Paul Marwick wrote in a message to ``Glen Carlzen`` :

 `C>      Not sure what you mean here.  I'm a registered user of OS/2
 `C> Commander.  I have NO problems viewing or reading longfile names. 
 `C> There is a setting in the configuration of OSC-124 that allows the
 `C> display in the lower left corner/line of the actual long file name. 
 `C> As long as the files are or reside on an HPFS formatted drive I have
 `C> had no problems.  FAT formatted drives will not display for ovious
 `C> reasons.

 PM> Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Its the combination of long
 PM> filenames and FILES.BBS entries that causes OS/2 Commander
 PM> problems. Geta a file with a name more than 13 characters
 PM> long. Press CTRL-F10 to add it to the FILES.BBS. OS/2
 PM> Commander fails with an error. The same applies to either
 PM> SHIFT-F5 or SHOFT-F6 when used with a long filename which
 PM> has a FILES.BBS entry (you'll have to add the entry with
 PM> something else to find the problem..)

I reckon thats a point for OS2 Commander, considering it *does* manage files
and their FILES.BBS entries on all but filenames over 13 characters, and no
other file manager even does that, including FC/2.

 `C>      The only thing I don't like or would consider a bug would be *IF*
 `C> you tag (inset key) several different files in the directory.  The
 `C> LFN no longer is displayed in the lower left bottom line, but is
 `C> replaced with the amount of K or MB's in files that are tagged.  I
 `C> wouldn't call that a bug.

 PM> Yesh, that is a bit irritting, but i can't be called a
 PM> bug... 

Hardly a bug, hardly irritating... it would be irritating if it _didn't_ do
that.  

 >> and FILES.BBS entries, failure to read most self-extracting 
 >> archives, 

It reads ZIP, LHZ and ARJ self-extractors, just as it says in the docs.  
That covers ALL the self-extractors I have here other than those that are
archieved compression programs themselves, and I generally convert them to ZIP 
format anyway, as EVERYONE that uses archives should have zip archive
capability.  

 `C>      Failure to read "Self-Extracting Archives", if you mean that it
 `C> runs the files, then I disagree with you.  But to VIEW (F3) an *.exe
 `C> file works fine or as it should.  If you mean placing the curser on
 `C> the file and hitting  key I wouldn't call that a BUG.  I would
 `C> call that "Running the program" as it should.  IF you do the same on
 `C> any other OS it would be expected to do the same thing.

 PM> If you look at the online help or the documentation,
 PM> pressing CTRL-A while the cursor is over a self-extracting
 PM> archive should display the contents of that archive. 99.9%
 PM> of the time, it fails, complaining that the file is not an
 PM> archive or it can't read it. This is simply an advertised
 PM> funtion that does not work even vaguely as it is supposed
 PM> to. FC/2 

This is bogus.  It works exactly as advertised 100% of the time here.  It
works on ZIP ARJ and LHZ self-extracting archives?  Which of those
self-extracters does it NOT work on?

 PM> and InspectA can both handle this (though there are
 PM> a number of self-extracting archives which will cause
 PM> InspectA to fail. FC/2 has handled every sel-extracter that
 PM> I've tried it on so far. 

Too bad, I would rather see self extracting apps banned, completely removed
from the archive capabilities of all compression programs, used only in the
distribution of the archiver itself.  IBM is just one of dumb ass developers
that is so stupid, it archives an archive in a self-extracting archive. 
Sometimes I think the entire computing world is controlled air-heads.  The
internet sure highlights the sad state of computing.

 PM> :-) FC/2 is rapidly going that way. I guess you could say
 PM> that I'm annoyed - I would in some respects at least have
 PM> rather registered OS/2 Commander becuase it does have a few
 PM> functions that don't (yet) exist in FC/2. However, lack of
 PM> support from the author made sure that I didn't do that...

OS2 Commmander was the first excellent NC clone that was really good.  He was, 
and is years ahead of everyone else except FC/2, which he is only a year or so 
ahead of now, mainly I guess because FC/2 is still being worked on.  It is sad 
that he isn't around now to fix a few minor bugs, but those of us that have
been using it for years now have no problem, or very little problems with the
things you have mentioned.  At the moment, there are only two file managers
worth noting, OS2C and FC/2.  The others are not even close.

 `C>      I have to agree with you on the author.  I have recieved no
 `C> replies either.  It is NOT uncommon for authers to NOT answer e-mail
 `C> inquiries.  The Better Authors ususally answer their mail, its to
 `C> their benifit and future registrations to answer inquiries.

He still has his web site last I looked, but thats about it.  Hopefully he is
on to bigger and better things.  Meanwhile, he has contributed greatly to the
OS/2 community with the best file manager made to date.  FC/2 has been
following his lead for years, maybe someday it will catch up, IF the developer 
manages to stay around an OS stomped to death by it's creator.

 PM> :-) If they don't answer their mail, how can you tell
 PM> whether they're still there to even collect registrations...

Very few are, and very, very few OS/2 developers exist at all.  

 PM> I'm afraid that I now have a general policy - if the author
 PM> does not reply to queries, I don't register... 

My policy is not to register anything unless I like it a lot, and feel the
developer deserves my payment for his hard work.  I've registered some stuff
AFTER I no longer used it...  I've never registered anything within the time
frames given by the author, thats for sure (with the exception of 4OS2, which
I registered before I ran OS/2)
                                              Jack 
--- timEd/2-B11
140/1