> Yes,....thin air. A company with an obviously successful track record > which, unlike Be Inc., is still operational. Obviously successful? Bzzzt. Wrong answer. They are no Wind River. They are no QNX, they are no MS, They are no Apple. There are no indicators here that PetrOS isn't anything more than a hobby business or "pet project" for Trumpet. > Exactly *who* was it that was being offered the 'freebe' again? A freebie, with legal strings attached. Thanks, but no thanks. > If anything we should be happy that people with track records feel like > aligning with the project in some small way or even take an interest at all. > How much interest has Be Inc. shown in the project? Ask Palm. Who cares? What Be does now is irrelevent (unless of course there is threat of legal action against us). I've got a track record and I'd say a good 3/4 (if not all of the people listed on the member's page have good track records too. See: http://open-beos.sourceforge.net/members.html The point being is that we're offering our skills without restrictive legal conditions being placed upon them. > Other than a trifle of encouragement and a hearty pat on the bum, > how many ex Be engineers are *actively* programming > (spelled 'believing in the project') for openbeos? > It's awefully quiet out there in the Be camp, even while NDAs are > considered. So what's wrong with a *BETTER* company picking up > the slack and showing some foresight? Defining them as 'better' is a purely subjective opinion, and doesn't help your argument. The resultant software being worked on is not in any condition, shape, or form that is ready for any useful purpose. By your logic I used the term 'better' I could easily argue for Red Hat, Microsoft or some other company more provably profitable does that show them as having foresight? Nope. > That other Peter . * * * . \|/ * * , . * ' * . . . * , * --*-- . ` * , . * , . David Sowsy . /|\ BeOS Rebel and Coder . * . http://dsowsy.nanorevolution.com . * . * . .