FreeLists / openbeos / [openbeos] Re: Ok, let's start

["Erik Jakowatz" <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>Yes, let's.  I think we should look into aquiring/merging with the 
>>openbeos.sourceforge.net space and seeding the source tree with Bruno 
G. 
>Yes, we should. I already send an email to Vootele Aer, asking him to 
join this 
>list, or to delete his sourceforge project if he is no longer 
interested.

Heh.  That makes two of us.

>>Albuquerque and Nathan Whitehorn's Mail Daemon Replacement, if they're 

>>willing.  That'd be one server down, and a bunch more plus a kernel to 

>>go. ;)
>I don't think that this is a problem, since the source is available.
>But will we get Bruno G. Albuquerque and Nathan Whitehorn ?

I certainly hope so!

>>If we can firmly establish the project as a true replacement for R5 
with 
>>a future ahead of it, we can probably coax the community to move to 
gcc 
>>3.x.  If nothing else, we can do what Be wouldn't do and version the 
>Perhaps. But there is a risk. Keeping BeOS binary compatibitity might 
be better.

Yes, it is.  Those other things are something to evaluate when we're 
further along.

>>Strike while the iron is hot and all that. =)
>Yes. If we need two years, probably most current BeOS users will be
>gone forever, and we will have a hard time getting new ones.

There's really no point otherwise.  I'm hoping that an active project 
which is showing consistent progress will keep folks hanging in there.

>>I think we're talking about basically reimplementing the OS, so this 
is 
>>probably a given.  If nothing else, this architecture is definitely 
one 
>>of the cooler aspects of BeOS.
>Yes, agreed!

Depending on the number of people the project attracts, the modularity 
will make for easy division of labor.  I'm not exactly a kernel 
engineer, but I'm pretty confident I can handle working on anything else 
in the system.  Although, I *have* wanted to get into kernel work ... ;)

>I'm not a fan of the GPL either. My concern is:
>
>If we have our kernel, based on an other open source license, will
>it be possible to still use GPL drivers and port them?

Judging from recent discussions on the Be lists and my own reading of 
the license, I think this is allowable.  There are certainly a number of 
GPL'd drivers which have been ported to Windows and BeOS in the past 
without issue.

e

Data is not information, and information is not knowledge: knowledge is 
not understanding, and understanding is not wisdom.
        - Philip Adams