From: Timothy Knox Date: 07:50 on 21 Jan 2008 Subject: Stuffit Expander, get stuffed! Breaking news: Stuffit Expander is hateful!* Stuffit Expander, my hate for you is exceeded only by my hatred for ... well, okay, by my hatred for *most* software. But today, we are turning the HateCam (TM) squarely in YOUR direction. First, why do you crash (sorry, sorry, "quit unexpectedly") so d*mn often? And why can't you handle a command line invocation with a dozen or so files to open? Why, even when (to work around your utter and complete brain-damage) I write a shell loop that opens each file, sleeps for 5 seconds, and opens the next, must you crash two or three times at the least? But most hateful of all, why do you think you are so fscking important that when I ask you to expand a file, you feel the need to bring yourself to the front and steal my d*mn focus, just to show me that never-to-be-sufficiently d*mned little progress dialog? Why, you festering pile of bilious hate, WHY? Why can't you just expand my file, and mind your own business? Just expand them, and SHUT THE FSCK UP! We now return you to your regular hate, already in progress. * Okay, it's only breaking news if you have been in a coma for the last twenty years.
From: Peter da Silva Date: 09:13 on 21 Jan 2008 Subject: Re: Stuffit Expander, get stuffed! On 2008-01-21, at 01:50, Timothy Knox wrote: > Breaking news: Stuffit Expander is hateful!* > * Okay, it's only breaking news if you have been in a coma for the > last twenty > years. So why the hell are you using it? It passed even my liberal hate boundary on the way to the edge of the hate universe long ago.
From: Timothy Knox Date: 09:22 on 21 Jan 2008 Subject: Re: Stuffit Expander, get stuffed! Somewhere on Shadow Earth, at Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 03:13:16AM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote: > On 2008-01-21, at 01:50, Timothy Knox wrote: >> Breaking news: Stuffit Expander is hateful!* > >> * Okay, it's only breaking news if you have been in a coma for the last >> twenty >> years. > > So why the hell are you using it? > > It passed even my liberal hate boundary on the way to the edge of the hate > universe long ago. Two things it does more easily than either the Finder's built-in unzipping support or the fink-installed unzip command line tool: One, it creates a surrounding folder as needed, and not when unneeded, and two, it auto deletes the archive when finished. I suppose I could write a wrapper to the command line unzip to do that, but I haven't yet done so.
From: Peter da Silva Date: 09:45 on 21 Jan 2008 Subject: Re: Stuffit Expander, get stuffed! Jeepers! I thought you were gonna say "I need to unpack .SITX archives" or something. > I suppose I could write a wrapper to the command line unzip to do > that, but I haven't yet done so. That would be about a thousand times less hateful. Unpacking it with your teeth would probably be less hateful.
From: Aristotle Pagaltzis Date: 14:23 on 21 Jan 2008 Subject: Re: Stuffit Expander, get stuffed! * Timothy Knox <tdk@xxxxxxxx.xxx> [2008-01-21 10:30]: > I suppose I could write a wrapper to the command line unzip to > do that, It's not even hard. Just *always* unzip to a surrounding folder, then check its contents when done and move them out when the wrapper folder is unnecessary. I can write shell script for that in my sleep. I mean I've written variations on this theme probably about a dozen times already. It's made me hate all the archiving tools I've ever encountered at least a little bit for dropping this responsibility in my lap instead of taking care of it themselves but hey, at least I almost never had to deal with Expander. It's surprising to hear that Expander of all things gets this one right -- but if having to deal with this on my own is the price for not being exposed to software like Expander, well, that's a small price I will gladly pay a thousand times over. Regards,
From: Peter da Silva Date: 14:40 on 21 Jan 2008 Subject: Re: Stuffit Expander, get stuffed! On 2008-01-21, at 08:23, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: > It's not even hard. Just *always* unzip to a surrounding folder, > then check its contents when done and move them out when the > wrapper folder is unnecessary. I can write shell script for that > in my sleep. "The Unarchiver" does that. What I personally want is "always unpack to a surrounding folder". Whether it's "necessary" or not. And that's because of the way so many tools on the Mac set both "Last Modified" and "Created" to the internal "Created" time. It doesn't matter much to me whether they set "Last Modified" or "Created" to the date that I actually unarchived it (though "last modified" makes more sense), but I want to have that metadata preserved for my own file tracking purposes, so creating an enclosing folder is the least worst option. I'd use "last inode change" time except that Apple doesn't seem to give a shit about preserving that. Finder will go in grovelling around in the innards of the file or updating some metadata when it hasn't even changed, and "last inode change" is always "last time glanced at by finder". Ironically, Aladdin Expander on the PC gets most aspects of this right, and is a lot less annoying than Stuffit Expander on the Mac.
Generated at 10:28 on 16 Apr 2008 by mariachi