Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!aplcen!haven!udel!eplrx7!jkl
From: jkl@eplrx7.uucp (Jay Llewellyn)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Why not distribute binaries?
Message-ID: <1990Feb21.164626.9540@eplrx7.uucp>
Date: 21 Feb 90 16:46:26 GMT
References: <1990Feb21.150131.10382@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: usenet@udel.EDU
Distribution: comp
Organization: DuPont Engineering Physics Lab
Lines: 29

From article <1990Feb21.150131.10382@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, by smith@darwin (Steven Smith):
> Can someone tell me why MIT insists on shipping source only?  It seems to
> ...
> But it seems that a simple binary+library shipment is all that most people
> want anyway.
>
> Just my humble opinions.
>
> Steve Smith
> smith@origin.life.uiuc.edu
> --

        Why should MIT be responsible for doing all that work? They're not in
the computer business; if people get only binary+library then they are going to
expect someone to support that product, MIT, I don't think so.  If you read this
group, some people have problems getting X up and running.  Do you think that
MIT could create binarys thay would work on every machine in every possible
environment?  No flames intended.


jkl
--
-- 
    Jay Llewellyn                 |    E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.
    eplrx7!jkl@uunet.uu.net       |    Engineering Physics Laboratory
    (302) 695-8209/7395           |    P.O. Box 80357
   "Maybe it was the roses"       |    Wilmington, DE 19880-0357
--
The UUCP Mailer