The author makes good points about the poor documentation and vagueness of details of the current Zip format. That is something worth criticizing. But I think

The author makes good points about the poor documentation and vagueness of details of the current Zip format. That is something worth criticizing. But I think criticizing the 30-year-old 'design' is pointless. So this is a good article with a bad title. What is much more helpful is suggesting, in detail, how Zip might be extended to remain backwards compatible while moving forward to adopt a more sensible future format. (Though 30 years later, some guy is going to write an article saying how terrible that new design is).