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

  • From: "Ithamar R. Adema" <ithamar@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 10:42:59 +0100

Hello all,

Sorry to quote so much, but there was much said in this bit....

Personally, I'm not ready to give so much controlling power over to 
another company (BeUnited in this case) before we even have something 
decent. I guess what BeUnited does is their choice, but the project as 
a whole has the final decision on what look-n-feel goes in our main 
source tree.

We might be open-source, but there are not many rules layed out for OSS 
projects, so we can make them up as we go, as we've been doing anyway. 
Any feedback from possible distributors is very welcome, but I do not 
think it is a very good idea to let someone else do the "certification" 
of any kind......

Remember, we're going to lose some control of our own _main_ tree to an 
outside, commerical entity.

Again, I do not want to rain on anyones parade, but BeUnited is not the 
only one interested in OpenBeOS, there is at least also YellowTab 
(http://www.yellowtab.com) aka BeOS NG, which will be able start a 
distro much much sooner... (a complete BeOS R5 distro, with OpenBeOS 
components and other extra components included).

So, lets keep as much _control_ over _what_ we develop and _how_ in
 our 
own project, but make the discussion open to outside parties..... (as 
we've always done up till now)....

Regards,

Ithamar.

>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).

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. haiku
  3. Archive
  4. 01-2002