon 76004,1664 (X) I realize that all of this is tied up in some kind of non-disclosure agreement, but is there any published (as in recorded in open court) testimony that would back up SEA's claim? Just curious. There is 1 Reply. #: 211236 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 16:09:36 Sb: #211224-SEA is Wrong Fm: Mark Welch [GAGS & LPCRv 76137,2643 To: Mark Welch [GAGS & LPCRv 76137,2643 (X) (continued from previos message) When SEA first released its ARC program, it sought wide use by BBS operators and on-line services. At the time, no one suspected that SEA would demand control of the file format, especially since SEA widely distributed its source code, and didn't visibly object when others began releasing compatible programs. After the marketplace had converted to the "public domain" .ARC file format, SEA suddenly asserted exclusive control of the format. I believe that the .ARC file format is in the public domain, and never could have been protected under copyright, trademark, or patent law. However, SEA has made it clear that it will not allow unlicensed competitors to publish programs that use this format, and SEA will use the threat of litigation to force competitors to pay royalties and to transfer their technology. By asserting its non-existent copyright and trademark claims, SEA hopes to bully others into submission. Rather than wasting resources to litigate this issue, I encourage the industry to abandon the .ARC file format -- and SEA -- in favor of a public domain, "open" file format for compression/archiving files. I would hope that bulletin-board operators and Shareware authors will work together to adopt a standard, or to create a new standard. I hope that SEA will abandon its unreasonable legal claims, and seek to compete by providing better products, not hiring better lawyers. If it doesn't, I look forward Press for more : to the day when SEA bows its head and decides to leave the market, or when it adopts the new standard compression file format (as it will and should be allowed to do). #: 211237 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 16:25:52 Sb: #211178-ethics Fm: Pete Peterson (WPCorp) 72067,3552 To: Stu Bloom 72267,3201 (X) I don't know whether or not to take the Apricot question seriously. The first port did not take long--maybe 40 hours of programming time. We don't have plans to do a 5.0 version for the Apricot. Pete #: 211238 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 16:28:56 Sb: #211155-#SEA/PK/ARC* Fm: Robert Blacher 72677,3305 To: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 (X) Oh, good grief, Earl! Your point (7) is waaay out of line. The fact that SEA representatives have accused Katz of stealing code proves nothing. The fact that Katz hasn't retaliated with a libel suit also proves nothing. Some people have better things to do with their time and money then to give them both to lawyers (and, I say that as a lawyer). And, as a sysop, I'll tell you I know of no effort by Katz to curry favor with us as you say in point (2). Quite to the contrary, Katz's childish strings in early versions of his programs (eat my dust ....) and reluctance to release info on squashing alienated quite a few of us. If we use his program, it's in *spite* of some of what he's done. Finally, CompuServe is but one of many communications services. Katz has chosen to be active on others (I won't discuss the wisdom of his choices -they're *his* choices) rather than here. He also runs his own BBS. Maybe SEA's folks should call there? There is 1 Reply. #: 211239 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 16:31:20 Sb: #210810-PK settlement details Fm: Dan Gillmor 73240,334 To: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 (X) I'll have a look. Dan #: 211250 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 17:05:38 Sb: #210823-PK settlement details Fm: Lane R. Whittaker 72140,127 To: Andrew Foray [SEA] 72617,1167 (X) >"What have I missed?"< I have been following this thread extensively. While a lot of bombast is flowing regarding the "rightness" of SEA suing PKware, it appears to me that the majority of the community is concerned with several IMPLICATIONS they PERCEIVE in the language of the suit. These are: 1. That SEA is laying claim to an exclusive use of the file extension ".ARC". 2. That SEA is laying claim to the exclusive use of the specific combination of letters "ARC" within any filename. 3. That SEA is laying claim to the exclusive use of the format currently utilized in files (created by any source program whatsoever) commonly with the extension of ".ARC", for any purpose whatsoever. The community feeling seems to be that were SEA to prevail in realizing such exclusive rights, the community as a whole would be forced to find and adopt a different method of archiving files. Shareware authors generally do NOT feel they have the time or resources to dispute with ANYONE in the courts, regardless of the merits of their case. Many individuals, recognizing this attitude on the part of shareware authors, feel (rightly or wrongly) that: 1) SEA could not win a case in court on these specific points. 2) Is likely to establish these claims by default simply because no-one has the resources to dispute. 3) Any action such as purchasing a license at whatever generous terms will strengthen, if not outright legitimize, such claims. 4) The community as a whole will lose greatly from these claims. SEA is now in the unenviable position of having to decide whether to relinguish these claims (whether actual or not) will result in a greater benefit or loss in the future. I would suggest that from a public relations standpoint, you may have already taken too long to address these perceptions. -- LaneW #: 211252 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 17:17:00 Sb: #211230-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Gene Saunders 72265,23 To: John Wilson 76414,624 It would be interesting to see an article (done PC Magazine style) evaluating the different compression routines, as well as the inadequacies in some of the related products. My guess is that PK* would be the "editor's choice". (no, I am not related to PK* and I have no gain; just a satisfied user). My only *real* beef with PKPAK (and predecessors) is that it does not update the PDS' file date to that of the most recent member. I found another program (ARCFDATE) that performs the chore admirably, but it *is* a nuisance. There is 1 Reply. #: 211259 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 17:27:38 Sb: #211026-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Paul Mayer (GRAB Plus) 70040,645 (X) [1] Surely you're missing the point of the suit. Lots of folks, not just Katz or Buerg, manipulate ARC files. Nobody but PKware is affected by this action. Read the papers! [2] I don't say a faster ARC system is unnecessary; I say it exist pre- and sans Katz, so in that sense "PK* was never necessary." #: 211267 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 17:35:00 Sb: #211043-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Basil Copeland/CRC 74240,1161 (X) Of course nobody would dream of making your decisions for you Basil. The root message of this thread expressed my opinion, and 211043 et seq. express yours very nicely. That's what we're all here for. :-) My point about "significant" speed is that when you have reduced the time it takes to process an ordinary ARC file from minutes to seconds, it hardly matters to Joe User whether the faster time is 10 seconds or 15 seconds. I still think that's correct -remember there is a certain benchmark mania here in the technically sophisticated byways of IBMNET, and we easily convince ourselves that this or that minor tweak is "overwhelming." Certainly if you offer me the choice of a free 7k utility that does the job in 15 seconds or a $hareware 30k utility that does it in 10, I will go for the former unless someone else is picking up the tab and I happen to have that extra 23k free on the floppy or RAMdisk. #: 211268 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 17:40:14 Sb: #211143-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: David C. Frier 76314,207 I'll ignore your ill-advised parting shot and concentrate on the substance of your note. You have missed the point of my objection to self-extractors. Yes, no doubt the self extracting code CRC's the data it is self extracting, but WHO CRCS THE SELF EXTRACTING CODE ITSELF? Oh you have a wonderful transfer protocol you say. Fine, now how about the fellow who uploaded what you downloaded, or downloads what you upload? You are taking something straight from an unknown and potentially corrupt source and feeding it directly into your CPU without a second thought. This leaves you wide open to both transmission error and trojan mishaps. #: 211270 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 17:46:32 Sb: #211041-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: George Figge 76656,1563 (X) You won't be able to find a message in this thread stating PK* as necessary (in so many words) because I started it myself from scratch with the straight assertion that PK* was NOT necessary. Now that we have that major mystery settled, let's proceed. If I came on the scene ignorant of the history of the respective utilities, I would still plump for ARCE and ARCA because they are small, fast ENOUGH i.e. well within the same league (PK and Vern traded the speed lead back and forth for months like horses at Belmont before Vern moved on to other things) and Vern's are free. This is just the way I'm put together I guess. At all events, there has always been a clear ALTERNATIVE which was the original point of this thread. There are 3 Replies. #: 211271 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 17:55:02 Sb: #211230-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: John Wilson 76414,624 No, *necessary* means there was no alternative. Lots of people knowing about and like PK* hardly means that. It would be one thing for me to say I personally thought Vern's stuff was *better* than PK's from a technical standpoint -- that would just be my personal opinion, as it is when I say that the ARCE/ARCA pair works better for the way I use ARC files, even if PK* has added extra speed these days. However, that's not what this thread is (was) about at all. I'm pointing out that it has *never* been necessary to use PKware to manipulate ARC files fast, though many users are unaware of it. That is not a matter of opinion -- the alternatives do, and have, existed. It has never been solely a case of ARC.EXE vs PKARC. Yet if you look back over the messages even in this thread, in 1988 in IBMNET, you'll see that many of the objections to my thesis remain framed in those terms. #: 211272 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 17:56:40 Sb: #211252-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Gene Saunders 72265,23 (X) Even if PKARC won Editor's Choice -- not unreasonable -- it would not do so in a walkaway or by default, which was my point. #: 211273 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 17:59:16 Sb: #211142-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: David C. Frier 76314,207 I think you asked that in another message as well - see my 211268, as well as an earlier response to Dave Hoagland. I love starting these hornets nest threads, but managing the flow of info can get to be a headache! #: 211276 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 18:09:40 Sb: #211229-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: John Wilson 76414,624 Perhaps "the argument" in some larger sense isn't about whether PK* was necessary. But this thread was. Sorry about that! For my objections to self-extractors, see the other recent messages in this thread. Sorry to fob you off, but this discussion is expanding and I don't have time to retype too much stuff. I will summarize again in a few days most likely. Dave Hoagland tells me that the latest PKARC is somewhat faster than ARCA/E and I take his word as law on these things (no exaggeration). What this means is that PK kept tweaking after Vern moved on to other stuff. One thing I know is, ARCA/E haven't gotten any SLOWER, and they were always plenty fast. Now PK is faster but he's also larger and he wants your money while Vern doesn't. Your call, but again, my point is that there IS an alternative. The "nuisance" aspects of PK's erstwhile rogue algorithm do not extend to private one-user use on your own disks at home. They have to do with software exchange in the community and user support. Nevertheless I have my doubts as to how much PK has saved you. I know ARCA makes smaller archives in many cases, although either way is plenty small for me. BTW unless you save enough to drop below a cluster boundary on disk, the net storage size is the same. #: 211277 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 18:10:40 Sb: #211031-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Ed Fitzgerald 72447,1631 (X) And I didn't. Between the two of us, we demonstrate the alternative, and thus the original point of this thread. #: 211278 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 18:16:21 Sb: #211234-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: John Wilson 76414,624 I, too, wish I knew why SEA didn't switch compilers (when a better one became available -- remember, when ARC was born, CI C86+ and Lattice were about it!) or just plain optimize their code to get faster throughput. Maybe Thom just didn't bother... having ARCE out there cooperating with you can take a lot of the pressure off. At any rate that was certainly their mistake, since it handed PK his sole edge. (Keep in mind that while third party hobbyists were adding visual shells and whatnot for two years, PK never really advanced the state of the art beyond adding ASM-derived speed, and that had already been done.) #: 211280 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 18:17:50 Sb: #211119-#PK settlement details Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Ed Fitzgerald 72447,1631 (X) Are you actually saying they removed the 'e' function from 522? I don't have it here to check. There is 1 Reply. #: 211282 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 18:18:48 Sb: #211145-PK settlement details Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: David C. Frier 76314,207 We'll see... #: 211284 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 18:22:47 Sb: #211162-#SEA/PK Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: Alan Rowberg 76703,4421 (X) I too order Procomm Plus before it was released for personal use. It would have been irresponsible for me to set it as a company standard sight unseen. Similarly, I think an institutional decision to go with Katz without knowing pricing and restricutions is totally irresponsible. - Barry There is 1 Reply. #: 211285 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 18:23:03 Sb: #211235-#PK settlement details Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: John Wilson 76414,624 I've no offical connection so no binding by non-disclosure. I really know little more than any other reader of the message base. Andrew Foray - a SEA principle - said in a public message that PK stole code from SEA and admitted it under oath. That does not make the assertion true but it gives one pause. A month after the initial flurry I'm unsure which of the following is true: - SEA used the legal system to bludgeon PK into things that we'd all agree were unfair but forced on Katz as the least expensive alternative. Shame on SEA. - PK stole some of SEA's code intially (obviously, he improved on some of it lso), was found out and capitulated but he has managed to manipulate public opinion so that SEA comes out the loser anyway. What I have observed is that SEA has been particularly inept about dealing with public opinion, at least as indicated with what has happened here and that a lot of BBS operators, etc have overreacted and supported PK's new product sight unseen and without any more understanding of the facts in the case than I have (i.e. essentially none!). I can also imagine a scenario where someone well meaning produces a product with stolen code when the original source is provided. Said individual, originally for himself, optimizes some parts of the code and makes it better. Press for more : That happens all the time with hackers and released code. A friend sees it an encourages the hacker to place the program on BBS' - after a few more iterations, the program is much better but it still has parts of the original code. I AM CERTAINLY NOT CLAIMING THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE but I don't think accusations of stolen code are that far fetched. - Barry There is 1 Reply. #: 211290 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 18:23:35 Sb: #211008-#ethics Fm: michael shapiro 71450,2771 To: Dave Hoagland 70007,3352 (X) I am not arguing about libraries value. I use it and like it. I have just started using PE. I was only surprised at WP's statement that it "is the same editor our programmers use" and then finding out that most (including yourself) use other editors because they are more powerful. Just surprised and looking for the "real" thing. P.S. I take it you think Kedit is preferable to Brief? Mike There is 1 Reply. #: 211291 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 18:23:41 Sb: #211050-ethics Fm: michael shapiro 71450,2771 To: Pete Peterson (WPCorp) 72067,3552 (X) It is funny how numbers get into my head and then build themselves into facts. There are many other instances. I usually speak like an expert but rarely really am. Mike #: 211292 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 18:23:41 Sb: #211155-#SEA/PK/ARC* Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 (X) Earle - Sorry; I can't take PK's silence on the issue of the accusation by Mr. Foray as acceptance. I believe that many who pass through here missed the statement so that Katz who has hardly ever, if ever been on SW may not even know. And like responding to "When did you stop beating your wife", there are times when silence is the best response to accusations even if there is no truth to 'em. The fact remains that Mr. Foray has made a serious accusation which we must consider could be true, but it seems to me that we must consider that it could be false. Conclusion = confusion! - Barry There is 1 Reply. #: 211293 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 18:23:45 Sb: #211051-#ethics Fm: michael shapiro 71450,2771 To: Pete Peterson (WPCorp) 72067,3552 (X) Don't your programmers clammer for upgrades of PE the way other users of your programs do? There is 1 Reply. #: 211294 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 18:23:50 Sb: #211065-ethics Fm: michael shapiro 71450,2771 To: Pete Peterson (WPCorp) 72067,3552 (X) I would say that you must be doing something right, in the programming end of things. Mike #: 211295 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 18:23:52 Sb: #211224-#SEA is Wrong Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: Mark Welch [GAGS & LPCRv 76137,2643 (X) You have at least one basic fact wrong. A SEA representative has stated: "Our policy is that if you wish to use our code to produce a utility to look into an ARC file and list its contents, go right ahead. We will take no action against a shareware author of a program to look into ARC files. (Not while I have anything to say about it)" Not exactly a blanket denial of their rights to programs that merely access the ARC format (since commercial programs are not covered) but not "no firm may develop programs that access or use the .ARC file format unless they are licensed by SEA" as you claim - not by a long shot. That said, I agree that some kind of public domain compression/archive scheme would be much healthier for the BBS community. Unfortunately, large parts of the community seem to be gravitating towards Mr. Katz' proprietary scheme with no indication that the situation there will be any better. BTW, I can't resist pointing out that if you'd left your opinion in the DL, I'd not have bothered to download it and wouldn't have bothered to reply if I had. - Barry Press for more : There are 4 Replies. #: 211297 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 18:24:01 Sb: #211179-ethics Fm: michael shapiro 71450,2771 To: Stu Bloom 72267,3201 (X) Right, that brings some perspective to the "which is better". No one really said that when I was asking about editors. They all said well PE really isnt enough. I already wish I had another window or two and bette macro facilities, and I am only beginning. Mike #: 211307 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 19:23:33 Sb: #211227-#PK settlement details Fm: Paul Watson 76056,1751 To: John Wilson 76414,624 Several people have had a good time commenting about this absurd, arcane, brain dead philosophy of 8.3 filenames. Perhaps it would be more profitable to emerge from this subject and move on to more meaningful areas. If there was as much written about 8.3 filenames as there has been about this topic, Microsoft would have had it fixed long ago. Nothing against you John, I enjoyed your comment too. Paul There is 1 Reply. #: 211332 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 21:07:16 Sb: #211290-#ethics Fm: Dave Hoagland 70007,3352 To: michael shapiro 71450,2771 (X) I've been using Kedit for some time. I've tried Brief, but still like Kedit. With something as "personal" as an editor, it would take a pretty compelling reason to change. I doubt one would go far wrong with either Brief or Kedit (or PE, which I use regularly...don't sell it short...for that matter). You should try the "all" command in the latest release of Kedit, but be forewarned...it's addictive. Since I have a fair amoutn of EEMS (I use DV most of the time) I find Kedit's use of EMS for large files to be very handy. Until this latest release, my only solution to "megabyte" files was WP's PE, which still comes in handy if I don't have enough expanded memory available. ...DaveH There is 1 Reply. #: 211337 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 21:18:36 Sb: #211280-#PK settlement details Fm: Ed Fitzgerald 72447,1631 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) The latest SEA (5.22?) has two modules, ARC and ARC-E. I didn't actually check to see if the "e" function was removed from ARC, but the docs plainly say to use ARC to archive formation, updating etc and ARC-E for extraction. There is 1 Reply. #: 211346 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 21:51:36 Sb: #211293-#ethics Fm: Pete Peterson (WPCorp) 72067,3552 To: michael shapiro 71450,2771 (X) They can go into the code anytime and make the improvements if they really want to. There have been a few changes in each release. Pete There is 1 Reply. #: 211350 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 22:02:06 Sb: #211295-SEA is Wrong Fm: Don Gloistein 76010,474 To: Barry Simon 76004,1664 Barry, re: >> "not while I have anything to say about it." I sure would not want my business rest on that statement. While I have my own opinions (unexpressed) regarding the ongoing battle, the general principle of my objection has remained the same. I want a free and clear archive format and compression algorithm with source in the public domain. Then ANYONE can write as many fancy utilities and port they want. If someone gets a version optimized for my platform that is quicker or fancier than the public version, I would buy it. But I am purchasing their implementation NOT the archive concept. From your message, I think you are of similar mind. Just wanted to tag this to the thread. Thanks. --Don #: 211354 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 22:15:32 Sb: #211016-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Bart Flaherty 71340,150 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) Tom, I can think of a lot of *un*necessary things, like Corvettes, Cognac, and Computers. What the hell does *that* prove? Damn few things in this life are NECESSARY. But, if you believe in capitalism, competition and a free market, then it is the consumer who decides what is necessary to him/her. Like it or not, PK* was blowing the competition out of the water. Sure, the *price* was right on Vern's products, but one hell of a lot of users, who were perfectly aware of ARCE, et. al., chose to use another product. That's life in the fast lane. Unless it is demonstrated to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that PK "stole" code that was not previously in the public domain, I will continue to use Phil's product and boycott any SEA product on the grounds that they have tried to win in the court what they have lost in the market. Regards, -Bart- There is 1 Reply. #: 211359 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 22:28:24 Sb: #211295-SEA is Wrong Fm: Mark Welch (AGT, LPCRvw) 76137,2643 To: Barry Simon 76004,1664 I wasn't aware that SEA was conceding the market of ARC file-contentlisters. After all, there's so much competition there. In any event, that statement (I assume from Andew) is directly opposite to what was said by Thom Henderson on BIX; perhaps the BIX message was interpreted only to cover "reading" and "writing" (unpacking and creating) .ARC files, which are forbidden to non-licensees. Point well taken about DLs, but I despise logging onto any service and being presented with dozens of multi-screen messages that are not differentiated in any way from the short comments. Certain other on-line services have deliberate policies to avoid this problem. #: 211372 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 23:35:48 Sb: #211307-PK settlement details Fm: Vic Wagner/Metadigm 76046,3004 To: Paul Watson 76056,1751 If God had wanted 'man' to have bigger filenames than 8.3, he would have given Bill Gates another brain cell (the one he has _must_ be getting lonely). #: 211374 S9/Hot Topic [S] 11-Sep-88 23:39:47 Sb: #211295-SEA is Wrong Fm: Mark Welch (AGT, LPCRvw) 76137,2643 To: Barry Simon 76004,1664 Barry, I should correct myself. SEA's representative promised not to sue shareware authors who write programs that peek into .ARC files. That, by itself, is a "license", limited to shareware authors; those who can prove to the satisfaction of a court that they are "shareware authors" and that the message was authorized by SEA can do so. Elsewhere, I saw mention of a $1 license from SEA, which I personally would prefer if I sought this option, to make it nice and neat and in writing. In any event, unless the wording is clear, SEA may be free to terminate the license, or to deny use of a future variant of the .ARC file format (i.e., you can't use the new 'grinding' mode). As Don [Gloistein] said, I'd prefer to rely on a true PD standard that anyone -- shareware, PD, or commercial -- could rely on, without worrying that SEA would come after them when the profits looked good. (On BIX, Thom Henderson actually said that he wouldn't be concerned "until some serious $$ are involved" (quote from BIX/utlities/arc #133, posted 9/9/88.) In that same message, Thom stated that SEA is "still working on the details," which implies that SEA, like PKWare, has not yet decided exactly how licensing of its file format will be done. Thom and Andrew have both invited Shareware authors (and others) to call them (201-473-5153) to suggest licensing terms that would be "fair" for both sides. #: 211379 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 00:11:10 Sb: #211295-#SEA is Wrong Fm: Paul Schauble 76340,1215 To: Barry Simon 76004,1664 First, Phil Katz has stated elsewhere that the file format for his new program will be public and, I believe, that there will be a public domain C implementation. Apparantly, he will then bring out a compatible but fast optimized commercial version. I'll see if I can verify this. Second, EVERY statement I've seen that SEA has made about the ability of others to use the ARC format has been qualified to apply to SHAREWARE programs. Never an blanket statement. The only way I can read this is that SEA claims control of the format and grants a free license to shareware programs. SEA could stop a lot of speculation by publicly refuting this reading of their postings. They've been asked several times to do this and have always responsed by repeating the SHAREWARE permission. Since there is now an SEA rep here, I'll ask again: Does SEA claim that a comercial program needs a license to create an ARC file, extract from an ARC file, or otherwise examine or modify an ARC file? Much as I would like to see a new and better product, I do not believe that abandoning the ARC format is a good idea. That would allow SEA to win by intimidation what they could not win legally. I believe it is necessary to force a confrontation on this issue, perhaps by bringing out a non-licensed ARC Press for more : program with enough backing to take a SEA suit into court. Perhaps the lawyers here can suggest another way. But I think it must be done. ++PLS There is 1 Reply. #: 211392 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 01:40:13 Sb: #211270-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: George Figge 76656,1563 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) Well, I'm a little surprised that you would choose the slower (but fast enough) program, Tom, but that's what makes horse races. As for clear ALTERNATIVEs, we all like those, too, but I'm surprised again that you seem to be for eliminating them so that everyone can use the program you favor. As for the "cost" smoke screen, I'm sure you have blown any potential savings just on the cost of this thread. There is 1 Reply. #: 211401 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 04:30:40 Sb: #210807-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: DaveK 76556,2203 To: Robert Blacher 72677,3305 (X) That would be most interesting, and at variance with past behaviour. This entire brouhaha (which, in the overall scheme of things, is truly a tempest in a teapot) was started, I believe, when PKWare started advertising their product in the back pages of the magazines in close proximity to the ads for ARC by SEA...advertised as a commercial product, in competition with ARC. What people in our hobby tend to forget is that the money is made from commercial sales, not shareware. I find it interesting that PKWare had their program out for a very long time, and that SEA took action only when it became a commercial competitor. When I first saw those ads, I said to myself, "Self, if it was me, I'd blow a gasket." SEA obviously did, and I can't say that I blame them. And, they've gained their legal point. Unfortunately, they've never been much for PR, and are losing that battle to what I see as a very orchestrated PR effort, by PKWare and it's supporters, to paint SEA as a great villain and threat to the hobby, when in fact they are neither. PKWare was loathe to release the specs for the 'squash' algorithm, which is why many of us banned ARChives containing squashed members from our boards for quite a while. It was PKWare, the third player on the ARC scene (after SEA and Vern), which embedded strings disparaging Vern in their programs. For the longest time I wouldn't use a PKWare program because of that; if they were that Press for more : unprofessional, then how good could the program be? I'm glad that the programs were finally cleansed of that trash. But given this, and given that it's quite likely that the new PKWare product will be released commercially as well as shareware, I will believe that the full specs will be made public when the event occurs. Ciao, DaveK There is 1 Reply. #: 211402 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 04:30:56 Sb: #210991-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: DaveK 76556,2203 To: Jeff Green 73240,1042 I imply nothing of the kind! I merely made the point that it took a great deal of Katz-bashing to get any information on the squash algorithm so that other authors could make use of it. If someone's interested in helping the hobby community, that's peculiar behaviour, don't'cha think? For those of us who run bulletin boards, it's not a trivial point. Our boards have utilities that allow callers to examine the contents of ARChives, and even read files within them (perhaps someday CI$ may catch up, eh?). For someone to introduce a variant to the ARC standard, that produced files that only his program could read, that made those files with the same .ARC extension, and then refused to release the information to enable others to read those variants was totally intollerable. We wound up with a situation where the board software would barf on many of the ARCs being uploaded, and for a time, many of us had to reprocess every ARC uploaded to get rid of the squashed members and/or delete them out of hand. As I say, people are suffering from short memories nowadays. PKWare, in its time, has been a source of considerable indigestion. Ciao, DaveK Press for more : #: 211403 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 04:31:06 Sb: #211142-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: DaveK 76556,2203 To: David C. Frier 76314,207 Forgive me for jumping in . Self-extractors want you to run them as-is so you can extract the files supposed to be contained therein. You can't use an ARC utility to read inside the package. It's find for you to distribute your software. No argument there. For software coming from a public BBS, it's a nightmare....the perfect vehicle for a trojan program. The caller downloads it, can't look inside it, runs it, and boom! Which, I think, is what Tom was really referring to. Ciao, DaveK There is 1 Reply. #: 211404 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 04:31:13 Sb: #210902-PK settlement details Fm: DaveK 76556,2203 To: Basil Copeland/CRC 74240,1161 (X) I think, Basil, that PKWare offering their wares commercially was what did the trick (this, of course, my own opinion). It would be interesting if the reps from SEA would enlighten us. Ciao, DaveK #: 211405 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 04:31:20 Sb: #211285-PK settlement details Fm: DaveK 76556,2203 To: Barry Simon 76004,1664 For what it's worth, I agree with your very well put observations. Many a war has been won or lost, not on the battlefield or in the courtroom, but in the court of public opinion. And in that court, so far, SEA has been completely outclassed. Ciao, DaveK #: 211410 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 06:25:40 Sb: #211139-#PK settlement details Fm: J F DUNNIGAN 70425,232 To: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 (X) If you want to bust Phil's chops about receipts, help him out getting on your SIG. He told me he's willing to do so, despite his aversion for these high priced BBS's. I told him to check out the CIS starter kits in the PC media, but that I would mention it to you in case you wanted to help him expedite the process. His phone is (414) 352-3670. BTW, he replied that all SEA's recent accusations on this SIG were either lies, distortions or both. You can download the details from Exec PC (414) 964-5160. There are 2 Replies. #: 211412 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 06:56:02 Sb: #211379-SEA is Wrong Fm: Don Gloistein 76010,474 To: Paul Schauble 76340,1215 (X) Paul, This is just a little off the topic. But I for one do NOT like the implication of SEA that Shareware authors are given the permission but commercial authors are not. The implication is that Shareware is by definition less than commercially distributed programs. Or does SEA define shareware as not profit making, 'When ye are $ucce$$full, ye are commercial and we sue." --Don #: 211414 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 07:08:49 Sb: #210911-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Bob Johnson 71555,1247 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) You state repeatedly, Tom, that PK* was never necessary. I have the need to unarc binary files direct to the printer - it is a graphics file. PK* does that, and I believe the others do not. Specifically, ARCE does not and ARC is such a pig no one should have to use it. You are such a passionate defender of SEA, it would probably clear the air if you were to either reveal or disclaim any interest you have in the controversy. There is 1 Reply. #: 211416 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 07:21:04 Sb: #211284-SEA/PK Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Barry Simon 76004,1664 Probably won't stick if the "PK in a poke" proves to be unsuitable. Makes a fine sounding bray in the meantime though, which I suspect is the point. #: 211417 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 07:28:39 Sb: #211337-#PK settlement details Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Ed Fitzgerald 72447,1631 (X) We all agree SEA bundles Vern's ARCE.COM with their product - your message implied that this was the only way to extract now, i.e., that 'arc e xxx' no longer worked. If that turns out to be the case, post it here. There is 1 Reply. #: 211419 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 07:35:16 Sb: #211354-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Bart Flaherty 71340,150 (X) The reason it's important that fast alternatives to PK* have always existed is this: PKware has to stop making PKARC after January. If his were the only fast manipulator out there this would be horrendous; as it turns out it's NBD except in the political sense. A vocal contingent is making high decibel plans to switch to, uh, WHATEVER (should we call it the RSN format?? :-) ), but meanwhile back in Reality Prime, there are a lot of users who will continue to need support. Fortunately the tools exist. #: 211420 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 07:39:25 Sb: #211403-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: DaveK 76556,2203 (X) Right -- you're expected to run them as-is and you usually can't manipulate them with your own utilities. Those are my twin objections (and yours too I suspect) -- I mentioned them in another message but we're covering a lot of real estate here. There is 1 Reply. #: 211421 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 07:45:23 Sb: #211414-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Bob Johnson 71555,1247 Type the following: ARCE arcfile [members] /P > PRN to send the output directly to the printer. Been there for a long time. For a full list of what ARCE can do, type ARCE by itself, or read the help file. I have no material interest whatsoever in this controversy. I know Vern and count him as a friend, but since HE'S not making much of anything off of this whole situation, I assure you I'M not. And if I know Vern, he's probably po'd at me for dragging his name through this discussion to begin with. No, the driving force for my side in this thread is solely my personal wellspring of cantankerousness. Ask anyone. There is 1 Reply. #: 211422 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 07:49:06 Sb: #211392-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: George Figge 76656,1563 (X) What makes you say I am "for eliminating" alternatives? I don't claim to be particularly ecstatic over SEA's decision to go to court; but then I don't have to pay their bills, nor they mine. Frankly I wish there were ten different ARC manipulators out there vying for our attention; in fact there used to be some others, in Turbo Pascal and whatnot -- they just didn't survive with support etc. There is 1 Reply. #: 211425 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 08:30:14 Sb: #211238-#SEA/PK/ARC* Fm: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 To: Robert Blacher 72677,3305 (X) As I said, I am not taking sides in this dispute, only making observations. I understand that SEA has said, quite unequivocally, that PK stole code, based on an expert's opinion. This isn't an accusation, and if it were wrong, I should think that PK would have already seeked some redress. Instead, PK is subject to a follow-up suit, whose details I ignore. As for currying favor, again this is an observation based on my own limited experience on a few of the major bbs. It is clear that katz has not appeared here, though he must know that he is welcome & that one of the SEA principals is here. Further, since the tide of opinion was rather pro katz, it can't be for fear of being unwelcome. -er There is 1 Reply. #: 211426 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 08:30:25 Sb: #211292-#SEA/PK/ARC* Fm: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 To: Barry Simon 76004,1664 If someone flatly said that you had copied source, and that this was the basis for a settlement of a suit against you, and this wasn't true, I'm sure that you would either appear personally, and/or retain legal assistance to obtain redress. I can say with certainty, if I were in that position, I should immediately ripost with a statement, and look for a lawyer. -er There is 1 Reply. #: 211431 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 08:42:13 Sb: #211219-#TM Database Fm: Karl Brendel 73307,3101 To: Paul Mayer (GRAB Plus) 70040,645 (X) GO IQUEST, Paul. IQuest is a $ service. The best deal is when you do a trademark search and turn up nothing--that's free. Otherwise, there's a charge for the first "n" hits and another charge for displaying the information found. I think the total runs about $17 per 10(?) hits with displayed information. The info is pretty detailed, tracing from the original publication of the TM through whatever hands it passed and to the present status. Note that the newest registrations are displayed first, so you may not have to look at more than the first bunch found. There is 1 Reply. #: 211432 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 08:48:53 Sb: #211410-PK settlement details Fm: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 To: J F DUNNIGAN 70425,232 I wasn't busting any chops, facts is facts. As a matter of fact when I sent in my check I sent in a subscription kit identical to the one that is purchased from Compuserve, computer stores or other retail outlets along with a letter of invitation and a offer of assistance including my phone number. While I get a limited number of "intro packs" from Compuserve I get the retail version just like any body else would. A $30 kit ain't the end of the world but it's not trivial. I can only assume he got it since the check was included in the same package. It's hard for me to do much more than that. #: 211433 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 08:52:24 Sb: #211421-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Basil Copeland/CRC 74240,1161 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) Fortunately, your "wellspring of cantankerousness" is only about 5 feet deep, otherwise I'd drown in it: I certainly can't swim in it. Like Voltaire said, "I may disagree...but..." I'm still on the sidelines, waiting for the dust to settle. I'm a registered PK user, and don't want to believe he did something unethical. Maybe just stupid or ignorant? (His being boorish, uncouth, arrogant or self-centered would not make me stop using what I consider to be a very "necessary" product.) I'm not sure I like SEA's attitude either. As I noted in my message to Foray (which he has either not seen, not had time to respond, or intends not to respond), I emphasized the strong commitment to the user interest that dominates the pc community. I don't think anyone can flout that interest, and survive. (LOTUS is no exception...it's just taking longer because of its foothold in the Fortune 500, which is not a charter member of the pc community. But even LOTUS is losing its grip...which it was bound to do given its attitude toward the end-user.) -Basil There is 1 Reply. #: 211435 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 09:18:33 Sb: #211401-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Robert Blacher 72677,3305 To: DaveK 76556,2203 (X) I don't really disagree with anything you've said. And, I'm not much interested in separating "good guys" from "bad guys" in the SEA/PKWARE controversy. I am interested in what this means for the future. SEA, by its words and its actions, has made ARC a proprietary compression/storage system. There is some fuzziness about what is and what is not permitted without a license, and what the licensing terms will be. But, the overall proprietary nature of ARC remains and it makes using ARCs on BBS systems a legal minefield. You suggest that, based on Katz's past behavior, his new program will be no different, notwithstanding some recent statements from him to the contrary. You may, alas, be right. We won't know for several months. Dhesi has taken ZOO out of contention with his recent license changes. Cooper has sold DWC to a commercial outfit, taking that program out of contention, too. So, fellow sysops, what are we going to use? There are 2 Replies. #: 211439 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 10:09:37 Sb: #211435-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: DaveK 76556,2203 To: Robert Blacher 72677,3305 (X) Well, here's a suggestion. We have some mighty fine programmers here on CI$ in IBMSW. Why not a group project to develop a new file archiving system that will very clearly be in the public domain? It will benefit all involved, and if CI$ starts changing libraries over to the new format, that might provide some driving force as well. How about it, sysops? Viable idea? Ciao, DaveK There are 2 Replies. #: 211440 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 10:09:49 Sb: #211420-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: DaveK 76556,2203 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 (X) It's really pretty straightforward. We both know enough to look inside a naked .EXE file to see what's what. Even so, something could be cobbled together that would nail the most experienced of sysops. Many sysops and most callers to the BBS systems do not have that level of programming expertise. The potential is frightening. For distribution of software from reputable sources, self-extracting files are fine; you save on space, and don't have to explain the mechanism of unarcing files to a novice. But for this hobby....forget it! Ciao, DaveK #: 211443 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 10:39:01 Sb: #211439-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 To: DaveK 76556,2203 (X) Dave - Absolutely! If the user community wants to move in that direction IBMNET would be willing to provide a development area and any other resources needed. My company would be willing to donate $1,000 for miscellaneous expenses should there be any. The only stipulation would be that the resulting program be free to end users. This is in reference to registration fees. This isn't in reference to the program being distributed by other services, disk vendors or computer clubs. There may not be a good solution to those wishing to distribute the program with a commercial product. I was thinking that those wishing to do so be required to donate some small fee to a charity or otherwise pump something back into the community. And there are lots of details that I'm fuzzy on but I'm sure they could be worked out. If the demand is there we'll meet it. #: 211445 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 10:57:57 Sb: #211425-#SEA/PK/ARC* Fm: Alan Rowberg 76703,4421 To: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 (X) Does Phil know all this? Despite all our just pride in IBMSW, I bet we represent something less than 1% of the world computing community. Are we really worth his time? He is probably up to his ears in lawyers and his new product. I sure would think twice about spending a lot of time here in his circumstances. When being sued, it is usually best to not talk to anyone but your lawyer. There is 1 Reply. #: 211467 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 12:24:45 Sb: #211410-PK settlement details Fm: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 To: J F DUNNIGAN 70425,232 He could used the money he saved from not acknowledging registrations, added to the money he has earned from those registrations. To call cis high priced is really overstating things. If you compare throughput, it is no more expensive than, or very slightly so, than genie, and certainly less expensive than bix. Compuserve provides quite a bang for the buck, and the cost is lower than it was in earlier days. Mr. Katz has no aversion to receive registrations from cis users, nor to be defended by a whole host of them, too. Let's see him here speak his mind! I remember well when philippe kahn spent a lot of time here, in the days when he probably had less money at hand than katz has now. Others, like gibson, newlin, etc. all seemed to have found the way here. Why not katz? -er #: 211478 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 13:45:22 Sb: #211206-PK settlement details Fm: Scott Bussinger 72247,2671 To: Vic Wagner/Metadigm 76046,3004 (X) I think you have that backwards. You can patent algorithms and ideas and get exclusive use of them for a short (well, in computer terms it's actually pretty long) term. Copyrights protect only the _expression_ of the idea, not the idea itself. When you copyright something everyone in the world can use the ideas embodied inside, but they can't just copy the way you expressed it. Patents on the other hand let you say that _nobody_ else can use your idea unless you say so. It doesn't matter if they figured it out on their own or not, if you've patented it -- it's yours. Be seeing you. #: 211480 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 13:55:05 Sb: #211445-#SEA/PK/ARC* Fm: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 To: Alan Rowberg 76703,4421 (X) There are reportedly 15 million pc systems in the states. So, if your figure of 1% is correct, that represents 150,000. Note that many of that number are important decision makers, bbs sysops, software authors, etc. So, their influence is larger than their numbers. I'd guess that a fair number of them have used or are using arc, pkarc or arc*. After all, pc magazine, apparently the largest magazine in the industry only claims 700,000 readers, <5% of pc users. If katz doesn't know about cis, a substantial source for his revenue, then..... -er There is 1 Reply. #: 211482 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 14:06:10 Sb: #211433-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Basil Copeland/CRC 74240,1161 (X) Granted SEA didn't do too much in the way of improvement, including speed increases they definitely could have used. However, it has to be said that in an area as sensitive as file *archiving*, too much "improvement" activity is not a good thing. The greatest single thing about the ARC standard is that it's stable now. ARCE.COM et al may not be glamorous, but it's not their JOB to be glamorous. They should just keep plugging along, while obsoleting the minimum amount of installed user software along the way. Can you imagine what chaos would result if dozens of fertile programmer minds were constantly at work churning out a new compression algorithm once a month on the average? The squashing donnybrook would look like a tea party by comparison. #: 211484 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 14:13:37 Sb: #211435-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: Robert Blacher 72677,3305 (X) How about ARC? The settlement doesn't appear to claim that the ARC format is proprietary, only that the ARC program name is trademarked. The other stuff seems specific to their problems with Katz, which have nothing to do with you and me. We know there are other programs out there and Foray has said they're welcome to continue. Where one would appear to get in trouble is if one goes commercial with a program whose name mimics ARC, and/or whose code is taken from ARC. I don't see that as affecting the BBS/user community. Responsible sysops will separate the sentimental "awwww they sued my hero Phil!" reaction from the factual consequences of these recent events. The users come first, the ARC format meets their needs and I'm sure someone will fill Phil's niche in time, to the extent that Vern's and others' fine stuff doesn't already. There is 1 Reply. #: 211485 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 14:15:24 Sb: #211439-#PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Neff 76556,2536 To: DaveK 76556,2203 (X) Actually Rahul's format is in the PD if it comes to that. All that isn't is version 2.01 of his main 'zoo' program, which carries some damfool distribution restrictions essentially designed to freeze CIS out. There is 1 Reply. #: 211490 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 14:37:08 Sb: #210766-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: David Bennett 74635,1671 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 Tom, - Self-Extractors: I think were missing the real purpose of self-extractors here. A self-extracing archive meant to be used by someone who does not have an external ARC extraction program available. I.E. Not people who regularly download from online services. I think the real purpose was for developers to be able to provide more bytes per medium than available on the standard 360K format disks. I believe the PK documentation references to this but I'm not positive on that. Dave Bennett #: 211491 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 14:37:16 Sb: #210772-PK settlement details Fm: David Bennett 74635,1671 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 I would like to see more applications support the ARC standard... It would be nice if todays applications had the ability to read/write directly into compressed files. And ARC is a standard... You don't see Ward Christensen slapping law suits on people who use the XMODEM standard (Knock on wood... But I think Ward accepts XMODEM for what it has become) Dave Bennett #: 211500 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 16:21:04 Sb: #211485-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Robert Blacher 72677,3305 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 As best I understand it (and, lord knows, Rahul hasn't made this easy), the ZOO format is no more public domain than is ARC (according to SEA, at least). Versions of ZOO.EXE *prior* to 2.x are public domain, as are LOOZ (the extractor) and other assorted utils, but he has not relinquished whatever rights he may have to the format. I can't see trading one hornet's nest of legal complications for another. I think Rahul's actions are unwise, at best, and you've seen the messages I wrote to him on USENET on this subject. But, it's his program and he can do what he wishes. It is, however, the online community that has to choose a new compression system, if that becomes necessary, and my own view is that Rahul has taken ZOO out of the running. #: 211501 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 16:21:25 Sb: #211484-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Robert Blacher 72677,3305 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 I guess we just disagree, Tom. In my view, SEA has made it quite clear that it believes it owns ARC lock, stock and barrel. Those ownership claims extend to the name (trademarked), the code (copyrighted) and even the format (a dubious copyright claim, but nonetheless it has been asserted here by SEA's representatives). In any event, in the real world you can't separate the code from the format. Anyone who wants to write an ARChive utility will need to consults SEA's code as it's the only documentation that exists of the format. Even if they don't do that, short of developing their code in a "clean room", they expose themselves to claims from SEA. Vern's ARC utilities are fine. But, they're not the whole story. My BBS, PCBoard, has a built-in ARCV function (ironically, it uses QuickBasic ARCV code that Vern made available for free). PCBoard is commercial, not shareware. Must the authors seek a license from SEA? The board also runs various DOOR programs that extract files from archives, read files in archives, and (soon) will build archives of new mail. All of this is done internally, not shelling out to ARCA/ARCE, etc. The code is written in Turbo Pascal and the DOOR programs are shareware. Must those authors seek a license from SEA? The fact that there are questions, not answers, in this message is the reason why continued use of ARCs by BBS systems is in jeopardy. Press for more : #: 211506 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 17:18:49 Sb: #PK Response to SEA Fm: JOHN BOYD 75076,2466 To: ALL The file SEAPKX.ARC has been uploaded containing messages related to Phil Katz's response to SEA. The following message from Phil Katz to Jim Dunnigan is a direct quote (with Mr. Katz's permission) to a message left by Mr.Foray on Sept 7: f: PHIL KATZ t: JIM DUNNIGAN (Rcvd) s: R: SEA RESPONDS cc: NICK KEES Jim, Holy cow! If Nick says it is OK, please post the following response to that message: 1) SEA has FOUR full-time employees. Until yesterday (9/9) PKWARE had only two full-time employees and two part-time employees, both who had other full-time jobs. On Friday 9/9 my mother now works full-time for PKWARE, making it 3 full-time people, including myself. The remaining part-time person is my sister, by the way. Since the assets and holdings of either company were never disclosed, claiming that PKWARE is larger than SEA is totally ludicrous. SEA has more products, including at least two commercial products, namely AXE and SEADOG, too. 2) It was the joint consensus of both parties as to what portions of the agreement were confidential. I did not instruct my attorney that it was the desire of myself or PKWARE that ANY portion of the agreement be confidential. 3) We did not steal their code. As the public Consent Judgment document, signed by both parties, says, PKWARE did not admit to ANY fault or wrongdoing. I certainly did not admit to stealing their code under oath as Mr. Foray claims either. >Phil> Press for more : There is 1 Reply. #: 211512 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 17:45:27 Sb: #211431-TM Database Fm: Paul Mayer (GRAB Plus) 70040,645 To: Karl Brendel 73307,3101 Thank on the IQUEST info, I just wanted to check on the status of my application. - Paul #: 211513 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 17:56:09 Sb: #211417-#PK settlement details Fm: Ed Fitzgerald 72447,1631 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 It might be helpful to us all if you'd hold back your fingers for at least as long as it takes to read your messages before you respond to them. 1) My first message to you: SEA bundles ARC-E with ARC 2) Your response: Is the "e" function removed from ARC? 3) My response: I didn't check, but SEA's docs say to use ARC for creation and ARC-E for extraction, which implies that the "e" function was removed, but says outright that SEA wants you to use ARC-E. Thata's all the information I have. I don't have a copy of ARC522 here because I was not interested in using it once I found out it had no improvements to offer. If you are that interested in finding out whether SEA removed the "e" function I suggest you download a copy of 5.22 and check it out yourself. I'm certainly not going to that expense simply to satisfy *your* curiosity. Have a nice day. There is 1 Reply. #: 211521 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 18:38:59 Sb: #211506-PK Response to SEA Fm: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 To: JOHN BOYD 75076,2466 John - Thanks for the file. It'll be just a bit before it's available while we secure the ok from those participating in it. #: 211526 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 18:58:18 Sb: #211332-#ethics Fm: michael shapiro 71450,2771 To: Dave Hoagland 70007,3352 (X) I also have 4 meg ems and desqview. What you say is interesting. Does PE support ems? I didn't know that. Does WP. I know shell does for task switching, but not for running programs in. It really wouldn't help me with knowledge pro though since everything has to be run in their shell which doesn't support ems anyway. I will check further into this. When you say don't sell PE short I get confused. Either one who wants to do professional quality programming needs a more powerful editor or one doesn't. Mike There is 1 Reply. #: 211527 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 18:58:25 Sb: #211346-ethics Fm: michael shapiro 71450,2771 To: Pete Peterson (WPCorp) 72067,3552 (X) Right, It is an advantage to be able to create your own editor. I bet a lot of features for coding have been added in the office. It would be nice to be able to macroon the ctrl key, in WP as well. It is also a shame that so many of the one letter shell macros are taken by the shell. Mike #: 211529 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 19:00:44 Sb: #211270-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Clark 70320,346 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 Tom, I am a registered user of both ARC and PKWARE utilities. I've also used Vern's ARCA and ARCE public domain utilities. Perhaps a little bit of my personal history in using these utilities would be of interest to you and others. First (many years ago) I was an ARC user and thus registered with SEAWARE. I liked the SEAWARE program because it gave me lots of options, many of which I used heavily, eg, deleting members, replacing members, encrypting members, adding new members. The only thing that bothered me was the speed since I used ARC very often. Along came Vern's programs and the PKWARE programs (I know not what came first). The thing I liked about both was the dramatic increase in speed. I used both interchangeably for a year or so. However, I found myself gravitating more and more to the PKWARE programs (I also sent PK my registration fee) because of the flexibility they gave me in building and maintaining ARC files. The only SEAWARE option that I missed was the password encryption capability. Thus I kept ARC on my hard disk for only that purpose. I dreamt of being able to delete ARC altogether since I thought it to be very crude (from a speed perspective). One day, to my joy, the PKWARE programs added password encryption. Within a Press for more : matter of days, I deleted ARC forever from my hard disk. PKWARE programs now had all that was important to me. However, I still had ARCA, ARCE, and ARCV around. About 3 months ago, I decided to delete even those three because they were superfluous. However, to allow me to continue using these program names, I replaced them with 3 batch files that simply invoked the PKWARE programs to do equivalent things. Thus, to me, the PKWARE programs were necessary. They were acceptably fast (I thought Vern's utilities were also acceptably fast). They also gave the ARC maintenance functions that Vern's did not give me. In addition, they were constantly being improved. Thus, although I never received any improvements to the ARC program, I did receive improvements to the PKWARE programs. More in next msg ... #: 211531 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 19:04:34 Sb: #211270-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Tom Clark 70320,346 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 The intent of this message is simply to state that, to one user, the PKWARE programs were necessary. Perhaps the functionality of PKWARE was unnecessary for 90% of the users of ARC files. For me however, they are crucial to my day to day work. I will be forever grateful to Phil Katz for his efforts and for the many hours that the PKWARE utilities have saved me. Tom Clark #: 211539 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 19:34:10 Sb: #211513-#PK settlement details Fm: Robert Blacher 72677,3305 To: Ed Fitzgerald 72447,1631 (X) ARC 5.22, the latest version of SEA's ARC, still has the "extract" function and even extracts "squashed" files (though Henderson never uses the word "squashed" anywhere in the documentation). You'd just have to be crazy to use ARC for that purpose as both PKUNPAK (PKXARC) & ARCE do it *sooooo* much faster. There are 2 Replies. #: 211543 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 19:50:14 Sb: #211422-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: George Figge 76656,1563 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 Gee, I don't know why you suddenly got reasonable. We had a good thread going there. Sorry if I mistakenly read into your messages that you were pleased with the results of the court settlement. #: 211554 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 20:59:20 Sb: #211539-#PK settlement details Fm: Charles Hart 72755,500 To: Robert Blacher 72677,3305 (X) Faster, yes. Why, no one has really explained. I have heard about the CI86 (or something) compiler SEA used, but I fail to understand how the compiler could possibly make that much difference in the speed. What *else* changed. Understand, I know PK* is faster. I just don't understand some of the timings (replicated here, naturally) that indicate better that 10 to one speed increase in some cases. Faster C libraries alone can not explain this, I think.... There is 1 Reply. #: 211568 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 21:36:11 Sb: #211139-#PK settlement details Fm: Mark A. Young 71340,276 To: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 (X) When I registered with PKware, I sent in the amount that included, free, the next release of PKARC/PKXARC. I got a "thank you" letter and a disk! That was certainly better than the reception I got from a certain modem program I registered, whose author is _not_ on CompuServe, which registration fee included 1 year of access to his board (which got cut short without explanation), which supposibly included support on a competing service (where my questions on his product weren't answered), and no receipt of any kind! There is 1 Reply. #: 211569 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 21:36:26 Sb: #211207-PK settlement details Fm: Mark A. Young 71340,276 To: Jeff Green 73240,1042 The information I gleaned from EXEC-PC is that Phil Katz and others are working on a new archiving standard. The file format and algorithms will be published and released to Public Domain. The exact reason Phil gave for this was to allow programmers to be able to write archive-processors without the fear of the threat of a lawsuit. Apparently they are working on both a command-line version and a menu-driven version of the programs. They think that they will have a program that is faster than the current series of programs and produces tighter archives. ("It is amazing what one can do when starting from a clean sheet of paper.") #: 211570 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 21:36:39 Sb: #210955-PK settlement details Fm: Mark A. Young 71340,276 To: Scott Bussinger 72247,2671 (X) You are right that an algorithm (an idea) cannot be copyrighted. But code (an expression) can be. (Copyright law deals with _expressions_, not _ideas_.) At one point a person claiming to be a lawyer for SEA (though not on the SEA vs. PKware case) stated that one of the formal complaints was that PK _had_ copied some of SEA's code (i.e., an aledged copyright violation). The lawyer did not specifically say if it was determined if that was actually the case. #: 211571 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 21:36:51 Sb: #211225-SEA/PK Fm: Mark A. Young 71340,276 To: John Wilson 76414,624 >> Gotta give SEA credit, they gave us something >> to talk about in the dog days of summer! Do you think it was a conspiracy to increase our usage of CompoundSpending, err, CompuServe? :-) #: 211572 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 21:37:06 Sb: #210688-PK* Was Never Necessary! Fm: Mark A. Young 71340,276 To: Tom Neff 76556,2536 I know this isn't relevant, but if you allow me to ramble anyway... When I first came across PKARC/PKXARC, I thought, "This is crazy! A product with the same look and feel as another product? I wonder how he keeps himself from being sued?" It was rather blatant in the document file that PKARC/PKXARC was a plug-compatible version of SEA's ARC. (I guess this was around the time that Lotus was first making waves on suing over look-and-feel issues.) When the suit came, I was surprised and sorry. Emotionally, I am with Phil, but morally I just don't know. ... end of rambling. #: 211576 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 21:52:48 Sb: #211526-ethics Fm: Dave Hoagland 70007,3352 To: michael shapiro 71450,2771 Michael...Every tool has tasks at which it excels, and others at which it's not as capable. PE is no different...it can handle control characters very easily and cleanly as well as files of virtually unlimited size, but at the same time is slower than many other editors and only permits having two files open at any one time. Unfortunately it's not a completely black and white situation of one editor being clearly the "best", any more than one computer can be concluded to be "best". That's why I use Kedit for some tasks and PE for others. It all depends on the task and which one handles the job at hand best... PE doesn't utilize EMS directly. It handles large files by opening a "window" to the disk file, loading only a portion of a large file into memory at any given time. Kedit, OTOH, utilizes EMS for loading large files (and since the file is completely contained in RAM performs operations far faster than PE) but is constrained in maximum file size by the amount of EMS available. PE is very nice for manipulating text, since it's structure and functions are quite similar to WP itself... BTW, WordPerfect *will* utilize EMS memory...all you need do is invoke the "/r" switch when loading WP. ...DaveH #: 211577 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 21:56:45 Sb: #211480-SEA/PK/ARC* Fm: Alan Rowberg 76703,4421 To: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 I think CIS only claims about 300,000 subscribers. Suppose 10% log onto IBMSW once a month. That's 30,000. Now extend their sphere of influence and we get up to the 1% of Phil's total domestic market. Now add the international folks, and we look even smaller. Phil surely knows about CIS, but may not know there is a debate raging. Sure, I would love to see Phil here, but am not sure he is unwise when he is not. #: 211587 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 22:47:55 Sb: #210720-ethics Fm: Will Lenton 73310,1671 To: Jeff Green 73240,1042 Yes, that helps a lot! Thanks! I completely agree with your approach, and will use it as much as I can (right now, with these friends) and will certainly use it later (when I have "real" clients). I sure appreciate the help! Will exit #: 211588 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 22:51:20 Sb: #210722-ethics Fm: Will Lenton 73310,1671 To: J. W. Rider 72426,1640 Gee, thanks for helping me feel better! (I do.) I agree, and will advise him so... I have a feeling it is his intention to buy his own software when he opens his new practice, and this is just " (oops) interim"... but still, now is the perfect time for him to learn the value of "being legit" right from the start. (And it has been a good chance for me to do some housekeeping and soulsearching--and to get answers from people I trust!) Thanks again! Will #: 211590 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 23:03:00 Sb: #211554-PK settlement details Fm: Mark A. Young 71340,276 To: Charles Hart 72755,500 Charles, Phil used a faster C, and the I/O routines _do_ make a major impact on extraction and compression speed! In particular, performing I/O on a la rge chunk of data (e.g., 60k) gets a whole lot more throughput than I/O on a byte at a time--the larger I/O chunks have to go through MolaSsis-DOS fewer times to process the entire file! Now any C library that efficiently implements that _will_ be faster. Also, Phil has taken special efforts to optimize his assembler code for inner loops in the compression/extraction algorithms. #: 211595 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 23:09:39 Sb: #211426-SEA/PK/ARC* Fm: Roger Schlafly 76067,511 To: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 Earle, please read message #211506. Katz has flatly denied most of what Foray says. At least one of them is a big liar. Please don't assume somewhat is guilty just because they don't file lawsuits. Roger #: 211600 S9/Hot Topic [S] 12-Sep-88 23:23:44 Sb: #211568-PK settlement details Fm: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 To: Mark A. Young 71340,276 Mark - Glad to hear things have changed at least in one area and sorry to hear about the other. Some of us just gotta have that paper! #: 211614 S9/Hot Topic [S] 13-Sep-88 00:35:52 Sb: #211539-PK settlement details Fm: Ed Fitzgerald 72447,1631 To: Robert Blacher 72677,3305 Thanks for the clarification. You'd think since they *tell* you to use ARC-E they would have made ARC a little smaller by removing the "e" function. Messages !Would you like current settings to apply to this Session only, or to be Permanent? Enter S or P, or H for help: Enter S or P, or H for help: