[openbeos] Re: Just one, big question, seriously

  • From: "Michael Phipps" <mphipps1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 22:49:56 -0500

>Michael Phipps wrote:
>
>> We have: Anything finished as of your reading of this is
>> open source. That is better for the community because
>> they can be assured that it will never focus shift or go
>> away on them.
>
>'Better' not by default though, only if it actually results
>in something tangible. What _that_ is is usually up for the
>user to define.

Yes, better by default. If BeOS had been open source (and yes, I know
that it couldn't have ever been), people who disagreed with focus
shifts or discorporation could have forked. Sometimes forking
is a good thing.

>Never say never. Sometime reality or opportunity hits you in
>the face like a steam train, and then to say "it will never
>focus shift" is like saying "640k ought to be enough for
>anyone".

In this case, never makes sense. Because so long as it is open source,
no one can stop people from doing their own thing with it.

>> We are: [snip] We are implementing the pinnacle of Be's
>> (released) design ideas.
>
>Which doesn't say anything about marketability, acceptance
>or commercial 3rd party apps. It'll be amazing to have that
>"pinnacle" available, but again, on its own it means next to
>nothing, because the more people use OBOS, the more you can
>bet will ask for "driver x" and "support for y", etc.

You have been saying this since OBOS started. and I still understand
and respect your perspective. But, honestly, marketing and sales
is a different department. This is engineering. 

>> We will: R1 is the *FIRST* release. We have many great
>> ideas (and welcome yours, on the GE list) for R2 and
>> beyond. The best is yet to come.
>
>Which doesn't exclude bad things to come, does it? I am one
>of those who'd love to banish Windows from my machine, but
>I'm realistic. Involvement in two successful (!!) Internet
>startups taught me a great deal, and that includes that not
>all works out as planned - very little, actually - and _never_
>on time. Developers will leave you, copyright issues may
>arise, technical problems may persist and there I didn't
>mention a word about what makes the OS useful: its
>applications.

I am not sure how this applies. Developers have left. So have team
leads. They are replaced. That is really what open source is about.
It is a community effort. No one could do this on their own. 

Yes, applications are a question. They always have been, for BeOS
and for any "alternative" OS. The difference between us (OBOS) and
Be is that we can afford to be patient. Plus we have a great design out
of the gate, where as Be had to build it.

>Sounds pessimistic? Ain't supposed to, but is realistic. And
>the more realistic you approach the subject matter, the less
>likely your expectations will let you down. :)

I don't think that we are unrealistic. But if I can't be an OBOS cheerleader,
who can be?

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. haiku
  3. Archive
  4. 04-2002