Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!rutgers!njin!princeton!phoenix!mrwittma
From: mrwittma@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Martin R. Wittmann)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: we need an unmoderated binaries group
Message-ID: <8149@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 5 May 89 01:33:21 GMT
References: <7088@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> <210@eds1.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrwittma@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Martin R. Wittmann)
Organization: Princeton University, NJ
Lines: 72

In article <210@eds1.UUCP> jdm1@eds1.UUCP (Jon McCown) writes:
>In article <7088@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, maa@nbires.NBI.COM (Mark Armbrust) writes:
>> IMHO, what we need are comp.sources.ibm.pc and comp.sources.ibm.pc.d.
                               ^^^^^^^                 ^^^^^^^
>> 
>                ...most of us would like to see _how_ it was done 
>and maybe contribute mods and improvements--

	Hear, hear!	<and>
				double hear, hear!
I vote for a sources group!



a PHILOSOPHICAL NOTE   (i.e. IMHO (-:} ):
	What IS the future of computer use in our society?  Will it
become a means for anyone to extend her mind and broaden her understanding
of the universe, or will it become a means of control and exploitation,
through which those who ``know'' profit at the expense of those who don't.
With the steady increase of computer capabilities, reduction of cost, and
parallel advancement in software design and development (e.g. CASE tools,
Knuth's WEB), we are getting closer to being able to package and distribute not only *function*, but *understanding*.  Computers are the best currently
available medium to support this desireable development. Consider this:

	When our cars malfunction, we are generally dependent on 
	someone else to fix it because we lack the knowledge or tools
	to do it ourselves.  Neither the knowledge or tools are
	easy for us to come by.  
	
	Now in the long run, this profits no one.  We are delayed, 
	inconvenienced, made vulnerable (to the dishonest mechanic),
	and profit in no way from the experience (in fact, we may have
	to pay heavily--$$$).  Maintenance is a necessary evil;  the
	mechanic should hope to find something better to do in the
	long term.

	With computers, our fingers and keyboards are sufficient 
	tools.  And the knowledge COULD be self-contained.  The most 
	basic requirement for this is SOURCE CODE!  Depending on the 
	program, liberal comments, structure diagrams (and other 
	structured systems design tools), WEB text (see Knuth above),
	etc., can assist in the transmission of knowledge and
	understanding (and actually make it possible for the user to
	UNDERSTAND the source code).  Then the distinction between
	programmers and ``users'' can happily blur.  We can become
	democratic co-developers;  we can suit our individual tastes;
	we can learn unhindered as much as we wish.  In the long run,
	we all SHALL profit.

	I am seriously examining the feasibility of using ONLY software
	for which I can get source code (whenever I have any choice in
	the matter).  At present, because the limited amount of source
	available---and the limited utility of that source (hard to
	understand and thus modify)---this would be quite difficult, but
	it needn't always be so!

	If you are thinking, ``Ughh!  Who would want to mess with all
	that code?" then you are a victim of our inadequate present 
	ways of writing and documenting code.  It CAN happen that one
	day, when the new program you've received to ``test drive''
	bombs, you will be able to ``look under the hood'' and find it
	PERFECTLY OBVIOUS what to fix.

Let's program (and distribute) not only function but UNDERSTANDING.
Think about it the next time you code (or read someone else's).

(off my soap box now...)	martin wittmann	
				mrwittma@phoenix.princeton.edu

PRESS LEAK:  The Free Software Foundation is the 0th foundation of Asimov's
_Foundation_Trilogy_.
DISCLAIMER:  I am NOT one of their secret agents!