[openbeos] Re: BeOS design flaws
- From: "Helmar Rudolph" <helmar@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 16:01:31 +0200
Zenja,
drink in Melbourne gladly accepted. :)
I thank you for your email because it finally allows me to put it
all into perspective.
You say "Our time is 2003 and beyond.", and "If the source to
this kit can be obtained, a fresh coat of paint can greatly hold
the user base over to 2003".
I say:
1) if you develop OpenBeOS separate from BeUnited, no one will
give a damn in 2003, because all you have on something that
should be a car and a driver and accessories and the motoring
trade drooling over the whole lot, is an engine. Only an
engine.
2) the fresh coat of paint isn't just "a patch here and a patch
there". It goes way beyond development, and we all know that.
We need professional applications, professional marketing,
professionalism all over, because that's what makes a
computing experience complete, not just an operating system.
And even _IF_ you completely open the OS (as with Linux), it
still won't go anywhere on its own, because the number of
people working (properly) on it free of charge absolutely
dwarfs in comparison to those who do this for a living.
Let me reiterate:
1) if we get the source, we have to do as
much as humanly possible in the shortest possible time to get
an R6 out, glossed over or not.
2) It is absolutely paramount to understand that the momentum is
__now__, not in 2003. Now Linux is still largely unusable for
Joe Soap, and XP and Passport will do their own bit to annoy
users.
3) Now people still use BeOS, know the name, and even commercial
developers could be wooed (proper spelling now? ;) ) back. We
have an historic chance to get in on this - if we play our
cards right. And if we do, we should generate enough revenue
to build a proper organization and to lure people away from
their day job into full-time BeOS development.
I have been involved in the GEOS since 1989. That was one helluva
piece of software - still is. The entire OS and app suite in less
than 15MB. Bar the Internet stuff it still is more than sufficent
for 90% of the population's computer needs, but that technical
superiority (in times where Windows was an utter piece of rubbish)
didn't get them anywhere, because not only did their marketing
suck, but they also didn't provide professional dev/debug tools,
hence there was no "spark" that could have lit the flame in the
commercial developer community.
And when good old Clive Smith bought the licence to the code from
Geoworks it was too late, because while he was haggling with
Geoworks (or them with him), the user community (which was
equally "loyal" as the BeOS community) was disintegrating, the
little commercial support and goodwill that was still there
vanishing, and the world moving on with 32bit OS, visual dev.
tools, and __large scale commercial support and marketing__.
Clive brought out NewDeal Office, and started to make big waves
in the edu. sector in Africa and Canada, but it was too little,
too late. GEOS was dead.
Trust me, the very same will happen to BeOS if there is no bridge
between 2001 (now) and 2003 (your "ETA"). I am / we are trying to
create that bridge, but this means that we need all the support
we can get, and that includes paying developers to do stuff not
in their spare time, but full time. If we don't put egos aside
and really work together, there will be no 2003 for anyone, least
of all a BeOS -open or not- that shines as a car, not just an
engine.
We at BeUnited are working on the chassis, the driver, the wheels,
the accessories manufacturers, and the motoring journalists,
because if we cannot get them to stay with us __now__, they
certainly won't be interested when you finally present your super
engine in 2003.
In one "sentence": we need to show everyone __right now__ that
1) BeOS is not dead
2) there is a viable market (IOW: there is money to be made!)
3) we support developers with tools, docu and marketing
4) we offer superior and highly functional software without the
need for the user to upgrade his hardware, get frustrated over
the workings of her software or worry about issues like
privacy violations or viruses.
5) there is a perspective/roadmap for the future.
All OpenBeOS is offering is a little bit of 1) and a hint of 5).
No mention of 2), 3) and 4). Result: failure as a whole (1-5).
BeUnited is working on 1) to 5), and whereas initially not all
may be open or technically perfect, if we achieve what we have
planned, we will have sufficient funds to invest into the removal
of the modules that are clearly deficient. In the meantime
they'll get fixed to the best of our ability. But then, in 2003
we'll have it all, while you still only have an engine.
We will _definitely_ open as much as we possibly can, while still
keeping a _tight reign_ on it (Linus does the same, BTW), because
otherwise we cannot create the environment for the OS to become
commercially viable, which translates into "getting more
professional applications for it and more users interested in it".
The chance to get more support for the BeOS is clearly __now__,
not in 2003, and for that marketers need to go out and make a
big noise, while being able to rely on the developers who are
working behind the scenes on patching what can be patched and
redesigning what has to be redesigned. They forfeit perfection
for common sense and commercial viability.
Then, in 2003, everybody will be happy, because we have the whole
car, plus accessories, plus people dying to drive it, and not
just an engine that people look at with amazement but discard
right after that because the elements 2), 3), 4) and largely 5)
too are clearly missing. And if I think about, as an engine on
its own is of no use, 1) is missing too, which means BeOS (and by
that I mean the entire operating environment/experience and not
just the core Operating System) is dead. D.E.A.D.
In summary: OpenBeOS === Death, because it doesn't take into
account all the variables that play a role in the development,
marketing and support of an operating environment. If you do
OpenBeOS because you loathe non-open software or commercial
software, then go ahead and enjoy what you (plural) are doing.
But don't be surprised if you arrive in 2003 (which I genuinely
doubt) and nobody cares.
NOW, NOW, NOW, the TIME IS NOW. Let's put egos aside and work on
something that can create the whole, not just an independent and
open OS, when it is clearly our (BeUnited) aim to open as much as
we possibly can.
Uff.... :)
Helmar
Other related posts:
