[openbeos] Re: The world as we know it
- From: "Nathan Whitehorn" <nathan.whitehorn@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 12:47:16 EDT (-0400)
> "Nathan Whitehorn" <nathan.whitehorn@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The fact that we are doing it doesn't make it any less pointless.
> > It's
> > like Bush wanting to invade Iraq. It's idiotic, dangerous, horribly
>
> By any means, comparing those two things is hopefully the direct
> cause
> of an insane brain...
> The only thing which is pointless is this discussion; the goal to
> recreate R5 isn't just pointless because you don't understand why we
> are doing it.
> If you don't want to get it, perhaps have a look at B.E.OS - AFAICT
> they mostly share your opinion in that regard.
If my explanation of why we are doing it is incorrect, please enlighten
me. And I must say I am much, much closer to OBOS than B.E.OS
philosophically, for reasons that I remarked in my original e-mail.
> > > And who says we can't introduce a new API one week after R1 is
> > > out?
> > > :
> > There are quite a few structural issues behind an API. The API
> > doesn't,
> > for instance, support non-rectangular views because the app_server
> > doesn't. And the app_server doesn't partly because the API is based
> > on
> > rectangles. The API isn't simply a wrapper for the internal
> > operations
> > of the OS, it often *is* the internal operation of the OS. And,
> > also,
> > the number of people here against any modifications, anywhere, at
> > any
> > time to the API is really quite extraordinary.
>
> The problem is that we don't have one person who can decide about API
> changes - changing the API has a lot of impact on the whole BeOS.
> It's
> not a trivial thing.
Why do we need one?
> And and API also doesn't implicitly cause any structural issues - at
> least that doesn't have to be a restriction. For example, the
> OpenBeOS
> kernel will support aliases in R1, but there might be no API to
> access
> this functionality.
> An API has to be well designed, because when we get to R1, we are
> mostly stuck with it. Just have a look at our MDR - the API is still
> poor in many regards; if we had to be binary compatible now and
> forever, we'd have a tough time fixing all those issues.
Exactly. Which is why I'm arguing against binary compatibility for the
time being.
-Nathan
--
Fortune Cookie Says:
Don't you feel more like you do now than you did when you came in?
Other related posts:
