Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!uwvax!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!pur-ee!j.cc.purdue.edu!rsk
From: rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu (Whitewater Wombat)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Are binary groups necessary?
Message-ID: <4866@j.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: Wed, 29-Jul-87 10:34:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: j.4866
Posted: Wed Jul 29 10:34:20 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Aug-87 04:45:49 EDT
References: <266@brandx.rutgers.edu> <8225@utzoo.UUCP> <272@brandx.rutgers.edu> <3634@ncoast.UUCP> <560@l.cc.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Whitewater Wombat)
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Lines: 22
Summary: High-level language source preferred but not necessary.

In article <560@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
> There are times when a disassembled binary program can be easier to
> modify [than C], and there are times when it is important that a program
> not chew up the run time that a large number of the programs, especially
> the portable ones, that I have seen, do.

This is not the appropriate forum for a discussion of such issues (one
of the comp.lang groups would probably be better) so I will not go on
and on about this unique view of software methodology.  I will simply
state that while I favor the distribution of sources, I recognize that some
folks simply do not have access to appropriate compilers, and that making new
software available to those people necessitates that it be distributed
in binary form.

We will continue to carry binary groups here unless the traffic becomes
overwhelming.  I would like to urge those folks out there who don't have
a high-level language compiler for their machine to attempt to get one,
however, as I gather that not all Usenet sites are in favor of continuing
to carry the binary groups.
-- 
Rich Kulawiec, rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu, j.cc.purdue.edu!rsk
PUCC News Administrator