ln63fkn@sdcc7.UUCP (Paul van de Graaf) (11/08/85)
In article <1778@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes: [ In response to a proposal to ban posting binaries ] >But some of us don't have compilers, because we bought our machines back >in the early days, and so have small macs that can't compile... So, Upgrade your Mac! Buy a decent compiler! Subscribe to Compuserve! Join a User Group! I suppose Mac owners are SO CHEAP they want the other Usenet sites to pay for their upgrades :-). As it is now, the backbone sites only support their "free" software. Net.sources.mac sets a bad precedent by posting only binaries. Now we have the Amiga & Atari ST. Can we afford to post binaries for these machines? OF COURSE NOT! Suppose Hack was distributed as 108 binaries... Usenet would probably no longer exist. Binaries are bad for many reasons: 1.) Very Poor bandwidth. 7 bits of ASCII ~= 7 bits of code. A 5 line "hello world" program generates about 4K bytes of code on a VAX. 2.) Not Human readable. Enough said. 3.) Not portable. Might end up with 3 binaries of the same program for the Mac, Amiga, and ST. A well written C program with a lot of #ifdefs might serve all three. 4.) Repetition. A bug or upgrade usually requires a second post. A context diff or ed script usually suffices for sources. Also, the same runtime, stdio or floating point libraries can get posted numerous times with binaries. 5.) Shareware concerns. Enough said. The only thing worse that's worse than binaries is assembly language, but at least it's human readable. [ well... some of it is :-) ] Let's get rid of binaries now, or at least restrict them to moderated groups. Paul van de Graaf sdcsvax!sdcc7!ln63fkn U. C. San Diego
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (11/11/85)
I agree with Paul. I think one of the reasons why net.sources.mac has so much volume is that the binaries suck in libraries and runtime systems and such. Since we are now faced with several machines for which it might make equal sense to post binhex images, I propose the following: First idea: create a new top level distribution "sw" (for software). This is used for software distribution ala net.sources. We create subgroups such as sw.sources, sw.binhex, sw.disc, sw.wanted, sw.bugs. (Moderation might fit in here somewhere too, I can see sw.mod.sources, for example.) This distribution is not necessarily carried by the whole net, but just the parts that want it. In particular, I can imagine that sw.binhex might be only carried by places that want it. This would require that an alternate backbone be set up, so that only backbone sites using it would have to carry it. [To all of you who are griping about losing net.sources.mac because some backbone site won't pay for your free lunch, quit griping and form your own link to another site that carries it! If you form your own backbone you'll have control over it. If you won't pay for the traffic, and you can't find someone else who is generous enough to pay for it for you, then you have no business berating people who are unwilling to pay your bills.] Second idea: set up one or several hosts which are "sources servers", with the binaries (or binhex or whatever) available for public UUCP dialin. People who want the files can call the nearest server and grab the program. net.sources.mac could be used to announce that a new program is available from some set of servers. Mark Horton
rs@mirror.UUCP (11/14/85)
I strongly agree; binaries are BAD because they are
unportable, encourage and require repetition (no context
diffs), the bandwidth is too low, and they are useless to
people without Mac's. BAN BINHEX!
--
Rich $alz {mit-eddie, ihnp4!inmet, wjh12, cca, datacube}!mirror!rs
Mirror Systems 2067 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA, 02140
Telephone: 6,176,610,777tim@k.cs.cmu.edu (Tim Maroney) (11/20/85)
I don't think you folks understand programming on the Mac very well. Most
sources are unusable by most people. Let's say I decoide to post TELNET and
TFTP for the Mac in source code exclusively. Great. Now everyone who has a
Lisa and Lisa Pascal can make it. Wow. That is, what, 5% or less of Mac
users? Let's say I'd written it in Megamax C. Great. Now what about the
people who use incompatible C compilers? I think you get the idea, so let's
not go into Rascal, Object Pascal, MacApp, MacForth, and so on.
The Mac is not UNIX. There is not one relatively standard compiler that
everyone uses. #ifdef's just don't cut it, because the compilers are very
different from each other. The idea of distributing source only is,
frankly, stupid, and people who have programmed so little on the Mac that
they would make such a suggestion should not be going around pretending to
be experts.
-=-
Tim Maroney, CMU Center for Art and Technology
Tim.Maroney@k.cs.cmu.edu uucp: {seismo,decwrl,etc.}!k.cs.cmu.edu!tim
CompuServe: 74176,1360 I am my own hunchbacked assistant.herbie@polaris.UUCP (Herb Chong) (11/21/85)
In article <646@k.cs.cmu.edu> tim@k.cs.cmu.edu (Tim Maroney) writes: >I don't think you folks understand programming on the Mac very well. Most >sources are unusable by most people. Let's say I decoide to post TELNET and >TFTP for the Mac in source code exclusively. Great. Now everyone who has a >Lisa and Lisa Pascal can make it. Wow. That is, what, 5% or less of Mac >users? Let's say I'd written it in Megamax C. Great. Now what about the >people who use incompatible C compilers? I think you get the idea, so let's >not go into Rascal, Object Pascal, MacApp, MacForth, and so on. is it not possible to belong to a user's group and use someone's FATMAC with the appropriate compiler to create the thing? every MAC owner does not live in a vacuum, do they? just a suggestion. Herb Chong... I'm still user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... VNET,BITNET,NETNORTH,EARN: HERBIE AT YKTVMH UUCP: {allegra|cbosgd|cmcl2|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!philabs!polaris!herbie CSNET: herbie.yktvmh@ibm-sj.csnet ARPA: herbie.yktvmh.ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa ======================================================================== DISCLAIMER: what you just read was produced by pouring lukewarm tea for 42 seconds onto 9 people chained to 6 Ouiji boards.
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (11/23/85)
> The Mac is not UNIX. There is not one relatively standard compiler that > everyone uses. #ifdef's just don't cut it, because the compilers are very > different from each other. The idea of distributing source only is, > frankly, stupid, and people who have programmed so little on the Mac that > they would make such a suggestion should not be going around pretending to > be experts. Well how about getting together & doing something about making these radically different languages pull together a bit more? Over in net.amiga there has been a little discussion on trying to write programs that can be ported easily between the AMIGA, the ST, and the MAC. If the MAC can't even port to the Mac not only does this cut Mac users out of this game but it hardly makes the Mac look like a real computer... for the rest of us or not. If what you say is true and unavaoidable I've just lost most of my considerable respect for the Macintosh and its user community. After all... ifdefs do cut it everywhere else. It's possible with a little work to write a program that can compile and run on the IBM-PC with a variety of compilers, VMS, *and* various semi-compatible flavors of UNIX. The same program, mind you... -- Name: Peter da Silva Graphic: `-_-' UUCP: ...!shell!{graffiti,baylor}!peter IAEF: ...!kitty!baylor!peter
tim@k.cs.cmu.edu (Tim Maroney) (11/27/85)
Hard as it may be for you to believe, Peter, many programs for the Mac are
not written in C at all. For instance, MacIP was begun before there were
any decent C compilers available, so it's in Lisa Pascal. (In fact, I still
don't know of a C compiler with a good Appletalk interface.) Other Pascals
and something called Rascal are also popular. Then within Pascal, you have
a number of different environments, some "vanilla" (or close), some strongly
object-oriented and therefore incompatible. Then of course there are the
different toolbox interfaces and naming conventions in the various C
compilers, particularly with respect to strings and pointers to four-byte or
smaller structures, not to mention the totally incompatible in-line
assemblers.
In order to to make the different C compilers compatible, existing code
would have to stop working in most of them. Show me a compiler developer
who would agree to a change like that and I'll show you a lunatic who'll be
out of business in less than a year.
I've said it before, but it didn't seem to take: the Mac is not UNIX, never
has been UNIX, and never will be UNIX. If you approach it with the standard
"UNIX-like means good, un-UNIX-like means bad", then you will hate it. But
this is an attitude that ignores the basic differences between an
expert-friendly, developer-oriented minicomputer (like a UNIX machine) and a
novice-friendly, user-oriented microcomputer (like the Mac). I'm sick of
explaining it, because if you haven't gotten it by now, then you're not
trying and I'm wasting my breath.
UNIX, by the way, is a trademark of AT&T Bell Labs.
-=-
Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot, CMU Center for Art and Technology
tim@k.cs.cmu.edu | uucp: {seismo,decwrl,ucbvax,etc.}!k.cs.cmu.edu!tim
CompuServe: 74176,1360 | CMU. Tomorrow's networking nightmares -- today!rec@mplvax.UUCP (Richard Currier) (11/28/85)
In article <9700010@mirror.UUCP> rs@mirror.UUCP writes: > > > >I strongly agree; binaries are BAD because they are >unportable, encourage and require repetition (no context >diffs), the bandwidth is too low, and they are useless to >people without Mac's. BAN BINHEX! > >-- >Rich $alz {mit-eddie, ihnp4!inmet, wjh12, cca, datacube}!mirror!rs >Mirror Systems 2067 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA, 02140 >Telephone: 6,176,610,777 I strongly disagree; binaries provide a way to distribute many useful tools to the many people doing serious work in the Unix/Macintosh en- vironment. If you are not engaged in this work most of what goes on in the Mac groups will be of little use to you and it is arrogant to try to limit the information flow to those Unix professionals who are. The solution to your problem is to get your system administrator to shut off the groups at your site. In this way you can reduce your phone bills and the rest of us can get on with our work. -- richard currier marine physical lab u.c. san diego {ihnp4|decvax|akgua|dcdwest|ucbvax} !sdcsvax!mplvax!rec