Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!sri-unix!sri-spam!mordor!lll-tis!ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!nuchat!splut!jay
From: jay@splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups
Subject: Re: Making binary groups obsolete (was Re:Are binary groups necessary?)
Message-ID: <30@splut.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Aug-87 08:30:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: splut.30
Posted: Wed Aug  5 08:30:16 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Aug-87 19:38:14 EDT
References: <266@brandx.rutgers.edu> <8225@utzoo.UUCP> <272@brandx.rutgers.edu> <6793@dartvax.UUCP>
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 27
Summary: Another problem with source-only distribution..
Xref: mnetor news.admin:810 news.groups:1330

In article <6793@dartvax.UUCP>, waltervj@dartvax.UUCP (walter jeffries) writes:
> In article <303@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes:
> >  :     <--- MUCH GIBBERISH ABOUT HOW WE SHOULD DO IT HIS WAY.
> >So, the bottom line is I will trade you a [C] compiler for a set of groups
> >that will hopefully obsolete the binary groups.  WHAT DO YOU SAY????
> Do I understand this correctly????
> Why the f*** do you think you have the right to make everybody else write
> code in some archaic minimal version of C that you happen to like?!?

 >fwoosh!< flame, torch, burn, incinerate...

> So, the bottom line is that I think your suggestion rots.  WHAT DO YOU SAY????

Actually, I have a problem with eliminating binary-only groups, too: what
about the guys who, for whatever reason, don't want to/can't distribute
source?

Still, Walter, your response was a bit harsh. After all, this isn't
net.flame.admin... :-)

Can we keep it to an adult level?

-- 
>splut!<...Jay Maynard, K5ZC | uucp: ...!seismo!soma!uhnix1!sugar!splut!jay
"Don't ask ME about Unix...  | GEnie: JAYMAYNARD            (...e-i-e-i-o!)
I speak SNA!"                | CI$: 71036,1603   FidoNet: SysOp @106/64
The opinions herein are shared by neither of my cats, much less anyone else.