Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!uxc!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!p.cs.uiuc.edu!gillies
From: gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: NeXT and sources
Message-ID: <116900003@p.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 3 Feb 89 07:36:00 GMT
References: <651@blake.acs.washington.edu>
Lines: 28
Nf-ID: #R:blake.acs.washington.edu:651:p.cs.uiuc.edu:116900003:000:1092
Nf-From: p.cs.uiuc.edu!gillies    Feb  3 01:36:00 1989


I think that by not distributing the sources, NeXT is making an
extremely heavy commitment to fix all bugs almost immediately and
generally support the software in their machines incredibly well --
much better than UNIX.

Furthermore, they are promising to document their software systems
superbly, a la "Inside Macintosh" plus 230 (currently published) Apple
technical notes.

Finally, they are taking on the burden of making their system a lot
more general, so that certain users can build on existing packages,
rather than having to reimplement features that have been overlooked
by NeXT, Inc.

NeXT does not have the resources to accomplish this.

Also, the computer architecture (UNIX) is not as conducive to this
type of support as the Macintosh, where anything can be patched/hacked
by a knowledgeable software expert.

Can anyone from NeXT respond to these issues?


P.S.  I can understand why the sources to Objective C, Display
Postscript, and perhaps WriteNow cannot be released, since these are
commercial products owned by other companies.  But what about
NeXT-developed sources?