Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!ncar!tank!mimsy!eneevax!haven!umbc3!otter.UMBC.EDU!alex
From: alex@otter.UMBC.EDU (alex)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att
Subject: Re: Full command line arguments/process status
Keywords: uuencode/compressed binary included
Message-ID: <1818@umbc3.UMBC.EDU>
Date: 20 Mar 89 22:01:16 GMT
References: <455@polyof.UUCP>
Sender: newspost@umbc3.UMBC.EDU
Lines: 34

In article <455@polyof.UUCP>, john@polyof.UUCP ( John Buck ) writes:

> Being that the response was so large, I have decided to post the
> uuencoded/compressed(b12) program.

	With all respect for John for posting his work, I can't help but be
surprised that there would be such a large demand for a unix-pc *binary* 
without source. All the other binaries to come through these groups have been
accompanied by sources.

	I think that I've contributed my share of software to the
unix-pc users of the world, so I guess I have a right to say that I'm
disturbed and insulted by the binary-only distribution of this
program. I for one would never consider using a binary without source,
unless the vendor agreed to supply support. The fact that this is an
suid program with known bugs (The release notes state that some of the
options do not work) only confirms my feelings.

	I also think that this sets a bad precident. One of the
biggest advantages of the unix-pc is the volume of free software
available for it, a factor that helps to make up for the lack of
vendor support for the machine.  I wonder if the author used any of
that software (emacs? gcc? shcc? sh-ld?  ptys? capcntrl?)  I would be
very upset to see a trend of selling software amongst ourselves, there
aren't enought unix-pc users to support the effort and the division
could be devistating.

	I realize that this is a religious issue, but I am a religious 
person, and something had to be said.

					:alex
Alex Crain
Systems Programmer			alex@umbc3.umbc.edu
Univ Md Baltimore County		nerwin!alex@umbc3.umbc.edu