[openbeos] Re: RFC archieve and public access
- From: "Nathan Whitehorn" <nathan.whitehorn@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 22:35:04 EST (-0500)
> Hi,
>
> >A couple points here. I think we *should* decide things.
> Recomendations
> >should be finalized for coding when the appropriate time comes. *But
> > *
>
> You can't really do that.
We can provide a cohesive set of reccomendations, if that's what you
prefer. It's a semantics argument.
> At the moment, al the programmers that are involved with OpenBeOS are
> involved with it because *they* want The Be Operating System. They
> know
> what their job is - to create an exact replica of the Be Inc,
> software
> that they are copying, they have chosen to make a copy.
>
> When they have finished, it will just be like any other project :
>
> If you want something in the OS you have a few choices :
>
> a) Put a request in to the author for him to code *if he wants to*
> b) Add it yourself, and send the diffs to the maintainer to add, *if
> they want to*
>
> If they fail you can fork a new version, and hope that its clearly
> better than the original so that it gets included in the original
> ones
> place.
>
> The GE Project can not dictate what any of the programmers write in
> their own spare time, it can be a forum for ideas - but unless the GE
> Project does the coding, thats all it ever will be.
And we have been in communication with many of the people who will be
coding it (like me). In fact, most of the OBOS people who would be in
charge of aspect x of the OS are the very people who have set forth
proposals on aspect x. GE = OBOS. It's the same people, doing the same
things, in a different light. GE does not impose things on OBOS. The
concept is ridiculous, since they are one and the same project.
-Nathan
--
Fortune Cookie Says:
Chicago law prohibits eating in a place that is on fire.
Other related posts:
