
|
[openbeos]
||
[Date Prev]
[08-2001 Date Index]
[Date Next]
||
[Thread Prev]
[08-2001 Thread Index]
[Thread Next]
[openbeos] Re: Ok, let's start
- From: "Michael Phipps" <mphipps1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 13:43:00 -0400
>
>>So, let's start.
>
>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.
>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 will take care of getting sourceforge set up.
>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
>libs. Or even go with the good ideas you have here -- just later.
>Getting up and running as quickly as possible should be our foremost
>concern, otherwise the userbase and community might fade out on us.
>Strike while the iron is hot and all that. =)
I 100% agree. That is why I really don't think that we should change any more
than we have to right now. I would rather have a working R5 replacement
that will run every app (to start with) than a new OS with a BeOS like design,
no software and more ambitious/less stable. Let's get to R5/R6 level first.
>>* i think we should use the beos kernel approach, this means
>independent modules
>> which are all loaded at boot time, and those who find hardware keep
>loaded.
>> You really don't want a single large kernel you need to constantly
>recompile!
>
>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.
100% agreed. The replacability of the server/kit model is a big bonus.
>>Some legal things:
>[stuff re. GPL]
>
>As much as I admire what the GNU folks have accomplished, I find the,
>uh, "enthusiasm" of their userbase a bit hard to take at times. I'm in
>favor of a more liberal license -- Mozilla, BSD, maybe OpenTracker;
>something along those lines.
I was looking fondly at the MIT license.
|

|