sources vs. binaries

Richard E. Depew red at redpoll.neoucom.edu
Wed Dec 18 21:08:36 EST 1991


In article <1991Dec18.064507.11565 at nic.funet.fi> harper at nic.funet.fi
(Rob Harper) writes:
>In <1991Dec18.014405.4281 at redpoll.neoucom.edu> red at redpoll.neoucom.edu
>(Richard E. Depew) writes:
>
>*>Is it only me, or is anyone else disappointed that
>*>bionet.software.sources is being used to distribute binaries?
>
>	Sorry to hear you are disappointed. I am sort of disappointed
>	myself since there are not all that many sources around to post.
>
>*>Instead, we seem to be getting non-readable
>*>collections of files.
>	
>	They may appear that way because they are uuencoded.

     That's my point.  Because they are uuencoded, they can't be read
     from with rn.  They aren't *readable* source code.  They are
     binaries that may contain source code.

>	Might I ask 
>	if you went to the trouble of decodeing them?

      I'll confess that I didn't bother decoding them.  I doubt that
      many other potential readers did either.  This format
      discourages investigating the contents of the postings.

>	If you did, you would 
>	have discovered a file called comap.zip, and if you had unziped it
>	you would have found documentation for the programme, the source
>	code and also the programme itself... for those who don't happen
>	to have a compiler. The .zip file looked like this.
[... deleted zip data and both our suggestions on contents of postings]

>*>Please reserve bionet.software.sources for source code postings in
>*>readable form, following the tradition of comp.sources.*.
>
>	We could do that was well... but I think you will be disappointed
> 	if you go weeks on end without a single message. 

     Actually, I'd be pleased.  I'd have saved weeks of scanning.  Are
     you disappointed when nothing shows up in news.announce.important?

>RGDS -=ROB=-
>
>P.S. Perhaps we need some discussion on this. I seem to have got hold of
>     the wrong end of the stick here. Tell me what you want the sources
>     group to be like, and I will try and impliment it to the best of
>     my ability.

    bionet.software.sources is a fine group.  It is just misnamed.
    Call it bionet.software.binaries and I'd be happier.  A *real*
    sources group would look something like comp.sources.reviewed,
    with source code in shar format which can be read by newsreaders
    without decoding, unzipping, or other translation from a binary
    format.  But then, maybe I'm just a grump.  :-)
	
    Thanks for the response, Rob.

Dick Depew
-- 
Richard E. Depew, Munroe Falls, OH    red at redpoll.neoucom.edu (home)
uunet!aablue!redpoll!red              red at uhura.neoucom.edu (work)
Best question in sci.archaeology: "z>I have a car for sale"
                                  "How old is it?"  - dab at col.hp.com




More information about the Bio-soft mailing list