[openbeos] Re: Why BeUnited?
- From: "Richard Crawford" <richardcrawford@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 23:44:51 PST
Action: /me gets inspired and all patriotic for the BeOS community...
The name "BeUnited" (not the website, but rather, these two words put
together) remind me of the fact that if the BeOS community cannot "be
united" in decisions, then BeOS will go nowhere really really fast.
There is no more mother-cat to control the kitties at play, and so, the
kitties are learning to fend for theirselves. I do, however, think that
everyone has done very well at working together, no contest! I'm not a
member of the OBOS team, but I am very proud of the accomplishments
being achieved daily through this team.
Let us all as BeOS users never forget what we are all here for. The
BeOS is a finely-tuned machine that OBOS is recreating, to achieve
functionality as well as the beauty, ease of use, and the professional
image of the former BeOS. All of these areas are important, because
they all play a part in creating what we know of as BeOS.
When the time comes for OBOS to be distributed on such a scale that
even Be theirselves had done, and when OBOS becomes even bigger than
that, I am certain that sites like BeUnited.org and possibly the new-
coming YellowTab.com would be marvelous compliments to the communities'
lifelines. Go, OpenBeOS! Focus, focus, focus, one day at a time, and
trust some to look ahead in the future for you. You guys (and gals!)
are great! Please keep up the great work...
Action: /me calms down again. :P
>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:
