> > In this case im thinking, if it would be possible to have some form of > > encryption added to the fs? > > Ofcourse it would be a huge task, but im thinking it would be easier to > > do now when your planing instead of later on. > > This is an interesting feature, but I don't see it as part of the R1 > release, sorry. My personal take is that breaking binary compatibility at this stage is not an issue as long as it leads to significant improvements. The BeOS 'as a whole' has been pretty idle, and developers still active won't mind making the necessary changes to cater for the broken compatibility - there aren't many of them to begin with. The last thing I'd like to see is this: [x]BeOS gets revived, gets reported about in the press, gets sold and marketed, gains commercial developer support, resulting in many more apps than we currently have and then _POOOFFF!!!_ a break in binary compatibility is thrown at them. Rather do it now - while things are slow and an opportunity to adapt or weed out still exists - than doing it later, when you have a momentum going that goes way beyond what OpenBeOS is doing. What do you think? Helmar -- Sonork S.R.L. | Professional Instant Messaging Software Fast, secure, stable, powerful, easy to use, and frugal! -------------------------------------------------------- http://www.sonork.com - http://www.sonork.de helmar@xxxxxxxxxx - Sonork ID: 0.12 - t: +27-21-794-3414 -------------------------------------------------------- NEW VERSION RELEASED! v1.6 with NAT and HTTP support!