[openbeos] Re: [Glasselevator-talk] Re: Glasselevator-talk digest, Vol 1 #3 - 3 msgs (themes and other apps)... - openbeos

[openbeos] Re: [Glasselevator-talk] Re: Glasselevator-talk digest, Vol 1 #3 - 3 msgs (themes and other apps)...

From: "Donovan Schulteis" <deej@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: glasselevator-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 01:09:55 -0500
Sorry for the double post on this one (for those of you on both lists), 
but thought it should go to everyone involved here, as it greatly 
concerns our little "love triangle" between OBOS, Glass Elevator, and 
BeUnited.

> I think that this post gives me room to finally ask
> a question I have been wondering about....

There's probably a lot of folks that have been wondering these sorts of 
things.

> The potential problem I see here is if apps are just
> thrown into preference panels and shipped with the
> system by default, there could easily end up a
> situation that does not have a BeOS-polished look and 
> feel....

Keep that thought a tic...
 
> BeOS (in my opinion) should ship with as many apps as
> are available and useful, but, those apps should also
> be focused on what they do (no competing apps for
> themes bundled with the system, for example). Now, 
> perhaps if you want to put them in a 3rd party folder,
> that is fine. 

Other than configuration applications, OpenBeOS is not about 
applications.  It's about providing the ability for others to build 
applications.  For a preferences panel for media or screen, yes, it 
should be provided by the OpenBeOS team.  But for things such as 
theme'ing, the basis should be placed there for others to build their 
own themes applications (and it's associated limitations that are in 
place as well).  If OpenBeOS developers had to worry about all 
the "little things", we'd never see a finished R2.  However, I will 
consent that most of the "little things" are very likely to be done by 
the very same people as OpenBeOS members.  Later, that will not, nor 
should not need to be, the case - provided OBOS is remotely successful.

On a slight tangent, I'd also like to say that drivers should be 
limited in scope by the OpenBeOS team as well.  This is not to say that 
it shouldn't be worried about, but I wouldn't want to see all the devs 
working on indefinites such as constant driver development.  There's 
more important things to get done.  A reference platform or three 
should be "supported" by OpenBeOS... more if time is available.  More 
than that is a very good thing, but you all are limited in time and 
energy.  Set a reference hardware platform (or a few more), and let 
others fill in the rest, unless, of course there's room to do more 
within OBOS, have at it.  Done with that thought.

> Just make sure that there is one and only one standard
> for, in this case, theming, installed as the system
> standard.

There should be just the basis for theming in place.  Distributors 
would be the ones implementing which applications go out with a 
distro.  This is Open Source, there will be distributors, and if 
OpenBeOS is even remotely successful, there will be more than one, 
whether we like it or not.  Which means things will be different per 
distribution.  There will be that fragmentation.  You cannot stop it 
with OSS.  BeOS stayed the same because it was closed.  MS controls 
windows because it is closed.  Linus doesn't really have much to say 
about what goes into a RedHat or SuSe distribution, does he?  The only 
thing we can do as a group to prevent this in a terribly bad way is to 
have an "official distribution" or certified program of sorts.

This I have discussed with many people in various areas, and this is 
where we (at least I hope it's "we") see BeUnited fitting into the 
OBOS/GE/BeUnited movement.  First, as a "standard setter" for things 
like the UI interface and theming guidelines.  Second, as an "official 
distributor" of OpenBeOS, and possibly a certifier for applications to 
become "certified OBOS apps" or whatever.  Any other distributor that 
wished to be "certified" with OBOS would only need to distribute with 
certified applications and meet the guidelines set forth at BeUnited 
(in the name of OBOS developers, obviously).

I know, you might be thinking - conflict of interest, if BeUnited is 
the official distro, and then must certify other distributions.  I 
suppose.  But if BeUnited and OBOS are essentially the same group, and 
BeUnited controls the certification process, we can control the 
fragmenting of the OS into various camps of entirely different OSes all 
claiming to be OBOS.  OBOS itself could not do this, as it would be 
branded a mockery of OSS, creating an OS that claims to be OpenSource, 
yet directing how it should look and feel and what should be the 
applications included as part of the OS (which, as I have already 
stated, shouldn't be done by the OS people, IMHO).  

But including applications is a necessity.  BeUnited would "bundle" 
applications with the distribution, obviously.  Among other things, 
I've been trying to also get ahold of some applications that are no 
longer being actively developed and take over development of those 
under BeUnited's name (but not necessarily as open source or free).

BeUnited would also distribute the "most pure" distribution of OBOS... 
following exactly to specs and guidelines, and as close as possible to 
what the developers of OBOS envision.  The OS would then be distributed 
through BUGs and others in order to keep the costs of distribution 
down.  All monies received for the distro would be then paid to those 
that have "shares" in the distro (which is detailed and too long to 
discuss here, but it involves the developers and participants, 
not "shareholders" as the name suggests).

> When you start putting items in the system folder, then
> you start getting into an area where the app must be a
> polished, finished product that represents the entire
> system's way of doing things instead of just a 3rd
> parties prototype of the idea. Here, you must be very
> careful not to tread on how the OS should handle things
> like preferences.

That is only controlled by the people making the distribution.  Thus, 
OBOS' name could be dragged down if anyone can do whatever they want.  
An official distro is needed, as well as a certification process.  But 
unless it is a essential app to the operation of the OS, it should be a 
third party that does it.
 
> If there is not one good, thinking, intuitive group
> behind the decisions as to what ships with each version
> of the OS, then we would eventually have 2 or 6 apps
> that set "be themes" the way that 2 or 6 different
> people want the interface to look like. That would be a 
> nightmare, in my opinion, to see apps just thrown into
> the OpenBeOS download without thinking about how those
> apps look with a newly installed BeOS system.

2 or 6 different apps on 3 or 12 different distros, with 33 different 
default settings.  Success with OSS is a mess, if you ask me.

> I guess my main point is to remember and realize the
> difference between having a 3rd party folder included
> with the OS and having already installed apps and
> preference panels that represent BeOS as an entirety
> as a system. Let's just make sure that when the time
> comes for putting together the many versions of
> OpenBeOS that are to come that it is just as
> professional in look, feel, and functionality with
> the apps that ship with it as it has ever been.

You can only do that so far without the certification process and an 
official distro that acts as the "benchmark".
 
> That way, OpenBeOS will not become a bloated, 40,000
> ways to do the same thing that breaks standards with
> itself and becomes confusing as to which "theming"
> application is the one to use as the system default.

Exactly my point.  If 4 of the 6 theming apps are approved by the OBOS 
team and "certified" by BeUnited, there's a much greater chance of 
maintaining control over the various distributions (if the OBOS devs 
don't think a theming app is "good enough" or think it "breaks too many 
rules to be stable" - why would a company use them in a distribution.  
Only then would "rogue" distributions be the bad eggs.
 
> So, what do you all think? I hope that I've explained
> what I believe accurately here. If not, I may try to
> clarify. Does such a quality assurance group exist for
> OpenBeOS that decides what / when will be included?
> I'm sure the developers themselves will do a fine job 
> at most of this anyway, just wondering what others may
> think.

OpenBeOS really cannot decide that.  It is the nature of OpenSource.  
It has to be an entity that certifies and creates these rules and 
guidelines.  Sure, this could fully be done by the OBOS team, and have 
an "OBOS certified program".  But then BeUnited brings in a 
certain "commercial" factor that OBOS cannot.  Closed source apps could 
be distributed with the OS, CD's could be pressed and sold, groups of 
developers and users could help decide on guidelines collectively, 
people get paid (however small in the beginnings) for their 
contributions, etc.

Does this give you a good idea of what myself, Helmar, Michael and many 
others have been discussing behind the scenes (not to be secretive, 
just to keep it where it belongs in order to keep things productive)?  
Hope so.  :)

If anyone has a problem or question or comments with all of this, we 
should take this matter up off list (or rather, on an appropriate 
list), as this mailing list is not exactly the proper place for it.  ;)
 
Deej
[openbeos] Re: [Glasselevator-talk] Re: Glasselevator-talk digest, Vol 1 #3 - 3 msgs (themes and other apps)...

Other related posts:
