[openbeos] Re: Suggestion (was Re: A bit of prep talk)
- From: Zenja Solaja <solaja@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 11:32:29 +1000
Valid points, but I'd rather we cross that bridge when we get to it. If
BeInc tells us "sorry people, you've got to change your name" then we'll
host a debate on a new name (for our new OS ;-). Until then, I suggest we
stay with OpenBeOS because there is no doubt in peoples mind what it
actually is. I personally dont believe that BeInc will have any objectioins
to us leeching their name since they may still be emotionally attached to
their baby, and want to see it succeed one way or the other. I wouldn't be
suprised if we receive a few pointers from Be management (and open the
floodgates for ex Be veterens). Anyone in Menlo Park lurking?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Teh Kelvin-CKT044 [SMTP:Kelvin.Teh@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 12:16 PM
> To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [openbeos] Re: Suggestion (was Re: A bit of prep talk)
>
>
>
> Hmm...... this reminds me of a previous post where there was a concern
>
> regarding the use of the words "BeOS" in the proposed new open-source OS
>
> being developed here. Since it seems to have been more or less settled
> that
>
> a huge portion of the kernel is going to be based on the NewOS kernel, it
>
> occured to me that it might be a good idea to simply call our new OS NewOS
>
> (provided Travis agrees, of course). The name itself, IMHO, seems to
> reflect
>
> the spirit of this initiative (and, one might argue, Be's original aim of
>
> doing away with legacy codes). I know this may appear to be a rather
>
> controversial move, especially since we have gotten so used to the "BeOS"
>
> name, but I think it would be in our best interests to use a name that
> will
>
> not antagonize either Palm or Be Inc. (they might not take too well to an
> OS
>
> whose name consists of their trademark, prefixed by the word "Open"). It
>
> would seem to be a better approach to settle on a name and stick with it
> to
>
> the end rather than have to change it sometime later in the future.
>
> I have visited the NewOS website sometime around last week at
>
> http://newos.sourceforge.net and found that the site is already relatively
>
> complete. There are already three mailing lists set up (which is not being
>
> fully utilized yet, at present) that we might be able to use, rather than
>
> setting up more mailing lists elsewhere. At times like this, IMHO, it is
>
> very important for us to stick together and not go about creating too many
>
> separate projects, as far as possible. I cannot say how receptive Travis
> or
>
> you guys will be to this suggestion, but it is just a thought that might
> be
>
> able to avoid the stress and inconvenience that might possibly occur in
> the
>
> future if, for example, Palm or Be were to suddenly decide to send us a
>
> "friendly" letter asking us to change the name of this OS. I am aware that
>
> some of you have already set up websites with the "openbeos" name (e.g.
>
> open-beos.sourceforge.net and the Open BeOS Developer's Network website),
>
> and that, I think is a very good thing. I am just concerned that if we
> were
>
> to change the name later, it would be much more inconvenient than to
> change
>
> the name now (especially since Be Inc. doesn't seem to encourage
> open-source
>
> initiatives of BeOS by taking up most of the openbeos-related domain
> names).
>
> Anyhow, this is just a thought, and there might be good reasons why
>
> all this might not be a good idea that I have failed to consider. Whether
>
> this is adopted or not is up to the OpenBeOS developer's community. What
> do
>
> you guys think of the idea?
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: bsa [SMTP:bsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 2:55 PM
> > To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [openbeos] Re: A bit of prep talk
> >
> >
> >
> > > people are examining NewOS/AtheOS/BeOS and teams are forming up.
> Thats
> > > great!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We're not loosing focus, and I'm glad to see that
> > we're
> > > agreeing that most of our attention is on the 2 major components
> (kernel
> > and
> > > app_kit/interface kit).
> >
> > I think (if i wrong, please correct me) - OpenBeOS is a little error.
> > Recreation of system is not necessary.
> > OpenBeOS will not become BeOS with open source. Our old BeOS slowly
> moves
> > to
> > graveyard.
> > But NewOS is raising, and we can help its developer - we really can
> create
> > new object-oriented opensource
> > operating system. Kernel is about ready. It is main.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
----------------------
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
----------------------
This email is intended only to be read or used by the addressee.
The information contained in this e-mail message may be confidential
information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, interference
with, distribution, disclosure or copying of this material is unauthorised
and prohibited. Confidentiality attached to this communication is not waived
or lost by reason of the mistaken delivery to you.
If you have received this message in error, please delete it and notify us
by return e-mail or telephone Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited
on +61 2 9413 6300.
Other related posts:
