Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!pyramid!octopus!pete From: pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: A counter-example for those who would eliminate PC binaries Summary: *Look* at the Mahjongg tile distribution! Message-ID: <268@octopus.UUCP> Date: 30 Jun 88 18:56:12 GMT References: <264@octopus.UUCP> <8820@netsys.UUCP> Reply-To: pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) Organization: Octopus Enterprises, Cupertino CA Lines: 113 First, I agree *wholeheartedly* that unmoderated posting of binaries *or source* is a real lose for the net. I also like very much the idea of people posting only their own programs. The net is *not* a BBS. In article <8820@netsys.UUCP> len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose) writes: >The fact remains Peter,that is is source,and sources are worth alot >more than binaries.. Who knows,you may have a Sun box before the year >is out.. And you may desperately need PICNIX for your PC. [In case you need an example of programmer-usefulness: DOS doesn't have 'rm -r'. Cleaning up a hard disk is a *pain* without PICNIX!] So what? PICNIX binary is worth far more to me than X-windows source. Or Suntools source. Or VMS source. Or BSD-only source, for that matter! >If the game is not particulary useful,one can still study the code and >learn something... Can you study a binary and learn? I think this is more a theoretical argument than one based on reality. Professional programmers on the net have little to learn from most programs posted, source *or* binary. We know *how* to accomplish the given task. We just don't have *time* to do it ourselves! The main reason source code has been needed on the net was that due to lack of a common binary format and CPU, source was necessary for any significant fraction of net-users to make use of the code. The computer world is changing. One of the biggest changes is that we now have standards. A lot of people use X windows. A lot of people use Suns. A lot of people use PC's. We need to deal with programs for *all* of the niches in a reasonable way. As far as the educational value of the Mahjongg tiles goes... Did you look at the "source" code for the Mahjongg tiles? I did... page after page of stuff like: 0x0000,0xff00,0xffff,0xfff0,0x0000,0xffff,... I don't find that very educational, informative, or much more useful than a binary. It would have been more reliably transmitted as a binary as well [in the sense that a checksum could find the error. Correcting an error in a posting like this is no different whether it is uuencoded or 'source'. Both are gobbledygook to humans!] Would it make the net happier if the comp.binaries.ibm.pc moderator were to disassemble all postings (Sourcer is *amazingly* good at reconstructing all code), and posted assembly source instead? I think not. We each like to have *useful* stuff posted. As a programmer, I find things like PICNIX and keyboard remapping utilities *useful*. I don't need the source code. Utility programs of use to programmers are entirely appropriate to c.b.i.p, to my way of thinking. Somebody at gryphon also defended the easy patchability of source code vs. binaries. I don't find the net suffering from reposting/mailings due to single character defects in source or binary postings either. Truncation of files happens all the time. The defects that occur, whether to source files or uuencoded binaries, can be resolved with short mailings. It is true that a fix to a source program can be distributed via a short patch, but there are enough counter-examples (huge volume of patches for some source programs, infrequent repostings of binaries) to make me not worry. I think we need to define who the net is for, and take it from there. If the net is for 'programmers' and not 'end users', that is fine with me [easy for me to say, as a programmer :-)]. From the stuff that gets posted to the net though, we must not forget that we are also users. We have need for utility programs. We like games. We like all the same stuff that 'end users' like, except we (hopefully) know a lot more of the answers than 'they' do. We even use text editors, spreadsheets, data bases, graphics programs, and so forth. Thinking about the long term, suppose we were to define the net as being only for Unix? Would that solve the long term problem? I doubt it! Just suppose... Suppose the Sun 386i becomes the new PC on the block. Unix catches on like wildfire. Suddenly, there is a *standard* Unix. A *binary* standard. I find it hard to believe that Unix programmers have so much more self control than PC programmers that they wouldn't want to post binaries, if given the reasonable ability to do so. After all, *lots* of PC programmers are also Unix programmers! (Why do you think there is so much PC stuff on the net? It isn't all due to Portal/etc... Lots of us are Unix folks who happen to also do PC stuff!) I think that the battle should be fought not so much against the form of posting used (binary vs. source) but that we need to fight against certain *kinds* of postings (or at least come up with alternate means of access to things that shouldn't be posted worldwide): 1) Large databases. The maps are intrinsic to the net and as such, have a special place. Other than that, big piles of data do not need to be posted netwide. This includes graphic data, geographic info, voter lists [:-)], etc. 2) Demos of commercial software. 'Where to get a copy of the demo' should be sufficient. 3) Shareware? This is fuzzy. I can appreciate different aspects of the argument: 1) We shouldn't be funding the marketing/ distribution of programs; 2) Programs that are very useful to net-people should be allowed, even if they *are* shareware. 4) Large programs that are not essential to the running of the net. In general, I'd rather see a reader-initiated 'sendme' method of distribution. Hmmmm... an idea I'll pursue in a different posting! Anyway, my point is still that people who rail against binaries are doing so mostly because they don't happen to find them personally useful. If they were in a position of personally wanting to use the posted programs, they'd be much more supportive of the postings. Pete -- OOO __| ___ Peter Holzmann, Octopus Enterprises OOOOOOO___/ _______ USPS: 19611 La Mar Court, Cupertino, CA 95014 OOOOO \___/ UUCP: {hpda,pyramid}!octopus!pete ___| \_____ Phone: 408/996-7746