Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!ukma!rex!uflorida!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mstar!mstar.morningstar.com!bob From: bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: Why not distribute binaries? Message-ID: Date: 21 Feb 90 17:37:29 GMT References: <1990Feb21.150131.10382@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Sender: news@MorningStar.COM (USENET Administrator) Reply-To: bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) Distribution: comp Organization: Morning Star Technologies Lines: 17 In-Reply-To: smith@darwin's message of 21 Feb 90 15:01:31 GMT There are many and varied differences between machines, and maintaining a collection of up-to-date binaries for even a few is a major task. The Consortium certainly can't afford to have one each of all the software and hardware permutations in-house. For a community software effort it's important for everyone to have the sources, so everyone can contribute, and feels encouraged to. Many times, I'm not sure a behavior is a bug (or even if I've seen it correctly) until I examine the source. Surviving the rigors of the building and installation process often turns an X neophyte into someone who can provide at least a little on-site support. (This isn't so true with R4, but in the good old days... :-) It's much easier to hide Trojan horses in a binary than in source.