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?
>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.
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