Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:17968 comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d:678
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!killer!pollux!dalsqnt!rpp386!pigs!haugj
From: haugj@pigs.UUCP (Joe Bob Willie)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: PK361.EXE
Summary: forwards/backwards compatibility
Keywords: foot removal from mouth
Message-ID: <224@pigs.UUCP>
Date: 11 Aug 88 21:56:47 GMT
References:  <356@marob.MASA.COM>  <11814@steinmetz.ge.com> <750@james.nprdc.arpa>
Reply-To: haugj@pigs.UUCP (Joe Bob Willie)
Organization: Big "D" Oil and Gas
Lines: 60

In article <750@james.nprdc.arpa> malloy@nprdc.arpa (Sean Malloy) writes:
}In article <11814@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
}|In article  msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mark Robert Smith) writes:
}|
}|| Steve,  Sorry, but stealing somebody else's market is a standard
}|| practice inthe world of software.  Else, why are word processors able
}|| to read WordStar's format?  Why can Excel read Lotus 123?  Why can
}|| Paradox import dBase and RBase files?  It is standard to attempt to
}|| grab somebody else's users.
}|
}|  What's not standard is to write Wordstar or 1-2-3 files which can not
}|be read by the original program. The idea seems to be "once you use my
}|program you can never go back."
}
}Why should Phil Katz be any different than some of the big software
}houses? Lotus 1-2-3 v2.0 .WK1 files can't be read by Lotus 1-2-3 v1.A,
}but 1-2-3 automatically writes a .WK1 file when you save your
}spreadsheet. You can read a WordPerfect 4.2 file into WordPerfect 5.0,
}but the file WordPerfect 5.0 writes can't be read by Wordperfect 4.2 --
}and there's no way to convert it back, while Lotus at least has a WK1
}to WKS conversion utility.

what is common in each of these cases is that company is the one
making themselves incompatible.

when you consider the lack of expertise the typical pc user has, they
look at an .arc file and really expect their .arc file tools to work
with it.  and when it doesn't, they call their vendor (assuming they
have one) and demand support.

in the case of pkware and sea, sea was getting screwed for what phil
did.  THEY were having to answer stupid questions, not phil, because
pk*** could handle the New And Improved(tm) pk format.  in the other
cases which have been mentioned, no one is going to call lotus if
excel can't read the 1-2-3 spreadsheet it gets pointed at.  excel
is not presenting itself as a drop in replacement.

it is harder to try to be 100% compatible with someone elses format
and so on.  and of course, the more compatible you are the better.
i have a clone of informix 3.30's report writing language compilers
and executers.  when i decided on the report file extension, you
can be certain it was NOT .arc.  [ by coincidence, informix uses
.arc as the extension of their report files.  i decided to use .rep
to show that the two were not compatible at the binary level ]

quite simply, had phil NOT tried to be so damned compatible he wouldn't
be in this position.  as is, he tried to be real cute and clever and
got bit.  he has not been permanently enjoined from creating file
archiving tools, so, he should be able to come out with one which is
quite usable.  and given the sympathy which he seems to have, he should
even make a few dozen bucks on the venture.

the documentation for .arc file formats has been published, and as far
as i know you can't copyright a file format.  so, anyone of us should be
able to create a file archiver from first principles, using the sea
format as a guideline, and then go market the thing.
-- 
 jfh@rpp386.uucp	(The Beach Bum at The Big "D" Home for Wayward Hackers)
     "Never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity"
                -- Hanlon's Razor