Quoting: Hans Mangold about ARJ/2 to Patrick Spence.
 
 PS> But are there any plans at all to consider an os/2 version?  I love
 PS> Arj, simply due to its vast capabilities via commandline parameters...
 PS> but I am increasingly doing more and more things in os/2 native
 PS> instead of in dos.. which is making it more and more of a nuisance to
 PS> have to spawn a dos session for handling of archives...  I would like
 PS> to check out Jar and see what it has to offer, but see no point in it
 PS> if it doesn't support the platform that I need it for...
Hans, I am not here to participate in some OS war with you, nor do I feel
it is productive to this echo...  if you -really- care to get into a war,
take it up in netmail, or better yet in email on the internet...  all I
will respond to here is points specific to my question about an os/2
version of ARJ...   for your inflammatory attacks on os/2, go to the
os-debate area... you will find many people perfectly willing to explain
their side of it..
 HM> When the point comes that you cannot find support for your operating
 HM> system, be it in this case ARJ and JAR, or multimedia support (re:
 HM> Creative Lab's  announcement to abandon OS/2), should *you* not
Funny though, my Creative Labs sound card works fine.
 HM> seriously evaluate your current choice of operating system instead of
 HM> putting the onus on the developers of  software?
If enough people ask for the product, it indicates the user base exists...
would you rather people programmed for themselves instead of finding out if
the desire for said program existed?  so that when I write programs, I
write them for os/2 only, instead of for dos or windows, and if you wanted
the software I wrote, I just got snide with you and told you that you had
to switch to os/2?    no, the whole point of people asking for software for
a specific platform is to show that the users -are- there..    a point well
made by the fact that you seem upset that there are many os/2 users asking
for stuff..  if you weren't annoyed by us, maybe you would be right in your
suppositions...
 HM> So where would the market be for an OS/2 version of ARJ and/or JAR? 
 HM> The small  numbers of SysOps which have had traditionally tight budgets
 HM> and prefer  freeware?  OS/2 in the consumer market is dead, and the
Hate to tell you this, but there are some of us who are willing to pay for
a product... I pay for my operating systems, I pay for my utility programs,
and I pay for other software that I use..  which is why I make sure I tell
the utility authors -what- I am interested in.. so they know they have a
potential customer.
 HM> corporate market is  embracing NT.  Where does that leave OS/2???  1996
 HM> was "The Year of the  Browser".  Was there even one single browser for
 HM> OS/2 that hit the retail shelf in 1996?  Nope.  What does that tell
 HM> you?  ATM machines don't need browsers.
Does Robert write a browser?   why are you leaving the subject of ARJ and
its related works?
 HM> Have you written to IBM lately and asked them why "Merlin" sales are
 HM> as dead as a doornail?  And why even the OS/2 magazine folded?  And you
 HM> want small  companies (like ARJ Software) to invest their precious
 HM> resources into a dying  venture???  Did you ever scratch your head and
My 'small' company has invested in OS/2, as well as dos and windows...  its
a matter of a compiler that will compile things to os/2.. and is compatible
with the language that I use.   I believe that Robert uses a C compiler for
arj, and there are many C compilers with cross platform support..  making
it as easy as a recompile to produce a basic os/2 version...  admittedly to
get the extra features available in os/2, he would have to do some extra
work...  but that would only be extra frosting on the cake...  a simple
recompile would make many of us happy...
 HM> It's the old chicken-egg question, and traditionally the approach has
 HM> been to  analyze available software to accomplish tasks first, *then*
 HM> decide on the  operating system and hardware!  If you want to take a
I have available software to accomplish my tasks, but I would prefer to use
ARJ instead of the several other archivers available (for my platform)..  I
prefer to have Arj if I can get it...  haven't used it in some time though,
simply because I have software that works for me, and does the things I
need done (native to my OS)..
 HM> backward approach, well,  I guess you're stuck with what you have:
 HM> OS/2, InfoZip's freeware and RAR.  Patrick, first you swim against the
And arc and lzh and zoo,   Rar is a great program, works fine, and has a
fantastic compression ratio..  I just don't like the interface it defaults
to....
 HM> stream and then you want others to change  course and swim with you. 
 HM> Doesn't work too well in real life.
Guess I am in a different stream than you.
 HM> You know, I'm getting increasingly tired of OS/2 users insisting on
 HM> so-called  "native" applications for their orphaned operating system. 
 HM> Did you ever wonder why IBM included the DOS compatibility mode?
You know, I am getting increasingly tired of windows users insisting on
so-called "native" applications for their unstable operating system.  Did
you ever wonder why Microsoft included Dos 7.0?
See, it works both ways...    if you run an operating system, you usually
(if a logical person) want software that is native to it..  it runs better,
it runs faster, and I would like the extra stability of an os2 native
application...  and since its not -that- much work to make an os2 version
of a C program... I don't see why you are complaining about someone making
a choice that you didn't...  do you feel offended that I didn't choose your
operating system?  I don't feel that way about you...   but I don't see why
you feel the need to come into this conversation and attempt to start a war
with it..  since it really has no bearing on you or what your agenda is...
 HM> Patrick, instead of asking others to re-evaluate their priorities, I
 HM> think you  should re-evaluate yours.  Can you say: Windows 95 and / or
 HM> NT ?
Instead of asking others to re-evaluate their priorities I think you should
re-evaluate yours.  Your statement can be easily used against you as well.
I would rather run a stable OS that does what I need it to do.  Having Arj
native would be extra icing, but its not needed.... something that I want,
and am willing to purchase...   like I purchased my OS (and didn't get it
bundled on my system, as I prefer making a choice instead of having it made
for me)... I am not a lemming, and I make choices in programs I run based
on a logical evaluation of how they can take care of my needs...  OS2 works
for me...  and if win95 works for you, all the more power to you..   but
your vitriolic banter, and your repressed anger is not going to force me to
change to an operating sytem that does NOT do what I want it to do.
 HM> Cheers, Hans
if you care to discuss ARJ or related portions of my discussion, feel
free... if you wish to go off into the operating system portion lets take
it to netmail or internet email...
 
-- "Rev P. Spence" 
| Ask not why we sing this song,
|  'Cause Everything you think you know is wrong.
| Chaos, Chaos, Burning bright, shall we burn the world tonight?
... Born again (and again and again and again) pagan
--- Renegade v97-021a dos
---------------