Hard coded limits (was Re: LINK COUNT TABLE OVERFLOW)

[Dick Dunn]

pgd at bbt.se (P.Garbha) writes:
> What i cannot figure out is what it would harm to give out the sources
> at all. What would it harm to give out the sources for fsck?

First, there's the licensing issue, which says that we can't give out the
source.  Source licenses are available, but they're incredibly expensive.
If you want to think about why, consider that it's the difference between
"selling milk" and "selling the cow."

But it's worse than that, and fsck can be used as a most egregious example.
If people have the source, they'll tinker with it.  Yes, I realize that's
the point...but think for a moment about someone who doesn't quite know
what he's doing, tinkering with fsck.  He makes a change that ever-so-
slightly starts to curdle his filesystems, but doesn't notice until it
finally comes to the fore long after going through a complete backup cycle
(so that the pre-screwup data is gone).  Now what?

Or suppose you want to think about support, or upgrades.  It should come as
no suprise that a lot of the time spent in making a new release of an
existing system goes into trying to make sure that everything still works
with everything else.

There's nothing wrong with the "packaged system" universe, as long as it
all works well enough that you don't have to poke under the hood.  Nor is
there anything wrong with the "do it yourself" universe, where everybody
gets source and supports himself.  But they're very different, and trying
to mix them is uncomfortable.
-- 
Dick Dunn     rcd at ico.isc.com  -or-  ico!rcd          (303)449-2870
   ...Programs, not politics.