rdh@sun.UUCP (02/15/87)
In article <1316@ho95e.ATT.COM> wcs@ho95e.UUCP (46133-#Bill.Stewart,2G202,x0705,) writes: >>The net is for portable software, and binaries are not portable. > > While I generally prefer source postings also, for the usual >reasons, the net can *still* benefit from posted binaries. I think that the costs of posting binaries outweigh the benefits, especially binaries for PCs, clones, or what-have-you. As minix is ported to more and more machines the benefit of any given binary posting becomes less and less. If you want to use the net to distribute binaries, post an announcement of your newly available binary, and a way to obtain it (anonymous tftp, a mail alias to a program that replies with a uuencoded file, etc.). DON'T POST the binaries themselves. -bob.
moraes@utcsri.UUCP (Mark A. Moraes) (02/16/87)
At the risk of starting Yet Another Discussion on Religion, I don't think it is quite in keeping with the Minix philosophy to post binaries. Many of us intend to try to port Minix to our better-endowed, less-compatible machines because its source is available. It would be only fair to give user programs the same chance. I agree with bob's suggestion that binaries can be accessed by anonymous ftp, or by the earlier suggestions about IBM-PC User Groups. We could create comp.os.minix.sources (we'll probably have to!) soon. Mark Moraes University of Toronto. --The above is UTencoded source code, and has been tested on Homo Sapiens machines!
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (02/20/87)
As quoted from <13342@sun.uucp> by rdh@sun.uucp (Robert Hartman): +--------------- | I think that the costs of posting binaries outweigh the benefits, especially | binaries for PCs, clones, or what-have-you. As minix is ported to more and | more machines the benefit of any given binary posting becomes less and less. | | If you want to use the net to distribute binaries, post an announcement of | your newly available binary, and a way to obtain it (anonymous tftp, a | mail alias to a program that replies with a uuencoded file, etc.). | DON'T POST the binaries themselves. +--------------- And, of course, the poor schmucks who don't have C compilers (and probably don't wash behind the ears, either) and who don't have tftp can go to hell, right? I don't have a C compiler. Kindly don't segregate me or the fur will fly. Binaries are better than nothing. -- ++Brandon (Resident Elf @ ncoast.UUCP) ____ ______________ / \ / __ __ __ \ Brandon S. Allbery <backbone>!ncoast!allbery ___ | /__> / \ / \ aXcess Co., Consulting ncoast!allbery@Case.CSNET / \ | | `--, `--, 6615 Center St. #A1-105 (...@relay.CS.NET) | | \__/ \__/ \__/ Mentor, OH 44060-4101 \____/ \______________/ +1 216 974 9210
egisin@watmath.UUCP (02/20/87)
In article <2103@ncoast.UUCP>, allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes: > And, of course, the poor schmucks who don't have C compilers (and probably > don't wash behind the ears, either) and who don't have tftp can go to hell, > right? > > I don't have a C compiler. Kindly don't segregate me or the fur will fly. > Binaries are better than nothing. You obviously don't have Minix, because it comes with a C compiler and a library that is consistent across different machines. There is no excuse for posting Minix binaries. This newsgroup has been 90% noise so far, we can improve the S/N ratio by stopping this discussion on posting binaries.
philip@axis.UUCP (02/22/87)
In article <2103@ncoast.UUCP>, allbery@ncoast.UUCP writes: > And, of course, the poor schmucks who don't have C compilers (and probably > don't wash behind the ears, either) and who don't have tftp can go to hell, > right? > > I don't have a C compiler. Kindly don't segregate me or the fur will fly. > Binaries are better than nothing. Not washing behind your ears is your privilige. Anyone having, and using ftp will probably get what they deserve. Anyone reading (and contributing to) this group is supposed to know what the group is about. It is about a system called MINIX. This system is a V7 look alike, and comes complete with lots of nice utilities - INCLUDING A C COMPILER. Contrary to current (misinformed) oppinion within this group, the system is intended as a teaching aid for OS courses. It runs on IBM PC's. For those who havn't been able to buy the book (or who are to mean to try) MINIX is not: A full blown replacement for System 5.3 or BSD4.3 It does not run on your 'superbox' where superbox <> IBM PC It will not support 437 users It does not use BIOS (nor should it) Discussions about directions of stack growth on a fuddledip Mk7.2 processor do not belong in this group, nor do discussions about posting of magabyte binaries. Those of you who know nothing about 8088 processors should perhaps borrow/steal/buy a reference manual before insisting that this processor is not capable of executing more than three consecutive instructions, can not support any form of memory management, will not run MINIX or even PC-DOS. Can we PLEASE restrict discussions here to something useful, and relavent ? Can I also suggest that people actually BUY THE BOOK ? Andy has worked quite hard in producing both the book, and the system. They are both available at quite reasonable prices - so reasonable that I doubt that Andy is going to become a millionaire overnight from his hard work - it must be terribly dissapointing to see several years hard work being written off by people who have not read the book, seen the sources, nor taken more that 10 seconds to find out what they are talking about. Philip
lkc@hpirs.UUCP (02/24/87)
> Can we PLEASE restrict discussions here to something useful, and relavent ? > Can I also suggest that people actually BUY THE BOOK ? > Andy has worked quite hard in producing both the book, and the system. > They are both available at quite reasonable prices - so reasonable > that I doubt that Andy is going to become a millionaire overnight from > his hard work - it must be terribly dissapointing to see several years > hard work being written off by people who have not read the book, seen the > sources, nor taken more that 10 seconds to find out what they are talking > about. > > Philip The confusion here is that my copy of the book, at least, claims that the C compiler is not part of any distribution package (and yes I've orderd the sources). Philip makes some strong statements here and I agree with each one. After reading the mis-information contained in the book, I further investigated the situation to determine the accuracy of the statement. Lee "only a fool believes everything s/he reads" Casuto