[openbeos] Re: Hi from the PetrOS camp.

  • From: "Erik Jakowatz" <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 09:18:02 -0800

I think there's a middle ground here, simply by virtue of the fact that 
we're operating under a *very* liberal open source license.  There's 
absolutely no reason why Peter couldn't add support to PetrOS for BeOS 
while we continue chugging along on our own kernel -- everything we do 
will be freely available for the Trumpet folks to use as well.  And I 
think OpenBeOS (or, rather, the BeOS community at large) stands to gain 
in that PetrOS would become one more place where a BeOS developer's work 
can be used, broadening our reach that much further.  Additionally, I'm 
sure there would be some contributions to the OpenBeOS source base from 
Trumpet in the process.

I say go for it, Peter!


>>Fair enough.  However, I can see the OpenBeos project being split into 
>>parts that could operate in parallel to complete the project faster 
>>allowing for the BeOS API to be po
>>of alternative projects which might be more suitable, I'd be 
>>To answer your other question as to what we'd gain, well we'd gain 
>>larger user base than we might get if we stuck to Win32 only, plus it 
>>demonstrate that our OS is more powerful than being just a Win32 
>>The design philosophy is of being able to support more than one user 
>>If the idea works well, your project might gain a little momentum and 
>>credibility from a commercial point of view by having a commercial 
>>willing to work with you.
>>So I guess the answer is "thanks, but no thanks", no?
>I'm no kernel jockey, but I think you might be onto something. Would 
>possibly be a way that to somehow work together on this one? We *are* 
>source, after all. Perhaps I just don't understand the situation. My 

Data is not information, and information is not knowledge: knowledge is 
not understanding, and understanding is not wisdom.
        - Philip Adams

Other related posts: