[openbeos] Re: Name, Compatibility

  • From: DarkWyrm <bpmagic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 17:56:34 -0400

>
>Open Source Projects need Happy, Zealous workers. So try not to be
>discouraging and if you think someone is of on a tangent try and think of a
>way for them to achieve a middle ground.
Much agreed. Disagreeing is fine, but don't be mean about it. :)

>Firstly, Name.
>    A good name is difficult. It will also probablely come in an unexpected
>flash. In the mean time, we use a code name.
>    BeOS was BuzzwordEnabledOperatingSystem
>
>    So my suggestion is BuzzOS or OpenBuzzOS
>
>    Or YAOSOS BTOIBOBNU ;)
>        Yet Another Open Source Operating System. But This One Is Based On
>BeOS Not Unix.
>        Prounounced - YASS-OS TOY-BOB-NU
IMHO, I think what we've got is just fine, and if we come up with a better 
one down the road, great. The team is named after OpenBeOS, and part of what 
we need right now is name recognition. That's why some commercials keep 
repeating the name of their product. Some people have heard of BeOS. If we 
change right now, we lose that. My $0.02.

>Sencondly
>    If Microsoft has acknowledged the need for interoperability so should
>we. The FAT FS is only still around because most operating systems support
>it.
>    So don't squash ideas of NFS drivers, X adaptors, and QT libraries. It
>is not the projects primary concern, but they are still important for end
>users, and code & platform testing.
>    And don't ignore the possibility of porting the code.
>
>    Applications are vital to an OSes success. All I run on BeOS is the
>development kit.
>
>    On a QT port, don't implement the fancy features. Determine the absolute
>minimal support required from the OS. This should be basic of the App/GUI
>Kit. Write to this, develop you testing on top. This will give the App/GUI
>Kit team a set of requirements.
Other stuff isn't bad, but we really should keep focused on what needs done 
in the short run and the not-short-run-but-it's-too-short-to-be-in-the-long 
run. BTW, we've got QT, courtesy of TrollTech. Don't know how good it is, 
though.

--DarkWyrm


Other related posts: