Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!seismo!mcvax!enea!liuida!matoh
From: matoh@senilix.liu.se (Mats Ohrman)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups
Subject: Re: Making binary groups obsolete (was Re:Are binary groups necessary?)
Message-ID: <638@senilix.liu.se>
Date: Mon, 10-Aug-87 10:13:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: senilix.638
Posted: Mon Aug 10 10:13:10 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Aug-87 05:26:55 EDT
References: <266@brandx.rutgers.edu> <8225@utzoo.UUCP> <272@brandx.rutgers.edu> <25134@sun.uucp> <321@brandx.rutgers.edu>
Reply-To: matoh@miraculix.liu.se
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: CIS Dept, Univ of Linkoping, Sweden
Lines: 102
Keywords: binaries vs. sources, shareware
Summary: binaries vs. sources, shareware
Xref: mnetor news.admin:824 news.groups:1340

In article <321@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes:
}In article <25134@sun.uucp>, chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
}} }Can we keep it to an adult level?
}} 
}} Obviously not.
}
}?????
}
}} In the Macintosh world, most of the binary stuff posted is stuff posted from
}} off the net -- gotten from a source and passed around.  There is no source
}} available in any way, shape, or form.  
}
}Huh?  Do they burn it or something?  Or is it that they have those
}funny new modems that can transfer binaries but not sources?  Or are
}you saying that people don't post the sources because of the copyright
}notices in them (although they feel free to post derivative works
}created by compilers)?

No, it's simply because most MacIntosh "free" software isn't public domain
or completely free: It's shareware. Binaries are distributed freely, and if
you like it, you can pay a (mostly nominal) sum of money and recieve source 
and documentation directly from the author (btw a means of distribution I
like and think highly of).

}} It has also been shown that for the
}} Mac sources are actually larger and less useful than binaries -- less useful
}} because there are enough different development environments that the only
}} way of ensuring that someone can use something is by passing the compiled
}} application.
}
}Right.  Recall I didn't claim that binaries were pointless in the
}current state of affairs.  Just that they were suboptimum and would be
}unneeded if a public domain C compiler were written (which I volunteered
}to write myself given a few trivial incentives).

Well, it's not only a question of the compiler itself, but also such things
as libraries etc... And what if the source isn't in C? There's software
written in Pascal, Modula-2 or even Basic or Fortran (aarghhh!), you know...
Do you intend to write public domain compilers for all these languages and
the corresponding libraries needed to use the Mac, Amiga (or whatever) system
calls and user interface?

}} Frankly, I would guess that few people want or need sources.  If most of the
}} Mac stuff came to me in source form, I'd probably trash it untouched -- I
}} don't have the time or inclination to try to convince something to compile
}} just so I can see if I want to use it, and I certainly wouldn't bother
}
}If it were developed on a compiler that you had access to, it would
}not be a time consuming matter to compile it (although I will always
}maintain that it is foolish to compile unread sources -- although less
}foolish that trusting binaries you didn't compile yourself).

It still takes more time to simply download a binary from eg a Sun to a Mac
than downloading the source (that's larger), set up your compiler, and compile.
I'm not interested in hacking around in the sources. I want a finished and 
working program!

}} hacking soemthing from Aztec C to Lightspeed simply because some "higher
}} authority" has decided that binaries are not acceptible to the network.
}
}Sigh, looks like you have mistaken me for the backbone or something.

Wasn't it a backbone decision you wanted?

}} Remember, what works for Un?x systems may not work as well for other
}} operating systems.  Don't over-simplfy your reality.
}
}[Well gee, if it is `my' reality, then I will do whatever I bloody
}well please with it.]  I get this feeling that you and others are
}trying to maintain that today's micro's are such simple-minded systems
}that they can't handle source generated by two different programmers.

Try 'programming environments' instead.

}If this is the case, then perhaps the net will have to suffer along
}with binaries until the MacIntosh, Amiga, St, and IBM PC reach the
}level of development of my Apple IIc.  I had thought that all they
}were missing was a public domain C compiler, but perhaps there is
}something else lacking in their spirit.

I still fail to see what's wrong with binaries.

}} We live and learn, but not the wiser grow -- John Pomfret (1667-1703)
}
}I think I would have more respect for Mr. Pomfret if he had not used
}the pronoun ``we'' when all that was appropriate was the first person
}singular and he probably meant the second person plural, but wanted to
}appear polite.  More straightforward is:
}
}  You live and learn.  Or you don't live long.  -- Lazarus Long
}             (as introduced into this timestream by Robert A. Heinlein in 1973)
}
}------ BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)

I don't see what reason there is in flaming another's ".signature"...
                                                  _
                                            /Mats Ohrman
                                             matoh@majestix.liu.se
**********************************************************************
** The Computer is your friend. The Computer wants you to be happy. **
**   If you are not happy, you may be used as reactor shielding.    **
**********************************************************************