[openbeos] Why BeUnited?
- From: "Donovan Schulteis" <deej@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 21:17:07 -0500
Why not BeUnited? :P Seriously...
> >> But I don't like the idea that _one_ distributor
> >> shall have control of the "certification" process.
> >
> >Unfortunately, IMHO, this is the only way forward at
> >this point in time, for reasons that should be well
> >known.
Um, yeah. Let me see, you don't want one distributor controlling the
certification process... even if it is _you_ that was the distributor?
You are saying that you would be the most pure version, you would
distribute it (via download from the site), and then you'd control the
certifications... hmmm... sounds like the same thing.
!!Hold that thought - don't hit the reply button just yet... hear this
out first!!
[Various Clippings]
> They arent. OBOS itself could do a certification process,
> for all I care. In fact, I think we should be the one, as
> we're the one doing the actual main code line. You can
> offer suggestions, ofcourse, but this has been possible
> right from the start of this project.....
[...]
> We don't have to give in to anyone, we can do as we (OBOS)
> please, as no one else has got write access to our CVS tree,
> that's what it all comes down to, as far as we are concerned
> (b/w view).
OBOS could. And through BeUnited. BeUnited has always been
a "community" site/organization/whatever. Never has someone asked to
be part of BeUnited that I have said no to. Never has anyone requested
to start a new project under BeUnited that I have denied (how many of
those actually seen light of day is another thing - but to no fault of
my own solely). The whole Palm licensing structure was a bunch of
people that said "we should do this under the name of BeUnited".
I started BeUnited with other members of the community, whom no longer
are around on BeUnited, less Jean, who has always lurked in the dark of
BeUnited :P ... I've run BeUnited out of the lack of anyone else
volunteering until recently - but in no way is the site/name mine, nor
anyone else's. BeUnited is a community site (except for the fact that
I've brunted the server costs myself since it's beginnings - along with
other sites I've been involved in).
What I'm saying here is that BeUnited is _not_ a commercial entity...
it is a community entity. But it could be a commercial entity for the
community. We take the "pure" OBOS CVS - add in some third party
applications and distribute it, returning the money back to the
community - the devs. I say "we", meaning the OBOS developers and the
OBOS users that have other skills, such as marketing and other useful
skills. This means OBOS _will_ get to certify the applications. OBOS
will control at least what one distribution goes out like, and it would
be the official OBOS distribution. I'm not saying it should be
_called_ BeUnited OBOS (a la RedHat Linux)... I'm saying that BeUnited
should be the organization under which all this is structured.
Sure OBOS can set up a certification program. Sure OBOS can say "this
is what OBOS is _supposed_ to be, according to our CVS". So why do
this separate of OBOS then? Because can the OBOS team, as an
OpenSource OS team also include in closed source offerings (of which
I'm currently securing arrangements for some no longer developed BeOS
source code - which will remain closed source, and royalties will be
paid to the original author). Could OBOS make a distribution that was
a "full distro", including other commercial software arranged with
other BeOS commercial developers?
OBOS could certainly start a commercial entity to do just that - but
that is exactly what I am proposing here. I'm not saying those that
have previously been involved with BeUnited would control OBOS. Not
even. I'm saying OBOS and BeUnited "team" together to do just that -
create a commercial half of OBOS to set standards (setting standards
could still be OBOS, I don't care - it was just an idea), to sell
distributions, to sell _other_closed_source products alongside of OBOS.
What I'm saying is that if OBOS takes off in any way... BeUnited would
become what we see as the community now. Not sure if that is clear in
what I'm saying... If OBOS is successful, BeUnited would represent,
_with_ the actual OBOS team, the core of the BeOS community's ideals
and dreams into one place. Idealistic, sorta.
Glass Elevator worries about future directions, OBOS worries about
coding the now, BeUnited worries about packaging up OBOS and
marketing/distributing it out to the world in a complete, user-
friendly, and _pure_ to the developers form. All the same people in
all groups, really, just three distict "organizational structures" of
who does what.
The standards are set, by BeUnited or not (not meaning: set by OBOS
themselves) - but BeUnited follows them to the tee. Why? Because
BeUnited is the same people as OBOS.
I'm not trying to take any power or control from the OBOS team here -
I'm trying to extend YOUR CONTROL into the commercial world, before
someone else does, because that WILL happen, whether you like it or
not. What about if there's a "falling out", you may ask? What if
BeUnited wanted to do something else then OBOS? Well, considering
members of the OBOS team are already part of BeUnited, and many more
would also be there - I doubt it, but yeah, could happen - just the
same as the OBOS team itself splitting on ideas.
What about excercising control over other "competing" distributions
through certifications and "official stamps"? Well, if the developers
of OBOS don't think it should be certified, then it probably shouldn't,
right? Does it make a difference whether those developers are under
the OBOS "open source group" or under the entity of BeUnited? No, not
anytime in the foreseeable future. But imagine a day when OBOS
distro's bring to life the whole OSS on the desktop dream of so many
Linux distro's? While out there a bit, not extremely unlikely. Does
the "Open Source Group" take legal action against someone
stamping "official OBOS certified" on the boxes of their own rogue
distro? Does the Open Source Group take legal action on license
violations? Does the Open Source Group start making programs for
certifications of OBOS technicians and OEMs? What about selling
commercial apps with the "official distribution"? Advertising?
Worldwide Distribution of a CD version of the OS?
I think about now you'd say, "well, we'd start a company for that."
Hmm, that's what I'm saying we do now. I don't care if it's called
BeUnited. It could be called OBOSux.com for all I care. :P But it
was suggested to me by more than one person that the name "BeUnited"
would be very fitting for such a company/organization, so I'm offering
it up. Yes, I'd like to play an important part... but I've always
wanted to play an important part in this community. I've always wanted
to make a difference in the future of the OS - so far to little avail,
but I'm trying my damnedest, damnit. :)
> PS: No hard feelings towards BeUnited, let me state that
> clearly here. Just saying that I want to steer clear of
> commercial steering in this project, especially at this
> point in time......
No offense is taken. I'm just saying that let those of us - that can't
code to the level needed to be of help right now - work on getting this
stuff in place. Writing documents describing UI/etc guidelines,
setting up worldwide distribution networks with the BUGs, figuring out
the "business plan", getting a "grassroots advertising scheme" mapped
out and organized. Not control what you do... you would control what
we do. But we are the commercial front of you. We start planning now,
because if we don't start planning from the beginning, someone else
might make it to the starting gate before us/you (BeUnited/OBOS) - not
that that would be bad, but it _could_ be bad if it was some company
funded by Paul Allen or something (his paws and money is in everything
these days :P ).
If I have been clear on these "intentions"... I'll shut up now. If I
haven't, I don't know what else I can say... so I'll shut up now. :P
Deej
Other related posts:
