🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Mar16.034326.8884@engr.uark.edu> dws@engr.uark.edu (David W. Summers) writes:
>ajayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:
>>My question is: to what extent do these projects care for and ensure
>>binary compatibility of applications?
>>
>>It takes a lot of programs to make up a "comfortable Unix working
>>environment".  Binary compatibility and the availability of programs
>>in binary form would reduce the setup cost of getting there.
>
>One (about the only) problem I see with just distributing binaries is the
>following question:
>
>   Given the prevalence (sp?) of viruses and such in the PC (binary mostly)
>world, would you trust your computer to some strange binary that someone
>else has compiled?

Viruses (otherwise known as trojan horses) are not as severe a problem in
systems with protection facilities so long as the sysadmin is smart enough
to never run them from a privileged account.

Still, the best prevention is to receive your source and objects only from
trusted sites.  The Simtel-20 collection of MS-DOS software contains many
binary-only files.  In each case the binary is checked with a virus scanner
and it is accepted only from a trusted source, generally the original author.

I run an archive of binaries for SCO Xenix systems.  I get several THOUSAND
file transfers per month.  Again, sources and binaries come from reliable
sources.  Most frequently, I have compiled the source myself.  Part of the
large demand is due to the high cost of the unbindled development system
for SCO Xenix.

Yes, there definitely is a need for a binary archive, once 386 BSD becomes
stable enough for productive work.
Ron
-- 
| Ronald J. Srodawa               | Internet: srodawa@vela.oakland.edu      |
| School of Engineering and CS    | UUCP:     srodawa@vela.UUCP             |
| Oakland University              | Voice:    (313) 370-2247                |
| Rochester, Michigan  48309-4401 |                                         |