Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!virtech!cpcahil From: cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386 Subject: Re: Hard coded limits (was Re: LINK COUNT TABLE OVERFLOW) Message-ID: <1990Jul18.234710.19300@virtech.uucp> Date: 18 Jul 90 23:47:10 GMT References: <1990Jul13.093105.4746@sco.COM> <840@mwtech.UUCP> <1990Jul18.075104.15655@bbt.se> Reply-To: cpcahil@virtech.UUCP (Conor P. Cahill) Organization: Virtual Technologies Inc., Sterling VA Lines: 25 In article <1990Jul18.075104.15655@bbt.se> pgd@bbt.se (P.Garbha) writes: >What i cannot figure out is what it would harm to give out the sources >at all. What would it harm to give out the sources for fsck? Disreguarding the fact that the source code is licensed by AT&T and you gotta pay big bucks for it, Just think for a second about the support headaches that would entail. When the user calls up with a problem with fsck, how can you be sure that the problem is caused by your version or his. Even now, when sources aren't delivered, there are many cases of bugs appearing that are not reproducible at will on the support machine and therefore are almost impossible to debug. >It would help you, because someone else would make bug fixes, and >maybe even enhance the program. Why are they afraid of, when not >giving out the sources? Do you give out the source for all of your work? I sure don't (although I do give out some stuff, I still need to make a living). -- Conor P. Cahill (703)430-9247 Virtual Technologies, Inc., uunet!virtech!cpcahil 46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160 Sterling, VA 22170