[openbeos] Helmar

I think we should let Helmar see what kind of deal he can strike with 
Palm before we criticize too much. With luck perhaps he can work out a 
deal that makes all parties happy. Like most of you though, I do have 
concerns about the BeOS being developed by a company. I don't have 
anything against closed source software; I believe it is superior to 
open-sourced approaches in most cases. My Linux friends tell me that 
open source is the future and that Linux is the proof. My response was 
always, "Yes, a loosely knit bunch of hackers we able to recreate a 20 
year old operating system. Bravo. A small group of focused, paid 
engineers at Be created a modern work of art in the same time." Not that 
creating Linux was no small feat, but I think Be had them beat.

I'm still of the mind that an organized, focused, and paid (which 
usually means closed-source) group will usually get better results. On 
the down side, I think it can be said that every misstep and pitfall in 
the BeOS history was due to the fact that Be Inc was a company, not a 
group of individuals. As a company, Be's decisions were driven by market 
forces and investors more than anything else (...which is the way it 
should be for a company).

1. Dropping the BeBox
        Hey, weren't these cool? Hell I wanted one. Be quickly learned 
that making there own machines wasn't financailly viable. Now they're 
dead and not even                 supported by the latest version of the 
OS. All BeBox adoptors got screwed. I don't think we could do any better 
on the hardware front, but we're not                         trying.

2. Dropping support for PPC hardware.
        This was obviously motivated by Apple killing off clones. Made 
perfect financial sense. It also orphaned all the early adopters and 
developers. Would an open         source initiative drop support? My 
guess is no.

3. Supporting mostly Intel based motherboards.
        Now I suppose you can argue that Be had limited resources and 
had to target specific architectures to meet performace requirements. I 
think you can also argue         that this is a direct result of 
sizeable Intel investments in Be Inc. Again, an open-source movement 
would most likely target all the computers used by it's own             
community.

4. The BeIA.
        Well this one is obvious. Microsoft shut the door on 
preinstalled BeOS systems before JLG could even get his foot in the 
door. I can't fault Be Inc here; as a             company, they need to 
make money. If they can't compete in the desktop market (for illegal 
reasons, but reality is a bitch), then they have to sell their product 
            somewhere else. BeOS users and developers weren't completely 
abandoned, but they were relegated to second class citizens behind the 
BeIA. I think it's                 obvious to say that an open sourced 
BeOS would not abandon the desktop for appliances or some other target.

5. Selling out to Palm.
        Well, this sorta sucks, but it made financial sense to throw in 
the towel. Internet appliances were a major dead end. There was little 
money coming in and a pile         of debt a mile high. Time to pack it 
in. Obviously, due to the nature of open sourced code, selling it as IP 
isn't really a possiblility. Nor would we have to worry         about 
pleasing investors.


We may never be certain why Be Inc failed as a company, but I don't 
think that it was due to marketing as Helmar suggests. I remember Be 
wooing developers in the early days when you could get a copy of DR8 
from MacTech magazine. I also remember articles in the major PC 
magazines and I got tired of seeing JLG's face on CNN in the early days 
of the Microsoft Antitrust case. Be Inc set up international 
distribution channels and gave away a free version of the OS. I don't 
know about you, but Be got me so fired up that I was making converts FOR 
them. Considering their limited resources, I'm not sure what they could 
have done better as far as marketing.

So the bottom line is, I'm not opposed to closed source software and I 
doubt that most of the people in this group are either. I think we 
should wait for Helmar to do what he can. I know my support for a closed 
BeOS would be contingent on these concerns:

        1. What assurances can you give that a for profit BeOS wouldn't 
abaondon users as Be Inc did with PPC support and switching focus to BeIA?
        2. Since this is for profit, how do you intend to get it on 
people's PC's? As far as I know, the Microsoft bootloader problem still 
exists. Can you improve on                 what Be Inc accomplished in 
sales?
        3. Can you assure us that all our work will not be lost if some 
new BeOS company fails?

So, if Helmar can strike a deal that can answer these questions, I say 
we support it. In any case I think we are strong enough right now to do 
it on our own.


-Fred McCann
Where ever I go, there I am... in spite of the restraining order.

Other related posts: