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.