[openbeos] Re: BFS and encryption.

"Marcus Overhagen" <dos4gw@xxxxxx> wrote:

>You are Helmar Rudolph! Your personal take is to license
>the BeOS source code from either Be or Palm. You are not
>one of the OpenBeOS programmers.

Never said anything to the contrary. ;)

>Why do you recommend us to break binary compatibility now?

As I said, because I'd rather do the weed out applications 
now than later, because you will surely piss off more 
developers when BeOS  has gained more support than it has 
now. Now it's at the bottom, so it's opportune to do it.
Again, this is from a marketing angle, not a development 
angle.

The problem is that if you do it later, it is _us_ who sit 
there with the problem of annoyed developers. _us_ in 
anyone wanting to market the [x]BeOS. If you don't have 
such plans with OpenBeOS, then good luck. ;)

>This is stupid. 

Maybe you didn't understand it properly. 

>The server apps of cause need to be rewritten, but this 
is >part
>of replacing the whole kit, and not breaking anything.

Well, I was talking more about the kernel, but as it's 
based on NewOS right now, the point is moot. If we talk 
about the BeOS kernel it's a different issue, but then 
again, this doesn't belong here. My mistake, I admit.

>I think: Either did Be/Palm tell you that you won't get 
>the source, and you see the OpenBeOS as YOUR chance. 

My chance? Not quite.

>Or you are trying to
>confuse us, because you see us as a threat, and try to get
>rid of us. 

Bad joke.

>I really think it the latter, since I don't expect that
>you already get *any* resonse from Palm/Be.

Wrong thought.

Helmar

Other related posts: