[openbeos] Final Answer - BeUnited : unacceptable!!!
- From: "Michael Phipps" <mphipps1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 23:26:56 -0400
I know that a lot has been written about this.
And a lot of it is right, some is wrong, and some is confusing.
So I thought that I would set the record straight.
The original poster:
>[snip]
>I hope I misunderstood your words but, it looks like the OpenBeOS
>guys are going to accept the rules dictated (cause a standard is a
>rule IMHO) from third-party company/organization...
No. We are working together. I have said (on this list, among other places)
that I am a member of the BU board of advisors. Simon, Deej and I talk
regularly and I
count them as friends. These standards aren't something to be created in an
ivory
tower, somewhere. First of all, R5 is the standard to begin with. But wouldn't
it be
pretty cool to have a standard for what comes next? Just like POSIX? Or ANSI?
Does Borland, or GCC accept the rules dictated by ANSI? I guess that you could
look
at it that way, if you choose. It is really more about working with the
community or even
"competitors", although I don't see anyone as a competitor in our case, to make
the user
experience better.
>so, try to figure out this...
>
>BlueOS, MickeysMouseOS and SnoopyOS decide to move all startup
>scripts to a completely different system (think something like
>SystemV vs BSD), and BeUnited accepts these changes: now what should
>we do?
We look at it and think about it. We object strongly to those changes if we
have good reason.
We argue and jump around to convince them to do the Right Thing. Beyond that,
well, let's go there
when we get there. I would rather be friends until I have no recourse but to be
enemies. Chances
are excellent that such a thing will never happened.
>Change our system cause others changed their mind?
I wouldn't even consider joining up with a group that we didn't have adequite
representation in.
>Personally, I don't really care about the others, i mean our aim
>is to develop the new BeOS, isn't it?
>And how can we innovate if someone has already the ability to change
>our destiny?
That is the thing - we will always be free to depart. There is nothing holding
us here.
>And if BlueOS, whateverOS and PopeOS insert new kits in their system
>what should we do?
>Write our own kit following the example of the others, cause
>BeUnited told us it has to be?!?!?
>
>This is simply ridiculous, i mean, we are OpenBeOS (or at least
>who writes code is OpenBeOS..) and this idea of standards dictated
>from someone else simply sucks...i'm sorry...
>
>In the BSD world, the FreeBSD guys have their own idea and IF
>someone else is already working on something similar they will
>adopt that system, but they don't accept any order from anyone
>(organization, company, religion, or whatever...) they decide
>on their own...
>
>I'm sorry but the idea of the standards created from someone else
>is simply senseless...
Not at all. It was a well considered way to get communication and help.
BU is organizing apps and drivers, for example.
>everything OBVIOUSLY in my HUMBLE opinion, and i hope NOBODY
>will be offended by my words/thought/etcetc.... =)
Not at all. I would just ask that if anyone has objections, thoughts, or
questions, you ask.
Many times, there are good explanations for such things. This whole thread
started out with a mistaken
impression - that BU would be dictating to us. That is simply not the case. Any
more than ANSI dictates.
The worst case scenario is that we lose our "BU Standard" stamp of approval
and/or BU apps don't work on OBOS.
--------------------------------------------
Some other comments:
I personally don't want anything to do with BeUnited, and IIRC they gave their
official support (for all the good it will do) well after OBOS was started
up.
Please bring this up to me offline. There have been many changes within
BU.
One thing (as was brought up) is that BU was persuing Palm for
licensing.
OBOS was always the "fallback" plan.
I thought that it was a good idea, at the time, and still do.
One advantage might have been that we could have received help with our
clean room design - when we said "how does foo work?", someone from BU
could have read
the code, and written a white paper on how it worked. That would have
been very helpful.
Can you please keep the discussion friendly. Smart pokes like this are what
makes a mailing list degenerate into a childish frenzy.
Please, everyone. Come on. Let's be friends. Unless someone is an
obvious MS troll. ;-)
Just to clarify: for all intents and purposes, OpenBeOS is BeUnited and
BeUnited is OpenBeOS. They are the *same* people. If they want to wear
two hats, so be it. I think we gain a lot from keeping OpenBeOS a
purely technical group, and making marketing types call themselves by a
different name. Again: it's the *same* people. They aren't likely to go
against their own interests, are they?
While there are some of the same people in both groups, they are not
the same groups.
As this poster goes on to say, one is more marketing than technical.
You delude yourself big time if you think you stand only the slightest chance
in
this marketing-driven world.
Yeah, I have heard this before. We all have. And I certainly think that
there is some element of
truth to it. But everything has its season. And a way of going about
it. I think that OBOS, the OS,
could be made very popular by some company who wants to be our RedHat.
They do the marketing
and toss some $$$ our way. OBOS the group is a lot like Linux, the
group. Can you imagine Stallman
and Linus starting a company back in 1991 with a half working kernel,
gcc 1.0 and a marketing plan?
They would have been laughed out. No, OBOS is a tech group and will so
stay. I would *welcome* any
marketing group that wants to work with us.
---------------------------
Anyway. Let's get back to work.
Other related posts:
- » [openbeos] Final Answer - BeUnited : unacceptable!!!
