[openbeos] Re: Ok, let's start

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

Other related posts: