#: 18036 S6/File Utilities [S] 23-Feb-89 06:16:23 Sb: #17632-New PKZ/2ZIP Fm: David C. Frier 76314,207 To: Steve Souza 76703,633 Steve: If a fee is requested, that is not free. It's just an ambiguous way to word the shareware license. Sigh. ZOO, anyone? --David #: 17679 S9/Hot Topic [S] 21-Feb-89 20:52:46 Sb: #17453-New PKZIP Fm: Steven Stern 70007,3543 To: Irv Hoff 76701,117 (X) We go one step further. Each diskette has a distribution file (still ARC, but I'm considering .ZIP), arc-e.com, and an install.bat file that runs arc-e. Our users know that whatever we give them, and whatever formats are involoved, they can get by with "A:INSTALL". #: 18150 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 17:25:21 Sb: #17285-New PKZIP Fm: Allen McCreary 72451,2657 To: John Wexler 71360,3070 Did you ever run across an EXE file and wonder what it was, then after running it you end up with 30 files sitting in you rsubdirectory where at first there were 10?. Why couldn't the VIEW or LIST part of the PK programs allow you to SEE if there are files in the self extracing archive? #: 17748 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 02:04:50 Sb: #17611-#New PKZIP Fm: Irv Hoff 76701,117 To: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 (X) I would like to think that every file uploaded to my BBS is already the smallest "it can be" for the type of file it is. That is, if an .ARC file I assume it's been generated with PKPAK so it can have the option of using "squashed" if that would be beneficial for any of the contents. If a .ZIP file, I'd like to think the person used -ea4 -eb4 and not -a. Although it takes longer, I prefer the smaller space over the extra time. I did notice that it usually takes about 2.7 times longer to use PKZIP level 4, than PKPAK. That sounds worse than it seems to be, though. a typical group of files around 200k usually makes a .ZIP file around 75k or less. That would be the difference (on my system anyway) between about 6 seconds and 16 seconds. Another 10 seconds isn't really all that annoying, to me, anyway. For awhile, I'll likely dismantle every such .ZIP file and then rebuild it, to make sure it's as compact "as it can be"... * Reply: 17798 #: 17798 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 08:21:05 Sb: #17748-#New PKZIP Fm: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 To: Irv Hoff 76701,117 (X) I'm wondering, do you think there's a need for a program that will automatically Un-ZIP a file, then test several choices to see what gives the best compression, then ZIP it back up with that "best" choice? I have a head start on such a program since I've been automatically using my COMPRESS.NW5 routines to test out all ZIP permutations. It wouldn't be much of a chore to create such a program. The reason why such a program is likely to produce better results is that a higher compression choice does not necessarily result in higher compression! If you look at the COMPRESS.NW5 tables, you'll see that in 2 of the 3 ASCII files tested, a simple "-a" wound up better than any of the "-ean" choices. Anybody who wanted to use this kind of brute-force program would have to be patient. There would have to be at least a few test ZIPS, followed by one final one. * Reply: 17861 #: 17861 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 13:32:17 Sb: #17798-#New PKZIP Fm: Irv Hoff 76701,117 To: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 (X) My opinion would be that PKZIP should be able to evaluate a program (better than it does now) to more correctly evaluate what compression method (of those it has available) would be best. It should not be necessary to have to try several, and then select the best results. That could chew up quite a bit of disk space, and very obviously a LOT of extra time. I recall there were some programs (most dBASEII types) where ARC-A would make a smaller file (by an impressive amount) than PKPAK. Or PKPAK itself would be smaller if you turned off the "squashed" option on those. I always thought it was a fairly dumb program that couldn't pick the best algorithm itself - computer programs should be written to be smarter than the operator using them, in my judgement. But since those features are not currently incorporated, I can say that from my limited experience in using PKZIP the past few days, it appears that about 10-15% of the time keeping a .ARC file is better than anything offered by .ZIP, although such small advantage as to be totally overweighed by the advantages elsewehre offered by .ZIP - that in general you get an overall gain of 12-17% by using -ea4 -eb4 and forget that .ZIP has any other options. Now when I did (that limited experiment with the 60 .ARC files already on my private system) I found that roughly 40% of the time the shorter file was with -e4. I never tried "-a" since that is purportedly level 2. After reading his literature, you would assume that would NEVER be best with regard to best compression. I did try all 4 on some previous results and as I (now) recall, level 4 was always resulted in the smallest version, but some question as to whether -e4 or -ea4 -eb4 was smallest. I can summarize by saying that -ea4 -eb4 produced results (on that one limited test that I feel was fairly representative) that it was about 20k shorter (out of 4 Mb) than using only -e4 ... I don't feel currently, that's worth all the extra time in trying "both methods, then selecting the best" (except of course in your case where you are demonstrating the various methods available.) My (current) opinion. * Reply: 17897 #: 17897 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 16:05:39 Sb: #17861-#New PKZIP Fm: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 To: Irv Hoff 76701,117 (X) One inaccuracy in your message (or maybe just a typo): -a is not equivalent to level 2 ASCII compression; it is equivalent to no additional compression. The option -ea IS equivalent to level 2 compression of ASCII files. * Reply: 17918 #: 17918 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 19:12:42 Sb: #17897-#New PKZIP Fm: Kelly Stanonik [EDTECH] 75170,14 To: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 (X) -a is the PKZIP add command. Since PKZIP defaults to -ea2 -eb2, -a by itself should default to level 2 ASCII compression. * Kelly * Replies: 17929, 18027, 18055 #: 17929 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 19:43:05 Sb: #17918-#New PKZIP Fm: Bob Blacher 72677,3305 To: Kelly Stanonik [EDTECH] 75170,14 (X) PKZIP does *not* default to -ea2 -eb2. It defaults to using the shrink algorithm only. -ea2 -eb2 means use level 2 of the reduction algorithm (level 4 being the "highest"). * Reply: 18090 #: 18090 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 11:32:48 Sb: #17929-New PKZIP Fm: Kelly Stanonik [EDTECH] 75170,14 To: Bob Blacher 72677,3305 (X) Wow, I must have read that somewhere in a beta document or something--You're right, it _doesn't_ default to ea2 eb2. Wow, that's kind of interesting. Thanks for setting me straight. * Kelly #: 18027 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 04:39:46 Sb: #17918-New PKZIP Fm: Irv Hoff 76701,117 To: Kelly Stanonik [EDTECH] 75170,14 (X) That's the way I also read it... Bob doesn't seem to interpret it that way. At least that's what I read in the beta test .DOC file. Can't find it in the MANUAL.DOC, so far, but it's pretty late at night... #: 18055 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 08:02:10 Sb: #17918-New PKZIP Fm: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 To: Kelly Stanonik [EDTECH] 75170,14 (X) You are under a mis-impression. -a does NOT default to -ea2 -eb2. What does default to -ea2 -eb2 is the expression -ea -eb. PKZIP has 5 levels of compression, not 4. There are 4 EXTRA (hence the -e option) levels of compression. The simple -a expression simply means NO EXTRA compression. #: 17750 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 02:05:33 Sb: #17611-New PKZIP Fm: Irv Hoff 76701,117 To: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 (X) You were commenting on how PKPAK was faster than PKZIP. We never doubted that, but here are some figures for you. I ran four files through both PKPAK and PKZIP. The latter used -ea4 -eb4 for maximum compression. Two were primarily .DOC files and two were primarily .EXE files. Hopefully these will be fairly representative of other files you might have on your system, to convert: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2.7x TLX311-1 346711 223689 13.07 182745 35.68 .EXE 2.8x TLX310-2 201084 86868 7.73 82107 21.66 .DOC 2.6x TLX310-3 194757 79986 6.33 69879 16.61 .DOC 2.3x TAPCIS52 284993 173144 10.34 143068 23.60 .EXE 1) Extra time PKZIP level 4 takes over PKPAK 2) Program name 3) Total length of uncompressed files to be archived 4) Length of PKPAK .ARC file 5) Time PKPAK used 6) Length of PKZIP .ZIP file 7) Time PKZIP used 8) Major file in group Although PKZIP (level 4) is basically about 2.6 times slower than PKPAK, the differences on even relatively lengthy files is still small enough to be of limited importance, perhaps. #: 17756 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 02:06:57 Sb: #17565-#New PKZIP Fm: Irv Hoff 76701,117 To: Dave Hoagland 70007,3352 (X) Isn't that counterproductive? * Reply: 17825 #: 17825 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 10:43:38 Sb: #17756-#New PKZIP Fm: Dave Hoagland 70007,3352 To: Irv Hoff 76701,117 (X) I'm not sure what you mean by "counterproductive". If you define openly giving the user an option of paying or not as being counterproductive, then I'd say to a degree yes, I suppose so. However, I strongly suspect that whether an individual registers a shareware program depends more on the individual than whether the registration fee is requested or demanded... In fact, I suspect there may be some people that would be more likely to respond favorably to a request than a demand. It used to be fairly common to find shareware where a contribution, or registration cost, or "gift", or whatever, was voluntary. Judging from the wording of the PKZIP manual, it appears that such is the situation with PKZIP... Another program that is of the same genre as I feel is PKZIP (although I must admit that Vern's statement is far more explicit than Phil's) is LIST. It's clearly permissible to use LIST indefinitely without payment, although it's also stated that a "gift of $15, or any amount, would be greatly appreciated". Note that this not only did not preclude my payment for LIST, I've paid for the program more than once since Vern puts so much effort into upgrades. And, I must admit, much more "happily" than if there was a curt demand for payment. ...DaveH * Reply: 17862 #: 17862 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 13:36:54 Sb: #17825-New PKZIP Fm: Irv Hoff 76701,117 To: Dave Hoagland 70007,3352 (X) My term "counterproductive" had to do with your analysis in that particularl message, of how Katz was talking about registering the program and sending in the $25 (or $47 if you wanted the full treatment) and then turning around and sayin you could use it for free indefintely. (Indicating that you were supposed to pay, but didn't need to.) #: 17772 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 02:52:10 Sb: #17529-#New PKZIP Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: Ronald D. Hester 76615,1564 (X) It **is** a shareware request. There is a sense in which the payment is voluntary but as with any other shareware, if you use it, you should pay for it. It certainly ain't free. - Barry * Reply: 17784 #: 17784 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 06:47:27 Sb: #17772-#New PKZIP Fm: Ronald D. Hester 76615,1564 To: Barry Simon 76004,1664 (X) Barry, What I was trying to do was elicit that admission from others. Either it's free, or it isn't. You'll recall that many have written here that objections to being forced to buy the thing are invalid because it's free. We all understand the difference between "free", you have no obligation to pay if you don't feel like it (even if you are invited to contribute should you wish to reward towering human endeavor), and "free", you're an immoral pig if you don't pay but the police power of the state won't be employed to compel you. Yet most respondents in this thread are hopelessly blurring the two. Dave Hoagland, a wise, nice, and helpful guy, writes as if complaints about being forced to buy are unfounded, since it's free, yet his notes subtlely convey his disdain for the malodorous freeloader. I'd go further. I submit to you that the concept of a "trial period" with a package such as PkUnZip is ludicrous. We know it works. We, the innocent victims of BBS operator zealotry, wish to employ it NOT to try it out before purchase, but because we want to unzip things of interest to us, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Katz package or our interest in it. Given these conditions, in my opionion, one may be faulted for EVER using it without paying, beyond a simple check to see whether the load module has been corrupted. Mr. Simon, citizen AND ASP President, don't you think this little incident raises some important issues about the whole messy area of ShareWare? Particularly as regards the exegesis required in order to arrive at a conclusion in particular cases where your member insists on varying things just enough to blur things. I'd recommend to you that your organization arrive at some definitive boilerplate, and promulgate the idea that unless that formulation is adhered to, WITHOUT QUALIFICATION THAT MAY VITIATE, the thing isn't ShareWare, and the public is entitled to act in any way it pleases so far as payment goes. Ronald D. Hester Writing On Principle, no need to send me any $25s to help restore my honor. * Replies: 17880, 17881 #: 17880 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 15:24:44 Sb: #17784-New PKZIP Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: Ronald D. Hester 76615,1564 (X) Actually, I'm not so concerned about the difference between "free" - only send money if you want to - and "free" - your not a nice person if you don't send money. I'm concerned about "free" in the sense that I thought the word was intended: it don't cost anything. - Barry (speaking as an individual) #: 17881 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 15:25:00 Sb: #17784-New PKZIP Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: Ronald D. Hester 76615,1564 (X) Sorry to take two slots but since you address me as ASP President, I'd better answer you as such in a separate messsge: One of my first actions as ASP President was to appoint a Constitutional Issues Committee to deal with both internal subjects and requirements for authors to do things like trying to figure out what it means when ASP says that shareware programs by ASP authors aren't crippled. After the discussions here, one of the things that I did is tell the CIC that they will have to look into the question of what ASP policy should be on registration statements. Their plate is rather full so I think that it will be some months before they turn to this issue and after them the board and membership will need to discuss the matter so a resolution will take some time but, yes, I "think this little incident raises some important issues about the whole area of Shareware" (note that I dropped the word messy because while the issue is messy, shareware isn't - I also spell it Shareware - only Brown Bag spells it ShareWare although it is the same thing!). Barry Simon ASP President #: 17764 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 02:50:22 Sb: #17573-#New PKZIP Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: Kelly Stanonik [EDTECH] 75170,14 (X) But Phil has spoken - its not a free program if he requests a payment, even a voluntary one. - Barry * Replies: 17831, 17863 #: 17831 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 11:06:01 Sb: #17764-#New PKZIP Fm: Kelly Stanonik [EDTECH] 75170,14 To: Barry Simon 76004,1664 (X) I disagree with you. Vern Buerg requests a donation of $15 for LIST if you really want to send it, but LIST is considered a free program. In any case, the wording of the agreement is clear--the user is not _bound_ to pay the registration. As far as I'm concerned, that kills your argument that people will be "forced to pay" a registration fee. * Kelly * Replies: 17864, 17910 #: 17864 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 13:44:45 Sb: #17831-#New PKZIP Fm: Irv Hoff 76701,117 To: Kelly Stanonik [EDTECH] 75170,14 (X) Not being "bound" to do something and being under "no obligation" are two quite different things in my book. To me a free program does not solicit funds in any manner. And does not include any address to send such funds to.... From there on out you get varying degrees of "obligation" up to buying it commercially in a store... * Reply: 17869 #: 17869 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 14:18:58 Sb: #17864-#New PKZIP Fm: Kelly Stanonik [EDTECH] 75170,14 To: Irv Hoff 76701,117 (X) Ok, "no legal obligation". #: 17910 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 17:57:55 Sb: #17831-New PKZIP Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: Kelly Stanonik [EDTECH] 75170,14 (X) Gee - I don't think of LIST as free. Last time I looked $15<>$0. - Barry #: 17863 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 13:42:57 Sb: #17764-#New PKZIP Fm: Irv Hoff 76701,117 To: Barry Simon 76004,1664 (X) How can you request a voluntary payment, unless no mention of any "suggsted amount" is included? Granted, "free" to me, means there is no mentioned of money at any time, voluntary or otherwise. That if ANY mention of money is made (other than don't send me any and I am no giving you any address as I don't expect/want your money) that it "ain't free", then. Which is why I've never included my address in an program I have ever published/distributed. That does not indicate the program is public domain, although about half were so specified, and in those cases the source code normally included. In a few cases the source code was included, but I still retained copyright (and see where somebody just upgraded one of them, with his name on it, regardless), etc. * Reply: 17912 #: 17912 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 17:58:13 Sb: #17863-#New PKZIP Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: Irv Hoff 76701,117 (X) Well Ctrlalt has an address and we make it clear we want to money. We've gotten maybe 10 checks and each has been returned with a friendly note saying to save up for CA+ when it finally appears. If you ask for a voluntary payment, it ain't free? At least not to me. - Barry * Reply: 18094 #: 18094 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 11:39:58 Sb: #17912-#New PKZIP Fm: Bill Gordon 76010,3466 To: Barry Simon 76004,1664 (X) I was about to register Ctrlalt when I saw your message. I should wait for CA+ before registering, then? If so, I can use Ctrlalt in the meantime with a clear conscience? -bg * Reply: 18117 #: 18117 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 13:10:24 Sb: #18094-#New PKZIP Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: Bill Gordon 76010,3466 (X) If you look at what it says in the CA docs, registration is a postcard - no money. We'd like to have the postcard but we'll forgive you if you don't send it. - Barry * Reply: 18154 #: 18154 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 17:30:15 Sb: #18117-New PKZIP Fm: Ted Matsumura (Borland) 76117,3146 To: Barry Simon 76004,1664 Barry, Ctrlalt is a great program! I've now got it in my autoexec.bat file and use it constantly, mainly the ctrl-alt-c, and sometimes the ctrl-alt-s. From a brief look at the docs, there are probably more features that I'll be using soon like the ^@F9 hang insurance. I'll register it tonight. I would right now, but I can't find any postcards! Thanks. Ted #: 17757 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 02:07:21 Sb: #17523-#New PKZIP Fm: Irv Hoff 76701,117 To: Dave Hoagland 70007,3352 (X) The ambiguous way that area is worded does not alter my conviction that Phil should, for P.R. reasons among other, put out a totall free, no strings attached, simplified version of PKUNZIP. That would take all the stigma off "you really are supposed to pay for that PKZ090 program he says you can use for free indefinitely if not a commercial user." That still sort of leaves a bitter taste in many people's taste buds. A totally, uninhibited free UNZIP version is going to be written by SOMEBODY, and in the reasonably near future, so I phoned Phil today (did not get to talk with him of course as it was just after lunch Milwaukee time and he is rarely in before 4:30 or 5:00 pm.) But I told Dave Siebbenaller that Phil should seriously consider putting out such a free, minimum-capability program that is adequate to unpack any .ZIP file. That would totally remove any complaints I have heard so far of having the .ZIP files rammed down anybody's throats where previously they had only .ARC files to choose between. That since SOMEBODY would soon have such a program, might as well be Phil getting the credit and at the same time creating an atomosphere where the typical user would be more inclined to then get the complete package and feel more like paying for it, than being coerced into using a proprietary program for which he is expected to pay. Be interesting to see if anything comes of the phone call. I did talk with a person very interested in compression programs who knows Phil reasonably well and he said "Phil could care less about P.R. and will not put out a free program like that, himself. That if you want to use his PKZ090 without paying for it, it would not upset him at all. * Reply: 17826 #: 17826 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 10:43:56 Sb: #17757-#New PKZIP Fm: Dave Hoagland 70007,3352 To: Irv Hoff 76701,117 (X) Irv...I agree that an UNZIP with the same wording as Vern's ARC-E would make matters far clearer, but I still feel that unless PK issues a statement indicating otherwise, that the statement in PKZIP indicates that "registration" or "contribution" is voluntary, despite having a price attached, much as is Vern's LIST (as I mentioned in a previous message). My interest in pursuing the topic is that I believe that if one is to make a decision on whether the ZIP format is to be utilized based on whether or not there's a utility that can be used on a no-cost basis (payment is not *demanded) to "UNZIP" files, that Phil is covered. I feel there is such a utility - PKZIP - and to lock out ZIP from usage someplace on the basis that one *must* pay for *any* utility to unzip files would be inappropriate. Your point on PR, however, is quite well taken. I certainly hope that Phil is following the discussions, and does opt to release a "Plain Jane" unzip utility with *no price specified in any way, shape, or form*. ...DaveH * Reply: 17865 #: 17865 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 13:51:27 Sb: #17826-#New PKZIP Fm: Irv Hoff 76701,117 To: Dave Hoagland 70007,3352 (X) Last I heard, Phil no longer has a CIS account? And would not be following "these" discussions at all - but I have put the bug into the ear of several people, already (who do not have ComuServe accounts, but do have accounts on Phil's own BBS) to pass along some of those suggestions, if they feel it would be to everybody's benefit, in particular, Phil's. I agree with Don Watkins' definition of a "free" program, though to UNZIP files. A program where no compensation is expected, anticipated, suggested or mentioned. And in my case, "truly free" means no address included to send money to... (That may be getting a bit "too pure" for some, though...) * Reply: 17920 #: 17920 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 19:13:15 Sb: #17865-#New PKZIP Fm: Kelly Stanonik [EDTECH] 75170,14 To: Irv Hoff 76701,117 (X) I'm afraid I'd have to question folks who aren't even willing to pay 25-50 dollars for a program like PKZIP. All this talk about "There should be a free program" is making me ill. Do people think that they somehow deserve a free lunch? I'll bet that half of the people asking for this free UnZIPper wouldn't even thank the person they got it from. * Kelly ---- Thank you Don Watkins, Thank you Vern Buerg! You've contributed to the public domain and _I_ appreciate it. * Replies: 18010, 18050, 18107 #: 18010 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 02:41:24 Sb: #17920-New PKZIP Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: Kelly Stanonik [EDTECH] 75170,14 (X) I threatened to shut up but your "makes me sick" comment makes me sick. Let me state the situation once more: I've already paid for ARC and PKARC (and the I here stands for LOTs of users). They work fine for me. I've no interest in ZIPS except YOU decide that you'll now package files in ZIPs. Does it really seem unreasonable that I have no desire to purchase a program that I never had any desire to use but I'm forced into by your political agenda. - Barry #: 18050 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 07:42:45 Sb: #17920-#New PKZIP Fm: George Kuzmowycz 76266,2441 To: Kelly Stanonik [EDTECH] 75170,14 (X) OK, question me. I am not interested in paying 25-50 dollars for a program like PKZIP. I currently have programs which perform essentially the same functions for me, but are free. I don't think I'm being a Luddite if I say that the benchmarks I have seen do not appear to indicate sufficient advantage in ZIP to prompt me to want to pay for it. My sole reason for using it would be to conform with the rules of certain BBS'es, even though those rules were imposed without consulting the (paying) membership. I don't think I deserve a free lunch, I am just noting that in the past there have almost invariably _been_ free versions of the necessary utilities. I am not a wealthy man, so I will use something that is free when I have the chance. -gk- * Reply: 18093 #: 18093 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 11:33:44 Sb: #18050-#New PKZIP Fm: Kelly Stanonik [EDTECH] 75170,14 To: George Kuzmowycz 76266,2441 (X) You're right, and that is (of course) your own decision. I'm not saying that a person is bad if they use free software, I'm just saying that it is often the case that a person will use free software without even considering the time and effort that went into bringing it to them. I'm also talking more about generally useful programs like LIST and ARC-E, and ATO than about fairly simple utilities like 2ZIP. (Although I do gratefully accept thanks when it's given [grin]) * Kelly * Reply: 18132 #: 18132 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 15:13:10 Sb: #18093-New PKZIP Fm: George Kuzmowycz 76266,2441 To: Kelly Stanonik [EDTECH] 75170,14 (X) Not a real good comparison. ARCE is explicitly free (it says so in the docs). LIST is not free, and I am not using it under any sort of pressure, expressed or implied, so I have paid for it (it's sure as h**l worth the money, anyway). -gk- #: 18107 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 12:02:36 Sb: #17920-New PKZIP Fm: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 To: Kelly Stanonik [EDTECH] 75170,14 (X) You miss the point: Anyone who has been using arc or pkarc --and, I assume, has registered one or both-- and has his system setup using this system is now faced with a zip, which me may not have asked for or even wish. But, to download from the bbs to which he has paid an annual subscription fee, he is faced with the need to download a big zip package, 20 minutes at least if he only has a 1200 bps modem. Now, he is supposed to pay the author of zip for the privilege of testing some shareware, for which he will also pay if he decides to use it? Further, since the zip package won't run with the various utilities he already has, such as sharc, wfiler, among many others, he has to go through the hassle of moving the files from the zip format back to arc. Not to forget that the bbs operator, for whom he is a customer, didn't even bother to ask him his opinion about how he felt about the matter. -er #: 17680 S9/Hot Topic [S] 21-Feb-89 20:54:07 Sb: #17303-#New PKZIP Fm: Larry LaBella 70210,325 To: Barry Simon 76004,1664 (X) I can't quite see what all the fuss is about, unless it's the "principal of the thing." The $25 that PK is asking, even the $47 that includes the next version, really isn't much compared to the money I spend on my hobby and profession. Phone bills alone... I suspect that the smaller files that ZIP makes would, in a year or less, pay for the software (no, no hard figures to back that). I spend more than that $25 on disposables - paper and diskettes and ribbons. And phone bills alone... Not to mention how much of my working life is spent paying my CI$ bill. I don't begrudge PK his $25. Even if there's a free alternative in three months, I'm still willing to pay $25 for the three months of use. Larry * Replies: 17766, 17804 #: 17766 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 02:50:47 Sb: #17680-New PKZIP Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: Larry LaBella 70210,325 (X) I dunnno. I've already paid both SEA and PK for arc programs. They work fine for me. I didn't ask for a new spec. I don't see a need for a new spec although I see that PK saw such a need. I have no love for SEA. Even if they were right that PK stole code, their behavior was reprehensible. OTOH, I don't feel any particular need to support Phil any more than I feel a need to purchase Paperback software's spreadsheets. - Barry #: 17804 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 08:42:58 Sb: #17680-#New PKZIP Fm: George Kuzmowycz 76266,2441 To: Larry LaBella 70210,325 (X) Larry, you may call it "the principle of the thing", but I look on it as coersion. You may be willing to pay $25 for three months or so, but what if I am not? I also pay for disposables, CI$, etc. which is entirely irrelevant. I un-arc d/l'ed files using Buerg & Chin's ARCE, which is explicitly free. For my personal archiving & librarying type needs, when I am unconcerned about "compatibility" I use DWC, which is also explicitly free. No moral dilemmas. Now there's this ZIP thing, which is *not* free. I'm in a bind, and I don't like it. It's the squashing brouhaha all over again. -gk- * Reply: 17931 #: 17931 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 19:51:14 Sb: #17804-#New PKZIP Fm: Larry LaBella 70210,325 To: George Kuzmowycz 76266,2441 (X) Surely the coersion isn't Phil's. It's "market pressure" if anything. If your favorite BBS has files in a format people don't want to use, the BBS will rapidly change. OTOH, if it proves the "fittest" as by Darwin's circular definition, then it will have the impetus behind it that will generate competitors and some of them will be free. * Reply: 18051 #: 18051 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 07:42:54 Sb: #17931-#New PKZIP Fm: George Kuzmowycz 76266,2441 To: Larry LaBella 70210,325 (X) I never said the coersion was PK's, but I don't really think it's "market pressure" either; it's more like "political pressure", which bugs me. People resent SEA's tactics of last summer, so they jump to an alternative as soon as it's available, even though it's a beta release, even though they have most likely not had ample time to evaluate the technical merits, just "let's shaft SEA". PK has done a very capable job of marketing to BBS sysops, which certainly contributes to this. I have little doubt that a free unzipper will eventually emerge, but I still don't think that the process has been based either on Darwinian fitness or on technical merit. How come DWC never caught on, eh? -gk- * Reply: 18062 #: 18062 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 09:29:50 Sb: #18051-#New PKZIP Fm: Larry LaBella 70210,325 To: George Kuzmowycz 76266,2441 (X) I think we're arguing that we agree. (Isn't that how we spend MOST of or $ on CIS?) But one minor point - I think the feeling is "let's support PK" not "let's shaft SEA" or things like DWC _would_ have caught on. LRL * Reply: 18133 #: 18133 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 15:13:20 Sb: #18062-New PKZIP Fm: George Kuzmowycz 76266,2441 To: Larry LaBella 70210,325 Larry, it's the arguing that's important, not whether we agree or not, don't you see? But I still think there is a very large element of "Let's shaft SEA". This is based on explicit statements from a variety of sysops. DWC may have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time. -gk- #: 17805 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 08:43:07 Sb: #17616-#New PKZIP Fm: George Kuzmowycz 76266,2441 To: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 (X) It is my understanding, however, that Dean worked with Phil on ZIP, or at least contributed some of his knowledge relatively early on. Am I mistaken? -gk- * Reply: 17896 #: 17896 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 16:05:35 Sb: #17805-New PKZIP Fm: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 To: George Kuzmowycz 76266,2441 (X) My understanding is that the two of them were considering working together but that it never happened. #: 17754 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 02:06:20 Sb: #17548-#New PKZIP Fm: Irv Hoff 76701,117 To: Barry Simon 76004,1664 (X) I get the impression after reading Phil Katz' statements regarding his program as more in the way of a donation if you are a private user, rather than an implied purchase agreement. He doesn't really seem to care much, if private users actually pay him anything, or not... Sort of a refreshing outlook on MS-DOS programs. In fact on the PKZF10 program, my interpretation of his comments are that he doesn't expect to be paid, but if you insist he wouldn't turn it down... * Reply: 17806 #: 17806 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 08:43:11 Sb: #17754-#New PKZIP Fm: George Kuzmowycz 76266,2441 To: Irv Hoff 76701,117 (X) Maybe I'm simple-minded, but I believe that something either IS free, or it ain't.... What's PKZIP? Am I supposed to be a mind-reader? I prefer something like: ARCE (c) Copyright 1986-1987 by Wayne Chin and Vernon D. Buerg ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ARCE is free, but it is a copyrighted work and may be distributed only pursuant to this license. -gk- * Reply: 17866 #: 17866 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 13:57:59 Sb: #17806-#New PKZIP Fm: Irv Hoff 76701,117 To: George Kuzmowycz 76266,2441 (X) Oh I agree with you completely, but reading one of your prior statements to somebody else, you mentioned using ARCE, etc. as it WAS free. What did you do from March 1985 when SEA brought out .ARC until the following year when Vern finally got around to making ARE-E, then? That's a LONG time to sit around while the world passes you by? And after squashed was added in Dec. 86, took ARC-E until the following September to add squashed. Again, that's a LONG time to wait, in the computer world. Most people think even a month or so is a LONG time. I have my own thoughts about a free program that includes a "license", however... * Reply: 17895 #: 17895 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 16:05:13 Sb: #17866-#New PKZIP Fm: George Kuzmowycz 76266,2441 To: Irv Hoff 76701,117 (X) Irv, good questions. But back in 1985, even into 1986, if I recall correctly, it was still quite common to find LBR and ?Q? files along with ARCs. So one had to use a variety of tools. Most of them were pretty unequivocally free. Even the wording in SEA's documentation at that time was somewhat "free"-er than PK's wording has been. (Am I getting too theological here?). So I used ARC when I had to, without the moral qualms, and used LUE.COM, ALUSQ, other things I can barely remember, according to what was necessary. ARCE.COM came out in early 1986, and I even remember using LUE after that time. The squashing was more problematic, but even that didn't sweep the BBS'es as quickly as ZIPping. And even there, not every ARC contained squashed members, so I would try ARCE, and only if it bombed would I use PKXARC. In the meantime I protested to the sysops in question, awaited the arrival of what turned out to be ARCE 3.1b, and did not pay for the use of PKXARC since I felt that its use was being forced on me against my will. I always thought that PK should have followed what has been suggested earlier in one of these threads and released a bare-bones, explicitly free, unsquasher (now read unzipper). ARCE served me just fine until February 15 of this year, since the PAK stuff was just a legal ploy and didn't really change anything. For personal use, as noted earlier, I use DWC, which so far has almost always given me the best compression. And it's *free*. Too bad it never caught on, but that's another subject... -gk- #: 17710 S9/Hot Topic [S] 21-Feb-89 22:48:25 Sb: #17614-New PKZIP Fm: Kelly Stanonik [EDTECH] 75170,14 To: Chuck Forsberg (Omen) 70007,2304 (X) I understand your motivation and agree with it 100%. I certainly don't want to get in an argument with you (again) about something I agree with you on... The idea of a crc check that isn't bound to the archive type is appealing for many reasons (and one of them is that boards switching over to PKZIP will be able to continue "carrying" DSZ). Obviously you know where I stand on DSZ registrations. I even mention registering your product in the welcome section of 2ZIP. * Kelly #: 17724 S9/Hot Topic [S] 21-Feb-89 23:20:45 Sb: #17614-New PKZIP Fm: Bill Lucy 72160,763 To: Chuck Forsberg (Omen) 70007,2304 (X) Chuck, I will be happy to give that message to some of the sysops of boards I frequent in the Chicago area. I understand your concern. I hope that I can convey that concern to them. Bill #: 17723 S9/Hot Topic [S] 21-Feb-89 23:20:34 Sb: #17253-New PKZIP Fm: Bill Lucy 72160,763 To: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 (X) Earle, I know of a few BBSs in the Chicago area who are converting to ZIP, and who also carry (the many dates of) Chuck's DSZ program. It is regrettable that a program must change to suit the (sysop) masses. I will contact a few of my sysop friends and ask them if they think it is proper to go against Chuck's wishes. As an aside, after following this thread (all 100 or so msgs.) I've come to the conclusion that many people have been rash in their change to Mr. Katz's program. I d/l'd it and converted files from ARC to ZIP, and have found the program to be better for binary or combined binary/ascii files. I have a large base of ARC ascii files, and it appears they will stay that way awhile. Barry is right. This issue has just too much of a non-Vulcan attitude to it. Bill #: 18040 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 06:17:03 Sb: #17581-New PKZIP Fm: David C. Frier 76314,207 To: John Deakin 76702,310 (X) John: Ditto on self extracts... it's the ONLY way I deliver software to my clients... I can then write the installation directions on the disk label! Put this in drive A:, go to the FOO directory on C:, type A:UPDATE/R --David #: 17749 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 02:05:13 Sb: #17613-New PKZIP Fm: Irv Hoff 76701,117 To: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 (X) Of no general importance, but in future releases you "might consider" at least, using COMPR6 for the next version. I tell most people to look for at least the first 2-3 characters with BRO or CAT or DES, then wild cards the rest of the way. If you change the second character, makes that simple method impossible. No wonder 3-4 people I referred to your article couldn't find it... (Isn't it a nuisance having to use only 6 total characters, though, including any revision numbers? That's one reason I have named most of my programs with only 3 characters for the entire name and a few with four - so any BBS will have the same identical name as any CompuServe forum with the same program. I recall all the problems we got into, in years past with the XMODEM program by Keith Petersen, originally. Versions like XMODEM47 fit into 8 characters just fine. But not on CIS, where we had to use XMDM47. Then peopel wondered if that was really the same program, really. And then all sorts of problems developed when the program hit version 100. That was even too long for any normal BBS. So it was variously called XMODEM100 (real name), XMD100 on CIS, XMDM100 on most BBS, XMODM100 on a few others. (It eventually got up to XMODEM139 abouta Oct 1985, and hasn't been upgraded since.) Etc. #: 17709 S9/Hot Topic [S] 21-Feb-89 22:48:16 Sb: #17612-New PKZIP Fm: Kelly Stanonik [EDTECH] 75170,14 To: Bob Tolz 70475,1071 (X) Sounds good. My guess is that Phil's program will come out good overall and slightly low on the ASCII side. I enjoyed reading Compress 5... Keep up the good work. * Kelly #: 17747 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 02:04:30 Sb: #17572-#PKware/ZIPrecover Fm: Irv Hoff 76701,117 To: Kelly Stanonik [EDTECH] 75170,14 (X) I was intrigued by your statement that PKUNPAK was "significantly faster than other archive extraction programs." I took a "reasonably large number" of archive files, then auto-unpacked them with ARC-E and then brought the same group of files back and auto-unpaked them with PKUNPAK. PKUNPAK only took 69.9% as long, using an automatic DOS built-in timing program. I'd certainly agree, that was "significantly shorter time." There was the advantage that ARC-E is a free program however. In any case even with almost 10 Mb of .ARC files, the difference was only one minute. Nobody's going to get very excited about that, I don't think. (When's the last you unpacked 10 Mb worth of .ARC files at the same sitting?) * Replies: 17830, 17848 #: 17830 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 11:05:50 Sb: #17747-PKware/ZIPrecover Fm: Kelly Stanonik [EDTECH] 75170,14 To: Irv Hoff 76701,117 (X) I'm the wrong person to ask that question... I typically deal with about 50meg of unarchiving a day (EDTECH runs a data switch and we use the PK programs here). Fortunately, the EDTECH scene is drawing to a quick close. You'll see me in sunny, bright, clean-aired Los Angeles (weak grin). * Kelly #: 17848 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 11:51:17 Sb: #17747-#PKware/ZIPrecover Fm: Finian Lennon 70147,1444 To: Irv Hoff 76701,117 (X) Irv: Don't you think that some key information is getting lost in the shuffle here? I consider myself very much an "average user" of utility software like the ARC/PAK and ZIP stuff. When I use it, which I do on a frequent basis, I like to get the maximum "utility" out of it. For the past year or so I have purring along happily with PKARC and PKPAK being driven by John Newlin's neat Arcmaster. Well, I resisted all the hullabaloo for fully four days, and finally capitulated last night and downloaded the ZIP's. And quite honestly I feel ZIPPED off. I don't have time to conduct the testing that you folks did. I simply took a group of files (in DBASE III format) which represent the kind of files that I typically compress (can one still say arc?). I was astonished at the length of time that the process took, so much so that I immediately ran the same test using the old Arcmaster/PKARC combo. The results were interesting. To ZIP the files using default options took 2 minutes 39 seconds. To PKARC the files took 36 seconds. I then ran the ZIP again using different options with little overall time difference. Yes, the .ARC file was 111K, and the ZIPPED files were 93K and 90K respectively, but WHO CARES? If size was that big a factor to me I'd copy the files to a floppy. And using PKARC I'd be able to arc and copy to floppy and do something else while ZIP was still workig to save me a few bytes! Now I fully realize that the space saving is an important feature, but if I'm not mistaken it was the great speed enhancement that made us all switch to PK products initially. So to me, this product seems to represent one step forward and two back, and to be of special appeal to a VERY small group of users (BBS operators). My conclusion would be that there is no reason whatever for the average ARC/PKARC user to switch at this time no matter what BBS operators do and as long as CIS is around. Finian * Reply: 17868 #: 17868 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 14:18:22 Sb: #17848-#PKware/ZIPrecover Fm: Irv Hoff 76701,117 To: Finian Lennon 70147,1444 (X) To strengthen your opinion, I ran some tests last evening (one has to realize "some tests" may not be statistically equivalent to a number of months of accumulated effort) and I found it typically takes 2.6 times as long to .ZIP the same group of files that it took to .ARC them using PKPAK. However, it was only taking about 6-10 seconds on most to PKPAK them so even 20-30 seconds wasn't any big deal, to get the smaller size. I don't have any dBASEII files or spreadsheets, so my tests could well in fact vary considerably from those of other people whose files might emphasize an entirely different set of circumstances. I do recall, for your interest, a friend in Los Angeles who loves to play with this type of experimentation, and who is an executive in the Xerox Corp. Many of his files are in fact dBASE files. He got all excited one day when we were comparing notes and said he had found that he was getting substantially better results (smaller files, no comment about speed was made, as I recall) if he turned the "squashed" option OFF on PKPAK. That of course brought some conversation relatively to PKPAK's inability to choose the best option of those available, automatically. In my case, over a "resonably large" group "of the type of files I accumulate", I am saving 12-17% by using .ZIP. Using A2Z13 or 2ZIP12, it's totally automatic and I don't CARE how long it takes, as long as it's not totally unreasonable. Either of those programs appear to convert about 250-300 .ARC programs on my BBS, per hour. Most fellows likely don't even have a total of 250-300 .ARC files to start with? Although that's perhaps an unfair comment. In any case, I doubt most would care if it takes 2-3 times as long, if we are still talking only 12-15 seconds for a 200k file, which is typical on my system, anyway. It's a PC-AT. Have you tried PAK16? That takes roughly 3-4 times longer than to use PKZIP, but it does a noticeably better job on ASCII text files than anything Phil Katz has offered, to date. It would be interesting for you to try that on your dBASE files - might do surprisingly well! The PKZIP stuff really shines on the binary .EXE and .COM type files and although it does better on ASCII text files than PKPAK or SEA'S ARC600, there are several programs that do significantly better on ASCII files, which likely would include dBASE ? * Replies: 17937, 17970 #: 17937 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 19:56:25 Sb: #17868-#PKware/ZIPrecover Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: Irv Hoff 76701,117 (X) I hope this will be my last message in this thread. But this new fact makes the free unzipper even more important. It sounds like for end users, ZIP is not very useful because the few K doesn't matter given the speed factor. Means that a user will only want ZIP to accomodate his favorite BBS. - Barry * Reply: 17990 #: 17990 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 00:20:58 Sb: #17937-PKware/ZIPrecover Fm: Ed Fitzgerald 72447,1631 To: Barry Simon 76004,1664 (X) My use of PKZIP may well be atypical, but it does represent a case where speed of compression is not important while speed of decompression and decreased size of the cpmpressed file are. I use PKZIP (as I once used ARC and PKARC) to store a bunch of utilities on my hard disk which are extracted to a ram disk at boot time. In addition, I keep a lot of small files packed together in ZIP files and have a PCED syn extract them when I need them. (The primary reason for this is that I'm using a 10MB hard disk under DOS 2.11, so anything substantially under 4096 bytes is wasting space.) I basically ZIP up these files once and occasionally update them when I change utilities or applications, so the time that PKZIP takes to compress them down is not terribly important, but I *really* need every free byte of space I can get, and my boot time's been reduced by about 20% due to PKZIP's quicker extraction. Efficiency is the reason I switched from ARC to PKARC and from PKARC to PKZIP. (Also my all-American sympathy for the [perceived] underdog entered into it: I was glad I was able to purchase PKZIP, but I probably wouldn't have if it didn't represent a substantial improvement over arc-ing.) #: 17970 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 22:06:13 Sb: #17868-#PKware/ZIPrecover Fm: Finian Lennon 70147,1444 To: Irv Hoff 76701,117 (X) Well, frankly Irv I think I've tested as much as I'm going to, and will stick with the PKPak for now. It's my opinion though, that all the debate about free unzippers etc. while no doubt important, is diverting attention from the fact that to most users the ZIP program is no advance really, just new. IMHO naturally. Finian * Reply: 18030 #: 18030 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 04:40:34 Sb: #17970-PKware/ZIPrecover Fm: Irv Hoff 76701,117 To: Finian Lennon 70147,1444 (X) You have your interpretation of what an "advance is", I have mine. I saved 1 Megabyte out of every 6 megabytes of .ARC files I changed to ZIP files. That might not impress you but it impressed me. If running at Indianapolis, that would enable the leader to finish about 45 minutes ahead of the rest of the field.... #: 17773 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 02:52:37 Sb: #17572-#PKware/ZIPrecover Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: Kelly Stanonik [EDTECH] 75170,14 (X) Isn't PK now barred from accepting payments for PKPAK and PKUNPAK? Isn't that part of his agreement with SEA? - Barry * Reply: 17832 #: 17832 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 11:06:15 Sb: #17773-#PKware/ZIPrecover Fm: Kelly Stanonik [EDTECH] 75170,14 To: Barry Simon 76004,1664 (X) No. The aren't allowed to market it after a certain date (actually, you may be right if that date has already passed--I don't know). Up until that date, though, they can still receive money for PKPAK/UNPAK. * Kelly * Replies: 17870, 17911 #: 17870 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 14:22:09 Sb: #17832-PKware/ZIPrecover Fm: Irv Hoff 76701,117 To: Kelly Stanonik [EDTECH] 75170,14 (X) Believe the answer to his question is YES and Jan 31 was the date, I understand. Which is why he was in such a rush to bring out PKZIP by early February "at the latest", and finally just put out the beta test version (v0.80) as public release 0.90. He didn't get to add the command line stuff, the encryption method or the "add a comment", as I recall. "Next release". I think also, he was supposedly in contact with NoGate about licensing some of their routines for compression ASCII text files. That's possibly just a rumor, though. I think I got that information from somebody reading messages on Katz' own BBS in the Milwaukee area. #: 17911 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 17:58:01 Sb: #17832-PKware/ZIPrecover Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: Kelly Stanonik [EDTECH] 75170,14 (X) The date has passed if I recall. - Barry #: 17760 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 02:08:43 Sb: #17417-PKZIP ????? Fm: Irv Hoff 76701,117 To: SysOp Conrad Kageyama 76703,1010 (X) Excellent one paragraph summary, Connie! #: 17923 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 19:23:06 Sb: #PKZIP is here! Fm: Lee Crocker 73407,2030 To: ALL To all developers: Phil Katz has finally come through with his new file archiving utility, PKZIP. It is every bit as fast as the old PKARC, compresses even better, and has a much more sensible (and public) file format. The new files (called ZIP files) improve upon the old ARC format in many ways. Probably most significant is the ability to ZIP and UNZIP (I like the new verbs, too) whole directory trees intact. Also included is the ability to include a comment with each file, and with the whole archive. ZIP files may also be split across disks, and contain 32-bit CRCs. PKZIP uses only two compression methods, as opposed to the eight used by PKARC. "Shrinking" is good old dynamic Ziv-Lempel-Welch with a few new twists, and "Reducing" is a whole new method that produces some phenomenal results, especially for text files. I was truly amazed by the results. ZIP files are not operating system dependent, and the source operating system ID is included in the file header. I will (if I have not already) upload the MSDOS executable PKZ090.EXE and the file format specification APPNOTE.TXT. If a few brave souls out there implement this file format for Unix, Mac, and other systems, we may finally have a uniform public domain archive file format for almost every computer. Let's get rid of the ARC/Stuffit/Packit/Zoo/CPIO/Compress nightmare and the stupid licensing restrictions and hardware limitations of these products once and for all! --Lee Crocker * Reply: 17952 #: 17952 S9/Hot Topic [S] 22-Feb-89 20:49:54 Sb: #17923-#PKZIP is here! Fm: SysOp Conrad Kageyama 76703,1010 To: Lee Crocker 73407,2030 Lee... thanx for your offer, but we already have PKZ090.EXE. I see that you are really excited about it, but please clarify something for me. As far as I understand ZIP, the file format and the name ZIP have been revealed, but the actual compression algorithms have not (especially the class 4 compression). If that's the case, then we're no better off than we were before with one entity still owning the whole show, i.e., it ain't public domain... connie * Replies: 18032, 18086 #: 18032 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 04:41:21 Sb: #17952-#PKZIP is here! Fm: Irv Hoff 76701,117 To: SysOp Conrad Kageyama 76703,1010 (X) Speaking of "public domain", even if Phil put out a free version of PKZIP or PKUNZIP, with a strong statement about it being free, no money anticipated or accepted, no address to send money to, it would still not be considered public domain, unless he so stated and had no copyright notice. Anything copyrighted is not, and cannot be "public domain." But can still be free, of course. * Replies: 18078, 18089 #: 18078 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 11:10:04 Sb: #18032-#PKZIP is here! Fm: SysOp Conrad Kageyama 76703,1010 To: Irv Hoff 76701,117 (X) Agreed 100%, Irv... The issues seem to be on three planes. The first is a general grudge against SEA for bringing the suit in the first place. The second practicality in that ZIP seems to be generally more efficient, space-wise. And the third is the genuine need for a pd archiving technique, or at least a free system that is guaranteed to not have any strings attached. We're hoping for the third, but I guess that isn't gonna happen. I felt compelled to reply to the previous message since ZIP certainly isn't pd and is questionably free... connie * Reply: 18148 #: 18148 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 17:09:24 Sb: #18078-#PKZIP is here! Fm: Irv Hoff 76701,117 To: SysOp Conrad Kageyama 76703,1010 (X) Oh I have every reason to believe that your point (3) ....or at least a free system that is guaranteed not to have any strings attached.... will be an eventuality. I may be an optomist but I doubt it even will take as long as 2-3 months, nothing like the 9-10 months it took for .ARC before Vern put out ARCE, which of course changed the entire picture at that moment, and has spoiled things for further development, since. (As people CONSTANTLY refer to: "but is there a free version?" - even though the program is only a week old at this time....) * Replies: 18168, 18174 #: 18168 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 18:50:34 Sb: #18148-PKZIP is here! Fm: SysOp Don Watkins 76703,750 To: Irv Hoff 76701,117 Irv - I don't think that ARCE "spoiled things for future development". Rather I think the situation goes beyond that of a free version. Firstly let's consider that by adopting ZIP all the eggs are going in one basket. Now let's look at the history involved. Firstly every compression method that's been generally adopted thru ARC has had a common feature; source code has been available. This is as true of ARC as it is for LU. There are a lot of benefits to having source, it makes things more portable (and one of the reasons LU and ARC are available for so many machines) and it ensures that the world doesn't stop if the author decides to change things or goodness forbid, something happens to him. Every compression method I've ever run into, including ARC and ?Q? methods, were generally unstable off the dime and resulted in many versions not being upward compatible. Thus everybody had to download xx versions just to be able to unpack stuff. This isn't to say the changes weren't worth it, they were as they usually resulted in better compression or whatever. I don't know if this will happen to ZIP, only time will tell but I'd be willing to bet that at some point in the near future new ZIP files can't be unzipped by old unzippers. We're talking a pretty major step here, far beyond the issues of free, and in my mind at least it might be rash for the entire PC telecommunications community to adopt a standard based on the release of a what amounts to be a piece of beta test software. #: 18174 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 19:03:51 Sb: #18148-PKZIP is here! Fm: SysOp Conrad Kageyama 76703,1010 To: Irv Hoff 76701,117 Irv.. I was referring to the whole enchilada, not just the unpacking part. Kelly says in a message to me that the algorithm to unpack is in APPNOTES, but Bob B points out that is for unpacking. I was thinking in terms of a completely free system whereby both the packing and unpacking info was available (and free) for all... connie #: 18089 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 11:32:34 Sb: #18032-PKZIP is here! Fm: Kelly Stanonik [EDTECH] 75170,14 To: Irv Hoff 76701,117 (X) You're right. I misspoke "public domain" when in fact I meant "free" in a different message. * Kelly #: 18086 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 11:31:25 Sb: #17952-#PKZIP is here! Fm: Kelly Stanonik [EDTECH] 75170,14 To: SysOp Conrad Kageyama 76703,1010 (X) This is a subset of the APPNOTE.TXT file that Phil distributes with his program. I would consider this to be an algorithm (or two, or five, as the case may be): "UnShrinking ----------- Shrinking is a Dynamic Ziv-Lempel-Welch compression algorithm with partial clearing. The initial code size is 9 bits, and the maximum code size is 13 bits. Shrinking differs from conventional Dynamic Ziv-lempel-Welch implementations in several respects: 1) The code size is controlled by the compressor, and is not automatically increased when codes larger than the current code size are created (but not necessarily used). When the decompressor encounters the code sequence 256 (decimal) followed by 1, it should increase the code size read from the input stream to the next bit size. No blocking of the codes is performed, so the next code at the increased size should be read from the input stream immediately after where the previous code at the smaller bit size was read. Again, the decompressor should not increase the code size used until the sequence 256,1 is encountered. 2) When the table becomes full, total clearing is not performed. Rather, when the compresser emits the code sequence 256,2 (decimal), the decompressor should clear all leaf nodes from the Ziv-Lempel tree, and continue to use the current code size. The nodes that are cleared from the Ziv-Lempel tree are then re-used, with the lowest code value re-used first, and the highest code value re-used last. The compressor can emit the sequence 256,2 at any time. Expanding --------- The Reducing algorithm is actually a combination of two distinct algorithms. The first algorithm compresses repeated byte sequences, and the second algorithm takes the compressed stream from the first algorithm and applies a probabilistic compression method. The probabilistic compression stores an array of 'follower sets' S(j), for j=0 to 255, corresponding to each possible ASCII character. Each set contains between 0 and 32 characters, to be denoted as S(j)[0],...,S(j)[m], where m<32. The sets are stored at the beginning of the data area for a * Reply: 18087 #: 18087 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 11:31:57 Sb: #18086-#PKZIP is here! Fm: Kelly Stanonik [EDTECH] 75170,14 To: Kelly Stanonik [EDTECH] 75170,14 (X) Reduced file, in reverse order, with S(255) first, and S(0) last. The sets are encoded as { N(j), S(j)[0],...,S(j)[N(j)-1] }, where N(j) is the size of set S(j). N(j) can be 0, in which case the follower set for S(j) is empty. Each N(j) value is encoded in 6 bits, followed by N(j) eight bit character values corresponding to S(j)[0] to S(j)[N(j)-1] respectively. If N(j) is 0, then no values for S(j) are stored, and the value for N(j-1) immediately follows. Immediately after the follower sets, is the compressed data stream. The compressed data stream can be interpreted for the probabilistic decompression as follows: let Last-Character <- 0. loop until done if the follower set S(Last-Character) is empty then read 8 bits from the input stream, and copy this value to the output stream. otherwise if the follower set S(Last-Character) is non-empty then read 1 bit from the input stream. if this bit is not zero then read 8 bits from the input stream, and copy this value to the output stream. otherwise if this bit is zero then read B(N(Last-Character)) bits from the input stream, and assign this value to I. Copy the value of S(Last-Character)[I] to the output stream. assign the last value placed on the output stream to Last-Character. end loop B(N(j)) is defined as the minimal number of bits required to encode the value N(j)-1. The decompressed stream from above can then be expanded to re-create the original file as follows: let State <- 0. loop until done read 8 bits from the input stream into C. case State of 0: if C is not equal to DLE (144 decimal) then copy C to the output stream. otherwise if C is equal to DLE then let State <- 1. 1: if C is non-zero then let V <- C. let Len <- L(V) let State <- F(Len). otherwise if C is zero then copy the value 144 (decimal) to the output stream. let State <- 0 * Reply: 18088 Files busy, code 5-126 ... Files busy, code 5-126 ... Files busy, code 5-126 ... have files (32 sec) #: 18088 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 11:32:22 Sb: #18087-PKZIP is here! Fm: Kelly Stanonik [EDTECH] 75170,14 To: Kelly Stanonik [EDTECH] 75170,14 (X) 2: let Len <- Len + C let State <- 3. 3: move backwards D(V,C) bytes in the output stream (if this position is before the start of the output stream, then assume that all the data before the start of the output stream is filled with zeros). copy Len+3 bytes from this position to the output stream. let State <- 0. end case end loop The functions F,L, and D are dependent on the 'compression factor' (see FORMAT.DOC), 1 through 4, and are defined as follows: For compression factor 1: L(X) equals the lower 7 bits of X. F(X) equals 2 if X equals 127 otherwise F(X) equals 3. D(X,Y) equals the (upper 1 bit of X) * 256 + Y + 1. For compression factor 2: L(X) equals the lower 6 bits of X. F(X) equals 2 if X equals 63 otherwise F(X) equals 3. D(X,Y) equals the (upper 2 bits of X) * 256 + Y + 1. For compression factor 3: L(X) equals the lower 5 bits of X. F(X) equals 2 if X equals 31 otherwise F(X) equals 3. D(X,Y) equals the (upper 3 bits of X) * 256 + Y + 1. For compression factor 4: L(X) equals the lower 4 bits of X. F(X) equals 2 if X equals 15 otherwise F(X) equals 3. D(X,Y) equals the (upper 4 bits of X) * 256 + Y + 1." ----- Sorry for the extra long message folks * Kelly #: 18124 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 14:51:14 Sb: #PKZIP is here! Fm: Bob Blacher 72677,3305 To: All 76701,117 (X) The following is a series of questions I posed to Phil Katz about the ZIP programs and his answers. These messages appears publicly on the PKWARE BBS. . .==================================== Questions from me to Phil Katz 2/17/89 ==================================== . .(1) Do you claim that any of the compression techniques used in PKZIP are copyrighted, trade secrets or otherwise proprietary? . .(2) Assuming the answer to the first question is no, are any of the compression techniques used in PKZIP licensed from other parties? If so, can those parties claim property interests in the compression methods and require licenses from others who wish to use these techniques? . .(3) Finally, APPNOTES.TXT, included in the PKZIP v0.90 distribution package, may not give sufficient information to allow third parties to extract files from within ZIPs and, in particular, does not appear to provide sufficient information to allow third parties to build ZIP archives using all of the same compression options and levels employed in your own program. Are you committed to providing more detailed information about the compression algorithms, including implementation techniques and suggestions, and, if so, when will that additional information be available? . .================================ Phil Katz's reply 2/19/89 ================================ Those are good questions. First, PKWARE does not consider the algorithms used in the software to be propietary in the sense that we would not allow someone else to implement them or would require that someone who did write a program using those algorithms to be licensed from PKWARE. However, the implementations of those algorithms as contained in PKZIP and PKUNZIP and PKSFX (R) are copyrighted. If someone were to lift the machine code out of PKZIP, that would be a problem. . .In answer to the second question, no requirements or obligations are required to third parties by users of the software or the information contained in the application notes. . .Lastly, several people have informed my that they have written or are writing programs to extract or compress files using the information in the application notes for the software. Therefore, it appears that for someone * Reply: 18125 #: 18125 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 14:51:30 Sb: #18124-PKZIP is here! Fm: Bob Blacher 72677,3305 To: Bob Blacher 72677,3305 (X) who is willing to think on there own that the information provided is sufficient. While I don't want to write people's source code for them, I am willing to offer assistance or information above what is in the docs on a reasonable basis if someone asks. FOr example, I have had several conversations with Mr. Burns [sic -- he means Richard Byrne], author of ZDOOR for PCBoard systems. He has successfully written code to Expand (UnReduce) a file and was having a few minor problems with UnSquishing, and I was happy to answer his questions and offer some suggestions as to what the cause of his problems could be. ================================ #: 18126 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 14:52:09 Sb: #PKZIP is here! Fm: Bob Blacher 72677,3305 To: All 76701,117 (X) Others can draw their own conclusions about the status of ZIP in light of the Q & A I have posted. As a lawyer, I was satisfied with Phil's answers on on points 1 and 2 (in conjunction with the statements already made in DEDICATE.DOC, a file in the ZIP distribution package). . .I am not satisfied with the 3rd answer. But, in fact, Phil has been quite helpful to other authors in developing ZIP compatible programs -- including programs that could compete directly with Phil's own. The major gap in documenting ZIP at the moment is in how to produce "REDUCED" files (as opposed to extracting them which is fully documented). That's a gap that I hope will be taken care of soon. . .As a BBS sysop, I resent some of the statements in messages here that generalize about all of us and conclude that we converted to ZIP because of vengeance against SEA. I have no such feelings. I converted my BBS to ZIP format because the ZIP *standard* is more "free" than ARC -- it is not encumbered with the legal restrictions that SEA has placed on ARC (see POLICY.SEA). . .None of the commonly used ARC programs are "free" in the monetary sense of that term. ARC is shareware. Even Vern Buerg's ARCE requests a contribution (to SEA) for noncommercial use of the program and requires a license for any other uses. Thus, the fact that Katz's ZIP programs are also not free seemed meaningless to me --- they, too, are true shareware, with noncommercial users asked, but not required, to send $25. . .Completely free unzip programs will appear (I'm beta testing one now) and will be released with source code, both in Turbo Pascal and C. While those programs may not be as fast as Katz's, they will help to document the ZIP methodology better and will undoubtedly help others in writing compatible programs. It is going to be more difficult to produce free programs that create ZIP files with all of the compression techniques used by PKZIP. The initial releases will probably not implement the various "reduced" algorithms unless they are documented more fully soon. . .Is ZIP ideal as the new BBS standard? Nope. But, it meets my criteria better than does ARC, so it's in use on my BBS until somebody invents a * Replies: 18127, 18141, 18155, 18156 #: 18127 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 14:52:33 Sb: #18126-PKZIP is here! Fm: Bob Blacher 72677,3305 To: Bob Blacher 72677,3305 (X) better, even more open, mousetrap. #: 18141 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 16:12:38 Sb: #18126-#PKZIP is here! Fm: Willy Paine 74375,1404 To: Bob Blacher 72677,3305 Zip is NOT a standard on archive file yet!! There are alot of things to be done before Zip become standard. Zip is still on beta version and this is version .90 not 1.00. Many Sysop utility tools and BBS's command to list files out of archive files will NOT work with either Pak and Zip. FidoNet system is still using arc to pack message for transmitting between boards and there are about 5,000 FidoNet BBS internationally. Fidonet just start to include zoo as part of packing message. Several users are still confused about new archive program like PAK and ZIP. I have warned against uploading Zip because I don't have tools to check inside zip files and also many users complain about not reading inside zip files from BBS' option on arc viewing. I am not really against new archive program and I do like Pak and Zip better than SEA's arc. Pkarc is still my official archive program until I get new upgrade BBS and Tools. Play safe that Zip is not standard yet. I used to have old LBR and squeezed files in my board and they went away when they got old. Willy * Reply: 18142 #: 18142 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 16:31:05 Sb: #18141-PKZIP is here! Fm: Irv Hoff 76701,117 To: Willy Paine 74375,1404 Obviously .ZIP is not a "standard" on your system as yet, but it "is the only standard" now in use on a rapidly growing number of BBS, already - including mine, where there are no other compressed programs available. We'll still accept any type of .ARC or .LBR file, but they will be immediately converted to .ZIP within a few minutes after being uploaded. (I've always preferred only ONE kind of compressed programs, where possible. When I'm willing to do the conversion myself, that "does make it possible." In the one week that PKZIP has already been available a rather surprising number of BBS have totally changed to nothing but .ZIP files. This is in large part due to their already being approximately SIX different programs that will AUTOMATICALLY convert .ARC to .ZIP files (as well as .PAK to .ZIP and .ZOO to .ZIP) while you go read the newspaper. Or eat supper. Or go to bed. Two excellent ones are free, in fact and available here as A2Z13 and 2ZIP12. If such easily-used programs were not available already, the situation would be considerably different. The largest BBS of its type in the world, is probably PC-EXEC in the Milwaukee area with something like 70-incoming phone lines. I understand they have now completed their changeover to all .ZIP files. Most of the ones I know about converted this past weekend. For whatever interest that might be, for you. #: 18155 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 17:30:57 Sb: #18126-PKZIP is here! Fm: Irv Hoff 76701,117 To: Bob Blacher 72677,3305 Thanks for your messge. I was intrigued by the fact that you mentioned you were ALREADY beta testing a FREE UNZIP program. May we deduce from that it could be released in a week or two? That would shoot down completely most arguments against some of the BBS systems that have already converted exclusively to .ZIP files. In fact, I called Phil and settled for chatting with Dave Siebbenaller. I mentioned it was just a "matter of time" - days, weeks, likely not even months at all - before "somebody" brought out an absolutely free no strings attached, UNZIP program. That I felt that person SHOULD be Phil himself, since that would do a variety of marvleous things for his image as well as PKWARE. It would remove any stigma from being "forced to buy a program" and it would enable him to put out a free program that "didn't do a thing except dump all the .ZIP contents of a file" - then, to get the normal versatility available in PKZIP, etc. people would be in the right mental attitude to WANT to buy his own package. I'd love to see a psychologist study that and let me know if I'm not on the correct track. But since you dropped the bomb, would like to see you follow up with a few more comments about the free UNZIP pgm you are testing, and if there is any estimate when it might be generally available. You might still put the bug in Phil's ear it would be beneficial for him to put out such a program himself. There is no way I can see that PKWARE could lose on that deal and could gain quite a bit in the long run. Both in general attitude and financially. If indeed a FREE (no strings) UNZIP program is released reasonably soon, I still think by this summer (if it even takes nearly that long) people will be saying ".ARC, what't that?" #: 18156 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 17:32:44 Sb: #18126-PKZIP is here! Fm: Irv Hoff 76701,117 To: Bob Blacher 72677,3305 P.S. you must have stored that message "POST UNF" as all the periods you included at the start of each paragraph are still there... Those are no longer of any necessity in any case, by the way... #: 18000 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 01:04:30 Sb: PKZIP Conference w/PKatz Fm: Lane R. Whittaker 73467,40 To: All The following was copied from the ZENITH forum announcements bulletin. " THIS SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 8:30 PM (EST) Just a reminder that Phil Katz will be in Conference then here--in CO 2--to discuss the new ZIP archive format and answer questions about it. You're starting to see files with the ".ZIP" extension here and elsewhere, and you'll be seeing many more as the days go by. Many people responsible for distributing public domain and shareware programs in the world of IBM-compatible computers are adopting ZIP files instead of ARC files. Now is your chance to hear from the man who developed the ZIP format and ask him directly about it. It's a *rare* opportunity. Phil is now a member of the Zenith Users' Forum and has selected us as the CompuServe distribution point for it. He uploads ZIP tools here frequently: when you download his files from our libraries you know that they are safe and secure. Sunday, February 26, 8:30 P.M. (Eastern Standard Time) in Conference Room 2: Phil Katz on ZIP--a public conference at which everyone on CompuServe is welcome. See you there." -- LaneW #: 18111 S9/Hot Topic [S] 23-Feb-89 12:20:03 Sb: PKZIP Registeration Fm: JOHN BOYD 75076,2466 To: Earle Robinson 76004,1762 Earle, sorry to start a new thread, but I had erased my messages before I got this information. I talked to PKWare this morning. They stated that registration for non-commercial use, ie $25 payment, is "requested but not required." Therefore, PKUNZIP is free for all to use unless you just want to pay the $25. They are also considering either allowing people to upload the PKUNZIP separately, or a standalone unzipper. Hope this helps clear the air on their approach to use of the new program. ÿ #: 0 S0/Forum Announcement 23-Feb-89 21:13:47 Sb: Announcement Fm: System To: IBM Sys/Utilities Forum, V. 4D(63) Hello, Bill Lucy Last visit: 23-Feb-89 19:42:02 Forum messages: 16945 to 18207 Last message you've read: 18177 Section(s) Selected: All No members are in conference. Forum !