gnu@hoptoad.UUCP (02/06/87)
In article <468@gouldsd.UUCP>, mjranum@gouldsd.UUCP (Marcus J Ranum) writes: > More to the point, suppose I make a version of uuclone... > ...but do not want to give out sources ? Then don't post it to the net. Send it to some IBM PC user group or package it up and sell it. The net is for portable software, and binaries are not portable. > Swapping huge sources is best done with floppy-disk mailers > anyway. Swapping huge sources is best done with 9-track magtapes, you mean. *Everybody* can read magtapes :-), while only bozos with IBM PC's can read floppies. "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with magtapes." It may take a bit more pounding, but it has to sink into everyone's heads that MINIX IS NOT RESTRICTED TO IBM PC'S!!! Binaries and floppies are not useful to all the Minix users. Sources posted to the net are. They're even useful to non-Minix users who have C compilers. Also note that the sources to Minix programs can't be too huge, since it's currently limited to a 64K+64K address space. > shar wherever possible, tar for binaries, and no "arc" "pack" "squeeze" > "much" or "gulp" formats. Shar forever -- and a simple one that doesn't indent rename inspect detect see-lect and reject. "Just the facts, Ma'am." -- John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@ingres.berkeley.edu Love your country but never trust its government. -- from a hand-painted road sign in central Pennsylvania (terrorist, cryptography, DES, drugs, cipher, secret, decode, NSA, CIA, NRO.)
thomps@gitpyr.UUCP (02/06/87)
In article <1750@hoptoad.uucp>, gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: > In article <468@gouldsd.UUCP>, mjranum@gouldsd.UUCP (Marcus J Ranum) writes: > > More to the point, suppose I make a version of uuclone... > > ...but do not want to give out sources ? > > Then don't post it to the net. Send it to some IBM PC user group or > package it up and sell it. The net is for portable software, and > binaries are not portable. Here here ! I no longer grab binaries period because like all programs they usually contain bugs. If I have the sources, I can usually fix the bugs but without them, its just not worth the frustation. -- Ken Thompson Phone : (404) 894-7089 Georgia Tech Research Institute Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!thomps
mhorne@tekfdi.UUCP (02/08/87)
In a previous article <1750@hoptoad.uucp>, John Gilmore writes: >> Swapping huge sources is best done with floppy-disk mailers >> anyway. > >Swapping huge sources is best done with 9-track magtapes, you mean. >*Everybody* can read magtapes :-), while only bozos with IBM PC's can read >floppies. "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon filled >with magtapes." > >It may take a bit more pounding, but it has to sink into everyone's heads >that MINIX IS NOT RESTRICTED TO IBM PC'S!!! Binaries and floppies are >not useful to all the Minix users. Sources posted to the net are. They're >even useful to non-Minix users who have C compilers. Here Here! Though I know a fair number of those who wish to run Minix are IBM-PC 'bozos' and the like, there is a fair chunk of us who wish to port and/or run selected sections of the Minix software. I personally would like to port it to a Tek 4404 AI Workstation (68010, 2 MB mem, 8 MB v-mem, etc.) that is running Uniflex at this time. Obviously I don't want to have to un-arc a source in some funky IBM trash format. Make the damn things portable! Not all of us believe in the Big Blue God. >> shar wherever possible, tar for binaries, and no "arc" "pack" "squeeze" >> "much" or "gulp" formats. > >Shar forever -- and a simple one that doesn't indent rename >inspect detect see-lect and reject. "Just the facts, Ma'am." >-- >John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@ingres.berkeley.edu BINGO! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Horne - KA7AXD FDI group, Tektronix, Incorporated INTERNET: mhorne@tekfdi.fdi.tek.com CSNET: mhorne@tekfdi.fdi.tek.csnet@csnet-relay.csnet UUCP: {decvax,hplabs,hp-cd,reed,uw-beaver}!tektronix!tekfdi!mhorne
wcs@ho95e.UUCP (02/08/87)
In article <1750@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.UUCP (John Gilmore) writes: >In article <468@gouldsd.UUCP>, mjranum@gouldsd.UUCP (Marcus J Ranum) writes: >> More to the point, suppose I make a version of uuclone... >> ...but do not want to give out sources ? >Then don't post it to the net. Send it to some IBM PC user group or >package it up and sell it. 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. The problem is more extreme for generic-MSDOS than for Minix, since there are hordes of compilers for MSDOS (I can't use source written for Turbo-Foolog) but what about programs that are too big for the small-model Minix compiler? If your program needs split I&D space to run, and you compiled it with a compiler I don't have, binary is useful. (Please post both if possible.) To descend to the level of charging-money-for-software, it may be tacky to do so in an environment where the operating system is (almost) free, but there are people who make their living from the software business; if they're willing to post binaries here for something they'll sell in another market, fine. Also, one way to make money in the software business is to sell good subroutine libraries, with the restriction that you can distribute binary with no royalty - code written using such packages has obvious limitations on source distribution. >> shar wherever possible, tar for binaries, and no "arc" "pack" "squeeze" >Shar forever -- and a simple one that doesn't indent rename [...] Unfortunately, there are braindamaged news-mailers out there that can't handle arbitrary text; a good shar will insulate your code a bit. Likewise, binaries probably can't survive posting, so tar won't work. Uuencode is kind of low-tech, but it does the job, and it seems to be a standard on the pc newsgroups. If someone is willing to adapt "compress" for MINIX (should be trivial), a better format might be: : this is a shar file, using zcat and atob/btoa for binaries atob <<BINARY_EOF | uncompress > file1.o %&*&^&*%*%*%(*%*&%*&%(*&%*&%(*&%*%*$#$ BINARY_EOF btoa/atob is a pair of utilities provided with the compress distribution which use a 4:5 expansion instead of the 3:4 expansion in uuencode. >(terrorist, cryptography, DES, drugs, cipher, secret, decode, NSA, CIA, NRO.) What's NRO? -- # Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G-202, Holmdel NJ 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcs
chapman@fornax.UUCP (02/10/87)
> In article <468@gouldsd.UUCP>, mjranum@gouldsd.UUCP (Marcus J Ranum) writes: > > More to the point, suppose I make a version of uuclone... > > ...but do not want to give out sources ? > > Then don't post it to the net. Send it to some IBM PC user group or > package it up and sell it. The net is for portable software, and > binaries are not portable. > While sources are nice I don't see where you get the right to discourage anybody from posting anything which stands a chance of being useful to a reasonable number of people. Since most of your postings are not program sources I assume you'll shortly stop posting?
wagner@utgpu.UUCP (02/10/87)
Once again over the head, folks.... posting binaries for an operating system that shortly will be running on several different families of processors is kind of dumb. Does anyone post binaries on net.unix (whatever that got called in the rename)? Michael
madd@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP (02/17/87)
In article <3038@gitpyr.gatech.EDU> thomps@gitpyr.gatech.EDU (Ken Thompson) writes: >In article <1750@hoptoad.uucp>, gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >> In article <468@gouldsd.UUCP>, mjranum@gouldsd.UUCP (Marcus J Ranum) writes: >> > More to the point, suppose I make a version of uuclone... >> > ...but do not want to give out sources ? >> >> Then don't post it to the net. Send it to some IBM PC user group or >> package it up and sell it. The net is for portable software, and >> binaries are not portable. > >Here here ! I no longer grab binaries period because like all programs >they usually contain bugs. If I have the sources, I can usually fix the bugs >but without them, its just not worth the frustation. > Often I post binaries without source. The reason is not that I don't want to give out the source (I'll usually mail it to whomever asks), but that I'd appreciate centralized distribution. It's damned annoying to see that one version of a program I've written has been hacked to a point where I wouln't recognize it, and the person who hacked it wants to know why it won't work anymore. Besides, there are lots of people who don't happen to have a C or Pascal compiler, but who might like my silly little program. This is generally the case with PC's (UNIX machines usually come with a compiler, but not many [any?] PC's). There are both pros and cons to posting binaries, and the advantages of each depend on the scope of the posting. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% - Jim Frost * The Madd Hacker - UUCP: ..!harvard!bu-cs!bucsb!madd | ARPANET: madd@bucsb.bu.edu CSNET: madd%bucsb@bu-cs | BITNET: cscc71c@bostonu -------------------------------+---+------------------------------------ "Oh beer, oh beer." -- Me | [=(BEER) <- Bud the Beer (cheers!)
ron@brl-sem.UUCP (02/18/87)
There isn't any point in posting binaries to this group. If I wanted a binary only system, I'd by XENIX, or System V, or PC/IX or some other REAL UNIX system for my small computer. The idea is to work with a system to which we can have the source, all the source. -Ron
merlin@hqda-ai.UUCP (02/19/87)
In article <744@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP>, madd@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP (Jim "Jack" Frost) writes: > Besides, there are lots of people who don't happen to have a C > or Pascal compiler, but who might like my silly little program. > This is generally the case with PC's (UNIX machines usually come > with a compiler, but not many [any?] PC's). Sorry, but this is a MINIX group, not a general PC group. EVERY Minix system comes with a C compiler. Suggest that we maintain two separate software distribution channels, probably newsgroups (comp.sources.minix ?) One reserved for source code, the other for binaries. I, for one, will not carry the binaries group, but if other people want it, I won't prevent them from doing it. -- David S. Hayes, The Merlin of Avalon PhoneNet: (202) 694-6900 ARPA: merlin%hqda-ai.uucp@brl.arpa UUCP: ...!seismo!sundc!hqda-ai!merlin
keithe@tekgvs.UUCP (02/19/87)
In article <631@brl-sem.ARPA> ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) writes [in comp.os.minix]: >There isn't any point in posting binaries to this group. Agreed. But since lots of (IBM and compatible) PC's and AT's around the world are gonna' be running Minix, might it be reasonable to form something like "comp.os.minix.pc" and maybe "comp.os.minix.<whatever>" as well? And if so, where do we go from here? (Note: followups go to news.groups for discussion. Let's keep new administration questions and discussions OUT of comp.os.minix, ok?) keith
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (02/21/87)
As quoted from <631@brl-sem.ARPA> by ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>): +--------------- | There isn't any point in posting binaries to this group. If I wanted | a binary only system, I'd by XENIX, or System V, or PC/IX or some other | REAL UNIX system for my small computer. The idea is to work with a system | to which we can have the source, all the source. +--------------- Except that you don't get the C compiler used to compile MINIX originally. If Sep I/D is used by some MINIX programs, and the native compiler doesn't support split I/D, you're stuck, no? (Of course, you can always pay even more for the compiler that *does* support it. Foo.) -- ++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
ron@unirot.UUCP (02/22/87)
In article <2106@ncoast.UUCP>, allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes: > Except that you don't get the C compiler used to compile MINIX originally. > If Sep I/D is used by some MINIX programs, and the native compiler doesn't > support split I/D, you're stuck, no? (Of course, you can always pay even > more for the compiler that *does* support it. Foo.) > -- You can't fault AST for not giving away a C compiler that isn't his. It's only a matter of time before someone fixes the Minix ACK compiler to handle the split model. Meanwhile, there are instructions in the book on how to recompile these programs using the non-MINIX compilers. -Ron