Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!uwvax!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!cbosgd!cwruecmp!hal!ncoast!allbery From: allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups Subject: Re: Making binary groups obsolete (was Re:Are binary groups necessary?) Message-ID: <3726@ncoast.UUCP> Date: Sat, 1-Aug-87 19:08:23 EDT Article-I.D.: ncoast.3726 Posted: Sat Aug 1 19:08:23 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 2-Aug-87 20:28:49 EDT References: <266@brandx.rutgers.edu> <8225@utzoo.UUCP> Reply-To: allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) Followup-To: news.admin Organization: Cleveland Public Access UN*X, Cleveland, Oh Lines: 21 Xref: mnetor news.admin:787 news.groups:1316 As quoted from <36502fbc.b0a1@apollo.uucp> by nazgul@apollo.uucp (Kee Hinckley): +--------------- | In article <303@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: | > So, the bottom line is I will trade you a compiler for a set of groups | > that will hopefully obsolete the binary groups. WHAT DO YOU SAY???? | | Why are you assuming that all the code is written in C? Or that the authors | *want* to release their source code? +--------------- Mr. Webber made it clear in an earlier message that he considers anyone who doesn't want to distribute source code to be a wrong-headed, antisocial idiot who doesn't deserve to have his programs distributed anyway. As for programs not being in C -- I don't think he even considered that. It's probably the same kind of provincialism I pointed out from him above. -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc and comp.binaries.ibm.pc {{harvard,mit-eddie}!necntc,well!hoptoad,sun!cwruecmp!hal}!ncoast!allbery ARPA: necntc!ncoast!allbery@harvard.harvard.edu Fido: 157/502 MCI: BALLBERY <>