mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) (03/05/86)
In article <526@dsi1.UUCP>, ron@dsi1.UUCP (Ron Flax) writes: > Sorry for posting here but where else does one post to readers of this > newsgroup? > > [FLAME ON!] > > I wish that the people that post sources to the net would try to keep > in mind that some of us have compilers that can't swollow indentifiers > that are longer than seven (7) characters long. Now I know that all of > you guys and gals in BSDLand like to make you programs look real pretty > with all those nice long descriptive names for your functions and > macros but some of your less fortunate counterparts don't have this > luxury and it's a real pain to go through an entire program full of > > system_call_seven (what_ever_cmd_five); > . . . > system_call_eight (what_ever_cmd_four); > > you get my drift? I realize that some programs are not going to port > to some machines, but when someone claims to the net that a program > will be "easy to port" or that "it should run on..." they could at > least make an attempt to verify this fact. Maybe they should be > sentenced to work on a machine that chokes on the slightest > inconsistancy for a while. > > [FLAME OFF now.] Indeed. As an additional aside (my appologies to you UNIX-purists in advance) but believe it or not, *SOME* of us are running Ultrix, or XENIX, or some other form of UNIX! If you are going to post software with major system dependencies (such as long identifier names) LABEL them in the summary, damn it! -- ==================================== Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim and and all responsibility for disclaimers. tom keller {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)
mwm@ucbopal.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) (03/06/86)
In article <29@gilbbs.UUCP> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) writes: >or some other form of UNIX! If you are going to post software with major >system dependencies (such as long identifier names) LABEL them in the >summary, damn it! Sigh. Here we go again. First things first: you should *not* use long names that differ in the last few characters. Put the differences in the *front* of the name, where they are easy to find. That makes for much more readable code. Now, back to the flames (ain't they fun!). Using long names is *not* a system dependency, it's a compiler depenency. My Lattice/Amiga compiler swallows 31-char names, no problem. How should I tag those? What about using voids, as some compilers don't support those at all? How about void *func(), as 4.2BSD doesn't handle it? Function prototyping (once again, Lattice/Amiga has it)? Structure assignment and friends? Should we tag *all* of those? Finally, System V now supports flexnames, and Ultrix has always had it. If you're not running 4.2BSD or System V, it's your own fault (if you've got a vendor still selling 4.1, System III or v7, you should change vendors!). If your vendor hasn't upgraded to the latest version of System V, you should go shout at them. If you're on a micro, you probably need to buy/should have bought a better C compiler. But those are usually the compilers that are going to have more serious problems than lack of long names. <mike
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (03/07/86)
In article <2214@teddy.UUCP>, jpn@teddy.UUCP writes: > >[FLAME ON!] > > > >I wish that the people that post sources to the net would try to keep > >in mind that some of us have compilers that can't swollow indentifiers > >that are longer than seven (7) characters long. > > I cannot sympathize. I have a program that was posted to the net some > time ago called "shortc" which takes all conflicting long identifiers in > a set of source files, and outputs #defines to differentiate them (which > you can either insert into each source file, or into a header included > by each file). 5 minutes work, and ANY program with long identifiers can > be made to run. > > Of course, if the pre-processor you have is ALSO limited to 7 characters, > then you may STILL have a problem, since shortc assumes the preprocessor > can differentiate all identifiers in the program. Of course, if this is > the case, I would throw away that compiler, and start over! > > Of course, even with a bogus compiler, and a bogus preprocessor, you can > still take the output of shortc and apply the changes by hand yourself! The > program will be less readable after this transformation, though. No > doubt shortc could be modified to output awk scripts, or something, to > automate this process. > > Is there enough interest to have this program re-posted to the net? > > > John P. Nelson (decvax!genrad!teddy!jpn seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!teddy!jpn) *****GRRRRRRRRRRR***** In other words, John, you would have us believe that portability of code is the responsibility *NOT* of the author(s), but the users? Yes, I would like very much to see your program, so that I can try to make use of software written by inconsiderate louts who don't want to bother with portability constraints. (for the record, there is *NO* other C compiler available for my system) -- ==================================== Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers. tom keller {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (03/07/86)
In article <408@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@ucbopal.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) writes: > In article <29@gilbbs.UUCP> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) writes: > >or some other form of UNIX! If you are going to post software with major > >system dependencies (such as long identifier names) LABEL them in the > >summary, damn it! > > Sigh. Here we go again. First things first: you should *not* use long names > that differ in the last few characters. Put the differences in the *front* > of the name, where they are easy to find. That makes for much more readable > code. > > Now, back to the flames (ain't they fun!). > > Using long names is *not* a system dependency, it's a compiler depenency. My > Lattice/Amiga compiler swallows 31-char names, no problem. How should I tag > those? What about using voids, as some compilers don't support those at all? > How about void *func(), as 4.2BSD doesn't handle it? Function prototyping > (once again, Lattice/Amiga has it)? Structure assignment and friends? Should > we tag *all* of those? > > Finally, System V now supports flexnames, and Ultrix has always had it. If > you're not running 4.2BSD or System V, it's your own fault (if you've got a > vendor still selling 4.1, System III or v7, you should change vendors!). If > your vendor hasn't upgraded to the latest version of System V, you should go > shout at them. If you're on a micro, you probably need to buy/should have > bought a better C compiler. But those are usually the compilers that are > going to have more serious problems than lack of long names. > > <mike ***SHIT*** Mike, what I *SHOULD* have done, it appears, is spend $50K or more on a bigger, better system! There are 2 (count them two) versions of UNIX (XENIX) available for the hardware I can *AFFORD*: 2.3a (an unGhodly meld of V7 and SysIII), and SYS III. There is 1 (count it, one!) C compiler available for this system/OS combination. I humbly apologize to the you, and to the net, for not having bothered to spend more money that I'll make in the next 4 years on my system! Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me! -- ==================================== Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers. tom keller {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)
geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) (03/07/86)
In article <408@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@ucbopal.UUCP (Mike Meyer) writes: > Finally, System V now supports flexnames, and Ultrix has always had it. If > you're not running 4.2BSD or System V, it's your own fault (if you've got a > vendor still selling 4.1, System III or v7, you should change vendors!). If > your vendor hasn't upgraded to the latest version of System V, you should go > shout at them. If you're on a micro, you probably need to buy/should have > bought a better C compiler. But those are usually the compilers that are > going to have more serious problems than lack of long names. > Gee, that's awfully generous of you, Mike. So it's all my fault the compiler doesn't support flexnames now? I should go change vendors, huh? (Are you offering to buy my existing equipment at a price high enough to let me afford the latest and greatest?) Oh, you don't want me to replace my still-functional obsolete equipment? I should just go "shout" at the vendor to supply me with V.2. Let's see, the president of that defunct company works in Irvine; that's driving distance for me. Maybe I could go shout at him. Or are you offering to buy me a ticket to Paris so I can go shout at the V.P. of Engineering? Give me a break, Mike. Even if I had a live vendor like MicroSoft, do you really think that Bill Gates is going to change his release schedules just because I yelled at one of his support persons? Oh, I understand now. I blew it when I picked vendors. All I can say is that it sure must be nice to be able to see into the future and see which vendors are not going to make it. Care to recommend any stocks for me? -- Geoff Kuenning {hplabs,ihnp4}!trwrb!desint!geoff
mike@fluffy.UUCP (Mike Schloss) (03/08/86)
In article <47@gilbbs.UUCP> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) writes: >In article <408@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@ucbopal.BERKELEY.EDU writes: >> In article <29@gilbbs.UUCP> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) writes: >> >or some other form of UNIX! If you are going to post software with major >> >system dependencies (such as long identifier names) LABEL them in the >> >summary, damn it! >> >> Finally, System V now supports flexnames, and Ultrix has always had it. If >> you're not running 4.2BSD or System V, it's your own fault (if you've got a >> vendor still selling 4.1, System III or v7, you should change vendors!). If >> your vendor hasn't upgraded to the latest version of System V, you should go >> shout at them. If you're on a micro, you probably need to buy/should have >> bought a better C compiler. But those are usually the compilers that are >> going to have more serious problems than lack of long names. > > ***SHIT*** Mike, what I *SHOULD* have done, it appears, is spend $50K or >more on a bigger, better system! There are 2 (count them two) versions of >UNIX (XENIX) available for the hardware I can *AFFORD*: 2.3a (an unGhodly >meld of V7 and SysIII), and SYS III. There is 1 (count it, one!) C compiler >available for this system/OS combination. > > > I humbly apologize to the you, and to the net, for not having bothered >to spend more money that I'll make in the next 4 years on my system! > > > Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me! > Quit your bitching. I'm getting tired of hearing it. If you don't want someone's FREE software then dont take it. Why should people with current systems have to generate code that is harder to maintain so you can use it as is. Code with descriptive variable names are usually easier to debug, maintain, and port then programs with all identifiers 6 chars or less. Stop apologizing and write your own damn software if you don't like whats available. Mike Schloss
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) (03/09/86)
I believe that it is time for some clarification. When someone tells me that
a piece of code is portable across UNIX implementations, I believe that this
entitles me to certain expectations.
If the author of a PD piece of software does not choose to take the trouble
necessary to ensure portability, this is certainly a valid choice. But do *NOT*
then refer to the damned thing as being portable! It isn't!
It is easy enough for you filk with the fancy systems (especially the spoiled
4.xBSD-ers) to talk about bogus compilers. If you are targetting your code for
BSD installations, *FINE*. Just tell us so, and quit pretending to write
"portable" code. I realize that this is sacrilege, but there are one HELL
of a lot of non 4.xBSD and SYS V.x sites out there.
In fact, if you want to base the argument *SOLELY* on numbers, the largest
installed base of UNIX systems consists of the TRS-80 Modle 16 (and now the
Model 6000), running an uhGhodly meld of V7 and SYS III!
(no, I don't expect many, if any, authors to attempt to make their code
portable to these systems...just trying to make a point)
--
====================================
Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers.
tom keller
{ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020
(* we may not be big, but we're small! *)mwm@ucbopal.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) (03/10/86)
In article <47@gilbbs.UUCP> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) writes: > ***SHIT*** Mike, what I *SHOULD* have done, it appears, is spend $50K or >more on a bigger, better system! There are 2 (count them two) versions of >UNIX (XENIX) available for the hardware I can *AFFORD*: 2.3a (an unGhodly >meld of V7 and SysIII), and SYS III. There is 1 (count it, one!) C compiler >available for this system/OS combination. "Afford" is a nasty word, and how much you pay for your hardware/software has very little to do with the quality you get. For example, the $150 Lattice C compiler for the Amiga is, in some respects, better than the 4.3BSD C compiler. As for what runs on cheap hardware, buying a cheap Unix box is probably a mistake. Unix is a pig, and expecting to get a reasonable Unix system for under $7K or so is unreal (as far as I know. If you've got one, let me know). If you spent that much on a Unix system, then you could have gotten either a 4.2 or V.2 system, both of which have flexnames. I also seriously doubt that there's only C compiler for your system. Given your username, I'd suggest you call Oasys (617/491-4180) and ask them about a C compiler. [Disclaimer: I don't work for Oasys. I don't know anything about them. I just happened to have seen one of their ads recently.] I didn't ask you to spend more money than you did, I asked you not to bitch at people who giving you software because you have an inadequate C compiler. Bitch at your vendor, instead. If porting the software is a real problem for you, send me email stating what you want ported and how much you're willing to pay for it. Of course, if the code isn't readable (someone broke readability in the name of portability, say), then it's going to be expensive. <mike
mwm@ucbopal.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) (03/10/86)
In article <171@desint.UUCP> geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes: >Gee, that's awfully generous of you, Mike. So it's all my fault the >compiler doesn't support flexnames now? I should go change vendors, >huh? (Are you offering to buy my existing equipment at a price high >enough to let me afford the latest and greatest?) > >Oh, you don't want me to replace my still-functional obsolete >equipment? I should just go "shout" at the vendor to supply me with V.2. >Let's see, the president of that defunct company works in Irvine; >that's driving distance for me. Maybe I could go shout at him. Or are >you offering to buy me a ticket to Paris so I can go shout at the V.P. >of Engineering? Ok, you're stuck between a rock and a hard place. You bought hardware, and the company died. This could happen to anyone who doesn't buy from IBM, so you're not to blame. That's the break you asked for. >Give me a break, Mike. Even if I had a live vendor like MicroSoft, do >you really think that Bill Gates is going to change his release >schedules just because I yelled at one of his support persons? No, but if a large part of their customer base started complaining about it, they might. Then again, unless there's any truth to the rumor about Microsoft having changed there support policy, all customer complaints will be ignored. One thing is certain - complaining because people post software that you're obsolete compiler doesn't accept will *NOT* get you a better compiler. >Oh, I understand now. I blew it when I picked vendors. All I can say >is that it sure must be nice to be able to see into the future and see >which vendors are not going to make it. Care to recommend any stocks >for me? Unfortunately, that ability doesn't extend to picking companies with reasonble software support et. al. Solution: complain, and if they don't change, ignore them. That's why I don't know if MicroShaft actually has a better support policy these days. For stock, buy Commodore-Amiga. They have a great machine, respectable software, a reasonable dealer network, and competent tech support people. None of which insures that they will survive. :-) <mike
wagner@utcs.uucp (03/10/86)
In article <46@gilbbs.UUCP> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP writes: > *****GRRRRRRRRRRR***** > > In other words, John, you would have us believe that portability of code >is the responsibility *NOT* of the author(s), but the users? > > > Yes, I would like very much to see your program, so that I can try to make >use of software written by inconsiderate louts who don't want to bother with >portability constraints. > > >(for the record, there is *NO* other C compiler available for my system) > >-- > >==================================== > >Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers. > >tom keller >{ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 > >(* we may not be big, but we're small! *) Before this becomes another *stupid* flaming session, lets remember a few things here. Posting to Net.sources is a voluntary activity. There may be some pressure to contribute if you have gotten a lot of benefit out of it, but some poor shnooks like me don't write very much or very well in C (and there isn't much interest in SAS or PL/I in the unix community :-) ) so we don't contribute much. As a voluntary activity, posters are probably willing to accept constructive peer criticism BUT NOTICE THE WORD CONSTRUCTIVE. Look it up in the dictionary if you don't have a good handle on what it means. I have just returned to the network after a haitus of about two years. The ratio of constructive to destructive criticism has changed dramatically. Most of the old-timers (not so old, perhaps) who helped start and chart the course of this network have given up in disgust. It used to be a network where people HELPED each other out. Now, I must admit that it would be of more help if people would post portable programs. However, I don't know how to write portable programs in C...I barely know how to get my own programs to work at all. As such, if I ever write a program that actually does something useful and innovative, I may post it. I would appreciate suggestions that result in a more portable program, but I, like most other people, will dig in my heals and resist (and probably say 'screw you, charlie') if criticised destructively. Remember, people are giving, freely, the fruits of their labours here. Now, admittedly, sometimes the quality of programs here in net.sources is such that you get what you pay for. But sometimes you get a lot more. If you didn't think you were getting value for the time spent here, you would have unsubscribed to this group a while ago. Right? So pipe down (sorry about that!) and allow (even, shudder, help?) people to learn from their mistakes. Michael Wagner (wagner@utcs) (incidentally, all minor flames on spelling, grammer, etc to /dev/null . Comments of consequence on the content of this article always welcome)
pete@oakhill.UUCP (Peter Percosan) (03/10/86)
Tom, It always amazes me to see the complaints from people that receive FREE code. No one is twisting your arm to take this code, so instead of pissing and moaning about code that doesnt run on all machines, why dont YOU use this medium to enlighten US with code that does (or does not for that matter). The only thing that we should get upset about is when all code ceases to show up (possibly due to "fear of flames"). Peter Percosan Digital Signal Processors, Motorola, Inc. Austin Texas
forrest@srs.UUCP (Forrest Durett) (03/10/86)
> In article <408@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@ucbopal.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) writes: > > In article <29@gilbbs.UUCP> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) writes: > > >or some other form of UNIX! If you are going to post software with major > > >system dependencies (such as long identifier names) LABEL them in the > > >summary, damn it! > > > > > > > ***SHIT*** Mike, what I *SHOULD* have done, it appears, is spend $50K or > more on a bigger, better system! There are 2 (count them two) versions of > UNIX (XENIX) available for the hardware I can *AFFORD*: 2.3a (an unGhodly > meld of V7 and SysIII), and SYS III. There is 1 (count it, one!) C compiler > available for this system/OS combination. > > > I humbly apologize to the you, and to the net, for not having bothered > to spend more money that I'll make in the next 4 years on my system! > > > Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me! > I will most likely receive the same inconsiderate treatment from Tom Keller that others have received for answering his article, but what hell I don't care. Mr. Keller, please send your flames to /dev/null where they will be more appreciated. I have just started reading this news group recently and have found some pretty useful programs on the net and I am thankful for it. I think that Mr. Keller is forgetting a very important point. He is getting this software free. It is written at the EXPENSE of the author only. I have a little suggestion for Tom Keller. If you do not wish to spend a little time to get a FREE piece of software up and running on your system, then by all means WRITE IT YOURSELF. Calling people louts and acting as if your the one that is doing the author a favor by using his or her software is a laughable act of inconsideration. Forrest Durett S. R. Systems Rochester, N.Y.
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (03/11/86)
> ... Why should people with current > systems have to generate code that is harder to maintain so you can use it > as is... The technical term for it is "portability". Nobody said it was effortless. > ... Code with descriptive variable names are usually easier to debug, > maintain, and port then programs with all identifiers 6 chars or less. You can still write code with descriptive variable names, you just need to make sure they're all unique in the first N characters. This is a minor nuisance, no more. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) (03/12/86)
Keywords:
References:
For a group of supposedly intelligent individuals, you people certainly do
have a problem with basic English comprehension.
If you will ***READ*** the messages from those of us who are complaining
about 7 character identifiers, you will discover that the complaint is that
people are witing code using 10-mile-long identifier names, and then
identifying that code as "portable".
Certainly, those who write code have the right to do so using any convention
setup they wish. No one has the right to impose any conventions on them. I
*DO* have the right to object when these authors classif their work as
"portable". It is *NOT*. All I have asked is that if you are going to
write code that is non-portable, then identify it as such.
Portability is a big issue, and everyone wants to look good, so they claim
their code is "portable". Unfortunately, in most cases, it just ain't so!
Once again, I also point out to those who insist that it is uneasonable
for us to expect them to cover every obscure or out-dated system in the
UNIX world: I use a Tandy Model 16A, upgraded to a Model 6000, running
under XENIX. In terms of numbers, this puts me in the group of the largest
installed base of UNIX computers in the world. There are well over 100,000
such systems in use. So don't give me a bunch of garbage about obscurity.
(no, I *DON'T* expect the rest of the UNIX world to cater to my toy)
Just admit, first to yourselves, and then to the world, that your code
*ISN'T* portable, and identify it as such. Is this really too much to ask?
(for those who don't think we who receive free code should complain, take
note: I am not complaining about the code, I am complaining about misleading
claims of portability)
thank you. Hoepfully, it will not be necessary for this argument to
continue.
--
====================================
Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers.
tom keller
{ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020
(* we may not be big, but we're small! *)chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek) (03/13/86)
In article <181@srs.UUCP> forrest@srs.UUCP writes: > ... I think that Mr. Keller is forgetting a very important >point. He is getting this software free. It is written at the >EXPENSE of the author only. This is not entirely true. There is a cost incurred in each article and each transmission, at each site. But it is important to remember that one's presence on Usenet is voluntary. If you do not like what you see, you may always withdraw. Change for the better is a noble goal, but abuse and insults are unlikely to acheive it. (Please note that I am not speaking of Forrest's article, but rather some of those that preceded it.) As long as I am standing on my soapbox here (well, a virtual soapbox, if you will), I shall state my own opinions about long identifiers. I use them. I will continue to use them. I have in the past used, and probably will (on occasion) use in the future, systems with rather strict limits on identifier length---often six characters, single case, or even two characters, single case. (What was the last system? Microsoft BASIC for the TRS-80. I wrote a complete Z80 assembler on that beast*; it handled arbitrarily long programs by keeping its symbol table in a disk file, and incidentally had eight significant characters, upper and lower case.) When using such a system I will put up with its restrictions as long as I must. But as I am not now restricted, I will not concern myself with significant lengths. Why? Because I feel that the names themselves are more important to me than the potential lack of portability. It is not my intent to write unportable programs; but I have dealt with name length restrictions; I know the effect of short names, and I do not like it. Now this is all well and good as long as I am writing code for local use. But what if I post it? Is it not unfair to some? Probably---but I am not posting it for them; I am posting it for those who *can* use it. ---And even if your compiler will not handle my program as it stands, you may be able to fix that, in less time than it would take to write your own version. And if you cannot use it at all, then please pass over it in silence, or at the most, simply state that you would like to have been able to use it, but were not, and would coders please remember that some systems have stricter limits, and that if they want their programs to be useful to all, they should keep this in mind. I think all involved will benefit more from this than from flames to the effect that `it does not work on Widget Inc's compiler'. ----- *Probably the world's slowest assembler, it ran at the tremendous rate of 30 line a minute---per pass. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 1415) UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!chris CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris@mimsy.umd.edu
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (03/13/86)
> ...It always amazes me to see the complaints from people that > receive FREE code. No one is twisting your arm to take this code... The complaint is not about the availability of the code, but about the false and misleading advertising of it as "portable" (when the author obviously hasn't made any particular effort towards portability). -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
pete@stc.co.uk (03/14/86)
Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Keywords: Xpath: ukc eagle In article <657@oakhill.UUCP> pete@oakhill.UUCP writes: >Tom, It always amazes me to see the complaints from people that >receive FREE code. No one is twisting your arm to take this >code, so instead of pissing and moaning about code that doesnt run >on all machines, why dont YOU use this medium to enlighten US >with code that does (or does not for that matter). > >The only thing that we should get upset about is when all code >ceases to show up (possibly due to "fear of flames"). > I agree with this except for the word `FREE'. TANSTAAFL, y'know. The net community as a whole pays for distribution of software. This shouldn't discourage any generous person from submitting the results of his efforts but he does bear some responsibility for the cost he incurs by so doing. I think it is reasonable to say that software posted to the net should be applicable to as many net users (supporters) as possible. Thus, software contributed should be as portable as possible. If you have a specialised piece of software to give away, and it's big, then you can announce it and e-mail it to anyone who requests it. -- Peter Kendell <pete@stc.UUCP> ...!mcvax!ukc!stc!pete "Shut up, Marvin. This is organism talk."
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (03/17/86)
[sorry, this got long, skip the numbered parts if you like] > I agree with this except for the word `FREE'. TANSTAAFL, > y'know. The net community as a whole pays for distribution of > software. This shouldn't discourage any generous person from > submitting the results of his efforts but he does bear some > responsibility for the cost he incurs by so doing. I think > it is reasonable to say that software posted to the net > should be applicable to as many net users (supporters) as > possible. Thus, software contributed should be as portable > as possible. If you have a specialised piece of software to > give away, and it's big, then you can announce it and e-mail > it to anyone who requests it. >-- > Peter Kendell <pete@stc.UUCP> This is one of those reasonable sounding arguments that can end civilization as we know it. What about Mac and Atari and Amiga postings? I know, some sites don't subscribe, but that's THEIR choice (or at least one would hope it is.) How about a little tolerance, there are any number of things that come across this network that may not be suited to you or your needs be they opinions, job offerings, for sale ads or programs. It is critical that we try our best to just kind of let the unwanted stuff pass as much as possible and try not to get too excited. Alternatively, if you are concerned about traffic helping you get useful things surely there are places to start cutting down on before net.sources! I think this discussion should be ended, everyone has now heard: 1. There are some sites who cannot compile some of the sources that come across the net due to long identifiers. 2. Similarly due to other variants in their software. 3. A poster should probably be careful to put exactly what systems s/he knows the software runs on near the beginning of the post as a matter of courtesy. On the other hand, there is some responsibility on the person who is extracting the software to verify this (eg. a piece of software could easily depend upon a system bug-fix which has not been applied at the other site, such is life.) 4. There exist several pieces of free or very low-cost software to help you port, among them shortc for long->short identifiers (which seems to work, I used it on hack a while ago successfully) and of course Doug Gwyn's SYS/V emulation for 4.2bsd. I am sure there are other useful packages floating around and hints, this is part of what the software biz is about (like a bunch of #defines to help with small curses incompatibilities, readdir() et al routines for earlier SYS/V ports.) 5. Remember, it is often the very existence of a piece of software's wide popularity on one system that leads to someone else porting it to another. A great example is GNU/Emacs which first came out for 4.2bsd only (oh how they moaned) and owing to it's popularity was subsequently ported to SYS/V (not perfect yet, but getting there, and the commitment is clear with 17.49.) I mean, first opinions were that it would *never* run on anything but 4.2bsd, but there you have it! There's an old maxim that system programmers use to cover this type of situation which I think is applicable: "Stand on each other's shoulders, not each other's toes" Also loosely translated to: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" I hope this will end this so far unproductive discussion and you people would start sending in all your wonderful ports (I run both 4.2 and SYS/V here at BU, I can use your help and I think I have endeavored to make it clear that you are always welcome to mine.) -Barry Shein, Boston University