> "Ingo Weinhold" <bonefish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > I am not so sure about that... basically, we should be able to
> > > hide
> > > the
> > > inner partitioning workings from the user. Of course, for so
> > > limited
> > > systems as the Intel partitioning scheme, it's beneficial (or
> > > even
> > > needed) for the user to specify a partition as primary or active
> > > partition, but I wouldn't enforce a graphical interaction.
> > > Better have a standard structure for every partitioning module
> > > that
> > > can
> > > be used by a graphical partition add-on as well as a CLI
> > > implementation.
> > Mmh, you're not really proposing to provide an API for each
> > partitioning scheme and file system, are you=3F I would consider
> > that a
> > bit of overkill. In my opinion the GUI add-on is sufficient and
> > preferred by 99.99 % of the users. If someone doesn't like it, or
> > has
> > plans like mass-partitioning over network, well, the sources are
> > open.
>
> I was only aiming at one file system/partition specific structure to
> be
> exchanged by one API.
>
> > BTW, for the intel partition module, I extracted the reusable code
> > into
> > separate source files (intel=5Fpartition=5Fmap.{h,cpp} for the
> > structures
> > and intel=5Fparameters.{h,cpp} for the conversion to and from
> > parameters
> > strings), that I intend to reuse in the GUI add-on. I would see
> > nothing, that would prevent anyone from using them as well.
>
> If I understand you correctly, that's what I had in mind.
That would be nice. I'm a bit confused, though. Just have a look at
all, when we're done, and give a yell, if that isn't what you had in
mind. :-P
> > > Oh yeah :-))
> > > If OpenBeOS turns out to be the one and only, we can move the
> > > OpenTracker repository into ours as well, and maintaining it with
> > > the
> > > rest of the system.
> > I somehow doubt, that this will happen. Not that I wouldn't find
> > that
> > desirable.
>
> I guess this depends a bit on Zeta, since that one will be the only
> other binary compatible OS.
At least its first version, I suspect. I don't know what I should make
of some of Bernd's mysterious comments. We'll see...
> Given the communicative ability combined with strange open/closed
> source approaches of all those other projects, I think we are the
> only
> "real" alternative for most BeOS users.
> Well, no one can be sure for now anyway :-)
It will definitely help, if we are able to finish sooner rather than
later, though. So spare your sleep. ;-)
CU, Ingo
