Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!mcnc!xanth!john
From: john@xanth.UUCP (John Owens)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Are binary groups necessary?
Message-ID: <1816@xanth.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Aug-87 20:25:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: xanth.1816
Posted: Mon Aug  3 20:25:15 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Aug-87 00:41:32 EDT
References: <266@brandx.rutgers.edu> <8225@utzoo.UUCP> <272@brandx.rutgers.edu> <1164@aramis.rutgers.edu>
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk Va.
Lines: 22

In article <1164@aramis.rutgers.edu>, lear@aramis.rutgers.edu (eliot lear) writes:
> Why not make a PD C compiler the last binary posting??  I don't really
> care whether there are binary groups or not, but propagating a C
> compiler is NO big deal, especially one that is public domain.  How do
> people get their modem programs (kermit) to talk to the outside world?

Funny that you mention Kermit.  The MS-DOS Kermit for the IBM PC is in
assembler, not C.  A great deal of the programs posted in the pc
binaries group are not written in C.  Even if there could be a perfect
C compiler with a wonderful library that could compile everything that
anyone ever wrote, it wouldn't do it.  And what about programs that
are not written by people on the net, but that are picked up from BBSs
and such and posted here - noone has the source for those.

I'm sure the same is true of the other micros with binary groups.

Sorry, binary groups are still necessary.

-- 
John Owens		Old Dominion University - Norfolk, Virginia, USA
john@ODU.EDU		old arpa: john%odu.edu@RELAY.CS.NET
+1 804 440 4529		old uucp: {decuac,harvard,hoptoad,mcnc}!xanth!john