Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!lll-lcc!seismo!mcnc!philabs!ttidca!svirsky
From: svirsky@ttidca.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: minix - is this a sensible thought ?
Message-ID: <402@ttidca.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Feb-87 12:35:26 EST
Article-I.D.: ttidca.402
Posted: Tue Feb 10 12:35:26 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Feb-87 04:02:50 EST
References: <962@osiris.UUCP> <12897@sun.uucp>
Reply-To: svirsky@ttidcc.UUCP (William Svirsky)
Organization: Citicorp TTI, Santa Monica
Lines: 21

In article <12897@sun.uucp> rdh@sun.UUCP (Robert Hartman) writes:
+ In article <962@osiris.UUCP> mjranum@osiris.UUCP (Marcus Ranum) writes:
++ .... What I
++ would like to suggest, since we are starting out afresh here, is that
++ we establish a MINIX source/binary posting standard.
+ 
+ I agree with this, and also with John Gilmore about using shar as the
+ standard format.  There are many advantages to shar, most notably that
+ anyone can simply READ it.  Let's keep it as straightforward as possible.

I also vote for shar, but is there any way to optimize the shar'ed
source, for instance, utilities to compress the whitespace in the
source before shar'ing and then uncompressing after unshar'ing.  When
I say compress, by the way, I mean that the compressed source would
still be readable as-is by the compiler.  It just may not be readable
to the programmer's eyes.  Would the savings be worth the trouble?

-- 
Bill Svirsky, Citicorp/TTI, 3100 Ocean Park Blvd., Santa Monica, CA 90405
Work phone: 213-450-9111 x2597
svirsky@ttidca | ...!{philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!svirsky