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."