While I agree 100% with your email, the matter of fact is that the
emergence of Haiku distributions is simply inevitable. The MIT
license, as you pointed out, prohibits nothing in this respect. Sure,
the Haiku name can be protected, but will that really help? Look at
the major Linux distributions out there-- the common used names for
them (Ubuntu, SUSE, Red Hat, Fedora) do not include the 'Linux' name
at all (of course, the official names do, but who says "Fedora Linux"
every time?).
You can complain about the weather turning bad, but that will do
little; it *will* actually turn bad, complains, or no complaints.
It's better to accept this, and focus on things that *can* be changed.
As far as I'm concerned, Haiku's major problem for the future (as
well as the project's focus) is not actually possible distributions
or getting to r1; no, Haiku's major problems come when r1 is
released. Because when that moment is reached, Haiku's clear goal
(recreate r5), which facilitated development and eased choices and
dilemmas, will be gone.
Haiku's greatest problem will be what to do *after* r1. It's
relatively "easy" to build a house when you have building plans and a
similar house to look at. But when you have neither of those, things
will start to get a bit more difficult.
Haiku is a major open source effort right now, and getting all those
noses to point in the same direction for r2 and beyond, *that* is the
major challenge facing Haiku. Not some possible distributions popping
up.
Thom Holwerda
---
Managing editor at http://www.osnews.com
On Apr 13, 2007, at 11:40 AM, Simon Taylor wrote:
>
>>
>> From: Sogabe <sogabe@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Ingo Weinhold wrote:
>>>> What is after all the common (official?) position on Pingwinek
>>>> Haiku and
>>>> third party distros in general?
>>>>
>>>
>>> We're currently preparing to take the final vote on the matter.
>>> Now it's
>>> hopefully really only a few more days. :-)
>>>
>>
>> One more Haiku distro coming. ;)
>>
>> http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=17686
>
> So if the final vote hasn't happened yet there might still be time
> for me to have a little influence on it. I genuinely believe this
> decision will be the most important one Haiku ever makes in
> determining whether or not Haiku is successful.
>
> I was an almost full-time BeOS user a few years ago, but that was
> simply the reason I found out about Haiku and is not the reason I
> continue to follow the progress of the project. The reason is
> because I believe Haiku has a huge chance to become "The Open
> Source OS, done right."
>
> One of my main reasons for disliking the Linux approach is the lack
> of an overall consistent plan for the whole system. Haiku has
> neatly sidestepped the problem by sticking to the API which Be did
> a very nice job with all those years ago. It just makes the whole
> thing feel as though it was designed together.
>
> Another, related, issue facing Linux as a desktop platform is that
> all the components are developed independently with no coordination
> of priorities, roadmaps or releases. Haiku is a huge step forward
> with all the components being developed in the same tree to the
> same schedule and for the same users - even things borrowed from
> other OSS projects are imported into the tree so their versions are
> also fixed with a Haiku release. That is a *huge* advantage for
> Haiku, for both users and developers (no need to target millions of
> possible configurations).
>
> That's two big reasons why Haiku just makes so much more sense as a
> proposition for a desktop OS. The next problem is how to
> communicate those advantages to users. I would argue that a free
> distribution policy does nothing but confuse the issue for users
> and implies that Haiku will suffer from the same problems as Linux
> with regard to versioning. Imagine the difference in the build up
> to R1:
> Feb: "Haiku 0.9 beta released"
> March: "Haiku release first RC for R1"
> April: "Anticipation builds for Haiku R1"
> June: "Haiku Reaches R1, The OS Desktop Comes of Age!"
> vs
> Feb: "Official Haiku.org sources reach 0.9 beta"
> Feb: "GNU/Haiku 0.9.9.9.4 released"
> Feb: "Hi-ku 1.4 Released, still full of bugs"
> etc, etc...
>
> Encouraging 3rd party distributions is usually defended on the
> basis of providing users with more choice. Really all that amounts
> to is installing a few 3rd party applications. The R5 distributions
> (MAX etc) had two other reasons for their existence - 1) R5 stopped
> booting on newer hardware and 2) R5 was missing a lot of useful
> drivers that were developed after the release by 3rd parties. Haiku
> will not suffer from either of those issues. I very, very, very (as
> if you couldn't tell by now) strongly believe that the additional
> benefit of having a few 3rd party applications pre-installed in no
> way outweighs the disadvantages caused by muddying the waters
> around the "unified desktop platform" message that is, for me,
> Haiku's strongest selling point.
>
> A couple of weeks ago I suggested having a base R1 and allowing
> third parties to produce Application Bundles to be installed over
> the top. I also suggested allowing the Bundle producers to
> distribute an ISO with their bundle pre-installed. To me that gives
> the advantage of user choice and pre-installed apps, but makes it
> clear that Haiku is the core OS independent of the apps included in
> your particular download.
>
> I really wish I could write short, persuasive emails. Sorry about
> that. The most important bit that I'm interested in hearing replies
> about is why anyone would favour a free Linux-like distribution
> policy over my App Bundle suggestion.
>
> I realise being MIT licensed anyone can do what they want with the
> code, but Haiku Inc do have some control over the use of the Haiku
> name - and the position of the Haiku admin team will directly
> affect whether shoot-off distro projects are seen as unofficial
> experimentation (which I have no problem with, as long as they are
> viewed as such) or whether they are seen as officially sanctioned
> distributions of the OS. It's all about perception.
>
> And for those who think all this talk of selling points and
> perception has no place in OSS - the simple argument is a well-
> marketed release brings more users, more developers, more apps, and
> more commercial interest - which is definitely a good thing for the
> platform in the long term.
>
> Simon
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
> Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
>
>
