Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!blake!phaedra
From: phaedra@blake.acs.washington.edu (J. Anderson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: NeXT source, how will they be used?
Message-ID: <922@blake.acs.washington.edu>
Date: 20 Feb 89 04:48:06 GMT
References: <890@blake.acs.washington.edu> <882@fornax.UUCP>
Reply-To: phaedra@blake.acs.washington.edu (J. Anderson)
Organization: Club Entropicana -- University District, WA
Lines: 28


	Mr. Cumming's message sums up several reasons why I would like
to see source distributed with the NeXT.  I also understand (to an
extent) the beliefs of the tight code people.  If I were doing the
source code policy at (insert your favorite hardware/software company
here), I would attach with the source license a clause which states
that any modifications to the kernel or utility programs on that
system would silently revoke the trade name the system is running
under.  I.e. if I had a NeXT running the Mach kernel and decided to go
and tinker with the IPC functions, no problem.  At that point I am no
longer running a Mach kernel.  If I have a piece of software which
runs on Mach and is going haywire on my system, well...  I lost my
right to gripe to the software vendor, to NeXT, or to anyone else when
I went in to modify that kernel.  Tinkers like myself (who have as a
primary interest finding out what makes a certain aspect of UNIX work)
have nothing to fear.  Old pros who actually know what they're doing
shouldn't have need to worry either.  As for the people who were
referred to in one of the above postings, ( Was "root puberty" the phrase
I heard? ) they will be inclined to take their work a little more
seriously I suppose.

	Credit balance: $0.02



-- 
There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.  We don't
believe this to be a coincidence. ||  phaedra@blake.acs.washington.edu