mrose@GREMLIN.NRTC.NORTHROP.COM (Marshall Rose) (09/22/87)
Folks -
I contend that "binary-only" distributions are worse than no
distribution at all. I strongly urge those of you thinking of
making contributions to only perform source distributions. For
those of you who have already offered binary distributions (e.g.,
ups and the Siemens RTL window manager), I strongly urge you to
re-think your position and offer source distributions. There are
several reasons for this.
First, many sites won't run binary distributions unless these come
from a vendor with support. Some of this is due to the possibility
of trojan horses, but most of it due simply to the lack of
responsibility on the part of the distributor, and the lack of
control on the part of the recipient. I am not suggesting that
anyone is malicious in the binary distributions they offer; but if
something goes wrong, it is clearly a nightmare to straighten-out
and very frustrating to all involved.
Second, if you do distribute source, you probably get back bug fixes
and enhancements which you don't have the time/resources to make.
In fact, its possible to get back quite a lot this way.
Third, with binary-only distributions you have the "but what about
binaries for my XX computer?" problem. If you just supplied source
these would go away.
Fourth, there is the openess issue. For example, in response to
this message, I'll probably hear things like: "well, for
competitive reasons we don't want to distribute source". Fine, why
should I (and the rest of the Internet community) provide you beta
site service for free? Some hardliners (not necessarily me), might
take the view that you may be engaging in commercial activity by
using the network in this fashion. When you distribute source, you
are almost always in the clear with respect to responsibilities in
this area. It is what part of being in a helpful community is all
about.
Having said I'll this, I will appologize in advance for/to:
- not being, nor wanting to be, a lawyer
- ruining it for those of you who like binary-only distributions
- etc., etc.
Flames to /dev/null, thoughtful comments to me and the list, thank-you
very much.
/mtrdgreen@CS.UCLA.EDU (Dan Greening) (09/22/87)
> Folks - > I contend that "binary-only" distributions are worse than no > distribution at all. > Marshall Rose I agree completely. My experience with the ups distribution is one of a tremendous amount of wasted time trying to get it simply to display on our HP workstation. It still doesn't work. I wish it had never been offered. The inadequacy of the explanation: "I'm sorry, we won't be distributing source until bugs get fixed." is incredibly irritating. With a miniscule amount of my effort, UPS *could* be running on HPs here. And bugs related to HPs could be fixed. But no, it is impossible to get it running here, because Berkeley won't distribute the source. Why the binary-only UPS distribution was silly: It wasted a tremendous amount of time. Many people got excited about a very useful tool, and willingly expended effort to bring it up. People like me ended up with nothing useful, and are expected to help these guys out with bug reports. I even offered to port it to the HP system, and return the object. Nyet. I'm not going to touch another UPS distribution until I get source. Dan Greening Internet dgreen@CS.UCLA.EDU UUCP ..!{sdcrdcf,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!dgreen