Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!uwmcsd1!bbn!bbn.com!clements From: clements@bbn.com (Bob Clements) Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Subject: Re: PK361.EXE Summary: What bug? Message-ID: <28236@bbn.COM> Date: 10 Aug 88 15:28:10 GMT References:Sender: news@bbn.COM Reply-To: clements@BBN.COM (Bob Clements, K1BC) Organization: Very little Lines: 19 In article msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mark Robert Smith) writes: >WEll, Phil has released PKPAK 3.61, with the obvious name change and a >bug fix. >... >msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu Bill and Opus in '88!!! I looked through all the text files that were in the PK361 archive and saw NO reference to any bug. I have a SUSPICION that there is no bug at all. I SUSPECT that the reference to a bug is just to encourage everyone to switch to the newly-named programs rather than to continue using the ones that caused the lawsuit. Can anyone give details on this alleged bug? Is there actually anything wrong with PK36 other than the legal mess? Disclaimer: I am a registered user of PKARC. I got PK36 in the snail-mail from PKware. I just want to understand what's going on. /Rcc clements@bbn.com lotsaplaces!bbn!clements