Helmar Rudolph <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > but there are a few things you don't seem to be getting. Correct me > if I'm wrong, but: I try :-) > * by the time R1 as an R5 clone comes out, it will be outdated - > glorious as the effort has been and will continue to be. You > know that, I know that, everybody knows that. Please go into the details and define outdated. What part of an OS has innovated in the past 10 years? Can you name a lot more than GUI? > * Consequently, to only _START_ coding R2 after an R1 release is > stupid and short-sighted, because already being about 7 years > behind, you don't really have a chance of ever catching up. That's a false assumption: R2 will not be something done from scratch - it will build on top of what we did so far. R1 is just the only fixed milestone in the future. How can you lose 7 years with something like an OS? We're in the process of writing a whole OS in less time. The way up to R2 will be much shorter. > The only upside here is that you have an opportunity to learn > from the mistakes others have made. However, the "in-the-box" > thinking and [insert popular OS of choice here]-copycat > approach doesn't help at all in making Haiku stand out. We're recreating an existing OS after all - we definitely learn from the mistakes they did when they did R5 - but what makes you think we will use that knowledge only after R1? > * You know how long R1 has been in the making. Imagine R2 taking > similarly long, especially as chances are that you cannot > count on programmers who would love to do R2 stuff now, but > who are discouraged by the 'talk-shop' nature of GE. Again, what do you think R2 will be? We won't throw R1 away, it will make the biggest part of R2. R2 won't change the world of computing, it will only be an evolution. > * Every software company I have worked for works on several > items in parallel, knowing full well that some won't make the > cut for the next release, but by the time the next release is > effected, they don't have to start from scratch but are > probably already half-way there. Every software company you worked for probably had more man power than us, then. > * Michael wrote: "That decision is *far* better left deferred > until it needs to be made, when all of the ideas are on the > table in a clear and coherent fashion." > > The issue I have is that there is no structure that actually > leads to the group (or whoever) saying: "guys, by [insert date > here] we need to cut of the talk, summarise the content, > evaluate it, and then decide on the path forward for R2." The > very last thing you would want is start that process only once > R1 has been released. Why not? When developers are making decisions it's usually a lot faster than when other people are talking about options. > This is a typical black-white 'in-the-box' reply. Remember, Maybe you just see this in-the-box thing a *bit* too narrow. > it's the marketing people who ensure that the product sells, > that customers are kept happy even if bug fixes/new features > aren't furnished in a timely fashion, that eventually pay > YOUR (the developers') bills. So step outside the box and > bring the two together. They can't do without each other, so > why treat them separately? We're freelancers, aren't we? You seem to be looking in the wrong box for us :-) > Also, it's in-the-box to consider your current universe > static. Ever contemplated the notion that you may attract new Once more a reason not to plan too much in the future :-) We're not a commercial entity, we don't need to have a business plan for the next 3 years to calm down our investors. > developers if you took a different approach to GE/R2, and > also if you added a bit of 'marketing flair' to Haiku? But it > seems that developers love shooting down or ignoring the > people who pay their bills. Trust me, been through that with > Geoworks, Opera, Sonork and now Qunu. As Haiku falls into the > same type of category (niche product up against major > competition), your marketing has to be top notch, and so has > your marketing-developer relations. Again, it would be nice to have a top notch marketing, but we don't * need* one. We won't go out of business without sales. We don't have any sales. Even if we would take part of the business world in a comparable way, it would not need to be serious, we could play around. > If GE is just meant to be a talk-shop, then so be it, but > then a different entity needs to be set up that ensures that > by the time R1 is released, not only does a plan of action > exists for R2, but that that the development process is -to > the best ability possible- already under way. Why? Despite that we don't have the man power to do that, R2 builds on what we have, it cannot really be worked on before R1 is ready. That would only possible for stuff that is added, like an XML kit. I have plenty of ideas I want to put into one of our next releases after R1. > Really? I don't know what kind of work you do, but I haven't > come across one where you can talk for 2 years and not come > to a conclusion on at least some items. To make conclusions, you need the power to make them. It doesn't help if you do some and they are not taken into account. That's a basic problem of open source development: it's the developers that choose their route. It's the nightmare of any good marketing and business people :-) But open source could not really work in another way; if the developers had to do something they don't want to, why should they do it? For the money? Well, there is none. The only light at the end of the tunnel is that the developers might have a common goal like "creating a great desktop OS" - that should make them listen to the needs of others, and may make them adopt those. > And what happens if you continuously hit on ignorance and > simple/closed-mindedness? You leave people to their own > devices and move on. You cannot force anyone to change - that > must come from inside. But if you (even if only > subconsciously) refuse to get out of your box, how can you > progress? How can you even entertain the thought of becoming Our only box in existence is currently R5. We'll leave it when we've filled it out completely, even if the box might look slightly mis- shaped afterwards. > Long story short: I don't gain anything by posting here. I don't > claim to be able to predict the future - although in my incarnation > as the PalmTop Reader in Geoworks' days I was rather accurate. ;) > Same > with Opera. Same with Sonork. So perhaps, even for a brief moment, > entertain the tought that I know something that you don't. Not only > because I have been in this business for a very long time, but > because I have a skillset different from yours. Feel free to read up > on it at http://www.helmar.org But as you probably have experienced way more than just once, you'll have a hard time with open source projects. It's hard to talk to us in these ways. You must adapt and leave your box if you want to get through :-) > And in case it still hasn't sunk in: keep GE a talk-shop and > postpone any kind of decision until the release of R1, and chances > are that there won't be an R2 - at least not one that matters and > that goes beyond an item of curiosity. R2 won't be the holy grail. The problem with wanting to change the way of computing is that most of those that tried failed miserably; we'll be very careful with that :-) > Time has the funny habit of changing things - including people. It > would be foolish to believe that the people who currently work on R1 > will also be available to work on R2. If you don't nurture a new > generation of programmers who can and will have to carry the R1 > torch, > then you'll be dead in the water - at least in a commercial sense. We've been dead in the water since the beginning, but no one can say it'll stay this way. If we'd starting to work on R2 today, probably R1 and R2 might not happen in the future. We have limited capabilities, we need to focus on our immediate goals. We let the forward thinker growing in the background. > However, if you all do this to satisfy your own egotistical needs > and desires, then just go ahead. Maybe I was mistaken in the belief > that the Haiku project's long-term aim was to provide us with a more > efficient computing experience. We actually do both, we're fulfilling our egoistical needs and desires by providing us a more efficient computing experience. It will just take time, we can't do everything at once. Unless you have tons of resources, keeping focus is the only way to reach your aims. > Helmar (completely unapologetic for being able to make use of both > parts of his brain :-) ) I think it's almost impossible to only use one part - sounds like a challenge for meditation :-) Bye, Axel.