[openbeos] Re: [openbeos]need help
- From: "anilv" <anilv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:32:01 +0530
I wanted to learn how to code for kernel. Are there any
tutorials on Web and also suggest me some good books to
learn more bt kernel. Where should i begin with!
Thanks
Anil
>-----Original Message-----
>From: openbeos-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:openbeos-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Richard Crawford
>Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 1:15 PM
>To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [openbeos] Re: Why BeUnited?
>
>
>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:
