Re: FTPClient Beta Released - Please test
Re: FTPClient Beta Released - Please test
- Subject: Re: FTPClient Beta Released - Please test
- From: Sherm Pendley <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 23:14:19 -0400
On Friday, August 9, 2002, at 04:24 PM, David Rehring wrote:
-.sit.hqx is free to decompress
So is .gz.
-most users know what .sit/.hqx files are [that they are somehow
'packaged'
versions of actual file]. '.gz' is a relatively unknown extension in
the
Mac experience
Extensions are relatively unknown in the Mac experience. By default, a
.gz file is associated with Stuffit Expander - the same as .sit/.hqx.
-most users know what to do with .sit.hqx.
Most users have no idea what extensions are. They double-click on files
with the "archive" icon, and it uncompresses. That's not one bit
different with .gz files, which have the same icon, and uncompress with
the same application.
what to do with .gz [even if double clicking on it would result in it
being
decompressed].
Which it will - using StuffIt Expander, just like a .sit file.
Given the choice between doing
something so that it's 'easy/cheaper/faster' for the developer versus
the
end-user, the decision should be to make it 'easy/cheaper/faster' the
end-user [within reason, of course].
If the two choices were mutually exclusive, you'd be right. But they're
not - .gz files offer *exactly* the same end-user experience. The user
sees a file with an archive icon, double clicks it, and it unpacks.
Making a .sit.hqx file is not significantly more difficult for the
developer
versus creating a .gz file.
Making either type of file is trivially simple.
The difference is, gzip came bundled with my Mac, for free. Why should I
pay for something that offers zero benefit - for me, or for the end user
of my applications?
sherm--
_______________________________________________
cocoa-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.