[openbeos] Re: MIPS32 port for GSoC
- From: Simon Taylor <simontaylor1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:11:55 +0000
>
> From: Ingo Weinhold <bonefish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> On 2007-03-21 at 15:17:26 [+0100], Jonas Sundström <jonas@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
> > A MIPS port would not debase Haiku or somehow alter its focus on
> > personal (desktop) computing. I don't think it would take away any more
> > mentoring resources than would guiding any other developer learning the
> > Haiku kernel.
>
> I don't want to be the party-pooper, but I think, this porting discussion
> is moot. A port to a platform, PPC, MIPS, SPARC, whatever, will happen, if
> and only if a developer feels like doing it and does it. And if such a port
> is done in a reasonable way, we will, of course, add it to the official
> Haiku sources, whatever the platform.
Of course everyone is free to work on whatever they want - and that will
determine what actually happens. I'd still argue about the wisdom of "of course
we will add it, whatever the platform".
Say the kernel is ported to something like an iPod or a smartphone. OK, the
kernel may run on the device, but will it still have StyledEdit? ShowImage? All
the irrelevant preference apps? I'd guess not - so then will the
HaikuSmartPhoneImageBrowser written for that particular platform also be
included in the Haiku tree even though it is useless on x86? Do we still want
to call the system Haiku?
This is the kind of case where I would strongly argue a separate project is
better. It can be linked with Haiku, but it really should live in its own
independent tree IMHO.
> > This is what I would like to spend my time on. Haiku's google money
> > would be a nice incentive, but I can understand that people don't want
> > to see that money spent on something that is not immediately useful to
> > most people,
I take all your points about learning the kernel being useful for Haiku
overall, but I still can't honestly see what benefit there is in doing the port
in the main Haiku tree. Wherever you do the work, you would still be supported
by the Haiku folks, and you would still benefit from all the kernel experience
you talk about.
The other problem I see with a proliferation of esoteric ports in the main tree
is one of releases - when it comes to Haiku R1 how can you define what that
means on these strange devices? Do all the ports have to be up to date for the
release, or do we just leave some to sit stagnant and unused in the tree?
Desktop focus is one of the cornerstones of Haiku, and one of the main reasons
I am personally interested in the project. I don't think you can claim that the
core devs are staying focussed yet still allow minority-interest ports to live
in the official tree.
Some of the messages in this thread have argued that other platforms can now
also be considered desktops. What I'm concerned about is that widening the
scope of "Desktop" just leads to a loss of focus by the back door. That's the
focus equivalent of feature-creep, another thing I'm passionate about Haiku
avoiding. I know it's hard to resist, but I don't think there's anything more
important for the long-term success of Haiku.
Sorry for the rant.
Simon
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
Other related posts:
