Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rochester!cornell!uw-beaver!apollo!nazgul From: nazgul@apollo.uucp (Kee Hinckley) Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups Subject: Re: Making binary groups obsolete (was Re:Are binary groups necessary?) Message-ID: <36502fbc.b0a1@apollo.uucp> Date: Mon, 27-Jul-87 13:22:00 EDT Article-I.D.: apollo.36502fbc.b0a1 Posted: Mon Jul 27 13:22:00 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 28-Jul-87 04:38:46 EDT References: <266@brandx.rutgers.edu> <8225@utzoo.UUCP> <272@brandx.rutgers.edu> <153@hobbes.UUCP> <303@brandx.rutgers.edu> Reply-To: nazgul@apollo.UUCP (Kee Hinckley) Organization: Apollo Computer, Chelmsford, MA Lines: 16 Xref: mnetor news.admin:734 news.groups:1293 In article <303@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: > > So, the bottom line is I will trade you a compiler for a set of groups > that will hopefully obsolete the binary groups. WHAT DO YOU SAY???? > Why are you assuming that all the code is written in C? Or that the authors *want* to release their source code? -nazgul -- ### {mit-erl,yale,uw-beaver}!apollo!nazgul ### apollo!nazgul@eddie.mit.edu ### ### pro-angmar!nazgul@pro-sol.cts.com ### nazgul@apollo.com ### I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.