Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:13080 news.groups:2583
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!ukma!gatech!hao!ames!amdahl!oliveb!sun!plaid!chuq
From: chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,news.groups
Subject: Re: Call for votes: comp.binaries.hypercard
Message-ID: <42857@sun.uucp>
Date: 23 Feb 88 17:13:38 GMT
References: <454@stech.UUCP> <960@athos.rutgers.edu>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Reply-To: chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach)
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Fictional Reality, uLtd
Lines: 70

>While it is natural to oppose the creation of yet another moderated group
>or of yet another binary group, I would like to point out that this particular
>binary group would be even worse than usual.

here we go again.

>The standard justification for a binary group is that you can't count on
>other users having the same system that the original software was developed
>for.

A standard justification. Not THE.

>CLEARLY that is wrong here -- everyone has the same hypercard program!

True, but...

>By promoting ascii-readable hypercard stacks (databases), it becomes easier
>for people to write awk scripts for processing stacks on normal unix systems.

Except, of course, that the major components of a HyperCard stack, the
graphics, backgrounds, layout, icons, buttons, XCMDS and XFCNS, can't be
translated to ascii readable anything, and without them, the scripts Webber
is doting on are useless. Webber, as usual, is showing his total ignorance
of the subject at hand.

>While we may be stuck with binary groups for some systems due to historical
>reasons, there is no need to create yet another one.

Yeah there is. you can't post Hypercard stacks in any other format. You
certainly can post hypercard scripts, and I encourage people to do so, but
what Webber is proposing is like telling people that instead of posting the
entire program, they can only post the library routines, leaving main() as
an exercise for the reader.

>If hypercard is any
>good, its stacks will be of interest to many people other than mac owners

Except, of course, that Hypercard only runs on a mac.

>[Note: there are also people posting stacks that contain non-hypercard code
>as a hybrid system.  Considering the size of the Hypercard manual, if most
>people find it necessary to augment the system to make something useful,
>that too says something about hypercard.]

Again, Webber shows his ignorance. HyperCard was designed to be extensible.
Accusing it of failure because people use its extensibility is like accusing
C of being a bad language because people use things like libraries. 

>By the way, those of you who read comp.risks are already aware of the
>viruses that have already appeared in some hypercard stacks.

One hypercard stack. And the folks who did it are well known psychotic
paranoids. And accusing Hypercard stacks because of a single virus incident
is rather silly, since viruses can (and have been) installed in programs
under many operating systems and environments, including, I might point out,
Unix. So this is a non-argument.

As usual, Webber is posturing and attempting to obfuscate the issue. All he
really does, however, is show his ignorance of the software, of the purposes
of the group. This is another case of Webber trying to wedge the network
into his own warped view of reality, to the extent that he's willing to 
crippile its utility if it suits his purpose.

Which simply means, as usual that his arguments are meaningless, and like
Webber in general, should be ignored.

Chuq Von Rospach			chuq@sun.COM		Delphi: CHUQ

     There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home.
                              Ken Olson, President, Digital Equiptment, 1977