Page 5 of 5

PostPosted: Sat Aug 16, 2003 8:57 pm
by Mighty Duck X-treme
*DELETED*

PostPosted: Sat Aug 16, 2003 10:10 pm
by GooberMan
HotWax wrote:Don't make me hit you.
Heh. I agree that you could just store the map lumps in either a directory inside the zip or even as another zip. I was just thinking that the map format is tied to the whole idea of a lump marker with following data, which is what the graphics are moving away from and what ZIPs can avoid having in them. On the other hand, in keeping with my Quake 3 .PK3 reference, the MD3 format was stored by using a directory as a makeshift lump marker, so even mighty id haven't addressed markers fully. Perhaps maps might be the next data type to be addressed by Randy.

PostPosted: Sat Aug 16, 2003 11:20 pm
by David Ferstat
After reading all the preceding posts (By ghod, I reckon I need a medal after wading through the vast amounts of crap. Jack and Steve, if I ever meet you two at the same time, there will be an ENORMOUS temptation to bang your heads together. I respect you both, but jeez, you two have to grow up!) I realised that what I DIDN'T see was anyone checking to see if the .zip format was still suitable.

You see, we've become accustomed over the last decade to think of .zip as a fixed and universal format. Unfortunately, it ain't necessarily so, as they say in the classics.

The two major manufacturers of .zip software are PKWare, who bring us PKZip, and Winzip, who bring us, you guessed it, Winzip. Up until now, these two programs have each produced files that their competition can fully edit.

Earlier this year, this all changed. PKWare, who created and publish the .zip standard, released a new version of PKZip with new security encryption features.

Unfortunately, they did NOT appear to give access to this new encryption scheme to Winzip, who then released competing and incompatible new version of Winzip.

For a more in-depth look at this issue, look here:

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5062423.html

My summary?

The .zip file format is not currently a universal standard. Until this is resolved we should think very long and hard before trying to adopt a this file format.

PostPosted: Sat Aug 16, 2003 11:29 pm
by Anonymous
Darryl Lovato, president and chief technology officer, said he hasn't figured out yet how to address the security extensions. He expects the resulting incompatibility will erode support for the aged Zip format.

"They've broken the only thing Zip still had going for it, which was ultimate compatibility," he said. "The Zip format has always been a sure thing--you knew a .zip file was a .zip file. Now, all of the sudden, people are going to get a .zip file they won't be able to open, and they'll assume it's corrupted."

Lovato said one interim solution would be for PKWare and WinZip to come up with a new file name other than the familiar .zip extension. "Then at least people would know it's not a regular .zip file," he said.


Why, do password-encrypted .zips don't work anymore?

PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2003 1:10 am
by Chris
I kinda like the idea of .wad.gz as a barebones way of adding compression..

PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2003 1:38 am
by Graf Zahl
David Ferstat wrote:After reading all the preceding posts (By ghod, I reckon I need a medal after wading through the vast amounts of crap. Jack and Steve, if I ever meet you two at the same time, there will be an ENORMOUS temptation to bang your heads together. I respect you both, but jeez, you two have to grow up!) I realised that what I DIDN'T see was anyone checking to see if the .zip format was still suitable.

You see, we've become accustomed over the last decade to think of .zip as a fixed and universal format. Unfortunately, it ain't necessarily so, as they say in the classics.

The two major manufacturers of .zip software are PKWare, who bring us PKZip, and Winzip, who bring us, you guessed it, Winzip. Up until now, these two programs have each produced files that their competition can fully edit.

Earlier this year, this all changed. PKWare, who created and publish the .zip standard, released a new version of PKZip with new security encryption features.

Unfortunately, they did NOT appear to give access to this new encryption scheme to Winzip, who then released competing and incompatible new version of Winzip.

For a more in-depth look at this issue, look here:

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5062423.html

My summary?

The .zip file format is not currently a universal standard. Until this is resolved we should think very long and hard before trying to adopt a this file format.


And why should that be a problem? It's incompatible hence almost nobody will use it. Besides, who cares about security features?

PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2003 4:11 am
by Hirogen2
HotWax wrote:
Hirogen2 wrote:What if we just design a complete new file format (and an editor on top), which handles all these issues?

ZIP already supports the issues discussed and has already been invented.

Its compression is weak and on top, LZ77/78 is patented.

Did I already say this?: we can just put in support for new container formats such as ZIP,etc. Older WADs will work with older ZDooms. However, the editor part is the difficult.
looks like i need to write one :?

PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2003 5:35 am
by GooberMan
David Ferstat wrote:The two major manufacturers of .zip software are PKWare, who bring us PKZip, and Winzip, who bring us, you guessed it, Winzip. Up until now, these two programs have each produced files that their competition can fully edit.

Earlier this year, this all changed. PKWare, who created and publish the .zip standard, released a new version of PKZip with new security encryption features.

Unfortunately, they did NOT appear to give access to this new encryption scheme to Winzip, who then released competing and incompatible new version of Winzip.
I can see why they wouldn't have released that information - if the specification for the encryption was public domain like the specification for ZIPs, security in ZIPs wouldn't have been solved as any one with a bit of programming knowledge could have written a ZIP cracker. As it stands, they're not really ZIPs anymore as they don't follow the ZIP specification that has been created and expanded upon over the past 10 years. A similar thing is occuring with copy protection of music CDs at the moment - the current "protection" method violates the red book standard by intentionally corrupting the auto correct data, and as it doesn't meet the requirements to be an audio CD it shouldn't be viewed as such. Unfortunately they are marketed like audio CDs, much like these new hybrids of ZIPs will be distributed under the ZIP disguise. Until PKWare release the specification for their new ZIP encryption, it shouldn't be viewed as a standard ZIP, just as WinZip's encryption shouldn't be viewed as a standard ZIP.

If ZIPs really do become too difficult to keep track of, tar.gz or any other accepted standard format is always an option.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2003 6:21 am
by Enjay
David Ferstat wrote:The two major manufacturers of .zip software are PKWare, who bring us PKZip, and Winzip, who bring us, you guessed it, Winzip. Up until now, these two programs have each produced files that their competition can fully edit.


I always felt kind of sorry for PKWare. I rightly, or wrongly assumed that events had basically gone like this:

PK invented the zip format and made it (very) popular with the DOS util PKZip. Everyone used it. It was the standard.

Winzip (originally just an interface for PKZip.exe under windows IIRC) came along and produced a good front end that used PKzip, but eventually it was expanded to do the compression itself.

PK made their own PKZip for windows (which judging by the copy we have at work) was crap.

So, winzip takes over the world, everybody forgets that PKWare had anything to do with the format - and people start talking about things like - "just winzip it up", "I've got a winzip file here", etc etc. ie Winzip and the zip format became one and the same thing in the public mind.

Poor old PK missed the Windows boat it would seem, and lost out big time in the public perception, and business share of what the zip format has become.


Is that anywhere near what happened, or have my sympathies with PK been misplaced all these years?

PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2003 7:06 am
by Graf Zahl
Enjay wrote:So, winzip takes over the world, everybody forgets that PKWare had anything to do with the format - and people start talking about things like - "just winzip it up", "I've got a winzip file here", etc etc. ie Winzip and the zip format became one and the same thing in the public mind.


Yeah, it's sad. Especially since WinZip is probably one of the worst archiving tools I know. There are much better ones around!

BTW, I don't use WinZip at all!

PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2003 8:25 am
by David Ferstat
Enjay wrote:
I always felt kind of sorry for PKWare. I rightly, or wrongly assumed that events had basically gone like this:

PK invented the zip format and made it (very) popular with the DOS util PKZip. Everyone used it. It was the standard.

Winzip (originally just an interface for PKZip.exe under windows IIRC) came along and produced a good front end that used PKzip, but eventually it was expanded to do the compression itself.

PK made their own PKZip for windows (which judging by the copy we have at work) was crap.

...

Is that anywhere near what happened, or have my sympathies with PK been misplaced all these years?


Winzip was, indeed, originally a front-end for a separately-obtained copy of PKZip. Later, it featured native zip encoding.

I wasn't aware that PKWare had produced their own Windows version of PKZip until many years after I had purchased my own copy of Winzip. By this time, of course, it was far too late. :)

Graf Zahl wrote:
Yeah, it's sad. Especially since WinZip is probably one of the worst archiving tools I know. There are much better ones around!


I confess I find this curious. I've been using various versions of Winzip since 1995, and have found it to be easy-to-use, quick and reliable.

I'd like to know just what you don't like about it, and what you think is better.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2003 8:27 am
by Anonymous
*REPOSTED*

Hotwax wrote:And the award for most quotes in a single post goes to HotWax...


Longest post I've ever seen :D

/me awards Hotwax with the four cookies that pritch failed to give out in /newstuff Chronicles #141, 140, 139, and 138!

Grazza originally was supposed to get a cookie in #138, but because he failed to say "fp! props to all logged in (insertwackystatementhere)™", he deserved NO COOKIE!

I stole the cookies from the great pritchy! take that, master pritch! :D

PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2003 8:40 am
by Anonymous
DELETED

PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2003 8:50 am
by Biff
duck / Abs wrote:

------------------------------------
"*REPOSTED*

Randomlag (Deep), we all like to see you around here. We usually find you're insightful even if your "I'M RIGHT DAMMIT" attitude can be a little irritating. All I see in this thread is a badly executed trolling session. It worked only because Fredrik also has this "I'M RIGHT DAMMIT" attitude.

*Randy* is a veteran coder. And as such, nobody doesn't even need to comment on your argumentation since it is so biased it reminded Julian of a famous Italian tower. And I don't see how someone with your background couldn't be aware of it.

I certainly enjoy arguments in baseball. But for the kind of "conversation" you have with Fred, I'd advise to use e-mail or IRC. This is a disscusion forum, not a boxing ring. And cock-fights are definately NOT welcome here.

I suggest you try to come back to your senses and I'll consider you've been very bored or something... ?"
-----------------------------------------


??? The above post is something copied from doomworld. If memory serves, it's a post by "Julian".

duck, this is not a good idea. If you don't have something technical to add to the discussion, it's not a good idea to just toss a little gasoline on a fire that's almost out now.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2003 9:15 am
by Graf Zahl
David Ferstat wrote:
Graf Zahl wrote:
Yeah, it's sad. Especially since WinZip is probably one of the worst archiving tools I know. There are much better ones around!


I confess I find this curious. I've been using various versions of Winzip since 1995, and have found it to be easy-to-use, quick and reliable.

I'd like to know just what you don't like about it, and what you think is better.



WinZip is ok unless you need some enhanced directory features. If you want to put a file in a subdirectory of a Zip or try to extract specific files out of a directory you're out of luck. I constantly have to handle large Zips and these are just a few features I really need.