Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!isis!ico!rcd From: rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386 Subject: Re: Hard coded limits (was Re: LINK COUNT TABLE OVERFLOW) Summary: OUCH! Message-ID: <1990Jul19.035413.2791@ico.isc.com> Date: 19 Jul 90 03:54:13 GMT References: <1990Jul13.093105.4746@sco.COM> <1990Jul18.075104.15655@bbt.se> Organization: Interactive Systems Corporation, Boulder, CO Lines: 30 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? First, there's the licensing issue, which says that we can't give out the source. Source licenses are available, but they're incredibly expensive. If you want to think about why, consider that it's the difference between "selling milk" and "selling the cow." But it's worse than that, and fsck can be used as a most egregious example. If people have the source, they'll tinker with it. Yes, I realize that's the point...but think for a moment about someone who doesn't quite know what he's doing, tinkering with fsck. He makes a change that ever-so- slightly starts to curdle his filesystems, but doesn't notice until it finally comes to the fore long after going through a complete backup cycle (so that the pre-screwup data is gone). Now what? Or suppose you want to think about support, or upgrades. It should come as no suprise that a lot of the time spent in making a new release of an existing system goes into trying to make sure that everything still works with everything else. There's nothing wrong with the "packaged system" universe, as long as it all works well enough that you don't have to poke under the hood. Nor is there anything wrong with the "do it yourself" universe, where everybody gets source and supports himself. But they're very different, and trying to mix them is uncomfortable. -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd (303)449-2870 ...Programs, not politics.