Xref: utzoo comp.bugs.4bsd:1698 comp.std.c:4223 comp.lang.c:35663
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!uunet!mcsun!unido!mikros!mwtech!martin
From: martin@mwtech.UUCP (Martin Weitzel)
Newsgroups: comp.bugs.4bsd,comp.std.c,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Safe coding practices (was Re: Bug in users command)
Message-ID: <1073@mwtech.UUCP>
Date: 30 Jan 91 16:53:32 GMT
References: <87681@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <22921@well.sf.ca.us> <87774@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Reply-To: martin@mwtech.UUCP (Martin Weitzel)
Organization: MIKROS Systemware, Darmstadt/W-Germany
Lines: 29

In article <87774@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Bob Manson <manson@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes:
>My argument is, it really doesn't cost that much more
>to design the program properly to function without limits. The cost in
>making utilities with fixed limits in them is unhappy customers & time
>spent rewriting programs, since I seriously doubt source policies will
>change anytime soon.

Well, ...

sience fiction ON

I could see a time when by law

	a) software manufacturers must name all fixed limits of
	   their products
	b) the customer can assume that all unnamed limits are
	   in fact not fixed to some arbitrary value
	c) the customer has the right to request the sources and
	   and whatever else is needed (e.g. a special compiler)
	   from the manufacturer for no additional fee if any
	   limit is hit which is below the promises of a) and b)

science fiction OFF

Of course, somewhat more realistic is that we'll have PD-versions
of all the useful programs some day so that no manufacturer can sell
something of less quality ...
-- 
Martin Weitzel, email: martin@mwtech.UUCP, voice: 49-(0)6151-6 56 83