🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <9778@pyr.gatech.EDU>, by peggy@pyr.gatech.EDU (Cris Simpson):
> 
> 	Given that the overall volume is not that high, and that
> many sites do not receive binary groups, could we hold off on creation
> of a binaries group by STRONGLY ENCOURAGING posting of sources instead 
> of the binaries?  For one thing, I suspect that sources may compress
> to be smaller than the corresponding binaries.  The other is that
> the sources are MUCH more useful.

  This all assumes that I am an OS/2 developer.  I'm not.  I haven't got
a compiler anywhere near my OS/2 system.  I do use uudecode, and the 
unarchivers though.

  I have no gripes against source, but I don't want to have to find someone
to compile it for me.


  Also, some people have suggested using COMP.BINARIES.IBM.PC.  I don't mind
that, however whoever suggested it obviously hasn't noticed that there is
already a one month backlog there, and the moderator has quit because he
doesn't have time to handle the stuff he already has.  We can't really 
start adding things in that newsgroup if that newsgroup has no moderator.

- Kevin Lowey @ 1:140/43 - LOWEY@SASK.USASK.CA - ...!alberta!dvinci!lowey