[openbeos] Re: The world as we know it

  • From: "Axel Dörfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 07:17:25 CEST (+0200)

"Nathan Whitehorn" <nathan.whitehorn@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If the cruft is in the API (as it often is) or in anything necessary 
> to 
> maintain binary compatibility, it will necessarily continue to be a 
> part of R1. Further, most of the cruft that is in R5 (as far as I can 
> tell) is still there only for compatibility reasons. If we duplicate 
> compatibility, we therefore duplicate cruft.

At least for MDR, this is true, but we want to achieve binary 
compatibility, and that can't be done the way you propose.

> > And getting consensus is the hardest thing which was why R5 was a 
> > good
> > starting point.
> So you have a consensus to do something essentlially pointless...

If you don't get it, well, I can't help you.

> You *can* run ideas, once they have been coded. Or you can skip the 
> ideas, and just code mindlessly.


> Just to make things clear, I *am* a developer. What I'm arguing 
> against 
> is the lack of foresight of the OpenBeOS project.

Well, from my POV, you are lacking of foresight, and that's why you 
want to go another route :-))

OTOH how would you like to design something from scratch in a project 
as big as OpenBeOS? Should everyone get a word? Should everyone have to 
come up with a reference implementation to be taken serious?
Having a fixed feature set including a reference implementation (R5) is 
a gift, and one that shouldn't be overseen so easily.


Other related posts: