[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
>
>
>
Jean,

I, too have talked with Helmar and agree with his vision. Beos is the 
reason, not open. Beos is the best of all worlds, as it is. Easy for 
people like me, (and your grandmother;-), and accessible to the 
technologist. To appeal to millions instead of thousands, it must be 
"easy." 

Palm is holding the trump cards right now. We must see where they play 
it. Then everyone can make an informed decision rather than look through 
rose colored glasses.

Yes, I'm a capitalist, an entrepreneur, profit driven. That's how I was 
raised in the U.S.A. The system works. I create my own financial 
problems, and I solve them. BeOS can displace many other OSs if we make 
a lot of noise. Noise is what sells stuff. Sizzle, not the steak. and 
lots of BeOS users is what I'd like to see. This is why Helmar's way is 
the way I prefer. Palm is the final arbiter.

Meanwhile, I'm happy to test for openbeos, as long as I get the 
technical guidance that I need.

Rich 

**************************
Richard S. Lewine       
Achievement Alliance Corp.
1237 Stump Rd.  PO Box 100
Montgomeryville, PA 18936
215-997-5954  fax 215-997-2324


-----------------------------------
This message was sent with the demo version of Postmaster, a BeOS mail client.
For more information, please visit http://kennyc.com/postmaster

Other related posts: