In article <1991Sep22.010222.10961 at ucunix.san.uc.edu> zuazaga at ucunix.san.uc.edu (Humberto Oritz-Zuazaga) writes:
I think it would be a good idea to have a binaries group, it might even
encourage the publication of even more quality PD biological software.
I think it would be much better to have a group for distributing
SOURCES, not binary. Better from a computing standpoint because
viruses could be detected more easily and porting to other systems
would be possible. And better scientifically because recipients
would be able to determine exactly what the program does, and
alter the methodology to suit their needs.
NOTE: the rebsearch program posted recently to this group *was*
source code, not binaries. It looked like binary because in was
tarred, compressed and uuencoded. Perhaps we should prefer shar'ed
postings, at least for things that aren't too big.
However, I think it should be a moderated group, lest it get out of
hand. The major problem with a moderated group is that biology-related
software is available for an astonishing number of machines and
operating system, and so it'll be a headache to see if the software
indeed works before distributing.
I agree about moderation. To cut down on moderator headaches there
should also be some guidelines for submission.
bashford at scripps.edu