[openbeos] Helmar
- From: Fred McCann <booleanman@xxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:08:13 -0700
I think we should let Helmar see what kind of deal he can strike with
Palm before we criticize too much. With luck perhaps he can work out a
deal that makes all parties happy. Like most of you though, I do have
concerns about the BeOS being developed by a company. I don't have
anything against closed source software; I believe it is superior to
open-sourced approaches in most cases. My Linux friends tell me that
open source is the future and that Linux is the proof. My response was
always, "Yes, a loosely knit bunch of hackers we able to recreate a 20
year old operating system. Bravo. A small group of focused, paid
engineers at Be created a modern work of art in the same time." Not that
creating Linux was no small feat, but I think Be had them beat.
I'm still of the mind that an organized, focused, and paid (which
usually means closed-source) group will usually get better results. On
the down side, I think it can be said that every misstep and pitfall in
the BeOS history was due to the fact that Be Inc was a company, not a
group of individuals. As a company, Be's decisions were driven by market
forces and investors more than anything else (...which is the way it
should be for a company).
1. Dropping the BeBox
Hey, weren't these cool? Hell I wanted one. Be quickly learned
that making there own machines wasn't financailly viable. Now they're
dead and not even supported by the latest version of the
OS. All BeBox adoptors got screwed. I don't think we could do any better
on the hardware front, but we're not trying.
2. Dropping support for PPC hardware.
This was obviously motivated by Apple killing off clones. Made
perfect financial sense. It also orphaned all the early adopters and
developers. Would an open source initiative drop support? My
guess is no.
3. Supporting mostly Intel based motherboards.
Now I suppose you can argue that Be had limited resources and
had to target specific architectures to meet performace requirements. I
think you can also argue that this is a direct result of
sizeable Intel investments in Be Inc. Again, an open-source movement
would most likely target all the computers used by it's own
community.
4. The BeIA.
Well this one is obvious. Microsoft shut the door on
preinstalled BeOS systems before JLG could even get his foot in the
door. I can't fault Be Inc here; as a company, they need to
make money. If they can't compete in the desktop market (for illegal
reasons, but reality is a bitch), then they have to sell their product
somewhere else. BeOS users and developers weren't completely
abandoned, but they were relegated to second class citizens behind the
BeIA. I think it's obvious to say that an open sourced
BeOS would not abandon the desktop for appliances or some other target.
5. Selling out to Palm.
Well, this sorta sucks, but it made financial sense to throw in
the towel. Internet appliances were a major dead end. There was little
money coming in and a pile of debt a mile high. Time to pack it
in. Obviously, due to the nature of open sourced code, selling it as IP
isn't really a possiblility. Nor would we have to worry about
pleasing investors.
We may never be certain why Be Inc failed as a company, but I don't
think that it was due to marketing as Helmar suggests. I remember Be
wooing developers in the early days when you could get a copy of DR8
from MacTech magazine. I also remember articles in the major PC
magazines and I got tired of seeing JLG's face on CNN in the early days
of the Microsoft Antitrust case. Be Inc set up international
distribution channels and gave away a free version of the OS. I don't
know about you, but Be got me so fired up that I was making converts FOR
them. Considering their limited resources, I'm not sure what they could
have done better as far as marketing.
So the bottom line is, I'm not opposed to closed source software and I
doubt that most of the people in this group are either. I think we
should wait for Helmar to do what he can. I know my support for a closed
BeOS would be contingent on these concerns:
1. What assurances can you give that a for profit BeOS wouldn't
abaondon users as Be Inc did with PPC support and switching focus to BeIA?
2. Since this is for profit, how do you intend to get it on
people's PC's? As far as I know, the Microsoft bootloader problem still
exists. Can you improve on what Be Inc accomplished in
sales?
3. Can you assure us that all our work will not be lost if some
new BeOS company fails?
So, if Helmar can strike a deal that can answer these questions, I say
we support it. In any case I think we are strong enough right now to do
it on our own.
-Fred McCann
Where ever I go, there I am... in spite of the restraining order.
Other related posts:
