Xref: utzoo news.admin:2187 comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d:255
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!ihnp4!skep2!wcs
From: wcs@skep2.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart.<ho95c>)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: 417K waste of money postings (was: Re: PICNIX V3)
Keywords: Binaries, MS-DOS, Evil
Message-ID: <107@skep2.ATT.COM>
Date: 16 May 88 21:56:42 GMT
References: <1559@slvblc.UUCP> <111@pigs.UUCP> <435@rd1632.Dayton.NCR.COM> <44310@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV>
Reply-To: wcs@skep2.UUCP (46323-Bill.Stewart.<ho95c>,2G218,x0705,)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs Center 4632, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 46

In article <44310@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV> rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) writes:
} Well, "this net" was started EXPLICITLY for Unix boxes. It remained
} EXCLUSIVELY for Unix boxes for the first 5 (more or less) years
} of its existance. A few years ago, the "pcs" started encroaching on it.

Not really.  I started using the net around 1981 or 1982, and back then
Bell Labs was using IBM RJE connections to ship news around.
As far as content is concerned, the ARPAnet gateways were piping in 
occasional EMACS code emulating EDT, people were talking about 
networking and super-computer architectures that certainly weren't UNIX, 
and for that matter the precursors to talk.politics were hardly UNIX-related.
UNIX has always been a major focus, but it's never been all there was.
 
} I believe uupc is sent around to encourage electronic mail, not to
} replace existing pc bboards.

It's big advantage is it lets MS-DOS users join the real world, though
writing a kermit-protocol for uucp might accomplish the same thing.
One problem with the PC-BBS world is that it's so fragmented, though FidoNet
is better than the standalone BBSs.

In <4577@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes

} 	Binaries are very hard to maintain and very hard to port.
} What good is the last 30 years of progress in software engineering if
} we never get the sources?  Maintenance is always the largest cost of
} any piece of software.  Binaries are just throwaways; change CPU or OS
} and toss 'em.  Don't tell me an IBM PC binary good today will be good
} forever...I know better.  How many binary programs from PC-DOS 1.0

I agree, source is nice, though the ideal might be source plus binary.
But there are two real uses for software - doing things and understanding
how they're done.  I don't care much about MS-DOS innards, and when I use a
PC, I'm using it as a tool - a portable place to do fast editing and
lightweight calculation and graphics that I can ship to my real machine
where I can do real work.  I generally don't need source for desk accessories,
DOS emulations of UNIX commands, etc., and to use source I'd need to get a
hard disk and a compiler (compilers are cheap, but does anyone know where to
find a hard disk for a Toshiba 1100+ ?).

Yes, binaries are throwaways, but so is MS-DOS.
-- 
#				Thanks;
# Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218, Holmdel NJ 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcs
# skep2 is a local machine I'm trying to turn into a server.  Please send
# mail to ho95c or ho95e instead.  Thanks.