[haiku-development] Re: To __BEOS__ or not to __BEOS__?
- From: Stephan Assmus <superstippi@xxxxxx>
- To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 18:07:46 +0200
Maurice Kalinowski wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I tried to avoid commenting on this discussion, but I would like to put
> one thing into consideration:
>
> Axel Dörfler wrote:
> > Otherwise, we'll break binary compatibility, and that's just a bad idea
> > for any OS that already has an existing software base.
> What existing software base are you (and others) exactly talking about?
> NetPositive? SoundPlay? Gobe?
>
> Come on, let's be realistic, all those apps have been nice showcases in
> the last century, but we today this is nothing that will give you more
> than a nostalgic smile.
>
> I do understand the point in staying compatible to show uniformity and a
> clear view of the project to the outer world. But stating that Haiku is
> useless without these fancy applications will make Haiku useless itself.
>
> All the effort taken to stay compatible could have been used to create
> something so much greater. I have heard this opinion now from many people
> and it seems like nobody is willing to say it like this. It sounds rude,
> I know. But it is the damn truth.
Maurice, you do miss one important argument (IMHO), which still holds true
very much even today. Do you have any idea what it actually means for the
project if someone says the simple line "Let's clean up the API"? The focus
on replicating R5 is what held Haiku together all those years. I don't even
think that achieving binary compatibility was such a great effort even! I
am with the project since 2005 IIRC, and there was only one instance where
Ingo worked on some binary compat issues if memory serves. There did not go
a whole lot of time into that which could have been spent otherwise. On the
contrary, if the project would have indeed spent time on discussing broader
changes to the API and new features, I don't think it would be where it is
today. I know we did some changes, but we did them when everyone agreed
they would be nice and actually saved us time and there was someone to
actually do them. Whenever things seamed to go out of hand, someone could
shout "R2" and everyone refocused (mostly :-). So don't underestimate the
importance of this. Special dynamics apply to open source, you can't just
look at your "resources" and figure out how to spend them "best".
I absolutely understand if people look at Haiku today and somehow wonder if
all the effort that went into it couldn't somehow have produced something
"so much greater" as you put it. In a way, I think this question can be
easily answered, since Haiku was not the only effort. There were
alternatives like BlueEyedOS. Why didn't that one take off? It appears to
me, that somehow the motivation to do the "real thing" played a big role
for many past and current Haiku contributors. This is open source, so
everyone works on what they like. But somehow I think this focus on R5 was
very insightful with regards to the dynamics of open source.
Best regards,
-Stephan
Other related posts:
