"Nathan Whitehorn" <nathan.whitehorn@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The fact that we are doing it doesn't make it any less pointless. > It's > like Bush wanting to invade Iraq. It's idiotic, dangerous, horribly By any means, comparing those two things is hopefully the direct cause of an insane brain... The only thing which is pointless is this discussion; the goal to recreate R5 isn't just pointless because you don't understand why we are doing it. If you don't want to get it, perhaps have a look at B.E.OS - AFAICT they mostly share your opinion in that regard. > > And who says we can't introduce a new API one week after R1 is out? > > : > There are quite a few structural issues behind an API. The API > doesn't, > for instance, support non-rectangular views because the app_server > doesn't. And the app_server doesn't partly because the API is based > on > rectangles. The API isn't simply a wrapper for the internal > operations > of the OS, it often *is* the internal operation of the OS. And, also, > the number of people here against any modifications, anywhere, at any > time to the API is really quite extraordinary. The problem is that we don't have one person who can decide about API changes - changing the API has a lot of impact on the whole BeOS. It's not a trivial thing. And and API also doesn't implicitly cause any structural issues - at least that doesn't have to be a restriction. For example, the OpenBeOS kernel will support aliases in R1, but there might be no API to access this functionality. An API has to be well designed, because when we get to R1, we are mostly stuck with it. Just have a look at our MDR - the API is still poor in many regards; if we had to be binary compatible now and forever, we'd have a tough time fixing all those issues. Adios... Axel.