[openbeos] Re: Think useful, not cool

  • From: "Michael Phipps" <mphipps1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 20:50:14 -0400

>Think "users" rather than "customers" -- even Linux, that paragon of OSS
>development, needs to think about it's usefulness to its users.  The
>real conundrum to me is that it's the apps that make an OS truly
>"useful" to people.  A super cool OS will, of course, ease the path to
>super cool apps, but one has to convince developers that your super cool
>OS is where they want to target those apps.  I thought the article

Be depended on this. If you go back and read all of the stuff that JLG wrote
in the 1997-1998 era, it was very clear - he put his eggs in the "I hope that 
the
next Adobe is out there somewhere" basket. He hoped that someone would
come along, write a "tractor app" and boost BeOS into the Mac DTP niche
type market. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. Why? I don't know.
Maybe there aren't any more tractor apps (big, earth shaking paradigm 
changes) to invent. I don't believe that. Maybe Be didn't evangelize/support
developers enough. AT THAT TIME, I don't really think that was the case.
I don't know what happened. Back then, there was tons of coolness around
Be. I tend to think that going public was a very bad thing. 

>Helmar posted was quite interesting.  Clearly, somebody is going to have
>to evangelize (which is merely a less "offensive" term than "market")
>the OS to those developers -- and then to the end users, with all the
>spiffy apps as proof that the OS will, in fact, be useful.  I mean,
>let's get real:  very few of us actually us BeOS just because it is
>technically very cool.  We all have tasks we wish to accomplish with our
>machines, and we like the way BeOS let's us do those tasks.  Maybe it's
>the overall responsiveness of the system, or the intuitive UI, or the
>elegantly streamlined apps the API makes possible; whatever it is, only
>the most propeller headed among us are still using BeOS *only* because
>of its gee whiz technical aspects.  Personally, I want BeOS to continue
>living because it is eminently useful to me.  If ever it stops being
>useful, I willing to bet that the only reason it would ever get booted
>would be out of a sad nostalgia for a dream that shouldn't have died. 
>Would that make me a "traitor" or something?  Maybe, but I've got work
>to get done and if my OS won't help me do it, there isn't much point.

Not only is BeOS useful to me as a user (writing email, for example), but
(and this is where I have to disagree with Eric, just a little) its technical 
coolness is what makes me want to develop for it.

>Realize, I'm not suggesting that the OpenBeOS team itself should
>dedicate a bunch of resources to evangelizing/marketing what we're doing
>(although interested non-technical parties are welcome to take that task
>on) -- indeed, I suspect that sort of thing is far from being the forte'
>of most of the team members. ;)  But we should recognize the necessity
>of (and even be grateful for) the folks who are looking out for that end
>of the game.  Helmar & Co. are very necessary partners for (Open)BeOS's
>continued success, and I'm glad that a "marketroid" (if you'll forgive
>the term) of Helmar's caliber is batting for our side.

I have very definate ideas, thoughts and plans for marketing, packaging and
(maybe) even sales. Markets to penetrate, niches to conquer, etc. AND WHEN
the time is right, we will certainly discuss and debate that stuff. But how many
Open Source projects are there that get side tracked and never deliver anything?
THIS WILL NOT BE ONE OF THEM! 

I am SO psyched over the possibilities of what we are doing here. Think about 
it - 
a complete OS under OUR control, doing the things that WE want it do, the way 
WE want it. Not tied to Linux Legacy (which is, really, 30-35 years old). The 
kernel 
is where I have spent most of my time. And I can tell you that Travis is the 
man. 
The kernel is a SWEET place to be. It already matches BeOS's API to a large 
degree. I don't think that it will be all that hard to finish that part of the 
process. In 
my mind, the kernel is in great shape. Travis is working on some of the 
underlying 
stuff that is super-critical, like vfs, memory management and so on. The kernel 
team is following and understanding his stuff, along with making contributions 
to 
NewOS. At some point, we will fork. The time is *NOT* now. No where near now.
It probably doesn't look like a lot is going on, there. And that is probably my 
fault, as
kernel lead. But progress is being made. But the kernel is the LEAST of our 
issues, 
believe it or not. Think about this - how many kernel improvements can you 
count 
(WITHOUT LOOKING) from R3 to R5? Probably none. I can't think of too many.
Now how many user land changes can you count? I am sure a lot more. Kernel land
is really only visable to users in terms of what drivers exist and how fast and 
stable
the system is. The biggest win, for us, will come from the reimplementation of 
the 
user land stuff. Open Tracker and Open Deskbar are good examples. That is the 
piece
of the OS that EVERYONE uses EVERY day. 

The user land people are the people that will make or break this project. I 
truly belive that.
The kernel stuff is fun (to me) and interesting to geeks and all. It is also a 
small part, 
compared to the user level stuff. 

>OpenBeOS is being developed under an MIT-derived license.  Daniel, this
>is probably a good item for the FAQ. ;)
>
>e
>

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. haiku
  3. Archive
  4. 10-2001