Re: Why not distribute binaries?

Article View: comp.windows.x

Article #37192

#37192

From: Steve Simmons
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1990 14:21

10 lines
900 bytes

rick@hanauma.stanford.edu (Richard Ottolini) writes:

>In article <1990Feb21.150131.10382@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> smith@darwin (Steven Smith) writes:
>>Can someone tell me why MIT insists on shipping source only?  It seems to

>Agreed!  How about stashing binaries for any workstation company with >10%
>market share?

Sounds reasonable.  Lets see, since no single workstation/operating system
has 10% of the market (and none is likely to in the near future) . . .

Technical Details

Message-ID: <4977@itivax.iti.org>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!ogicse!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think!yale!ox.com!itivax!scs

References: <1990Feb21.150131.10382@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <470@med.Stanford.EDU>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!ogicse!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think!yale!ox.com!itivax!scs
From: scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Why not distribute binaries?
Keywords: X11 binaries
Message-ID: <4977@itivax.iti.org>
Date: 22 Feb 90 14:21:08 GMT
References: <1990Feb21.150131.10382@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <470@med.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@itivax.iti.org
Distribution: comp
Lines: 10

Reply to Parent Message