Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!jarthur!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars!kaleb
From: kaleb@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Why not distribute binaries?
Keywords: X11 binaries
Message-ID: <2891@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Date: 21 Feb 90 20:21:05 GMT
References: <1990Feb21.150131.10382@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <470@med.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
Reply-To: kaleb@mars.UUCP (Kaleb Keithley)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA.
Lines: 18

In article <470@med.Stanford.EDU> rick@hanauma.UUCP (Richard Ottolini) writes:
>In article <1990Feb21.150131.10382@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> smith@darwin (Steven Smith) writes:
>>Can someone tell me why MIT insists on shipping source only?  It seems to
>Agreed!  How about stashing binaries for any workstation company with >10%
>market share?

And who would those be?  What criteria should we use; some companys biased
opinion of where they are in the marketplace?

Better yet, why don't some of the sites who have compiled R4 make the
binaries available via anon ftp. 
(In the spirit of X Consortium, why don't the member companies lead off by
making the binaries for their own hardware available first.)

Chewey, get us outta here!
                 
kaleb@mars.jpl.nasa.gov            Jet Propeller Labs
Kaleb Keithley