Stuffit Goes to 11

On Oct 3, 2006, at 2:54 PM, Marc Bizer wrote:

> Is there really a point to upgrading to Stuffit 11? Isn't
> .sit / .sitx a format without a future on the MacOS X platform?

It's a format with a past unless you re-archive all the archives you
care about before whatever future event makes the Stuffit version you
currently have not run on any of your then-remaining hardware.

Moving archives (that still matter) forward as formats change, and
before the last minute, is a good idea.

For some people I'm sure there is a reason to buy Stuffit 11. I
don't seem to be one of them (I'm not sure I had a good reason to
move up to 10 at that time).

I have seen mutterings (somewhere) that Stuffit 11 doesn't
support .SIT (at least fully). Test that before becoming unable to
run an older version.

Will Stuffit now get the same tender loving care that Smith Micro
gave to Macintosh fax software?

   --John

On 03 Oct 2006, at 15:54 , Marc Bizer wrote:
> Is there really a point to upgrading to Stuffit 11? Isn't
> .sit / .sitx a format without a future on the MacOS X platform?

That's certainly how I see it, but I've been trying to get away from
Stuffit for a very long time, as long-time readers of this list will
know.

Anyone who distributes any current software in .sit or .sitx format
gets a very annoyed note from me, but that hardly ever happens
anymore. The only times I am running into .sit are with stuff
released a few years ago or, as I recall, some Big Behemoth Company
that had a driver update in .sit, and even that could have been a
couple of years old.


--
Clark's Law: Sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable
from malice
Clark Slaw: Anything that has been severely damaged or destroyed by
application of Clark's Law

On 4/10/2006 10:54 AM, "Marc Bizer" <mbizermail.utexas.edu> spake thus:

> Is there really a point to upgrading to Stuffit 11? Isn't
> .sit / .sitx a format without a future on the MacOS X platform?

I never bothered upgrading beyond StuffIt 7. The world appears to have
continued normally since :)

--
Nigel Stanger, Dunedin, NEW ZEALAND.
http://xri.net/=nigel.stanger

I still use it, although an older version, to create password protected zip
archives...


michael

On Oct 4, 2006, at 5:32 PM, johnbaxterlistsmac.com wrote:

> On Oct 3, 2006, at 2:54 PM, Marc Bizer wrote:
>
>> Is there really a point to upgrading to Stuffit 11? Isn't
>> .sit / .sitx a format without a future on the MacOS X platform?
>
> It's a format with a past unless you re-archive all the archives you
> care about before whatever future event makes the Stuffit version you
> currently have not run on any of your then-remaining hardware.
>
> Moving archives (that still matter) forward as formats change, and
> before the last minute, is a good idea.

What format(s) would be best to migrate older archives to,
considering the future? What should we be using now?

I personally do a lot of tar.gz because it's easy to unpack them on
my Linux servers, but I'm wondering what the folks here think is
likely to be the long term 'best options' route? I generally 'zip'
things for sending to others. Recent archives have been zipped.
Should we use a different method for photos/videos/rich media
compared with documents/text/PDFs?

Jeffrey

On Oct 4, 2006, at 8:14 PM, Michael Scheurer wrote:

> I still use it, although an older version, to create password
> protected zip
> archives...
>

Passworded zip files are not very secure at all. As noted in
Wikipedia, there are known attacks against these protected files that
make it fairly trivial to decrypt them. You are much better off
encrypting with another tool (such as placing your files in an
encrypted disk image) prior to, or instead of zipping the file.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZIP_(file_format)>

--Nik

Not only that--but occaisionally i download a file and the newer stuffits will not open it--so I have to go to older versions to get the file opened properly.

On 5/10/2006, at 11:32 AM, Google Kreme wrote:

> On 03 Oct 2006, at 15:54 , Marc Bizer wrote:
>> Is there really a point to upgrading to Stuffit 11? Isn't
>> .sit / .sitx a format without a future on the MacOS X platform?
>
> That's certainly how I see it, but I've been trying to get away from
> Stuffit for a very long time, as long-time readers of this list will
> know.

        What do you use instead? Allume keep sending me e-mails offering me
Stuffit 11 for less than half price & I'm seriously considering
taking them up on their offer. I have no compression software for OS
X (something that I miss compared to Windows) but if there are better
alternatives to Stuffit then I'd be keen to hear what they are.

Jason


-------------------------------------
Jason Campbell
Technician
Psychology Department
University of Otago

Ph (03) 479 7668

On Oct 6, 2006, at 2:49 PM, Jason Campbell wrote:

> What do you use instead? Allume keep sending me e-mails offering me
> Stuffit 11 for less than half price & I'm seriously considering
> taking them up on their offer. I have no compression software for OS
> X (something that I miss compared to Windows) but if there are better
> alternatives to Stuffit then I'd be keen to hear what they are.

I upgraded to 11 so it would run natively on my Intel Mac. When I
send files, I usually tar & gzip them from the terminal or use the
finder's built-in 'make archive'. I very rarely send .sit or .sitx
archives.

On 06 Oct 2006, at 12:49 , Jeffrey McPheeters wrote:
> What format(s) would be best to migrate older archives to,
> considering the future? What should we be using now?

Depends on what you are trying to accomplish. I prefer zip or
compressed DMG (that's what all my stuffit archives end up
becoming). I use compressed DMG if I think I might want to mount/
copy the contents and zip otherwise.

> I personally do a lot of tar.gz because it's easy to unpack them on
> my Linux servers, but I'm wondering what the folks here think is
> likely to be the long term 'best options' route?

I use tgz as well, but only for stuff that is specifically meant to
go to my freeBSD machines. I used to use it far more than I do now,
mostly to transfer archived websites, but now I use webDAV to mount
them and then make a dmg or zip from the mount...


--
This is our music from the bachelor's den, the sound of loneliness
turned up to ten. A harsh soundtrack from a stagnant waterbed and it
sounds just like this. This is the sound of someone losing the plot,
making out that they're OK when they're not. You're gonna like it,
but not a lot. And the chorus goes like this...

On 06 Oct 2006, at 12:49 , Jason Campbell wrote:
> I have no compression software for OS X

Sure you do. You have all sorts of compression software. gzip,
bzip2, the finder's built-in zip, and Disk Utility are 4 that are
guaranteed to be on every Tiger install.

As for what I use, see my reply to Jeffrey McPheeters

If you're interested in compressed DMGs, then DropDMG is worth getting:

<http:www.macupdate.com/dropdmg>

Although it's quite possible hat DropDMG can now be replaced with an
automator script

<http://automatoractions.com/files/createarchiveddiskimage1.3.html>

I haven't used the latter at all though, to be fair.

--
I do believe Marsellus Wallace, my husband, your boss, told you to
take *me* out and do *whatever I wanted*. Now I wanna dance, I wanna
win. I want that trophy, so dance good.

On Oct 6, 2006, at 11:49 AM, Jason Campbell wrote:

> What do you use instead? Allume keep sending me e-mails offering me
> Stuffit 11 for less than half price & I'm seriously considering
> taking them up on their offer. I have no compression software for OS
> X (something that I miss compared to Windows)

Of course you have compression software on Mac OS X (recent
releases). Control-click (right-click) a file or folder in Finder,
or select it and use the Action menu. In any case, select Create
Archive of ...

The .zip file you get (which is a zip of a tar if the item is a
folder) is compressed. A couple of medium size text samples I tried
just now were compressed about 90%* (similar to Stuffit's
achievement). Already compressed things (PDF, JPEG, etc) of course
don't compress as well, as would also be the case with less
repetitive text than I happened to pick. (I've seen StuffIt achieve
98% on particularly compressible text--I don't have a sample handy to
try with Finder's implementation of zip.)

* "computed" by eye--the size per Get Info shrank from three digits
to two, the size leading digit was the same, and the next digit was
the same or one off.

Given that this is on every modern** Mac, the additional features of
a pay-for compression program would have to be overwhelming for it to
survive. In the case of Stuffit, the additional features are looking
at the contents of the archive (minor) and all the old Stuffit
archives one presumably has (watching out for really old ones no
longer supported). Not overwhelming to me--YMMV.

** A "modern Mac" in that context is running at least Panther, per my
own definition which I don't plan to defend.

   --John

On Oct 6, 2006, at 12:49 PM, Jason Campbell wrote:

> What do you use instead? Allume keep sending me e-mails offering me
> Stuffit 11 for less than half price & I'm seriously considering
> taking them up on their offer. I have no compression software for OS
> X (something that I miss compared to Windows) but if there are better
> alternatives to Stuffit then I'd be keen to hear what they are.

I've never had any need for more than Apple's archive/zip utility and
disk images provide. However, there was a time when I archived a
great deal of data to multiple SyQuest cartridges, and StuffIt made
that process quick and easy. Now that I have an 80 GB hard drive,
that's far less important, and I no longer need the advanced features
that StuffIt Deluxe provides.

--Nik

On 7/10/06 4:49 AM, Nik wrote:

> Passworded zip files are not very secure at all. As noted in
> Wikipedia, there are known attacks against these protected files that
> make it fairly trivial to decrypt them. You are much better off
> encrypting with another tool (such as placing your files in an
> encrypted disk image) prior to, or instead of zipping the file.

Hi Nik,
it's not a high security application. It's for a club newsletter, it's just
to stop non-members to open it. Also, it's a Dog Breed Club, I doubt anyone
would have the skill...

Your suggestions of using dmg files is a good one, however I need cross
platform compatibility.

Thanks for the link. Not quite as trivial for the average punter as you make
it out to be though...

michael

Note that if you use Path Finder, it has a copy of the StuffIt Engine (not
sure which version) built in and can therefore compress and decompress all
the file types that StuffIt can handle. I haven't had to use Expander for
months.

--
Nigel Stanger, Dunedin, NEW ZEALAND.
http://xri.net/=nigel.stanger

On 10/9/2006 1:25 PM, "johnbaxterlistsmac.com" wrote:
> Given that this is on every modern** Mac, the additional features of
> a pay-for compression program would have to be overwhelming for it to
> survive. In the case of Stuffit, the additional features are looking
> at the contents of the archive (minor) and...

As a side note, this is possible with zip archives via Automator:

<http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20060728110724423>

What about the 7z format? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7z>

The only corresponding app for Mac OS X which I know is 7zX:
<http://sixtyfive.xmghosting.com/>


Cheers, Tom

On 10 Oct 2006, at 02:07 , Thomas Rohde wrote:
> The only corresponding app for Mac OS X which I know is 7zX:
> <http://sixtyfive.xmghosting.com/>

<http://www.7-zip.org/download.html>
<http://www.macupdate.com/7zip>


--
I know that you believe you understand what you think I said but I am
not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.