I think there's a middle ground here, simply by virtue of the fact that we're operating under a *very* liberal open source license. There's absolutely no reason why Peter couldn't add support to PetrOS for BeOS while we continue chugging along on our own kernel -- everything we do will be freely available for the Trumpet folks to use as well. And I think OpenBeOS (or, rather, the BeOS community at large) stands to gain in that PetrOS would become one more place where a BeOS developer's work can be used, broadening our reach that much further. Additionally, I'm sure there would be some contributions to the OpenBeOS source base from Trumpet in the process. I say go for it, Peter! e >>Fair enough. However, I can see the OpenBeos project being split into two >>parts that could operate in parallel to complete the project faster and >>allowing for the BeOS API to be po >>of alternative projects which might be more suitable, I'd be interested. >> >>To answer your other question as to what we'd gain, well we'd gain possibly >a >>larger user base than we might get if we stuck to Win32 only, plus it would >>demonstrate that our OS is more powerful than being just a Win32 workalike. >>The design philosophy is of being able to support more than one user API. >> >>If the idea works well, your project might gain a little momentum and >perhaps >>credibility from a commercial point of view by having a commercial developer >>willing to work with you. >> >>So I guess the answer is "thanks, but no thanks", no? >> >>Peter >I'm no kernel jockey, but I think you might be onto something. Would there >possibly be a way that to somehow work together on this one? We *are* open- >source, after all. Perhaps I just don't understand the situation. My $0.02. > >--DarkWyrm Data is not information, and information is not knowledge: knowledge is not understanding, and understanding is not wisdom. - Philip Adams