Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!columbia!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!brandx.rutgers.edu!webber From: webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: Are binary groups necessary? Message-ID: <304@brandx.rutgers.edu> Date: Thu, 23-Jul-87 16:29:32 EDT Article-I.D.: brandx.304 Posted: Thu Jul 23 16:29:32 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 25-Jul-87 08:40:14 EDT References: <266@brandx.rutgers.edu> <8225@utzoo.UUCP> <272@brandx.rutgers.edu> <153@hobbes.UUCP> Distribution: na Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 123 Summary: with an offer on the table, back to the meta discussion In article <153@hobbes.UUCP>, root@hobbes.UUCP (John Plocher) writes: > This is a note trying to give positive reasons for a binary distribution. It > does not try to address the issue of whether Usenet should or should not > do the distribution. ****** Near as I can tell, your `positive reasons' all apply equally to micros and to mainframes. > The majority of people in the PC world share the following traits to some degree > > 1) Very short of money. $1000 would buy a complete NEW computer! Hell, > most even have an adversion to spending $25 on Shareware!.... Right. As I have said before, I am not asking them to spend any. > 2) Very short of time. The time taken by modifying sources for > their compiler (this is non-trivial!), compiling, and testing > JUST ISN'T THERE! If there is a choice between binaries and > compiling sources, many would rather do without than have to > compile it! This is related to: As you can imagine, the same reason would also justify binaries groups for mainframes. > 3) Micro computers are SLOW. Compiling larn (for example) ... Don't know about larn in particular, but there is no reason for micro compilers to be extra slow. I assume this is mostly because of too much file i/o (i.e., using mainframe design strategies -- the biggest difference between micros and mainframes seems to be the relative differences between clock cycles and disk seek times). If my offer (see other message) gets accepted, I will attempt to demonstrate this by making a reasonably quick compiler. > 4) for many things, the binary is enough. Many people (myself NOT > included) don't care about sources. Also the fact that the > shars for larn totaled about 400K and the MSDOS binary was only about > 200K must count for something. :-) I have seen mainframe executables (not Sun) that were also smaller than the sources. While I agree with you that this holds for many, I don't see it as a difference between micro and mainframe users. > | It is easy to write compilers that work. > > Like I said above: Write one! After you have done that, then you can bitch. > You need to EARN your prerogatives on this net - ie we all respect and listen > to Rick Adams because of the work he did on the news SW; Dennis, Ken and Co > have proved themselves with [insert bulk of AT&T source here :-)]; Mark > has paid his dues with mucho lotso from Berkeley and the UUCP project. Me, > I'm still a nobody. SEE OFFER IN SEPARATE MESSAGE. > If it is FREE (ie source sent out on Usenet) then people will use it no > matter what else is out there. Look at Cain's Small-C for the CP/M world. > If it works AT ALL, people will recomend it to others. If it's good, you > get to be a net.god :-) :-) :-) (cf. prerogatives) SEE OFFER. > | The time and problems come from the bells and whistles like optimizers > | and fancy libraries. > > And let's not forget bells like correct code generation, correct dynamic > memory management, correct pointer arithmatic, and of cource, correct > (ANSI) language implementation. Correct pointer arithmetic (and correct code generation in general) is certainly necessary in C. Memory management in the sense of malloc is part of the UNIX interface and not part of the language proper. ANSI C is needlessly complicated, I will stick to Kernighan and Ritchie, thank you (but you will be welcome to extend/modify the compiler if you want). Incidently, to the best of my knowledge, there is only a DRAFT for an ANSI C standard, I don't think it is actually a standard yet (then again, ANSI committees have been known to take actions without notifying me -- inconsiderate, but what do you expect?). > Most versions of Unix (ALL before SV) _came_ with a C compiler!!! No extra > funds involved. An IBM PC comes with a BASIC interpreter! Compilers come > from 3rd parties for $$$. An IBM PC is usually owned by a single person, > while "Unix machines" have typically been owned by groups like > Universities, Companys, Governments, and the like. Quite a different > funding base. Actually, with Xenix and Mimix (and various unix boxes), most unix machines are probably micros owned by enlightened individuals. Needless to say, most of these people didn't get their compilers free. Also, there are many unix boxes running without source that probably have things like compilers as options. In any event, when they came bundled they were certainly included in the price (some companies have put alot of work into quality unix compilers, indicating that they viewed them as an important part of their product). > | But of course, there are people that LIKE binaries. I remember > | reading of one software `donator' that donates binaries-only so that > | people can't make `incorrect' patches to his programs. Sigh. >... > So that people could not add a routine that formatted the hard disk whenever > the user chose "quit", and then distribute the binaries as the ORIG program! > [can you say Trojan Hourse? Good, I knew you could.] Trojan Horses are easier to put in binaries than in sources. > So that people didn't break the code and then call the donor asking for help. > (Hi - it's 1am in Detroit, the person on the phone is from CA and he's wondering > why the program won't compile after he "just changed a few things". :-((( > This happened to ME several times, so I know the feeling) I NEVER answer my phone. Can you say ANSWERING MACHINE? Good, I knew you could. > So that the donor kept control of his own work. (Nothing at all wrong with > that!) "Sigh." INDEED! Sure it is nice to have sources, but to expect them? I don't EXPECT them. However, I do feel that on usenet if you want to donate a program, source is the appropriate medium to donate. A source can be used by anyone, a binary only by people that have access to that particular machine. [It is even possible to make use of a source that one doesn't have the compiler for, since a source is also a detailed algorithm description in a fairly readable form.] ---- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)