🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Apr8.160817.3119@visix.com> brett@visix.com writes:
>Again, not everyone needs source.  IMHO I would rather have software package that 
>worked well without source, than one that was full of bugs but I had the source.
>Why am I fixing the bugs on someone elses software?

Why do you assume that the only reason for source is to fix bugs?  Yes, I
make use of the source to our Symbolics software to fix bugs (Symbolics has
hundreds of customers reporting bugs and requesting enhancements, so it's
unrealistic for me to expect mine to have highest priority).

However, I also frequently use the source to enhance and customize the
software to support the unique (or relatively uncommon, at least)
environment at our site.  I'd guess that about 50% of our use of source has
been for enhancement, or at least understanding better what the software is
doing.

In the case of Emacs and other FSF software, our use of the source has been
almost entirely to enhance and customize it.  At most about 5% of our Emacs
modifications have been to fix bugs.

A vendor often has to weigh the value of various enhancements to their
software.  Generally the enhancements that benefit fewer users have lower
priority, and don't get done.  However, a customer that needs this
enhancement may decide to do the work itself, but it needs the source.
Furthermore, they may then send the modification back to the vendor, or
place it in a user group library, so the other customers that need it can
have it.  This isn't a matter of customers fixing bugs, but customers
augmenting the limited resources (and resources are *always* limited) of
the vendor.

Not everyone needs or wants source to the software they purchase.
Similarly, not everyone needs to know the electric wiring of a clock radio,
but for some reason just about every clock radio I've ever bought has a
schematic in the back of the manual.  Why should the few who can make use
of this information be denied it?

--
Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar