>Fred wrote: > >> Like the people who come up w/ a 'great idea' which is >> really a way to make R1 to look more like Win XP and less >> like R5. > >Careful here, Fred, because R5 is not the be-all and end-all. >It has severe shortcomings that I for instance would not >like to see repeated in R1. Furthermore, the time R1 comes >out, R5 will be hopelessly outdated, UI and otherwise. Sure, >the kits/server idea is still cool, but things move on, and >I guess I and others are just fearing that by the time R1 is >out, it won't pull any eyeballs anymore. Agreed. And it has been publically said (and beaten into the ground, IMHO) that R1 is the start, not the end. No one wants to produce R1 and hold it up as the most glorious thing ever on earth. We want to produce it and hold it up and say "here is a platform on which to build cooler things". >That said... I fully understand why R1 is coming out the way >it is. I'm just afraid it won't be enough. I think that everyone feels that way, to some degree. That is why it is so important to get the foundation right and quickly. So that we can do the other cool things. >As for the ego stuff and lack of vision, it was more >directed at those whose (IMO) short-sightedness causes >people with enthusiasm and great ideas not to contribute (or >get involved), because the BeOS community does have a knack >of shooting (read: ignoring) their own developers, and Peter >Moore's original post on BeGroovy demonstrated that (like >many others before) very nicely. The Be community (and Be) had such an issue. And to some degree, still does. I, for one, don't know how to make that side of things better. I am an engineer, not a doctor. ;-) >I want to end on a positive note though and encourage all >users to provide feedback to the developers, and encourage >the developers to be open to users' ideas. At the same time Careful here, Helmar. Open to != accepting everything that comes down the pike. I have heard some exceptionally good ideas. I have also heard some bad ideas. Should people be polite and courteous about dealing with that? Yes. Should they encourage and be helpful in their discussion? Yes. But (and I don't think that you meant this, but for others) I don't think that just because someone posts an idea on a mailing list that developers are beholden to create them. >I would like all of you to be open to new ideas, even though >you either don't understand them and they may go against >your current beliefs. (Just to quickly relate that... the >way my suggestion of capitalizing and financially growing >OBOS was dealt with showed little effort on behalf of others >to even attempt to understand what I was trying to >accomplish, and there are still many more examples by others >with great ideas and concepts, development or otherwise, who >have received similar treatment). To be very frank, this is not really the place for the business ideas to be swooped up and jumped on. BeOS drew almost all geeks. Come on - a machine with a geek port. ;-) A company that gives away pocket protectors. The people who are here are not business people. They are geeks, If I went to a business forum of some sort and started pitching an integrated filesystem cache/virtual memory system, I wouldn't expect a huge, warm welcome. Not that people should or would be impolite, but I would not have chosen an audience that can grasp and understand what I am talking about. That is not to say that such things are necessarily unwelcome. But you have to come in with a thick skin. Because this list is primarily two groups - people who want to run OBOS and people who want to write OBOS. This list is not really populated with people who have a burning passion to try and sell a product that isn't working yet. We may have stars in our eyes, but we aren't all crazy. ;-) >Helmar > >PS: Ithamar is doing significant work on Bernd Korz' "Zeta", >but I say this under correction, so don't nail me on it. I If that is the case, it is news to me. I still have the email where Ithamar told me that he was too busy and had to leave. If he was dissatisfied in some way, he didn't let me know. And that is his perogative. But in the same way, we can't fix what we don't know about. >guess the same will happen with other coders dissatisfied >with OBOS. If they don't leave the BeOS scene, they will >gravitate to other projects, but fragmentation - IMHO - is >not doing any good to the BeOS scene, as small as it already >is. I firmly agree that fragmentation is a bad thing. I don't really see Bernd's efforts in that vein, though. I think that his efforts are very important as an incremental upgrade to R5. I think that it will benefit many people and help to keep people moving and going until we can finish. I have chatted with Bernd and support his work, as he supports ours. He has said many times that he looks forward to shipping an OBOS distro and I have said that I look forward to running Zeta on my primary machine. That isn't fragmentation. We work together. I know that his work now will benefit OBOS in the long run.