Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!pacbell!ames!ucsd!ucsdhub!esosun!seismo!uunet!sdrc!scjones From: scjones@sdrc.UUCP (Larry Jones) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: Phil Katz's bad form Message-ID: <314@sdrc.UUCP> Date: 25 Jun 88 15:30:28 GMT References: <5912@megaron.arizona.edu> <4499@killer.UUCP> <1861@aecom.YU.EDU> Organization: Structural Dynamics Research Corp., Cincinnati Lines: 30 In article <1861@aecom.YU.EDU>, werner@aecom.YU.EDU (Craig Werner) writes: > > I realize that nobody likes a law suit in the industry, but > my personal opinion was that it was bad form on Phil Katz's part to > label his incompatible files with the same .ARC suffix. It should > have been something else, like .ARK. And for that, SEA should have > probably taken legal action a long time ago. > I know that PXARC turned out to be better, but the files still > should have had a different extension! Yeah, and hows about Microsoft, Mark Williams, Computer Innovations, and all them other guys using the same .C suffix as Lattice when everybody knows you can't compile most C programs using a different compiler than the guy that wrote them uses! Think of all the confusion this has caused us nieve users; we get .C files off our bulletin boards and then can't compile them! They should have all used different extensions (.MSC, .MWC, .CIC, etc.)!!! And what about MS-DOS? How can they still call it MS-DOS when my version 1 system can't read all them files in those new-fangled subdirectories?!? C'mon, folks, SEA has made changes that weren't backward compatible without changing the file suffix, why shouldn't Phil? Or do we all believe that change, even for the better, is bad? ---- Larry Jones UUCP: ...!sdrc!scjones SDRC AT&T: (513) 576-2070 2000 Eastman Dr. BIX: ltl Milford, OH 45150 "When all else fails, read the directions."