>Michael Phipps wrote: > >> We have: Anything finished as of your reading of this is >> open source. That is better for the community because >> they can be assured that it will never focus shift or go >> away on them. > >'Better' not by default though, only if it actually results >in something tangible. What _that_ is is usually up for the >user to define. Yes, better by default. If BeOS had been open source (and yes, I know that it couldn't have ever been), people who disagreed with focus shifts or discorporation could have forked. Sometimes forking is a good thing. >Never say never. Sometime reality or opportunity hits you in >the face like a steam train, and then to say "it will never >focus shift" is like saying "640k ought to be enough for >anyone". In this case, never makes sense. Because so long as it is open source, no one can stop people from doing their own thing with it. >> We are: [snip] We are implementing the pinnacle of Be's >> (released) design ideas. > >Which doesn't say anything about marketability, acceptance >or commercial 3rd party apps. It'll be amazing to have that >"pinnacle" available, but again, on its own it means next to >nothing, because the more people use OBOS, the more you can >bet will ask for "driver x" and "support for y", etc. You have been saying this since OBOS started. and I still understand and respect your perspective. But, honestly, marketing and sales is a different department. This is engineering. >> We will: R1 is the *FIRST* release. We have many great >> ideas (and welcome yours, on the GE list) for R2 and >> beyond. The best is yet to come. > >Which doesn't exclude bad things to come, does it? I am one >of those who'd love to banish Windows from my machine, but >I'm realistic. Involvement in two successful (!!) Internet >startups taught me a great deal, and that includes that not >all works out as planned - very little, actually - and _never_ >on time. Developers will leave you, copyright issues may >arise, technical problems may persist and there I didn't >mention a word about what makes the OS useful: its >applications. I am not sure how this applies. Developers have left. So have team leads. They are replaced. That is really what open source is about. It is a community effort. No one could do this on their own. Yes, applications are a question. They always have been, for BeOS and for any "alternative" OS. The difference between us (OBOS) and Be is that we can afford to be patient. Plus we have a great design out of the gate, where as Be had to build it. >Sounds pessimistic? Ain't supposed to, but is realistic. And >the more realistic you approach the subject matter, the less >likely your expectations will let you down. :) I don't think that we are unrealistic. But if I can't be an OBOS cheerleader, who can be?