Thu 2003-02-13 09:43, mark lewis (1:3634/12) wrote to Russell Tiedt:

ml> yes, i've been aware of this stuff, too... i remember that many
ml> "howled" that JAM was designed based on squish... i'm not privy to
ml> the internals of how the JAMm team came up with the JAM format but
ml> it might be that this is/was true... in any case, JAM has more
ml> "features" and is a bit easier, in my mind, to work with...

The main benefit of running Squish bases was because they could auto-pack
themselves.  I don't think JAM was designed to do this.  But now that disk
space is virtually free, presumably nobody cares, so there's no real
benefit using one over the other, except for the fact that you have a
Squish API library (SMAPI/XMSGAPI) that is virtually portable to anywhere,
as opposed to the original JAM API (which presumably nobody even uses).

 RT> For the above reasons I hope Andrew changes his mind.

ml> you're not the only one... my entire system is JAM... several
ml> hundred bases...

You could convert all of these to Squish format using FmaCopy.

ml> i've a few SDM (*.MSG) bases but not for normal bases... they're
ml> only for OT-Track and then my master netmail area in my frontdoor...
ml> i'd like to be able to move things to native linux flavors at
ml> some point in time and retain my existing software... however, i
ml> know that this won't happen with RA and i doubt that FE and FD
ml> will come out with *nix flavors... so that leaves me with remote
ml> accessing over the LAN and that takes local readers like TimED...
ml> too bad i don't know C stuff any more than i do ;-(

I don't see the point of running a Linux version of timEd if all of your
other software runs under DOS/Windows, unless you want to use it remotely,
in which case you can probably run your DOS software under DOSEMU or WINE.

-- mail{at}ozzmosis.com

--- timEd/Cygwin 1.11.a5