[openbeos] Re: One spoon at a time
- From: "Daniel Reinhold" <danielr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 20:05:38 CDT
I like your idea about each team working and testing sem-independently
against an R5 system. I was basically thinking along the same lines.
But it brings to mind the matter of what a release constitutes and how
it would be doled out.
That is, programmers would likely be using/testing some bastardized
hybrid system where some (in the beginning, most) of the binaries are
Be's from the installation and a select few are the new open source
versions being tested. But when it comes time to release, it only makes
sense for all the binaries to be ready and able to work together
because of the legal ramifications.
As an example, look at 'www.lebuzz.com'. There Dane Scott offers a CD
for purchase that contains BeOS R5 PE (and goodies). He can do this
only because Be Inc. (who owned the rights) didn't mind. At any point,
Be could have said 'cut it out!'. And now it's Palm who has the power.
I don't think it's likely that they will go after him, just that they
can.
Now if OpenBeOS is defined as whatever current set of binaries we're
happy with, then we can setup a web site right now. Put up all the
current x86 binaries and tell users 'just download this into a new
partition, run the boot disk and go'. Just like Linux distros can be
downloaded. Of course, this is a farce, because all the binaries are
written by Be Inc, not the OpenBeOS volunteers. But you could
definitely say it was a complete and working distro. Whether Palm would
have any objections, I couldn't tell you.
You could then, bit by bit, replace original (proprietary) binaries
with new ones created and tested by the OpenBeOS programmers. At any
point in time, a user could go to the web site and d/l the latest
version, which would be some hybridized collection of proprietary and
open source binaries. Would anyone want to do this? Probably not all
that much. Unless one of the new binaries had some important bug fix or
new feature.
At any point in time, however, this hybridized system would be open to
a 'cease and desist' from Palm. In other words, it would be in the same
position as Dane Scott's CD is in now.
Finally (hopefully), all the binaries are replaced and there is not a
single proprietary binary left in the distro. This is the true version
1.0. At this happy moment, a complete BeOS clone is available this is
free from corporate ownership.
Now am I saying that the distribution should be offered as mentioned
above? Well... I dunno. It seems as though it shouldn't be available
until the whole thing is ready -- that is when all proprietary binaries
have been replaced. But that could take awhile, and in the mean time,
users are restless and looking elsewhere for solutions to their
problems.
If you can get everyone to agree to develop the pieces individually
against a working R5 system, then you've gotten a world of troubles out
of the way. But then it makes it a bit more difficult to say what an
OpenBeOS distro actually is and when it could be made available.
Individual programmers can test with these hybrid setups alright, but
offering the updates online as we go could bring up legal (and other)
problems as I mentioned above.
>I am quickly coming to the point where a decision will be made on
these things.
>We have (on this list) batted around ideas of:
>1) Using some alternative kernel
>2) Using some alternative gui system (X11, for one) with a BeOS layer.
>3) Develop BeOS as it is, or something more advanced.
>4) Whether or not we are even going to do this.
>
>The way I see it is this:
>We have BeOS and the BeBook and test programs. We want to get source
code.
>Once we have source code, people can port the pieces to any OS they
want.
>We have a working kernel, and working individual kits.
>We can have several projects to release pieces individually. The fact
that team X
>is way ahead/behind team Y doesn't effect anyone. Because for a 1.0,
we are testing
>and proving against R5.
>
>I don't want a better Linux. If I wanted that, I would go play in
Linux land. I don't want a
>better X11. Same deal. I want BeOS and I want its development to
continue. OpenBeos
>is, in my mind, a means to that end.
>That rules out 1 and 2.
>As this post points out, what we are doing is very ambitious.
>I don't think we want to bite off anything extra. That rules out 3.
>
>If (and this is my own fantasy) a small company like what Be was 3
years (pre going public)
>were to emerge from all of this with an attitude like Be had, fewer,
but more focused engineers
>and a great source base to start from, then I think that there is
little point to continue with this.
>
>If Palm blows the community off (either directly or with "we need to
study this further"), well,
>then lets go for broke.
>
>If the result is in between, well, then let's see.
>
>I am optimistic,
>
>
>
Other related posts:
