[openbeos] Re: Hmm...

>Why is it necessary to recreate BeOS?
>We have a beautiful kernel, although we do not have the
>code for it, does not mean that we can not use it.

I absolutely think we should continue to use the existing system 
components.  If nothing else, using our replacements in the existing 
system will ensure that we've done the job right. =)

>The thing we have to do for starters is replacing the
>net_server. That should not be impossible, and all i want
>in the beginning is stability. The stability of the current
>net_server is, well... bad.

Sounds a lot like you're volunteering to start the net_server effort. ;) 
 BONE has probably been the most anticipated update for R5, so a nice, 
stable rewrite of the net_server will go a long way toward convincing 
the community to hang it there.

>I think this should work to keep BeOS alive, but you seem
>to want to create a open-source version of BeOS, which
>I think is not that nice of an idea. I have nothing against
>creating another open-source OS, but I do not think we should
>base that upon BeOS. BeOS is nice, but it is far from perfection.

I have two thoughts on this:

First, if BeOS were to be actively supported and updated by a commercial 
entity (Be Inc., Palm, whoever), I would be the last person to join this 
effort.  I don't really care *who* maintains the OS, just as long as 
somebody does, because it's what I best like using.  Since no commercial 
entity is going to be maintained a *desktop* version of the OS, it falls 
to the community (and myself, by extension) to do the job.  I'm not 
*really* all that interested in having "another open-source OS", I just 
want to be able to use BeOS for as long as I want without feeling like 
I'm using a dead and decaying piece of software.  I want the OS to be 
updated, and I want the apps to be updated -- and at this point, I don't 
see that happening unless the community takes over.  Which, basically, 
means doing an open-source implementation.

Second, this is not "creating another open-source OS", at least not to 
my way of thinking.  It's a version of BeOS that the community can 
maintain all by itself, without any commercial vendor's interest 
necessary.  That may sound like splitting hairs to you, but this effort 
is intended to result in the BeOS, not some other XYZ OS -- and that 
makes all the difference in the world to me.  I am a BeOS user and 
developer; it gives my involvement in this industry purpose and meaning 
(crazy as that sounds).  The situation as it stands is not going to let 
me do that for any real length of time.  If I want to carry on, I really 
don't have any choice but to reimplement the OS in a form that can and 
will be updated in the foreseeable future.  It sure would be nice to 
work with a bunch of like-minded folks to do the job, but I'm just crazy 
enough to do it myself if I have to. ;)

I sincerely hope you'll lend whatever effort you can to make the 
continued existence and growth of BeOS on the desktop a reality.

e

Data is not information, and information is not knowledge: knowledge is 
not understanding, and understanding is not wisdom.
        - Philip Adams

Other related posts: