UNIX source vs. binary (NOT A LEGAL ARGUMENT)

[BostonU SysMgr]

I think there is a possibly productive contribution that could come out
of all these electrons flying by about AT&T source policies. It just hit
me full force as I was left with a few 3B machines with a binary
distribution on them (the source is in the mail) and now I gotta set
them up.

In the old days (less now) DEC would give a binary site for certain
(most) O/S's quite a few sources, recognizing that this is necessary for
survival. I think that there are quite a few programs/source modules
that MUST be supplied with a UNIX distribution for survival. I realize
a few of these are supplied with SOME distributions, but not enough.

Assuming somebody from AT&T is listening (or could get the right person
to listen) maybe someone could collect arguments for certain selected
sources from us unix-wizards and consider why we are so upset/frightened
by binary only systems. DON'T JUST START SENDING YOUR ARGUMENTS TO THIS
LIST, they'll just get lost.

Sample arguments:

	login.c,su.c:	This is the front-line of defense
	passwd.c:	for any system. I should be able to
			add rules like times of day for certain
			uids or secondary/long passwords.

	getty.c:	This often needs a little customization
			to work properly in a given environment.

	init.c:		same.

	All accounting summary software: C'mon, it isn't likely
			to be exactly right for my site.

	A few drivers:	tty.c and friends for a little customization.
			A disk and/or tape device for examples if
			your binary claims to support addition of
			user drivers (an LP driver wouldn't hurt.)

I think these are reasonable arguements, at least maybe a package of
these could be sold inexpensively and unbundled from full source. I
am not sure I really need the sources to, eg., cat.c to support my
system.