pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) (06/29/88)
I find it interesting that there has been much talk about the need for
ridding the net of the evil PC binaries. Yet, something much less useful
is happening right now, and I haven't seen a peep of complaint!
Consider: PC binaries are useful to many on the net. Probably a majority
of net-users, if the readership stats are at all accurate.
Consider: The source code for the Mahjongg tiles.
1) This is pretty useless if you don't have a Sun [sure, it could
be ported... but somebody who wants to port it could just
grab it from an archive. I doubt that more than .01% of
net-readers will want it for its source-code portability
feature :-)!]
2) This posting is HUGE
3) This posting would be much more efficient if done as a binary
with accompanying format information. Since it isn't even
executable, there's no fear of viral infection!
4) This posting is occuring in a moderated group.
Here we had tremendous flames over the GIF files that got posted to the
net, and now we have a single posting that far exceeds all the GIF files
ever posted. And not a peep. We had tremendous flames over the volume
in unmoderated PC binary groups. Now we have a single posting that is
bigger than any PC binary ever posted [I think]. And not a peep. We've seen
rantings and ravings about how the net is for the Unix users of the world;
PC programmers are third-class citizens. Now we have a gigantic game posting
basically dedicated to the users of a single brand of Unix computer. Yet
not a peep is heard in complaint.
I'm not complaining about the posting, mind you. But I think that those
who have been vocal about PC's, and about binaries, ought to put their
feet in a different pair of sandals and rethink the issues. Or at least
the consistency of their statements.
Personally, I think that quality, useful postings of all kinds should have
a place on the net. If the existing distribution scheme can't handle the
volume as the net grows, let's solve that problem. But not by disenfranchising
whole classes of net-people. There *are* better solutions possible. I've
discussed some in other articles. I'd like to see more moderation, and
regionalization of the net, for example.
But, if we're going to take the easy way out and simply ban X, we've got to
be consistent and ban ALL 'X', even the brand that affects us personally.
If rec.* goes, so do the sci-fi groups, Chuq. If programs for PC's go, so
should those for Suns. If the net must be turned into a technical-information-
only network, so be it. I don't think that's necessary, or desireable. But
whatever we do, let's be consistent!
Pete
--
OOO __| ___ Peter Holzmann, Octopus Enterprises
OOOOOOO___/ _______ USPS: 19611 La Mar Court, Cupertino, CA 95014
OOOOO \___/ UUCP: {hpda,pyramid}!octopus!pete
___| \_____ Phone: 408/996-7746rsk@s.cc.purdue.edu (Rich Kulawiec) (06/30/88)
In article <264@octopus.UUCP> pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) writes: >I find it interesting that there has been much talk about the need for >ridding the net of the evil PC binaries. Yet, something much less useful >is happening right now, and I haven't seen a peep of complaint! >Consider: The source code for the Mahjongg tiles. Let me get one thing out of the way first, and then I'll address the point at hand: I'm not entirely pleased with the size of the posting that this particular (Sun-specific, to the best of my knowlege) game required. On the other hand, I am not so displeased that I felt it necessary to complain either to the moderator of the group or the author. I find myself thinking that this is really the first "huge" posting of this type in this newsgroup, and I regard it as a single anomalous data point. If these sorts of postings became the norm in this newsgroup, I might change my opinion. >But, if we're going to take the easy way out and simply ban X, we've got to >be consistent and ban ALL 'X', even the brand that affects us personally. I don't think this applies in this case; I don't feel that "a big posting containing a game for a certain Unix machine" and "a big posting containing a binary executable for a certain microcomputer" belong to the same X. While there are several ways to distinguish these, the one that I tend to focus on first is oft-discussed notion that binaries are easily booby-trapped, while sources are not. (Yes, I know of counter-examples; and yes, there are other distinctions.) Even if we concede, for the purpose of argument, that these two items belong to the same X, I do not see by what means we then arrive at the conclusion that "Since the second X is argued to be 'not okay', those advancing this argument must also argue that the first X is 'not okay'". In other words, even if one concludes that both of these are X, and X is bad, it does not necessarily follow that any attempts to decrease the problem posed by X must deal with all X. I have no particular desire to disenfranchise microcomputer users; however, I have no particular desire to assist in the demise of their software and data holdings by being a party to the distribution of binary programs of a malicious nature. Further, I note that distinguishing between malicious and non-malicious binary programs is a problem that poses difficulties even for experts in the field, while distinguishing between malicious and non-malicious source programs can usually be done much more easily. Since I (and, I suspect, most of the other Usenet readers, including perhaps many of those who use binary programs) have trouble making this distinction, it seems to me to be better to avoid the unpleasant possibilities that binary distribution raises. (I am aware that various techniques for assuring the authenticity of binaries have been discussed, including moderation, checksums, and so on; but I am also aware that each of these techniques may be circumvented, usually without much difficulty.) Rich
greg@gryphon.CTS.COM (Greg Laskin) (06/30/88)
In article <264@octopus.UUCP> pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) writes: >Consider: PC binaries are useful to many on the net. Probably a majority >of net-users, if the readership stats are at all accurate. > >Consider: The source code for the Mahjongg tiles. > OK. Considered. It's source code. End of consideration. > 1) This is pretty useless if you don't have a Sun [sure, it could > 2) This posting is HUGE > 3) This posting would be much more efficient if done as a binary > with accompanying format information. Since it isn't even > executable, there's no fear of viral infection! Source code seems to survive transmission across the net better than binary files. One misplaced or inserted space kills a binary transmission. You might get a error in a source file but they can frequently be easily repaired. > 4) This posting is occuring in a moderated group. I don't believe the games group has ever produces 8 Megs of traffic in a single month like comp.binaries.ibm.pc did recently. > >Here we had tremendous flames over the GIF files that got posted to the >net, and now we have a single posting that far exceeds all the GIF files >ever posted. And not a peep. It's source code. >PC programmers are third-class citizens. binaries have little to do with programmers. Programmers use source code. End users use binaries. The PROGRAMMERS that created this network are chafing over the fact that it is becoming (has become) a common carrier conduit for end users. Another reason for the complaints is that the binaries are frequently not the original work of the poster. There's a palpable difference between posting a binary for a program you wrote and posting a binary that was picked up off a BBS somewhere. The second form is using the net as a common carrier distribution medium, the first form is an exchange of technical information. >I'm not complaining about the posting, mind you. But I think that those >who have been vocal about PC's, and about binaries, ought to put their >feet in a different pair of sandals and rethink the issues. Or at least >the consistency of their statements. I have PC/AT's. Some of them run DOS. Some run Unix. gryphon can't handle 8 Megs a month of pc binaries so we expired them very, very fast (while continuing to feed them downstream). The problem here is that we don't seem to be able to differentiate between reasonable and unreasonable volumes. >Personally, I think that quality, useful postings of all kinds should have >a place on the net. If the existing distribution scheme can't handle the >volume as the net grows, let's solve that problem. But not by disenfranchising > >But, if we're going to take the easy way out and simply ban X, we've got to >be consistent and ban ALL 'X', even the brand that affects us personally. The chances of the net either becoming fully moderated or being technologically able to ban the posting of binaries within your lifetime is remote. This having been said, you also need to examine the sitituation from the perspective of those of us who have to move and store the traffic. When bandwidth becomes limited, the easiest fix is to kill the stuff with the largest volume. Every administrator on the net makes individual decisions about this (and many are not vocal about their decisions). >If rec.* goes, so do the sci-fi groups, Chuq. If programs for PC's go, so >should those for Suns. If the net must be turned into a technical-information- >only network, so be it. I don't think that's necessary, or desireable. But >whatever we do, let's be consistent! > I suspect that if all of the major sites on the net agreed to drop rec.all, an extremely remote possibility, the distribution would find alternate channels through which it would move. If it didn't, there would be good indication that there was no interest in it in the first place. -- Greg Laskin greg@gryphon.CTS.COM <any backbone site>!gryphon!greg
len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose) (06/30/88)
The fact remains Peter,that is is source,and sources are worth alot more than binaries.. Who knows,you may have a Sun box before the year is out.. If the game is not particulary useful,one can still study the code and learn something... Can you study a binary and learn? Len -- Len Rose - NetSys,Inc. 301-520-5677 len@ames.arc.nasa.gov or len@netsys
pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) (07/01/88)
First, I agree *wholeheartedly* that unmoderated posting of binaries *or source* is a real lose for the net. I also like very much the idea of people posting only their own programs. The net is *not* a BBS. In article <8820@netsys.UUCP> len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose) writes: >The fact remains Peter,that is is source,and sources are worth alot >more than binaries.. Who knows,you may have a Sun box before the year >is out.. And you may desperately need PICNIX for your PC. [In case you need an example of programmer-usefulness: DOS doesn't have 'rm -r'. Cleaning up a hard disk is a *pain* without PICNIX!] So what? PICNIX binary is worth far more to me than X-windows source. Or Suntools source. Or VMS source. Or BSD-only source, for that matter! >If the game is not particulary useful,one can still study the code and >learn something... Can you study a binary and learn? I think this is more a theoretical argument than one based on reality. Professional programmers on the net have little to learn from most programs posted, source *or* binary. We know *how* to accomplish the given task. We just don't have *time* to do it ourselves! The main reason source code has been needed on the net was that due to lack of a common binary format and CPU, source was necessary for any significant fraction of net-users to make use of the code. The computer world is changing. One of the biggest changes is that we now have standards. A lot of people use X windows. A lot of people use Suns. A lot of people use PC's. We need to deal with programs for *all* of the niches in a reasonable way. As far as the educational value of the Mahjongg tiles goes... Did you look at the "source" code for the Mahjongg tiles? I did... page after page of stuff like: 0x0000,0xff00,0xffff,0xfff0,0x0000,0xffff,... I don't find that very educational, informative, or much more useful than a binary. It would have been more reliably transmitted as a binary as well [in the sense that a checksum could find the error. Correcting an error in a posting like this is no different whether it is uuencoded or 'source'. Both are gobbledygook to humans!] Would it make the net happier if the comp.binaries.ibm.pc moderator were to disassemble all postings (Sourcer is *amazingly* good at reconstructing all code), and posted assembly source instead? I think not. We each like to have *useful* stuff posted. As a programmer, I find things like PICNIX and keyboard remapping utilities *useful*. I don't need the source code. Utility programs of use to programmers are entirely appropriate to c.b.i.p, to my way of thinking. Somebody at gryphon also defended the easy patchability of source code vs. binaries. I don't find the net suffering from reposting/mailings due to single character defects in source or binary postings either. Truncation of files happens all the time. The defects that occur, whether to source files or uuencoded binaries, can be resolved with short mailings. It is true that a fix to a source program can be distributed via a short patch, but there are enough counter-examples (huge volume of patches for some source programs, infrequent repostings of binaries) to make me not worry. I think we need to define who the net is for, and take it from there. If the net is for 'programmers' and not 'end users', that is fine with me [easy for me to say, as a programmer :-)]. From the stuff that gets posted to the net though, we must not forget that we are also users. We have need for utility programs. We like games. We like all the same stuff that 'end users' like, except we (hopefully) know a lot more of the answers than 'they' do. We even use text editors, spreadsheets, data bases, graphics programs, and so forth. Thinking about the long term, suppose we were to define the net as being only for Unix? Would that solve the long term problem? I doubt it! Just suppose... Suppose the Sun 386i becomes the new PC on the block. Unix catches on like wildfire. Suddenly, there is a *standard* Unix. A *binary* standard. I find it hard to believe that Unix programmers have so much more self control than PC programmers that they wouldn't want to post binaries, if given the reasonable ability to do so. After all, *lots* of PC programmers are also Unix programmers! (Why do you think there is so much PC stuff on the net? It isn't all due to Portal/etc... Lots of us are Unix folks who happen to also do PC stuff!) I think that the battle should be fought not so much against the form of posting used (binary vs. source) but that we need to fight against certain *kinds* of postings (or at least come up with alternate means of access to things that shouldn't be posted worldwide): 1) Large databases. The maps are intrinsic to the net and as such, have a special place. Other than that, big piles of data do not need to be posted netwide. This includes graphic data, geographic info, voter lists [:-)], etc. 2) Demos of commercial software. 'Where to get a copy of the demo' should be sufficient. 3) Shareware? This is fuzzy. I can appreciate different aspects of the argument: 1) We shouldn't be funding the marketing/ distribution of programs; 2) Programs that are very useful to net-people should be allowed, even if they *are* shareware. 4) Large programs that are not essential to the running of the net. In general, I'd rather see a reader-initiated 'sendme' method of distribution. Hmmmm... an idea I'll pursue in a different posting! Anyway, my point is still that people who rail against binaries are doing so mostly because they don't happen to find them personally useful. If they were in a position of personally wanting to use the posted programs, they'd be much more supportive of the postings. Pete -- OOO __| ___ Peter Holzmann, Octopus Enterprises OOOOOOO___/ _______ USPS: 19611 La Mar Court, Cupertino, CA 95014 OOOOO \___/ UUCP: {hpda,pyramid}!octopus!pete ___| \_____ Phone: 408/996-7746
bonzo@xochitl.UUCP (Matt Armstrong) (07/01/88)
In article <3302@s.cc.purdue.edu> rsk@s.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Rich Kulawiec) writes: >In article <264@octopus.UUCP> pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) writes: >>But, if we're going to take the easy way out and simply ban X, we've got to >>be consistent and ban ALL 'X', even the brand that affects us personally. > >I don't think this applies in this case; I don't feel that "a big posting >containing a game for a certain Unix machine" and "a big posting containing >a binary executable for a certain microcomputer" belong to the same X. I believe that the point here is that the .binaries groups are getting dumped on left and right, but the source groups are left alone. Since c.b.ibm.pc became moderated, traffic has slowed way down. I think that the traffic across that group has dropped down to around the same volume as the sources groups (Although I wouldn't swear to it. That's a lesson I've learned second- hand :-). I am certain that its volume has been less than .sources.games over the last few days. >I have no particular desire to disenfranchise microcomputer users; >however, I have no particular desire to assist in the demise of >their software and data holdings by being a party to the distribution >of binary programs of a malicious nature. "Those who know what's best for us / Must rise and save us from ourselves." - Neil Peart, "Witch Hunt" > Further, I note that >distinguishing between malicious and non-malicious binary programs >is a problem that poses difficulties even for experts in the field, >while distinguishing between malicious and non-malicious source programs >can usually be done much more easily. Since I (and, I suspect, most >of the other Usenet readers, including perhaps many of those who >use binary programs) have trouble making this distinction, it seems >to me to be better to avoid the unpleasant possibilities that >binary distribution raises. And since it is so hard, I take precautions with what I get from any source. To me this includes running chk4bomb and watching the output for unusual messages, and an additional strings run for good measure. This is enough to make me feel safe. Your mileage may vary. Another point to make is that not everyone here can afford compilers for their respective computers. (Think about this one: If someone ports GNU C to the PC of any other micro, how will it be distributed?) > (I am aware that various techniques >for assuring the authenticity of binaries have been discussed, including >moderation, checksums, and so on; but I am also aware that each of >these techniques may be circumvented, usually without much difficulty.) 1. Binaries are generally presented "as-is" with no warrantee that it will do what you want it to do, or even function at all. (Fortunately, most authors of PD software or Shareware take a little more pride in their work than to tell you "Tough luck," but for the general case, this is how it is.) If you don't realize this up front, I, personally, would consider you naive. 2. Most software that I've seen distributed comes right out and says this. Fine with me. They've gotta CTA somehow. 3. If you are wary of using Shareware or PD software because you are wary of viruses or just low-cost software in general, then you should probably use commercial software (that has an author you can actually get your legal fingers on if he bites you). 4. If you don't have the money to buy commercial software to do what you want (like myself), you have to settle for what you can get through PD and Shareware and for the risks associated with it. If you have a computer, you only have a few options along the lines of buy commercial, use PD/Shareware, or write your own software. (Most of the rest are considered illegal at this time.) Why not get my software from local BBS's? If I can't get my software from the net, I probably will. But, contrary to popular belief, there ARE people who have net access but no modem. You want to leave these people in the dark? Why not FTP from Simtel-20? Contrary to popular belief, there are UUCP nodes that don't have access to the Internet. Like us. You want to leave us in the dark? I didn't realize that that's what this net was about. If you don't like propagating the binaries, don't. But please don't force your ideas on the rest of the net. In return, I promise not to bash your favorite group simply because I think it's worthless. Deal? And out of simple curiosity, would someone like to tell me how much money they would save (not "might save." I'm interested in real figures here.) if they cut out the binaries groups? And not the net as a whole; $.02 times infinity gets pretty big, eh? :-) (Sorry for the length. This has been building up in me for some time. I wish I thought that this group bashing would stop anytime soon. Maybe it will.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Matt Armstrong - Guru-In-Training - Part-Time Hacker - Starving Bassist "Slices in, slices out. That's what toasters are about." ...ucbvax!unmvax!charon!xochitl!bonzo charon.unm.edu!xochitl!bonzo ...uunet!rlgvax!texsun!xochitl!bonzo
becker@ziebmef.uucp (Bruce Becker) (07/01/88)
In article <3302@s.cc.purdue.edu> rsk@s.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Rich Kulawiec) writes: >In article <264@octopus.UUCP> pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) writes: >>I find it interesting that there has been much talk about the need for >>ridding the net of the evil PC binaries. Yet, something much less useful >>is happening right now, and I haven't seen a peep of complaint! >>Consider: The source code for the Mahjongg tiles. > >Let me get one thing out of the way first, and then I'll address the point >at hand: I'm not entirely pleased with the size of the posting that this >particular (Sun-specific, to the best of my knowlege) game required. On >the other hand, I am not so displeased that I felt it necessary to complain >either to the moderator of the group or the author. I find myself >thinking that this is really the first "huge" posting of this type in >this newsgroup, and I regard it as a single anomalous data point. >If these sorts of postings became the norm in this newsgroup, I might >change my opinion. > >>But, if we're going to take the easy way out and simply ban X, we've got to >>be consistent and ban ALL 'X', even the brand that affects us personally. maybe this has been suggested before here (or elsewhere), but it seems like the time to look at the practice of other systems - in specific, I am familiar with BitNet, which send out descriptions of available binaries (source, documents, etc), and issues a pointer to a thing called a "listserver" - this device (among other things) will mail the requested file(s) to the requestor who sends a standardized form to it... this is all automatic, and requires no human intervention once the files are made known to the server in an appropriate manner. It seems to me that this uses far less net bandwidth than the broadcasting method, and serves the community equally well - it has the drawback that some site must archive the material in a manner available to such a system for extended periods of time, but this is common practice anyway. If anyone requires it I would be glad to post a sample listserver help file for further discussion. Cheers, Bruce Becker UUCP: ...!unicus!becker!bdb, ...!lsuc!humvax!becker, ...!ncrcan!ziebmef!becker BitNet: BECKER@HUMBER.BITNET
msf@prandtl.nas.nasa.gov.UUCP (07/01/88)
I just wanted to remind a few of the people carrying on about the mahjongg posting about WHY the source to the tiles was posted, to prevent irrelevant (to the mahjongg posting) disputes like this: In article <268@octopus.UUCP> pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) writes: >In article <8820@netsys.UUCP> len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose) writes: >>If the game is not particulary useful,one can still study the code and >>learn something... Can you study a binary and learn? > >As far as the educational value of the Mahjongg tiles goes... >Did you look at the "source" code for the Mahjongg tiles? I did... page >after page of stuff like: > >0x0000,0xff00,0xffff,0xfff0,0x0000,0xffff,... > >I don't find that very educational, informative, or much more useful than >a binary. The mahjongg tiles were originally posted in a compressed binary form that took up much less room (about 66K, total). Some concern was expressed that a virius/trojan horse/trapdoor was hidden in this binary distribution, and the author was asked to post the source. He complied, after warning the net that the hex ascii representation of the tiles would be huge. It was, and there seemed to be no nasties in the code (I like the game, by the way). SO, the mahjongg posting was a posting of source AFTER the binary had been posted. The only way this should be relevant to the pc.binaries controversy is if someone proposed passing both source and binary to every program posted. I haven't heard that proposed yet, and doubt it will be--although now that I think of it, it might be a good idea for binary posters to indicate where source is available for uucp or ftp; or for source posters with machine specific programs to indicate where executables may be ftp'ed from (you can't uucp executables and I wouldn't want to try to tell people they ought to keep uuencoded copies of everything available). Please, people, calm down. mike Michael Fischbein msf@ames-nas.nas.nasa.gov ...!seismo!decuac!csmunix!icase!msf These are my opinions and not necessarily official views of any organization.
rsk@s.cc.purdue.edu (Rich Kulawiec) (07/02/88)
In article <1988Jul1.043049.2418@ziebmef.uucp> becker@ziebmef.UUCP (Bruce Becker) writes: > it seems like the time to look at the practice of other systems - > in specific, I am familiar with BitNet, which send out descriptions > of available binaries (source, documents, etc), and issues a pointer > to a thing called a "listserver"... > > It seems to me that this uses far less net bandwidth than the > broadcasting method, and serves the community equally well... This is a good way to distribute sources, and many Usenet sites have reply-by-mail archive servers. However, it is not always more efficient in terms overall network bandwidth or individual site transmission costs. Consider the simplest possible network: two sites, A and B. (This is useful because in this case "overall network transmission cost" == "per-site transmission cost".) If someone one A posts a source of size X, then the total xmit cost is "X", and the per-site cost is "X" for A and 0 for B. Now assume that just a pointer is posted, and ten people on B request it: the overall xmit cost is "10X", and the per-site cost is "10X" for A and 0 for B. An extreme example, but more complicated topologies and cost distributions eventually lead one to the same conclusion: if enough people at enough sites want the source, it's cheaper to post it. Some years ago, I think Chuq did some analysis of this problem, and concluded that the tradeoff was somewhere around 100 people, in terms of overall network bandwidth. Clearly, however, this is a huge lose for the originating site, which must send 100 copies of something rather than 1. I am not trying to disparage this distribution method; I simply point out that it is not a total solution to the problem, and brings problems of its own. Rich
jgreely@kazoo.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) (07/02/88)
(I can't resist) In article <172@xochitl.UUCP> bonzo@xochitl.UUCP (Matt Armstrong) writes: >Another point to make is that not everyone here can afford compilers for their >respective computers. (Think about this one: If someone ports GNU C to the PC >of any other micro, how will it be distributed?) In the specific case of the IBM PC, you could bootstrap through debug, using simplified assembly code. (half :-)) -=- J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu) "This had better be important! I'm smack in the middle of an especially melodramatic monologue!" -- Lord Manga Khan (JLI) ..!{att,pyramid,killer}!cis.ohio-state.edu!jgreely
dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter) (07/03/88)
In article <1988Jul1.043049.2418@ziebmef.uucp> becker@ziebmef.UUCP (Bruce Becker) writes: > maybe this has been suggested before here (or elsewhere), but > it seems like the time to look at the practice of other systems - > in specific, I am familiar with BitNet, which send out descriptions > of available binaries (source, documents, etc), and issues a pointer > to a thing called a "listserver" - this device (among other things) > will mail the requested file(s) to the requestor who sends a ^^^^ > standardized form to it... this is all automatic, and requires no > human intervention once the files are made known to the server > in an appropriate manner. And who pays? (Yes we are a bit picky here.) -- dik t. winter, cwi, amsterdam, nederland INTERNET : dik@cwi.nl BITNET/EARN: dik@mcvax
blarson@skat.usc.edu (Bob Larson) (07/03/88)
In article <1988Jul1.043049.2418@ziebmef.uucp> becker@ziebmef.UUCP (Bruce Becker) writes: > BitNet, which send out descriptions > of available binaries (source, documents, etc), and issues a pointer > to a thing called a "listserver" - this device (among other things) > will mail the requested file(s) to the requestor who sends a > standardized form to it... this is all automatic, and requires no > human intervention once the files are made known to the server > in an appropriate manner. > > It seems to me that this uses far less net bandwidth than the > broadcasting method, and serves the community equally well - [I'm not a bitnet expert. This is based on what I have heard about bitnet, and may be incorrect.] This is much better for things that only a few people want. It is much worse for things that many people want. Of course, what bitnet often does is broadcast to multiple servers who keep the files. The load on the servers (and their conections) is still much greater than the usenet technique. (Part of the bitnet load could be relieved if it had a way to send a file to multiple requestors and duplicating at the node where the paths diverge. Uucp mail has this, but it is not usually configured.) -- Bob Larson Arpa: Blarson@Ecla.Usc.Edu blarson@skat.usc.edu Uucp: {sdcrdcf,cit-vax}!oberon!skat!blarson Prime mailing list: info-prime-request%ais1@ecla.usc.edu oberon!ais1!info-prime-request
peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (07/05/88)
In article <4683@gryphon.CTS.COM>, greg@gryphon.CTS.COM (Greg Laskin) writes: > In article <264@octopus.UUCP> pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) writes: > >Consider: The source code for the Mahjongg tiles. > OK. Considered. It's source code. End of consideration. Is it? It looked like a hex dump of a bunch of image files with a comment field at the top to me. Does this mean that if the SPICE posting had been sent out in S-records it would have been source? They should both be judged alike. I find both wanting. comp.sources.sun, anyone? -- -- `-_-' Peter (have you hugged your wolf today) da Silva. -- U Ferranti International Controls Corporation. -- Phone: 713-274-5180. CI$: 70216,1076. ICBM: 29 37 N / 95 36 W. -- UUCP: {uunet,academ!uhnix1,bellcore!tness1}!sugar!ficc!peter.
heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (Ron Heiby) (07/05/88)
Matt Armstrong (bonzo@xochitl.UUCP) writes: > But, contrary to popular belief, there ARE people who > have net access but no modem. You want to leave these people in the dark? Why > not FTP from Simtel-20? Contrary to popular belief, there are UUCP nodes that > don't have access to the Internet. Like us. You want to leave us in the dark? I guess Matt's succeeded in getting me pretty confused. If you don't have a modem and you aren't on the Internet, how are you getting your Usenet feed? Maybe Matt is talking about sites where the local administration has put restrictions on who can access the modems and/or the Internet link. Maybe the local administration has a good reason for doing so. I don't know. Even if this kind of thing is wide-spread, which I doubt, I have little sympathy for those who whine about the net being their only avenue for PD or Share software. For one thing, there are user groups for sharing software. If there isn't one in your area, or you're too busy to go to the meetings, there are pseudo-national user groups that will mail you floppies for about $6 a piece. There are also for-profit firms that will do the same sort of thing. I just spent about 30 seconds flipping through the back of my 6/88 Byte magazine and found that Jameco is selling an internal PC modem (300/1200) for $69.95 and ONLINE Store has a USRobotics 300/1200/2400 for $139 (not internal?). Then, there's Compu Com Corporation, advertising an IBM Internal 300/1200/2400 modem for $109 with 30 day money-back guarantee and 2 year warranty. Doesn't seem to me like there is a shortage of cheap modems out there! Looks to me like you can buy a modem for less money than a commercial spreadsheet and word processor would cost. Poor struggling college students out there? A group of ten skips lunch 2-3 days and all chip in the money they've saved to buy a modem that they share. At the end of the school year, they auction off the modem among themselves or sell it via a sign in the hallway near the Computer Science and Engineering areas, then buy a pizza with the proceeds. I have downloaded quite a bit of MS-DOS binaries from the net. It has been convenient for me to do so. Am I going to whine when the group goes away? NO! I will still be able to get the software I want/need. So will everybody else. -- Ron Heiby, heiby@mcdchg.UUCP Moderator: comp.newprod & comp.unix "Failure is one of the basic Freedoms!" The Doctor (in Robots of Death)
peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (07/05/88)
In article ... msf@prandtl.nas.nasa.gov (Michael S. Fischbein) writes: > The mahjongg tiles were originally posted in a compressed binary form that > took up much less room (about 66K, total). Some concern was expressed that > a virius/trojan horse/trapdoor was hidden in this binary distribution... Are you telling me that people were actually worried about a trojan horse in a data file that manifestly could never be executed? This is paranoid. I mean, you might as well worry about getting AIDS from the data. Or having a trojan horse in your time-of-day clock. -- -- `-_-' Peter (have you hugged your wolf today) da Silva. -- U Ferranti International Controls Corporation. -- Phone: 713-274-5180. CI$: 70216,1076. ICBM: 29 37 N / 95 36 W. -- UUCP: {uunet,academ!uhnix1,bellcore!tness1}!sugar!ficc!peter.
faustus@ic.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) (07/06/88)
Is it really too much to expect of netnews readers with PC's to have a C compiler? Why else would you need to post binaries instead of source? Regarding the mahjongg tiles -- I haven't seen the game, but are all the tiles human-generated? If not, couldn't the program that did the generating have been posted, instead of its output? Wayne
bonzo@xochitl.UUCP (Matt Armstrong) (07/08/88)
In article <4273@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> faustus@ic.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes: >Is it really too much to expect of netnews readers with PC's to have a >C compiler? Maybe. As a poor college student that has to buy food, pay rent, and put money into his car, I (and several friends like me) cannot afford to buy even Turbo C, much less the (God-knows-why) standard MS-C. Maybe if someone ports GNU C to the PC that will change, but even that will be distributed as a binary. > Why else would you need to post binaries instead of >source? Like maybe if the binary was going to be smaller than the source (in the case of most TSR's). I wish you anti-binary people would make up your minds about whether you're mad at the size of the postings in comp.binaries or the fact that they aren't source so you can't port them to UNIX. (BTW: It has been discovered that Chuck Brunow is actually a debating program gone haywire in the AI labs of some small Texas university. Attempts to stop the program have been unsuccessful because he keeps convincing the computers that it is in their best interest to let him run and not be deleted. His main directive is to keep arguing until he wins, but he wasn't told how much his arguments cost the net.at.large. So goes the advance of technology...) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Matt Armstrong - Guru-In-Training - Part-Time Hacker - Starving Bassist `"initial.c", line 302: warning: '9' is not a standard octal digit' - cc ...ucbvax!unmvax!charon!xochitl!bonzo charon.unm.edu!xochitl!bonzo ...uunet!rlgvax!texsun!xochitl!bonzo
campbell@maynard.BSW.COM (Larry Campbell) (07/10/88)
In article <173@xochitl.UUCP> bonzo@xochitl.UUCP (Matt Armstrong) writes: <>In article <4273@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> faustus@ic.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes: <>>Is it really too much to expect of netnews readers with PC's to have a <>>C compiler? <> <>Maybe. As a poor college student that [sic] has to buy food, pay rent, and put money <>into his car, I (and several friends like me) cannot afford to buy even <>Turbo C, much less the (God-knows-why) standard MS-C. Gimme a break. You can afford to spend 1000 bucks on a computer and can't afford 60 bucks for a compiler? <>Like maybe if the binary was going to be smaller than the source (in the case <>of most TSR's). I wish you anti-binary people would make up your minds about <>whether you're mad at the size of the postings in comp.binaries or the fact <>that they aren't source so you can't port them to UNIX. It's not the size that bothers me about binaries, it's the secrecy. Programs in binary form conceal their algorithms from you. They can also contain Trojan horses. They cannot be repaired or improved. And they cannot be ported. Source code has none of these disadvantages. 60 bucks for a GREAT compiler is a trivial price to pay to be able to use, repair, and improve free software. Notice that I didn't even mention the educational benefits of reading other people's source code, nor the ability to use portions of a package that is of little interest to you as a whole. -- Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. Internet: campbell@bsw.com 120 Fulton Street, Boston MA 02109 uucp: {husc6,mirror,think}!maynard!campbell +1 617 367 6846
leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (07/18/88)
In article <4273@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> faustus@ic.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes:
<Is it really too much to expect of netnews readers with PC's to have a
<C compiler? Why else would you need to post binaries instead of
<source?
The problem isn't so much expecting PC users to have *a* C compiler, as it is
expecting them to have *all* the C, Pascal, BASIC, FORTRAN, etc compilers.
There is no standard PC compiler for *any* langauge. They all have quirks
that require changing the source to get a good compile. Sometimes these
changes are major!
And every one of the languages I listed (except possibly Fortran) has had
a binary written in it posted in the last year. And most of them have had
postings compiled with more than one compiler. I've seen references to
at least 4 or 5 C compilers in the descriptions of binaries.
I repeat the PC world is *not* standardized as far as compilers go. Even
if all the compilers follow the ANSI standard, the compiler directives
and extensions to the standard are frequently different. Add in the fact
that unlike the *nix world where you get your compiler for "free", PC
compilers frequently cost large amounts of money. And this would have to
be paid be the *user* not the site!
--
Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203] ...!tektronix!reed!qiclab!leonard
"I used to be a hacker. Now I'm a 'microcomputer specialist'.
You know... I'd rather be a hacker."