[openbeos] Re: Javascript-capable Browser
- From: "Michael Phipps" <mphipps1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 18:56:28 -0500
>> >I think it is in OpenBeOS's best interests to do whatever it takes to
>> >get a GOOD javascript browser released with R1 that is rock solid.
>
>Agree. Particularly with the "with R1" part. New users get their openBeOS
>CD, install it, fire it up, get on the internet ... everything good so far
>.... then their favourite site uses javascript, so it doesn't work properly.
>Baaaad. You never get a second chance to make a first impression, and I fear
>that without a Java-script capable browser you run the risk of getting seen
>as a nice, fun OS that you can't actually use to do the stuff you need to
>do. Remember that?
Sure. But the fact is that there is a fairly large amount of software that
needs to
be written. We have our hands ***100%*** full (at least) finishing the OS.
If you have a choice between R1 on date X, and R1 with a complete browser on
date
X+Y, which will you choose?
>Would it be possible to write something that different developers could
>modify for their browsers, so you avoid favouring one developer over the
>other? Need to be even-handed.
This has been suggested multiple times in multiple ways. Something like
BHtmlViewer.
Or using replicants to view different data types.
>However you structure it, just so long as it comes out with R1, methinks.
If it is not part of OBOS, we can't and shouldn't promise that.
And I very seriously doubt that it will become part of OBOS.
Among other reasons, I would have to start asking people to jump off of the kits
that they are on to work on a browser.
>More importantly, what we are talking about here is merely one instance of a
>more general issue (and IMHO an absolutely critical one), i.e.:
>
>What is the goal of this project - is it to rewrite an OS, or is it to
>rewrite an OS _and_ try to ensure that people use it? IMHO, only the latter
>will ensure the long-term survival of openBeOS. If it _was_ just the
>technical excellence of the OS that ensured success, why did Be fall over in
>the first place?
Burning too much money. Fact is, anyone can stay in business if they have money.
No matter what else is going on. I worked for a company with an executive staff
that wasn't smart enough to get out of their own way. But their main product was
selling like hot cakes. So nothing else mattered. When their product stopped
selling,
they started hemmoraging money.
Be burned > 1.5 million a MONTH. WAY too much for their sales numbers.
>The stated goals of the OpenBeOS project are:
>
>1. "the re-creation, followed by the extension, of the BeOS."
>
>and
>
>2. "Why was OpenBeOS started? Simple: to keep the BeOS alive."
Granted. :-) But we can't do it alone. Truth be told, no one would want OBOS if
there was no software for it. Just as Be (and everyone but MS, really) depends
on
other companies to make software for their OS, so, too, do we.
>1. is a purely technical goal, whereas 2. includes 1. as its first priority
>but also implies the other things needed for a user/developer community -
>certain apps, infrastructure, an effort to acquire enough users to make the
>whole thing viable, etc.
>
>Some of these things will be somewhat removed from the OS per se, but will
>make a huge difference to user uptake. A javascript-capable browser is one.
>But to push the point, let me talk about pure "eye candy" - having something
>like BeTheme in the distro, with a whole bunch of really good-looking
>themes, will make a _big_ difference to user uptake. To most people on this
>list BeTheme is probably not a huge deal, but to your grandmother it is
>really, really cool. Another e.g. of this is the QING plugin in SoundPlay -
>whenever I put that on when we have people over I get a "that's cool!"
>reaction.
I think that themability is HIGH on people's priority list. But, just like so
many other
things, the question is how long you want to wait. We could certainly plan and
build
an OS with *ANY* realistic feature set. How long until we finish is another
question.
The fact is, we are building a bare bones release for R1. The minimum possible
release
that meets our charter. R2 and on are where the "cool stuff" goes.
>And yes - I did spend time working in marketing (6 years), though marketing
>is only _part_ of the "other stuff" needed. I've been thinking about the
>"other stuff" issue for a while. While the thoughts I've put down here are
>nowhere near as systematic as I would like, if people here can see some
>sense in what I'm saying, I am quite willing to contribute in this area.
I absolutely see the sense. But you have to look at some realistic numbers.
I, the most optimistic of estimators, think that it will be at least August
before
we could ship an R1. At least. IF we had to write a browser (which several teams
of people have tried and either failed or at least progressed slowly), I would
say maybe
mid to late 2003. Maybe. Then we take all of the other things that people have
asked about:
themability
internationalization
newer API
hardware OpenGL
multi-user
etc
You start looking at 2005. By that point, no one on this team will be even
VAGUELY motivated.
Almost starts to sound like GNU Hurd. :-)
None of these are BAD ideas. NONE.
But there are limits to what we can manage.
If you are really into the browser thing, I would recommend that you contribute
to the Bezilla team.
Or NetOptimist. Or (if necessary) start your own. But I really can not see any
reason to have a browser
team under the OBOS umbrella.
>Anton.
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
>http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
>
>
>
Other related posts:
