Daniel Reinhold wrote: > They're probably also interested in having an actual > product to write for. Which currently does exist in form of BeOS R5. > That's why we concentrate on what we do in this project. Hasn't escaped me. ;) > Helmar, you must surely feel that we are clueless, since > this is about the 57th time you've made that point on > this list. But I think we have our heads screwed on > correctly. Did I say anything about OBOS here? Not that I know of. I hope you DO have your heads screwed on right, because I'd hate to see all that work going into OBOS be in vain simply because nothing changes on the commercial and marketing front of BeOS - which (IIRC) was its downfall in the first place. > Btw, was your post supposed to be an example of that > professionalism that you were pining for? It sounded a > bit angry (the kind of anger that can piss off dedicated > people). Disappointed and perhaps disillusioned, but not angry. Anger has no meaning - just a waste of energy. But I take your point, also on the note of repetition. ;) The problem BU (and OBOS through its 'affiliation') is facing is that it is and wants to remain a community organisation while what the market needs beyond OBOS is an organisation that -as pointed out for the 58th time ;)- also addresses the needs of professional developers/companies, and BU doesn't do that (yet) - perhaps never will. Quote Deej: "However, there's only so much time in the day of the _VERY_FEW_ of us that are doing things for BU,..." Unquote. You do the sums. Michael said that "planning something like this is way beyond what we (OBOS) can do.", and this is exactly where the real problem lies. There is a distinct conflict between what BeOS needs to become successful and what its users and partly also developers are willing to give it. Unless that's sorted out and a way forward agreed upon, you'll continue to create _pure magic_ that few beyond this group will ever experience. Helmar