Am I really the first to post my poop?

Wilkinson, grab me a dictionary, boy! How does one pronounce "DBF2LDIF"?

What a memorable moniker it is! Right up there with "QAIO37SDFG" and "FACD19CHPB"! Reminds me of a Mongolian chap I met once while waiting for a yak taxi in a small bush outside Tibet ... Lovely cove, but utterly unpronounceable name! And his wife! Well, let's just say the yak taxi's buttock's were a more kissable proposition!

Wilkinson, put down that sabre at once! Fido won't hurt you. He's just trying to nibble on your throat.

You know, it seems to me that RB usage isn't the only fairly good indicator of quality, it seems to have gotten to the point where the continued use of StuffIt (or, damn it all, even BinHex) points to a developer who is stuck on suck. I mean, it's one thing when users have to be dragged screaming and kicking into the 21st century, but you just *know* there's a clueless developer on the other end of an application if they can't figure out how to make a compressed disk image for OS X.

So when reviewers are ticking off their standard "checklist of crap", please add StuffIt. In fact, can I suggest the addition of a standard set of icons you start adding/using with reviews so we can mentally prepare ourselves for the horrors that are about to be described to us? That would be great. Thanks!

Mm.. excellent thought, Mr. Notherthin! Perhaps we will consider an iconic scheme as you suggest.

actually, if you use RB to make a carbon app and you then upload it to version tracker as a .dmg you will get flamed and threatened for not releasing it as an os 9 compatible .sit file.

this is coming from personal experience.

> but you just *know* there's a clueless developer on the other end of
>an application if they can't figure out how to make a compressed disk
>image for OS X

Using disk images is the fucking stupidest software distribution scheme ever conceived. It's so stupid I don't even know the proper words for it. Disk images are a weird concept in the first place and only useful in very limited circumstances, but using them to distribute software is even stupider than using the metal interface for Safari. It makes no sense whatsoever, and most normal Mac users get confused about it. And don't get me started on the new, self-expanding self-deleting disk images! WAH!

Wow, with such a lucid argument as that it's clear that your time spent on the debate team really paid off. Kudo's to you, sir!

Now explain to me why Apple or any Mac developer should be kissing Aladdin's ass just to distribute software? A disk image is a nice, clean package that is handled well by the Finder without any 3rd party involvement. Hell, there are a number of things I just keep around on their compressed disk images because I don't run them often enough to bother installing them. And I can alias right into the files I need on the image, too. The only thing "limited" here is your mental capacity.

Disk images take too long. For crying out loud, I just want to get something open. I don't want to sit there for twice as long watching the disk mount, double-clicking it, and then dragging the files to the desktop. Just let me open it with the stuffit expander that expands it right on the desktop.

Ahh yes... It takes too long to mount a disk image... One must:

1) Wait to validate the image
2) Have the image mount
3) Open the folder

And with the stuffit process I have to:

1) Wait for stuffit to de-bin hex it
2) Wait for the .sit to decompress
3) Open the folder

It seems like the same process to me. I don't think this is worth arguing over.

mmmmmmmm..... scrapple

Yea, you are all right. What we need is a clickless interface. I mean, I really hate having to click on the link to download a file, then wait for it to download only to have more clicking and waiting to do. I want to see it on the web and have it automatically downloaded instantaneously, opened, installed and run for me. Hell, if it could just download, open, run, and quit in the background while I'm enjoying a waffle smothered in salsa verde while watching some hawaiian bombshell with silicon enhancements do step aerobics, never once having to click or wait, that would suit me just fine. I could do away with my mouse. That would alleviate that one source of annoying interaction with my computer and make my life so much easier.

The problem is, this software looks like crap and sounds like an abomination, but I have a bunch of OE contacts and am trying to switch to Jag's Address Book. This is all I've found that can do that automatically.

(Unless I'm missing something very obvious...)

Not to criticize the artfully worded berating of today's program, but perhaps the reviewer could spare a few sentences and describe exactly what the hell it does?
The name is less than informative.
[Nor does it seem to have the slightest relevance whatsoever.]

It converts DBF files into LDIF files. Apparently this is useful for converting Outlook Express contacts into a format that Address Book can import.

I have to agree with Mr. LKM, if that *is* his real acronym. Disk images add a completely unnecessary and confusing step to the installation process. If I want to download an application, just let me download the application.
Can someone explain how it's easier for me to download a .dmg file, double-click the .dmg file, thereby launching an application to create a fake disk on my desktop, double-click the fake disk, then copy the enclosed application to my real disk, then "eject" the imaginary disk, then erase the useless .dmg file?
Admittedly, some of these steps are automated by Safari, but what's the point? Why not just use .bin files? Anyone?

>Wow, with such a lucid argument as that it's clear that your time spent
>on the debate team really paid off. Kudo's to you, sir!

Thanks, I'm doing my best ;-)

>Now explain to me why Apple or any Mac developer should be kissing
>Aladdin's ass just to distribute software?

No. Why should I do that? I never claimed they should kiss Aladdin's ass.

>A disk image is a nice, clean package that is handled well by the Finder
>without any 3rd party involvement.

Finder? No.

>Hell, there are a number of things I just keep around on their
>compressed disk images because I don't run them often enough to
>bother installing them.

Good for you. I never claimed *you* shouldn't use them. I just said that they were the wrong choice for software distribution.

>And I can alias right into the files I need on the image, too. The only
>thing "limited" here is your mental capacity.

Thanks. I'm a bit drawn here... Should I actually tell you why images suck, or should I just ignore you for the troll that you are? Aw, shuck it. I'm going to explain it to you *real* slowly, and I also won't go so low as to denounce your obvious lack of proper neuronal wiring. Damn, now I did it.

Okay, here's the problem with disk images. I do kind of a lot of software support for other, mostly new Mac users. Downloading StuffIt-files is no problem: Download them, double-click them, there's the folder with the app. Right there. Where the .sit-file was. Easy.

Now disk images. Download them. Double-click them. First of all, mounting them will take a lot longer than unstuffing a file. Second, now that you've mounted it, where is it? The old file is still where you downloaded it to. If you're lucky, the image will open automatically. Most don't. So, tell me, how is a normal Mac user supposed to know that the thing he just downloaded now appears in the form of *a new disk drive*? Okay, let's say he found out about that. There are more problems:

1) he can't delete the original file without unmounting the drive
2) he can't delete the mounted disk image since the trash changes into the eject symbol. to him, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. he didn't insert anything, why should he eject it?
3) if he restarts, his software disappears
4) he can't copy the image over to the harddisk. copying it will create an alias, he has to hold down the option key. how the heck is he supposed to know that?

there's more, but the bottom line is this: it's confusing. it's non-standard. it's not consistent. it's slower. it's larger than .sit files. it just plain sucks more than stuffit files, however much you may dislike any proprietary solutions. and let's not forget that aladdin is a "good" company. they were with us during the dark days, and they always gave away free versions of their software. no reason to boycot them, especially since their solution is *better*.

"Should I actually tell you why images suck, or should I just ignore you for the troll that you are?"

Oh, beautiful! Nice reverse troll claim there, trollboy.

"First of all, mounting them will take a lot longer than unstuffing a file."

No, it won't. I suppose it might be significant if you have a real crap Mac or can't rub two neurons together to turn off verification in the preferences. And do you have any idea how long StuffIt takes to deal with big archives (I'm talking CD sized) compared to a quick, simple mount of a disk image of the same?

"Second, now that you?ve mounted it, where is it? "

It's where all mounted disk are, Einstein. You do software support and have trouble figuring that out or explaining it? I'd fire you if you worked for me.

"it?s confusing. it?s non-standard. it?s not consistent. it?s slower. it?s larger than .sit files."

You're not too bright. It doesn't come more standard than being *from* Apple. It's perfectly consistent with being a bloody *disk* image. Do an actual benchmark on your speed claims; I've seen Disk Copy faster. Do an actual benchmark on your size claims; I've seen disk images smaller.

"they were with us during the dark days"

Yeah, to suck us dry and use their de facto monopoly in Mac compression to make you think they were actually doing you a favor. Maybe you still buy that, or maybe they pay you to post.

StuffIt as a good or bad company doesn't concern me, though. My point is that all the crap software that has shown up here, RB or not, has seemingly to a number used StuffIt where most of the quality software I find uses a disk image. If you don't believe me, please go back through the entries and see for yourself. I only brought up that StuffIt, like RB, seems to be favored by developers of crap software. It was *you* who made it about the quality of StuffIt.

>>“Should I actually tell you why images suck,
>>or should I just ignore you for the troll that
>>you are?”
>Oh, beautiful! Nice reverse troll claim there, trollboy.

There's a difference between saying "images suck" and "you're dumb". I said the first thing. draw your own conclusions.

>>“First of all, mounting them will take a lot longer than unstuffing a file.”
>No, it won’t.

Time it. It will.

>And do you have any idea how long StuffIt takes
>to deal with big archives (I’m talking CD sized)
>compared to a quick, simple mount of a disk image
>of the same?

Of course, I download CD-sized software on a daily basis.

>>“Second, now that you?ve mounted it, where is it? “
>It’s where all mounted disk are, Einstein.

Yeah, but it's not a freaking mounted disk. It's software you just downloaded. If you think it makes sense that it shows up as a mounted disk, you've got a huge problem.

>>“it?s confusing. it?s non-standard. it?s not consistent.
>>it?s slower. it?s larger than .sit files.”
>You’re not too bright. It doesn’t come more standard than
>being *from* Apple.

How can you say "you're not too bright" in one sentence and then go on and claim that "it doesn't come more standard than being from Apple" in the next one? I'm really inclined to swear at you like you do at me, but you're just not worth it.

>It’s perfectly consistent with being a bloody *disk* image.

And obviously, my claim is that the problem is that it's a disk image in the first place, so I have no idea what *that* should prove.

>>“they were with us during the dark days”
>Yeah, to suck us dry and use their de facto monopoly in Mac
>compression to make you think they were actually doing you
>a favor. Maybe you still buy that, or maybe they pay you to post.

That's just pure bullshit. They own the market because they're better. There are and were always alternatives to StuffIt.

>StuffIt as a good or bad company doesn’t concern me, though.
>My point is that all the crap software that has shown up here,
>RB or not, has seemingly to a number used StuffIt where most of
>the quality software I find uses a disk image.

Two problems with that:
1) That doesn't prove that disk images are better
2) It's not true

>If you don’t believe me, please go back through the entries and
>see for yourself.

Why? There's only crap software here. What does that prove? That most software fortunately still uses StuffIt? That even bad programmers make some good decissions? That it's easier to just StuffIt it and therefore most bad programmers do that?

My goodness, gracious me, but you people do take yourselves seriously, don't you.

This is a website called PerversionTracker. I mean, if that doesn't start a smile just by saying it out loud, what else will? Please let's not take this seriously. Yes, Stuffit is the worst product since Dr Malthus's patented cough elixir and mosquito repellent. Yes, Stuffit is the most wonderful product since Dr Malthus's patented cough elixir and mosquito repellent. Yes, mounting disk images is a pain in the Jatz crackers. Yes, unstuffing files is worse than a redback spider in your haemorrhoids.

REALbasic is the software equivalent of a battery-acid enema.

Quark is the software-developer equivalent of a blunt hacksaw blade hacking at your scrotum.

Did I leave anyone out?

How about we all shake hands and pretend the world is full of peace and love -- because the alternative, frankly, is more frightening than George W. Bush as Supreme Pope and Ruler of the World, Grand Elephant of the Masai Mara and Poobah of the Alabama Chapter of the Grand Knights of Piss and Wind.

In short, we're all on the same side here, you shrieking fiends, and let's not forget it!

And now I must away, for no-one else can be trusted to rotate the mucus in my prized collection of rhinocerus sneezes.

>In short, we’re all on the same side here, you shrieking fiends, and let’s
>not forget it!

Whatever side you're on, I'm on the other one ;-)

LKM, you are indeed a wise person. Best steer clear of this rogue click-beetle! You might get badly wizened!

Grrrrr!

Oh, put your trousers back on, Belvedere! I wasn't growling at you. It's only Tuesday, for God's sake! Now help me lift these wildebeests into the crockpot. Mother will be here any minute, and she doesn't like to be kept waiting!

Whoa. For a few hours there, I thought I was on Slashdot, but your post brought me back. Sorry for the mess, I just got confused ;-)

Mmmmm, wildebeest.......

You rock my world, Aussie boy. Let's form an intercontinental consortium of Those Who Know The Horrible Fate That Awaits Us All But Try To Keep A Sense Of Humor About It.

tiny goddess, thank God you're still alive! Consider me your vice-president, oh great and miniscule goddess. TWKTHFTAYABTTKASOHAI will sweep the globe with the best sense of humour -- and crappiest acronym -- that the world has ever seen!

The Amazon jungles disappear in flames? We laugh!

The Niagara Falls clog up with McDonalds wrappers and become a toxic, stagnant bog? We pee in our pants chortling!

The last of the rare Montenegran Laughing Chipmunks is crushed to death in a nasty accident involving triathletes and Serbian death squads? By God, we're hospitalised with mirthful paralysis!

George W. Bush convinces the USA that there's something in that brain pan, and they vote for him, and he's elected and ... Oh, sorry. That wasn't very nice. Sometimes I just go too far.

Yes, it is hardly possible to laugh at the demon's spawn commonly known as George W. Bush -- but damn it, somebody's gotta do it! Maybe we could start by laughing at Texans in general, then gradually narrow it down?

Good, I'm glad we agree on that.

Now we just have to arm-wrestle over whether to spell it "humour" or "humor."

My dear lady, there is no problem. There is no discrepancy. There is no need to arm wrestle. You say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to ... Let us revel in our hemispherically unique spellings. Besides, if it confuses the enemy, it has to be a good thing, right? And there's nothing more guaranteed to inflame those humourless, sour-faced, self-appointed arbiters of right and wrong than a good old bitter argument about how a word should be spelled (spelt!), pronounced or utilised (used!). Together, my ethereal minutiae, we are invincible!

Okay, so these two Texans are going to visit Australia. One of them has been there before, and he's briefing his buddy on what to expect.

"These Aussies are okay, but they tend to exaggerate and take themselves too seriously, so you have to humo(u)r them sometimes.

"For example, they'll all brag about how Australia is bigger than Texas, and it's best just to pretend you believe them."

That's the trouble with Texans. No sense of proportion ...

Wow. These reviews make me want to think more and do less.

Hmm... wonder who this could be? ;)

Australians take themselves seriously? Come off it girl! One look at our Prime Minister will give that away. Can you think of a better way for us to prove to the world how ridiculous we are than by voting that glad-handing soporific nonce to be our leader? And our foreign policy?

we're a nation of dog-stiffeners.

I'm well hung in shame (or something).