[openbeos] Re: Add-ons/Module problems/ideas??

[snip-snip]
>Anyhow, my questions to the OpenBeOS community are:
>
>Does anyone else here card about these issues?

I card (I mean, "care")
;-)


>Is the BeOS 5.0.3 implementation of addons good enough for OpenBeOS 
R1?   

Well, we have to keep the same interface for drivers etc., as that is 
our goal. Of course, we can (and will) play with the internal details 
(how it hooks up to the kernel) all we want, but the interface to 
drivers and third party stuff needs to follow 5.0.3 standards. Those 
standards seem plenty good enough to me (not that I am an expert on 
these matters).


>Doesn't everybody here want a kernel that blows Linux out of the water 
>(excluding drivers which must come from 3rd parties)?   

Sure. But what I mostly want is a kernel that works and gets finished 
before we all drop from exhaustion! Actually, I think that Travis has 
already delivered the basics of a truly kick ass kernel. We just need 
to make it R5-friendly and finish it up.


>Just some questions.  
>
>
>P.S. I seem to have misplace the URL for the audio, but I can forward 
the
>few ogg files that I downloaded to anyone who needs them.  Don't 
bother
>listening to the AMD presentation given by some AMD bloke; the Hammer/
x86-64 
>article at aceshardware.com is much better.  [I was astonished however 
by
>the engineers reliance on the Andrea Arcangeli and the Linux 
community's
>work on Linux on Hammer for debugging and even _implemenation_.  He
>said that the SMP v. CC-NUMA aspects of Hypertransport would be more 
clearly 
>defined after further testing by Andrea!]
>
>
>P.P.S. If any Linux folks read this, please take a few classes in 
public 
>speaking!  Even RMS knows how to give a presentation, even if he 
doesn't
>always make a good choice concerning his material (like being pro-
drugs) ;-).
>
>
>-- 
>timothy.covell@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>Unix Systems Administrator
>

Other related posts: