[openbeos] Re: OpenBeOS in competition with BeOS

Greetings everyone,

just a couple of thoughts about all this....

First things first: I speak only for myself, not for Open BeOS in general=

neither for even a group of people.
This is quite important to understand because I believe we all joined thi=
s
list for very different reasons, and my opinion is probably going to be v=
ery
very different from those already expressed.

>Going quickly this time too, have a lot to do today.

Mmmh. I assume you shouldn't worry about giving slow answers. There are t=
hings
that I believe need time to be discussed ^_^

A quick explanation so you can understand my point:
I jumped on the BeOS train with R3, I had known about it before that but =
made
a wrong decision not buying a BeBox ^_^ I invested a lot of time and ener=
gy in
it, through User Group, gatherings, websites, bulk purchases, advocacy,
contact with companies (Opera and Cult3D's Cycore, among others), exhibit=
ions
(SATIS...). I have been an all-time believer in BeOS's superiority :o)
Recently I've given AtheOS and QNX a try and I don't feel like using thos=
e
systems in their actual shape, which makes another reason to stick to the=

BeOS. This is one of the reasons I dived into the Open-BeOS Project, beca=
use I
want to make sure of a way I can stick to BeOS as long as possible ^_^
Right now I have no idea if this project will ever succeed or not. It mig=
ht
completely succeed, partially succeed (achieve only a few components), or=

completely fail. I don't know.
I see another reason for doing it: I like knowing what my computer can do=
 and
try pushing it further, I love networking and I'm glad I'm going to go de=
ep
down into the networking stack. There's a lot to learn in there and I'm
impatient to learn that :^)

But as you can see none of this is incompatible with a commercial project=
=2E

As far as I'm concerned I'd love the BeOS to have open components, such a=
s the
network, the kernel, the display and printing systems.
But I would perfectly understand if something like the media kit was to r=
emain
closed-source, as I see it as an area of innovative advance NO other Oper=
ating
System I know ever got close to and represents a lot of added-value the B=
eOS
can take advantage of.

Enough with the preliminaries. I'll explain more as we go :^)

>The maintainance _is_ the primary reason why we don't want to rely on Pa=
lm
>(I mean that we want to get it Free): Because even if Palm agrees to hel=
p =

>develop it today, nobody knows what they can decide in the future, and a=
lso
>nobody knows what will happen to them. We _don't_ want another Amiga sto=
ry
>with IP passing from hands to hands, not letting USERS have control over=
 it.

But if you get Palm blessing for stripping out licenced code and adding i=
nto
current server opensource code then you would be a fool not to rely on Pa=
lm
for as long as they want to help you, be it only 6 months if they decide =
not
to help you longer than that. Because every little piece of opensource co=
de
you'll add into BeOS and every bit of licence code you remove from BeOS w=
ill
be steps going the same direction as your goal.
You won't be able to do everything at the same time: maintain the BeOS, e=
xpand
it, and recode it. As Peter put it in an earlier mail, if you only recode=
 it
you will end up way too far behind other operating systems and HW evoluti=
on
when it's done.

I strongly believe that if Palm were to outsource the code it would be th=
e
best thing for BeOS ever, period.
Should they outsource the network stack I would:
- implement IPv6, PPPoA, PPTP and such protocols support in an opensource=
 way
- expand the network kit API, which is something I'm already working on i=
n an
additional shared library way
- look for licenced code to remove if any

While it doesn't seem to fit in your view to work with Palm I believe it =
would
also serve you, as it would:
- help expand the BeOS capabilities
- make BeOS closer to open-source reality (your goal)
- let someone market, distribute and support the BeOS, which would bring =
more
users and developers (and that will help you as well because you'll have =
more
people to help you with the code and you'll gain more momentum).

>> That said, whereas you guys could happily hack the _servers and
>> improve the Kits after hours, I can tell you right away that
>> marketing the product in order to muster more support, get more
>> users, more developers, etc. costs money. This means: BeOS will
>> cost money. It will NOT be free. There WILL be a free version
>> like PE, but the real product will be a commercial one. (Free
>> bankrupt, unless you are willing to pay out of your own pocket,
>> but this is impossible if you think about the scale!). =

>
>Do you know what Linux is ? Not talking about RedHat or Caldera or so.
>Talking about the Linux _kernel_. This is Linux. And _this_ has been mad=
e by

>people _on_their_ spare time, _without_ being paid.

I believe this to be a wrong assumption. The Linux kernel might be Linux =
to
you, but it is not what MAKES Linux. Linux wouldn't be much of a thing to=
day
if it hadn't got press coverage, marketing, companies backup. And I feel =
sorry
but there actually are people being paid for improving code in Linux's pa=
rts.
Not the kernel, sure, but there are developers hired by Redhat and Calder=
a
working on improving some components (I believe someone from RedHat is wo=
rking
on the glibc) and on adding some distribution-specific tools.

>> > There I see you don't understant what we want to do.
>> > We don't want to _market_ BeOS but _make_it_free_ We won't get
>> > paid for that (or if you want to pay us, well I'm glad to hear
>> >  from you)

I am not an open source crusader, I am a BeOS crusader. I hope you feel t=
he
hell of a difference it makes to me.

>I take care on this myself. I know not every BeOS user is a programmer
>(though the proportion is much higher than in Windows' world), but what =
I
>like in Linux is that if something soesn't suit me I just have to
recode/code
>it and more, I can share with others what I did.

You can do this as long as you have enough time and knowledge. There are
people like me who hardly get time for everything they need / want / wish=
 /
whatever. And I'm afraid I think most of the people are like this.
If you wish to make an Open BeOS for yourself only, then go with it. But =
don't
be surprised if you find some people jumping off. I find it a very selfis=
h
point of view to say you take care about reliability and consistency your=
self,
because many people just can't do it, and they're expecting people like y=
ou to
do it for them, and people like Helmar or Palm to bring what you do to th=
em.
They cannot do anything with what you did because you did it for you, in =
your
corner, and despite your sharing it, it cannot fit everyone's needs. This=
 is
what I hate in Linux, the "I do it for me, it works for me" attitude. Not=

being selfish is not about sharing your results, it is about thinking of =
the
others when you develop and test, this is entirely different.

>> Nobody -apart from a handful of folks- cares about a free BeOS.
>Hmmm... I know lots of ppl in the Linux/FS community that are diing
>to see BeOS become open-sourced :-) They just say :
>"BeOS ? it's proprietary, it sux"

Your quotation doesn't fit. If they said "I'll develop for BeOS when it's=
 open
source" I would say you have a point. Saying "it's proprietary, it sux" s=
hows
closeness, narrow-minded opinion, and the person who said this is definit=
ely
not someone I'd like to be working with.
I don't think people saying this will ever bring anything good to the BeO=
S,
even if the BeOS was entirely open-sourced.

>> that they put money on the table, because they/I know that 1) at
>> date X there will be a new version or an update to the code, 2)
>> within 5min. I get an answer to my support query, 3) if I go to
>> Shop A, they know about the system I am using and 4) the software
>> vendor offers a BeOS version of their product.
>
>Others don't have to have a vendor that knows their system, cause they k=
now
it
>better than everyone else, because _they_ did it.

Therefore you're saying only the guys developing OpenBeOS will be able to=
 use
it? Sorry for playing the Devil's advocate here but what I undestand from=
 what
you write is that it takes to be a developer to be able to know the OpenB=
eOS,
which is very selfish. It means my grand mother can't use OpenBeOS? But t=
hat's
just what I want! Then she needs a vendor to know the OpenBeOS.

>> 2) I want to develop and market it professionally / commercially.
>OK for develop, market, well, maybe.

I wouldn't say you meant OK. Because the whole sentence says "develop
professionally AND market professionally" while all your point is about
hobbyist development. I don't mean that you write bad code [ah those tric=
ks of
thinking in your mother tongue instead of trying to think in the language=
 the
sentence was written], I mean you write it on your spare time, that's hob=
byist
development. Professional development is doing it for a living, which you=

can't do if it's free :P

>> 3) I want to pay the people who work for me.
>
>I didn't say I wanted to work for _you_ I want to work for _BeOS_.

Huh huh, I might be wrong but I believe you want to work more for open so=
urce
than for BeOS.

>> 4) I don't want anyone tell me "sorry, I can't finish that
>>    crucial bit of the kernel because I need to find work to put
>>    food on my table".
>
>The problem is most of us (at least me, I'm still a student), can't
>stick to delays, just because we have got others things to do.

And therefore you underdeliver with overdelays. What happens? Users and
application developers will just walk away because they don't see anythin=
g
coming. When you're done there's nobody but you to use your work.

>Open-sourcing (GPL-ing ?) BeOS as I said will cause all the open-source
>community to endorse us (and trust it doesn't reduce itself to a Finish =

>beer-drinking man and a heary one that loves animals).

I don't buy this for a second. Come on, you're a dreamer. It's a nice dre=
am
but if you want to achieve your goal you HAVE TO be pessimistic.
I know someone who used to say: "Always get prepared for the worse if you=
 want
the best to happen". And I'm afraid he's right. If you want the Open BeOS=

project to go somewhere you MUST think about this.
The open source community has not really endorsed AtheOS so far. The BSD
community is very different from the Linux community. Which community do =
you
expect to join you? Those who say "BeOS is proprietary, it sux"? They wil=
l get
everything they think is nice from OpenBeOS and put it in Linux, not the =
other
way round.

>> Yep, and this is EXACTLY why I said "let's NOT try to have all
>> these different initiatives that confuse Palm", but let's stand
>> there united, but let's make it clear to Palm that our intention
>> is to replace the licenced code with free code and to create a
>> collaborative system on commercial basis. =

>
>I think some won't agree on the commertial thingy, but mainly I agree.

As far as I'm concerned I wholeheartadly agree to Helmar's vision. I thin=
k
it's the best for BeOS. And I'm interested in the BeOS and in networking,=
 not
in open source itself.

Jean


____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.amexmail.com/?A=3D1

Other related posts: