Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Search:  
Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

p7zip p7zip p7zip ... (Announce)

posted by Arjay, 27.07.2010, 18:09

> Dunno. There are a lot of silly flags in there (binary or text? host OS?
 Well having used ZIP across multiple platforms I know those flags aren't silly, the problem with PKunzip is it's erring too much on the side of safety.
This may not matter to most people but when your dealing with $$$$'s worth of data moving around; having "extra" validation like this is can be very useful.

> I agree ... almost. Sure, I think this is a PKUNZIP bug,
As above NOT a bug just extra validation required by some end users.

> I'm surprised this didn't bite anyone before.
 It has, me - when I was doing a lot of work to move data across platforms.

> *sigh* I have no idea why some companies do the things they do.
The people who knew about them retire/move on. Bottom line: support costs.

> At one time
> 2.04g or 2.50 was free for personal use (or so I thought),
No, not as far as I remember from when I started with the BETA versions (moving over from PKARC). The only exception was BBS SYSOP's who were granted a free license to use PK shareware as we were distributing it. We could fill in a form to receive a AV version but to be honest I never bothered at the time I ran my BBS's - but regretted later when I had to pay!

> but later (after
> Phil died) they stopped "sharing" the shareware version (go figure).
 Thom Henderson's comments make interesting reading.


> And of course the DOS version is more expensive than others to register ...
Well you get the AV signature option. However even around 10 years ago PKWare were already struggling trying to track down the person who knew how to build a registered DOS version; as several DOS experts had all moved on.
Note: Apart from leaving sometimes moving on might be to move into management.

> again, go figure.
Basically to them DOS support costs are higher as the usage is less. As time progresses current knowledge/familiarity with an older technology becomes less thus costs go up trying to support that technology. For example imagine trying to recruit and train a fresh graduate to support a DOS system now.

> PKZIP 2.50 is mostly unnecessary
It can be useful if you are dealing with other PK tools on multiple platforms.

> unless you like ye olde "reduce" method (which Info-Zip avoids
> for "copyright reasons" [eh???]).
 And for that reason as well :)

> I guess I could rhetorically wonder why anybody bothers with .ZIP when .7Z
> is so superior, but I like .ZIP too!
Well to be honest I am NOT planning to release anything in the .7Z or .RAR formats for DOS. Why? Well in my book like AMIS these things came about "after" things had already moved on. Thus from a standards and compatibility aspect IMHO .ZIP is still a good choice to make software accessible to all in a format that is widely understood. Yes, I agree RAR and .7Z are excellent but the problem is the majority of people even in the days when DOS was popular were already widely using .ZIP which remains common to this day. However note if I release something for Linux I would use gzip.

> It is indeed universal
> (although 7-Zip/.xz/lzip/LZMA has gained a lot of traction lately,
> see latest FreeBSD for example).
 Thanks. I'll remember this if and when I release anything for FreeBSD :)

Post reply
 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22632 Postings in 2109 Threads, 402 registered users, 397 users online (0 registered, 397 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum