From: ccai!grover@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (grover davidson)
Subject: Re: Source
Reply-To: Info-Prime@Blx-A.Prime.COM
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:54:14 GMT

> 
> In article <9207271445.AA15088@ccai.clv.oh.us> Info-Prime@Blx-A.Prime.COM writes:
> >This makes several assumptions. 
> >1) Everyone who gets the source will be qualified to change it. keep in mind
> >that there WILL be shops that will change the source, break the system, and
> >then call Prime. You can put whatever disclaimers in the source that you 
> >want, but someone will do this. 
> 
> And they can be told that they get no support for problems of their own
> creation.  If you're silly enough to shoot your own feet 'cause you don't 
> know any better...
> 
> >2) There will need to be a central group that will release patches to the 
> >operating system, just as Prime does today. Otherwise you will have alot
> >people who will publish this fix and that fix without being certain that
> >it doesn't break anything else.
> 
> Trusting that some third party knows the product well enough had better
> be an eyes-wide-open decision.
> 
> >4) The 'C' compiler/libraries. see 1 & 2 above. VERY few people are able
> >to work on compilers.
> 
> That doesn't mean that the source should be locked up.  It's not like
> possession of source code makes you armed and dangerous.
> 
> >These are some great ideas, but make sure that there is a structure to 
> >the system. Is someone willing to take over 'ownership' and maintain,
> >test, and distribute the code? Is Prime going to be unable to do this 
> >in the future? How far off in the future? And util that time, how much
> >support is Prime going to provide? Will it be business as usual for the next
> >several years?
> 
> At some time in the future, if Prime chooses to quit providing support for
> its software, and isn't selling the rights to someone else, they SHOULD
> release the source code into the public domain.  It's the only responsible
> thing to do--it allows folks to support themselves, if the feel the need.
> IBM has been doing it for years.
> 
> Until that hypothetical time, there's not much justification for a demand
> that they release source.  They are claiming that they will be providing
> support for the foreseeable future.  That support is provided by a viable
> business unit.
> 
> Dennis Boone
> --
>  == Frustration is portable. ==
> 

Agreed. And, as you have all pointed out, unix has survived this way
for many years. Alot of it is because various individuals have taken
over the keeping and distributions of patches. 

You are free to get the code and change it as you want. But to have
those changes included into the 'official' distribution, it will receive
some fairly heavy checking. 

All that I am saying, is that for everyone to  get the code and then start
making changes makes it very difficult to put them all together. I do not
have the time to check over every change this is in a patch to make sure
it does not break some other patch that was applied in the past. 

And I don't have to. This is because someone else has taken 'ownership'
and has tested the patch. Sure there may be some bugs, but hopefully 
nothing major. If all you want to do is change the code for your own
purposes, then have at it. But what happens when several people get 
together and decide that they want to incorporate changes made by others?

I am not saying that no one can be trusted. What I am saying is that
it would be VERY helpful if someone were to 'coordinate' the changes
that are made. 


-- 
Grover Davidson II               | The opinions expressed here are solely mine
Conley, Canitano, & Assoc., Inc. | and in no way reflect any opinions or 
voice: 216-831-6240              | policies of my employer, even if they may
internet: grover@ccai.clv.oh.us  | agree with them, and especially if they
or grover@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu | don't agree with them.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.prime