Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ubvax!ardent!rap
From: rap@ardent.UUCP (Rob Peck)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: AmigaSpice source code???
Summary: if they did it right...
Message-ID: <1732@ardent.UUCP>
Date: 12 Jan 89 18:43:56 GMT
References: <8901120052.AA26145@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: Dana Computer, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 30

In article <8901120052.AA26145@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, 11TSTARK@GALLUA.BITNET (Timothy Stark) writes:
> Without source code, it may be bigger
> and bigger problems with new OS releases. :( With source code, if new
> OS release come, I can re-compile them quickly without waiting for next
> new release for new OS release.

But, Tim, when folks follow the rules that the OS folks have estabished,
and used "standard" system functions, the OS folks USUALLY manage to
establish backward compatibility with previous software with no need
to recompile anything.  So your "OLD" software should, if rules were
followed, run under the new OS.

"NEW" software, on the other hand, is usually free to use new services 
provided by the new OS, and has the right to specify (or perhaps lets 
say demand) that the user acquire the new OS in order to run in the 
first place.  Of course, the smart developer makes sure that his software 
is backwards compatible with what is most likely to be the most widely
distributed version of the "old" OS software and only use the new calls 
if the program can detect that it is indeed running under the new OS.
So even if you have a NEW OS, you may still have the OLD source code
(since you feel you are not willing to wait), so YOU have to fix the
problems, and not the developer... so it won't be a quick recompile
after all.

SO, if the rules are followed, most of the time (other than to learn
from or to have a warm fuzzy feeling) there is no need to have the
source code in the first place.  If you trust the developer and like
what he has done, you probably don't need the source.

Rob Peck