Help with ZIP files on ftp-os2.nmsu.edu

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Thomas Wong

unread,
Oct 19, 1992, 2:35:00 PM10/19/92
to
I seemed to have ran into a bit of trouble with the zip files in
ftp-os2.nmsu.edu lately. I have been using the PKZIP/UNZIP from there
when I OS/2 2.0 first came out (back then it was just hobbes, not
ftp-os2) and it has worked fine. Till then, I've been only getting zoo
files until recently. Nowadays, when I grab the ZIP files from there, I
get an error saying compression type unknown. Did they change over to a
different version of ZIP? I checked and the PKZIP/UNZIP is still the
same version as the one I have. Suggestions? Thanks.

Thomas.

Steve Luzynski

unread,
Oct 19, 1992, 5:20:18 PM10/19/92
to
In article <1buv4k...@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> tw...@civil.ubc.ca (Thomas Wong) writes:
>From: tw...@civil.ubc.ca (Thomas Wong)
>Subject: Help with ZIP files on ftp-os2.nmsu.edu
>Date: 19 Oct 1992 18:35:00 GMT

You need to get the Info-Zip program from hobbes. It's in /pub/os2/2.0/
archivers as unz50x32.exe as a self extracting archive. This new version of
Zip adds Inflate/Deflate as possible compression methods and none of the
PKware programs can handle it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Luzynski @ Case Western Reserve University in scenic Cleveland, OH
sa...@po.cwru.edu | voice calls cheerlessly accepted at x2153.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Due to an unprecedented and rather unexpected attack of happiness, this
spot will not contain the normal bitter comments on life. While I admit
it's not nearly as much fun, I'm just not in the cynical world hating
mood at the moment. Hell, give me a week.]

Kevin Lowey

unread,
Oct 19, 1992, 6:08:25 PM10/19/92
to
From tw...@civil.ubc.ca (Thomas Wong):

This is because the INFO-ZIP people released a version of ZIP and
UNZIP that uses compression schemes based on a BETA of the PKZIP
program. I don't like what they did as it causes a lot of confusion
for PKZIP users. However, they seem to think there was nothing wrong
with this and say "Well, just use our version then" (sigh).

So, you will have to get the Info-ZIP UNZIP and ZIP programs. I have
OS/2 versions of them on FTP.USASK.CA in the directory
pub/archives/os2/archiver

--
- Kevin Lowey (Lo...@Sask.USask.CA)
>>>>> Anonymous FTP to FTP.USASK.CA for DOS, OS/2, and Windows programs <<<<<

Chris Waters

unread,
Oct 19, 1992, 9:06:01 PM10/19/92
to

>This is because the INFO-ZIP people released a version of ZIP and
>UNZIP that uses compression schemes based on a BETA of the PKZIP
>program.

Well, yes and no. Actually, the Info-ZIP is based on the code that
PKWare was supposed to have released already, and not on the beta that
PKWare did release several months ago. PKWare is over a year behind on
their delivery date for the new PKZip. The Info-ZIP people tried to
wait (*their* code was running fine), but eventually gave up and shipped
what they had.

> I don't like what they did as it causes a lot of confusion
>for PKZIP users. However, they seem to think there was nothing wrong
>with this and say "Well, just use our version then" (sigh).

The same confusion occurred when the new version of ZOO came out--the
nets were flooded with people saying "ZOO can't extract the files from
this .ZOO archive, help!" It's going to happen any time a compression
program is updated. I don't see anything wrong with what the Info-ZIP
people did. They released an unZIPper that handles new and old .ZIP
files. You want we should all sit around and use lousy compression
programs? I know, let's all use ARC for DOS and OS/2, and pack for
UNIX. NOT!!! :-)
--
Chris Waters | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xt...@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!

John DeCarlo

unread,
Oct 20, 1992, 9:56:11 AM10/20/92
to
In article <1992Oct19.2...@access.usask.ca>
Lo...@Sask.USask.CA (Kevin Lowey) writes:

>This is because the INFO-ZIP people released a version of ZIP and
>UNZIP that uses compression schemes based on a BETA of the PKZIP
>program. I don't like what they did as it causes a lot of confusion
>for PKZIP users. However, they seem to think there was nothing wrong
>with this and say "Well, just use our version then" (sigh).

The commercial release of PKZIP 2.X is out already. I thought (and was told
by someone who said he had used the latest PKZIP) that the INFO-ZIP version
was completely compatible with the commercial PKZIP.

Just that there has been no shareware version of PKZIP 2.X released yet,
right?

John DeCarlo, MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA--My views are my own
Fidonet: 1:109/131 Internet: jdec...@mitre.org

Kevin Lowey

unread,
Oct 20, 1992, 10:51:00 AM10/20/92
to
From xt...@netcom.com (Chris Waters):

> Well, yes and no. Actually, the Info-ZIP is based on the code that
> PKWare was supposed to have released already, and not on the beta that
> PKWare did release several months ago. PKWare is over a year behind on
> their delivery date for the new PKZip. The Info-ZIP people tried to
> wait (*their* code was running fine), but eventually gave up and shipped
> what they had.

The point is that the code WASN'T released. For all we know, Phil Katz could
completely change the format of the .ZIP files before finaly releasing his
product. Where would we be then?

> The same confusion occurred when the new version of ZOO came out--the
> nets were flooded with people saying "ZOO can't extract the files from
> this .ZOO archive, help!" It's going to happen any time a compression
> program is updated.

The difference there was that the new version of .ZOO was released by
the people who defined the standards for what a .ZOO archive contains.
In the case of Info-Zip, it was a bunch of guys that have no control
over what the official definition of the .ZIP standard is. By
releasing their version before the "official" version was released,
Info-Zip risks having two competing archive formats, both called .ZIP.

> I don't see anything wrong with what the Info-ZIP
> people did. They released an unZIPper that handles new and old .ZIP
> files. You want we should all sit around and use lousy compression
> programs? I know, let's all use ARC for DOS and OS/2, and pack for
> UNIX. NOT!!! :-)

As for "let us all use .ARC", you'll notice that the reason we have
.ZIP in the first place is because Phil Katz was forced to abandon ARC
because HE RELEASED A VERSION THAT ADDED NEW COMPRESSION STANDARDS
THAT WERE NOT IN THE LATEST OFFICIALLY RELEASED VERSION OF ARC. Sound
familiar?

I would have had no problem with the Info-Zip stuff if they had simply
used a default extension of .IFZ (for InFo Zip), instead of .ZIP, at
least until the official version of .ZIP was released. That way we
could guarantee that there won't be two competing standards called
".ZIP". So I'm not saying "stick with the old .ZIP forever". I'd be
perfectly happy using an archiver which made .IFZ files, just like I
was happy using an archiver that created .ZIP files instead of .ARC
files when PKZIP was released.

The point is simple. The Info-Zip people are using archiving
standards that are not in the latest released PKZIP product. The
latest PKZIP product cannot unpack the Info Zip archives. Thus, the
Info-Zip files are NOT .ZIP files. Since the Info-Zip people have no
control over what the "official" .ZIP format is, they have no
guarantee that what they are calling .ZIP files now will be what Phil
Katz calls .ZIP files in the future. Thus, we may end up with two
competing archiving standards called .ZIP. Meanwhile, all the people
with the latest version of PKZIP are complaining that they can't
unpack ".ZIP" files and are being forced to use the "unofficial"
Info-Zip products.

This is getting off topic. I've said my piece, so I won't continue
this discussion in the net. If you want to discuss this further, send
mail.

Colin Jensen

unread,
Oct 20, 1992, 12:31:26 PM10/20/92
to
In article <1992Oct19.2...@access.usask.ca> lo...@jester.usask.ca writes:
>This is because the INFO-ZIP people released a version of ZIP and
>UNZIP that uses compression schemes based on a BETA of the PKZIP
>program. I don't like what they did as it causes a lot of confusion
>for PKZIP users. However, they seem to think there was nothing wrong
>with this and say "Well, just use our version then" (sigh).

Back it the old days.... PKWare had a product called pkarc which created
arc files compatible with the then standard archiving scheme used by
SEA's arc program. Much to the dismay of many users, PKWare added a
new compression method to pkarc that was incompatible with SEA's arc.

What comes around goes around.
--
Colin Jensen (cje...@ampex.com)

Nico E de Vries

unread,
Oct 20, 1992, 3:24:13 PM10/20/92
to
(Kevin Lowey) writes:

>From xt...@netcom.com (Chris Waters):
>> Well, yes and no. Actually, the Info-ZIP is based on the code that
>> PKWare was supposed to have released already, and not on the beta that
>> PKWare did release several months ago. PKWare is over a year behind on
>> their delivery date for the new PKZip. The Info-ZIP people tried to
>> wait (*their* code was running fine), but eventually gave up and shipped
>> what they had.

>The point is that the code WASN'T released. For all we know, Phil Katz could
>completely change the format of the .ZIP files before finaly releasing his
>product. Where would we be then?

PKWARE promised to Info-ZIP the format wouldn't change. Please notice many
of the enhancements to the ZIP format, as used by PKWARE, are developed
by InfoZIP. Not the other way around.

>...


>In the case of Info-Zip, it was a bunch of guys that have no control
>over what the official definition of the .ZIP standard is. By
>releasing their version before the "official" version was released,
>Info-Zip risks having two competing archive formats, both called .ZIP.

Excuse me... InfoZIP did a great job in making a fully PKWARE defined
file format compatible ZIP archiver. They deserve admiration for that.
They made a program which is cheaper, more reliable and runs on much
more platforms than anything PKWWARE has ever released.

>As for "let us all use .ARC", you'll notice that the reason we have
>.ZIP in the first place is because Phil Katz was forced to abandon ARC
>because HE RELEASED A VERSION THAT ADDED NEW COMPRESSION STANDARDS
>THAT WERE NOT IN THE LATEST OFFICIALLY RELEASED VERSION OF ARC. Sound
>familiar?

Noncense. PKWARE was sued for stealing code from SEA. When expert
programmers confirmed PKWARE indeed stole code the case was settled
out of court. After that PKWARE started a very ill-mannered slander
campain which changed the facts a bit in the public eye. A very low
move of PKWARE is they pretended SEA made fuzz about the ARC format
with their document releasing the ZIP format to the public domain.

>The point is simple. The Info-Zip people are using archiving
>standards that are not in the latest released PKZIP product. The
>latest PKZIP product cannot unpack the Info Zip archives. Thus, the

PKZIP 1.93a did unpack archives I made with ZIP 1.9. It doesn't do
that for you?

>This is getting off topic. I've said my piece, so I won't continue
>this discussion in the net. If you want to discuss this further, send
>mail.

If you make public claims you risk a public reply. You are of cource
free not to replt in public.

>- Kevin Lowey (Lo...@Sask.USask.CA)

Nico E. de Vries (nev...@cc.ruu.nl) |------------------* AA III PPP
_ This text is supplied AS IS, no warranties of any kind | A A I P P
| apply. No rights can be derived from this text. This | AAAA I PPP
| text is likely to contain spelling and grammar errors. | A A I P
*---------------------------( Donate to GreenPeace! )----* A A III P

"The IBM PC is still waiting for a version of the CP/M OS.", G.M. Vose, 1982.

Steve Lumos

unread,
Oct 20, 1992, 8:30:20 PM10/20/92
to
In article <1992Oct20.1...@access.usask.ca> lo...@jester.usask.ca writes:
>The point is that the code WASN'T released. For all we know, Phil Katz could
>completely change the format of the .ZIP files before finaly releasing his
>product. Where would we be then?

Well, you would have to convert the files with one of the zillion or
so conversion programs out there.

>The difference there was that the new version of .ZOO was released by
>the people who defined the standards for what a .ZOO archive contains.
>In the case of Info-Zip, it was a bunch of guys that have no control
>over what the official definition of the .ZIP standard is. By
>releasing their version before the "official" version was released,
>Info-Zip risks having two competing archive formats, both called .ZIP.

Don't you think that just maybe Info-Zip might have checked with
Katz?! Who cares what Phil Katz wants anyway. If we are talking about
being compatable, we should be using 1.02 because that is the latest
version for OS/2 (and you cannot guarantee that everybody has DOS
support installed).

>As for "let us all use .ARC", you'll notice that the reason we have
>.ZIP in the first place is because Phil Katz was forced to abandon ARC
>because HE RELEASED A VERSION THAT ADDED NEW COMPRESSION STANDARDS
>THAT WERE NOT IN THE LATEST OFFICIALLY RELEASED VERSION OF ARC. Sound
>familiar?

Well, actually you are completely wrong. What gave you that idea? Katz
was sued by SEA because of a function in his code that was exactally
the same as a function in SEA's code, but was not even used in PKARC.
He was forced to discontinue developement of PKARC and discontinue use
of "ARC" (which is where PKPAK/PKUNPAK came from). He then started
over from zero (we hope) with PKZIP.

>I would have had no problem with the Info-Zip stuff if they had simply
>used a default extension of .IFZ (for InFo Zip), instead of .ZIP, at
>least until the official version of .ZIP was released. That way we
>could guarantee that there won't be two competing standards called
>".ZIP". So I'm not saying "stick with the old .ZIP forever". I'd be
>perfectly happy using an archiver which made .IFZ files, just like I
>was happy using an archiver that created .ZIP files instead of .ARC
>files when PKZIP was released.

Why not just read the .DOCs to Zip/Unzip. Not only was everybody
warned, but they used a version number 1.9 instead of 2.0 to show that
it was compatable with 1.93a of PKZIP. It is my understanding that
Info-Zip is not doing this work for DOS users who are the only ones
who have PKZIP (I don't even count the older OS/2 version), they did
it for the UNIX/Mac/Amiga/etc. users who DON'T have PKZIP (lucky
them). Those people should not have to wait for the product (and
Info-Zip should not have to wait to release) because PKWare can't get
their 'stuff' together with this 'hardware bug'.

>The point is simple. The Info-Zip people are using archiving
>standards that are not in the latest released PKZIP product. The
>latest PKZIP product cannot unpack the Info Zip archives. Thus, the

Isn't 1.93a the latest version of PKZIP? It was released.

>Info-Zip files are NOT .ZIP files. Since the Info-Zip people have no
>control over what the "official" .ZIP format is, they have no
>guarantee that what they are calling .ZIP files now will be what Phil
>Katz calls .ZIP files in the future. Thus, we may end up with two
>competing archiving standards called .ZIP. Meanwhile, all the people
>with the latest version of PKZIP are complaining that they can't
>unpack ".ZIP" files and are being forced to use the "unofficial"
>Info-Zip products.

One more time: Do you really think that they just threw out a release
without bothering to talk to PKWare at all? What do you really think
Katz is going to change? He released the Deflation method, Zip uses
the Deflation method. If people are having problems, try PKUNZIP -v
foo.zip and see that files are type DEFLAT, is that really hard?

>This is getting off topic. I've said my piece, so I won't continue
>this discussion in the net. If you want to discuss this further, send
>mail.

--
Steve Lumos - slu...@cs.unlv.edu

Chris Waters

unread,
Oct 20, 1992, 7:21:57 PM10/20/92
to

>From xt...@netcom.com (Chris Waters):
>> Well, yes and no. Actually, the Info-ZIP is based on the code that
>> PKWare was supposed to have released already, and not on the beta that
>> PKWare did release several months ago. PKWare is over a year behind on
>> their delivery date for the new PKZip. The Info-ZIP people tried to
>> wait (*their* code was running fine), but eventually gave up and shipped
>> what they had.

>The point is that the code WASN'T released. For all we know, Phil Katz could
>completely change the format of the .ZIP files before finaly releasing his
>product. Where would we be then?

He could, but it's unlikely, since he's been working with the Info-ZIP
people. PKWare has promised that the next release of PKZip will be
compatible with Info-ZIP. If this promise had not been made, I would
agree that Info-ZIP should have either been delayed or called something
else. As it stands, though, I think that it's fine.

Anyway, this is getting rather off-topic. Followups should probably be
redirected to comp.compression.

>This is getting off topic. I've said my piece, so I won't continue
>this discussion in the net. If you want to discuss this further, send
>mail.

Aack, you already noted that it's off-topic. Well, I just want to make
sure that the OS/2 users know that Phil Katz has guaranteed that the new
PKZIP will be compatible with the current Info-ZIP.

Nico E de Vries

unread,
Oct 22, 1992, 1:05:22 PM10/22/92
to
In <1992Oct21.0...@unlv.edu> slu...@unlv.edu (Steve Lumos) writes:

>...


>Well, actually you are completely wrong. What gave you that idea? Katz
>was sued by SEA because of a function in his code that was exactally
>the same as a function in SEA's code, but was not even used in PKARC.
>He was forced to discontinue developement of PKARC and discontinue use
>of "ARC" (which is where PKPAK/PKUNPAK came from). He then started
>over from zero (we hope) with PKZIP.

If your description of the truth (which seems to me to be a copy of
PKWARE's view) would be true PKWARE would have removed the function
and continued selling PKARC. According to SEA PKARC was a blatant
copy of ARC (the source of ARC was punlically available) which had
been optimized. PKWARE DID steal code from SEA (what was the single
function doing there anyway :-)). Once an independent programmer
looked at the sources and confirmed that fact PKWARE settled. After
that PKWARE somehow convined the masses big and ugly SEA (2 person
company back than, one lawyer) smashed inocent small PKWARE (10 people?,
two lawyers) into pieces because "PKWARE used the ARC file format".

>Steve Lumos - slu...@cs.unlv.edu

Lowell Morrison

unread,
Oct 22, 1992, 12:52:11 PM10/22/92
to

Well, John, IF you were to call the PKWare BBS, you will find that
PKZip 2.01, PKZip 2.02, and PKZip 3.05 are BOGUS releases of the hacked
PKZip 1.93 Alpha. In addition 2.02 is reputed to be a trojan (or just
badly hacked), and 3.05 is reputed to drop a stealth virus.

PKWare has NOT released a commercial or shareware version (the same
product with a different license) at this time. I suspect it will
be brought out with a fanfair at COMDEX.

INFOZIP is certianly compatible with the 1.93 Alpha version of PKZip that
was released as a product to comment upon, and has been since made official
due to the lengthy delays in the release of the final product.

--Lowell Morrison
--Sysop, Wizard of OsZ PCBoard
--In out 10th year of service to the community.
--818 709-6978

Steve Lumos

unread,
Oct 22, 1992, 5:55:22 PM10/22/92
to
In article <32...@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nev...@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:
>In <1992Oct21.0...@unlv.edu> slu...@unlv.edu (Steve Lumos) writes:
>
>>...
>>Well, actually you are completely wrong. What gave you that idea? Katz
>>was sued by SEA because of a function in his code that was exactally
>>the same as a function in SEA's code, but was not even used in PKARC.
>>He was forced to discontinue developement of PKARC and discontinue use
>>of "ARC" (which is where PKPAK/PKUNPAK came from). He then started
>>over from zero (we hope) with PKZIP.
>
>If your description of the truth (which seems to me to be a copy of
>PKWARE's view) would be true PKWARE would have removed the function
>and continued selling PKARC. According to SEA PKARC was a blatant
>copy of ARC (the source of ARC was punlically available) which had
>been optimized. PKWARE DID steal code from SEA (what was the single
>function doing there anyway :-)). Once an independent programmer
>looked at the sources and confirmed that fact PKWARE settled. After
>that PKWARE somehow convined the masses big and ugly SEA (2 person
>company back than, one lawyer) smashed inocent small PKWARE (10 people?,
>two lawyers) into pieces because "PKWARE used the ARC file format".

Please don't think for a second that I am on the side of PKWare! I
agree with everything you said above, but I hesitate to state
publically that which has not been proven. The unused function was the
proof that SEA presented (and GOOD proof IMO), but since the case was
settled out of court (to SEA's detriment also IMO). But, since it
never went to court, we can never truely say for SURE what Phil Katz
did or didn't do.

My version of the truth is the same as your version, I chose to
present the evidence that SEA gave and let people decide for
themselves, rather than tell them what is 'truth'. PKWare's position
is nowhere near mine, I have never heard of them comming even close to
admitting to the existance of the mentioned function.

Nico E de Vries

unread,
Oct 22, 1992, 9:10:17 PM10/22/92
to
In <1992Oct22.2...@unlv.edu> slu...@unlv.edu (Steve Lumos) writes:
>In article <32...@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nev...@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:
>>In <1992Oct21.0...@unlv.edu> slu...@unlv.edu (Steve Lumos) writes:
>>

>Please don't think for a second that I am on the side of PKWare! I
>agree with everything you said above, but I hesitate to state
>publically that which has not been proven. The unused function was the

Please notice the disclaimer at the bottom of my posting :-)

>proof that SEA presented (and GOOD proof IMO), but since the case was
>settled out of court (to SEA's detriment also IMO). But, since it
>never went to court, we can never truely say for SURE what Phil Katz
>did or didn't do.

Thats true. It IS possible to analyze the PKARC executable however,
very interesting.

>My version of the truth is the same as your version, I chose to
>present the evidence that SEA gave and let people decide for
>themselves, rather than tell them what is 'truth'. PKWare's position
>is nowhere near mine, I have never heard of them comming even close to
>admitting to the existance of the mentioned function.

In private Phil has admitted "he made a big mistake" without giving
details. It always irritated me SEA has been punished badly for
keeping their mouth shut (that was part of the settlement). Phil
officially did as well but many people believe a bunch of alter
ego's started mailing around the world for him.

John DeCarlo

unread,
Oct 26, 1992, 9:43:37 AM10/26/92
to
In article <32...@accucx.cc.ruu.nl>
nev...@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:

>After
>that PKWARE somehow convined the masses big and ugly SEA (2 person
>company back than, one lawyer) smashed inocent small PKWARE (10 people?,
>two lawyers) into pieces because "PKWARE used the ARC file format".

Well, the fact of the matter is that SEA *did* claim that the ARC file
format was their copyright, and that no one could use it without
permission. Once people found that out, any sympathy they may have had from
people who thought there was stealing of code evaporated.

Talk about big mistakes to alienate people for no good reason.

I know many commercial entities who also stopped purchasing and using SEA
products for that reason.


OTOH, there are *still* ads in the commercial magazines for Version 2 of
PKZIP, even if it hasn't been released yet.

Nico E de Vries

unread,
Oct 27, 1992, 4:24:32 PM10/27/92
to
In <jdecarlo.35...@mitre.org> jdec...@mitre.org (John DeCarlo) writes:

>Well, the fact of the matter is that SEA *did* claim that the ARC file
>format was their copyright, and that no one could use it without

They didn't sue PKWARE for it and they publically have said not
to object to people using the ARC format. They DID object to people
stealing their sources.

>permission. Once people found that out, any sympathy they may have had from
>people who thought there was stealing of code evaporated.
>Talk about big mistakes to alienate people for no good reason.

Sea made the mistake to challenge a very smart busiiness man.

>I know many commercial entities who also stopped purchasing and using SEA
>products for that reason.

Whel they stoped because they believed the hype PKWARE (or their
alter ego's) did spread. Sea did never break their promise to
talk about the case in public (which did cost them VERY much harm).
Many people believe (altought there is no proof for this) PKWARE
was involved in the negative publicity wave against Sea.

>OTOH, there are *still* ads in the commercial magazines for Version 2 of
>PKZIP, even if it hasn't been released yet.

It will probably be released in a few weeks and it will be GOOD. It will
be faster AND tighter than PKZIP 1.93a and have multivolume support as
a bonus.

>John DeCarlo, MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA--My views are my own
>Fidonet: 1:109/131 Internet: jdec...@mitre.org

Nico E. de Vries (nev...@cc.ruu.nl) |------------------* AA III PPP

Gregory Youngblood

unread,
Oct 28, 1992, 12:45:46 PM10/28/92
to
nev...@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:

> In <jdecarlo.35...@mitre.org> jdec...@mitre.org (John DeCarlo) write
>

> >Well, the fact of the matter is that SEA *did* claim that the ARC file
> >format was their copyright, and that no one could use it without
>
> They didn't sue PKWARE for it and they publically have said not
> to object to people using the ARC format. They DID object to people
> stealing their sources.
>
> >permission. Once people found that out, any sympathy they may have had from
> >people who thought there was stealing of code evaporated.
> >Talk about big mistakes to alienate people for no good reason.
>
> Sea made the mistake to challenge a very smart busiiness man.
>
> >I know many commercial entities who also stopped purchasing and using SEA
> >products for that reason.
>
> Whel they stoped because they believed the hype PKWARE (or their
> alter ego's) did spread. Sea did never break their promise to
> talk about the case in public (which did cost them VERY much harm).
> Many people believe (altought there is no proof for this) PKWARE
> was involved in the negative publicity wave against Sea.

A while back I had a file on this subject, which had collected several
texts and messages about PK vs SEA. In it were some interesting
comments...some were negative marks about PK, others were negative things
about SEA. For whatever intent and purpose, the author of the file made
no statements of what he thought was going on, he just collected things
and archived the, with the description for each file.

I wish I stilll had it. If memory serves, there were some postings in
some forum talking about what PK ahd done (making PK look quite bad) and
just a couple
'in defense of PK' type files... All in all, PK came out smelling rotten
and SEA made to look like a vindicated business... Even the files that
were supposed to be
e 39
were supposed to be defending PK were not very good and all.

Overall, after I had read the file I was of the impression that PK
really took advantage of SEA and did things in such a way that SEA
couldn't do anything about.

You could almost say the file was a smear file.

Side note, about a year later I saw another similar file taking the exact
opposite, sort of a THEY DID THIS SO WE HAD TO RELEASE THIS INFO sounding
as if it were from PK. [I didn't take it seriously because this was
around the same time PKZIP 1.2 or something was going around]

Does anyone else remember anything like this? I got these off of Houston
BBS systems four to five years ago I believe

Greg

.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.
. TCS Consulting Services P.O. Box 600008 St. Paul, MN 55106-0008 .
. ..!srcsip!tcscs!zeta ..!src.honeywell.com!tcscs!zeta .
. zeta%tc...@idss.nwa.com tcscs!ze...@idss.nwa.com .
.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.

John DeCarlo

unread,
Oct 29, 1992, 8:45:12 AM10/29/92
to
In article <Zq6cTB...@tcscs.UUCP>
srcsip!tcscs!zeta (Gregory Youngblood) writes:

>A while back I had a file on this subject, which had collected several
>texts and messages about PK vs SEA.

I used to have a copy of the official legal filing that SEA had done against
PK. I believe it was this document that got most people against SEA. Of
course lawyers try to purposefully use degrading and insulting ideas ("we
own everything") when they write such documents, much like shrink-wrap
licenses.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages