On Sat, 18 Aug 2001 07:15:56 AM, "Erik Jakowatz" <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>So, let's start. > >Yes, let's. I think we should look into aquiring/merging with the >openbeos.sourceforge.net space and seeding the source tree with Bruno G. Yes, we should. I already send an email to Vootele Aer, asking him to join this list, or to delete his sourceforge project if he is no longer interested. >Albuquerque and Nathan Whitehorn's Mail Daemon Replacement, if they're >willing. That'd be one server down, and a bunch more plus a kernel to >go. ;) I don't think that this is a problem, since the source is available. But will we get Bruno G. Albuquerque and Nathan Whitehorn ? >If we can firmly establish the project as a true replacement for R5 with >a future ahead of it, we can probably coax the community to move to gcc >3.x. If nothing else, we can do what Be wouldn't do and version the Perhaps. But there is a risk. Keeping BeOS binary compatibitity might be better. >Getting up and running as quickly as possible should be our foremost >concern, otherwise the userbase and community might fade out on us. >Strike while the iron is hot and all that. =) Yes. If we need two years, probably most current BeOS users will be gone forever, and we will have a hard time getting new ones. > >>* i think we should use the beos kernel approach, this means independent >>modules >> which are all loaded at boot time, and those who find hardware keep loaded. >> You really don't want a single large kernel you need to constantly >> recompile! > >I think we're talking about basically reimplementing the OS, so this is >probably a given. If nothing else, this architecture is definitely one >of the cooler aspects of BeOS. Yes, agreed! >>Some legal things: >[stuff re. GPL] > >As much as I admire what the GNU folks have accomplished, I find the, >uh, "enthusiasm" of their userbase a bit hard to take at times. I'm in >favor of a more liberal license -- Mozilla, BSD, maybe OpenTracker; >something along those lines. I'm not a fan of the GPL either. My concern is: If we have our kernel, based on an other open source license, will it be possible to still use GPL drivers and port them? regards Marcus