[openbeos] Re: Tracker icons
- From: Helmar Rudolph <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 11:30:00 +0200
Axel Dörfler wrote:
... a sensible reply - almost as I would have expected it.
> Please go into the details and define outdated.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?
Yes, first and foremost it would be the GUI, control widgets for
instance. But it's also stuff like USB, SCSI, wifi, access to
advanced motherboard/chip features, the file system - things that
prevent one from writing end user applications that then enhance the
user experience, which in turn determines the usefulness of the
system (OS+apps). Remember the original thread: Haiku/BeOS being
slow with small files.
> 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.
Fair enough. I also didn't say R2 will be done from scratch. I am
saying that R1=R5 plus some improvements. R5 was released when? 2000?
It's 2005 now, R1 may be ready next year some time. Ok, 6 years
instead of 7, so don't get too hung up on numbers. ;).
> 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.
Fair enough, but do yourself the favour and don't become myopic here.
We all know that apart from a few geeks, nobody gives a rat's arse
about an operating system per se. All that matters is the end user
experience, and that depends on the applications that are written
for that operating system, their functionality, which in turn is
linked to the GUI. But it's also the brains that went into the
functionality in the first place, practical innovation that emerges
as a result, and - like it or not - FOSS or not - the marketing of
the OS and the applications written for it.
> 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?
I didn't say this. You misunderstood.
> Every software company you worked for probably had more man power than
> us, then.
Wrong. Opera was 5 developers, Sonork was 1 man. Qunu is 1 man.
> Why not? When developers are making decisions it's usually a lot faster
> than when other people are talking about options.
That's exactly the problem with GE. Lots of people talking, nothing
leading to timeous finality. OTOH, one thing where "developers
making decisions" went horribly wrong on BeOS is the entire GUI,
which is by far the worst and inconsistent among all other public
options (known to me). No GUI consistency at all. Very little
openess to "marketing" or "usability expert" input. Result: oblivion.
Application oblivion == OS oblivion.
Again:
Application oblivion == OS oblivion.
> 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.
For sure, but you will soon see that to an extent you have to behave
like a commercial entity, unless the outcome of your actions/effort
is immaterial to you. If that is the case, cool. But then I suggest
no one on this list uses the word 'success', because it still does
have connotations.
> 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.
Bzzt. Wrong. You, as the OS developers won't have any sales. But
remember that you only provide a foundation for application
developers. And those application developers have sales.
Success is eventually defined by the number of people using Haiku
for their computing tasks. They will use application software, which
will to a large extent be (at least semi-) commercial, be it $45 or
$450. People want consistency; they want to know when new features
arrive, when bugs are squashed, when the next version will enhance
their computing experience even more.
For that to even happen, the app developers rely on the OS they are
writing their apps for. Even at the lowest level (FOSS written by
volunteers), you can only build a momentum if there is a path of
action, if there is a certain amount of reliability, consistency and
professionalism. Unless, of course, you're happy spending all your
time for maybe 5000 users worldwide.
See the bigger picture, guys!
> 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.
Why not? If R1==R5, then why can it not be worked on? Why can't the
toolchain (which is partly at OS, partly at application level)
approach be pursued? Why can't the other issues for discussion not
be finalised, rather than being discussed ad nauseum but not leading
anywhere? I don't expect miracles here. At the same time I think a
different approach to GE and R2 would be beneficial.
> I have plenty of ideas I want to put into one of our next releases
> after R1.
Are _they_ being discussed on GE?
> It's the nightmare of any good marketing and business
> people :-)
Which, by and large, FOSS development is marginal at best. Which is
why most FOSS developers are poor sods, who probably all dream about
striking it rich (in their definition probably meaning "lots of
money"), but who are clueless or helpless as how to actually effect
it.
FOSS and financial success are to a large extent mutually exclusive.
FOSS can ONLY work if you build you own economic trading system
around it. It cannot and will not work as long as you operate in the
current capitalistic system.
> 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.
But they all want it, right? Wouldn't they do more development if
they got paid? Contradiction in terms, eh?
> 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.
I must have written to half a dozen email client developers about an
X-flag in the header that determines the reply status of an email.
This setting will be picked up by the client and then displayed to
the user. IOW, in the client you can check a box called "no reply
necessary" when you write an email, indicating to the recipient that
one doesn't expect a reply.
Piss-easy to implement, very useful for those writing and receiving
a lot of email. Did anyone listen? No. Maybe I have to patent it
first for people to take note. ;) And that's just one of many.
> 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 :-)
I take that point. On the other hand I am a user first and foremost,
and if you don't come up with stuff that woes me over from Windows
(or whatever), then why should I bother? Now multiply me by a factor
of 100.000.000+. You will be targeting people who already have
computers, not newbies. You will have to make it dead-easy (1-click,
anyone?) for them to convert all their existing data in order to be
of any interest. You will have to provide features at OS and app
level that make me say: "wow, I can't do that on [insert OS here],
but I can do it on Haiku! And 'wow' how Haiku has taken over all my
data from [insert OS here] without a glitch." And, and, and....
In short: you want people to use Haiku and its applications for most
of the time. This requires a modern OS, effective applications that
are easy to learn and use (GUI consistency), and the communication
of the benefits (rather than features) to the market at large
- whether you are FOSS or not. Unless of course, you are happy with
being/remaining marginal.
> 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 :-)
Being careful is one thing, being immovable/paralysed another. Most
tries at at application level anyway these days, but if the OS fails
(ie on lots of small files or -as recently discussed on OSNEWS -
with the inability to auto-read ID3 tags into the attributes), then
not even the apps can save it.
> We have limited capabilities, we
> need to focus on our immediate goals. We let the forward thinker
> growing in the background.
I am not sure if 'growing' is the right word. 'Vegetating' or
'Neglecting' or 'Ignoring' may be more appropriate.
> We actually do both, we're fulfilling our egoistical needs and desires
> by providing us a more efficient computing experience.
No, you are NOT providing a more efficient computing experience. You
are copying something that in 2000 was still cool, but now no longer
is. The practical innovation that needs to happen (on GE) WHILE you
are doing an R5 clone is just not taking place. Talk-shop. No
structured path of action. And almost as a direct consequence there
is no significant application development taking place, apart from
TuneTracker, Refraction and Wonderbrush maybe.
> 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.
If you look at your universe as static, then yes, I understand that.
But it isn't. At the end of the day it's really only about two
things:
1) ideas/projects that get effected (finalised) and that lead to
"success" (at whatever level or definition). [ Success can only
happen if you have a reference point to compare it to, and this
implies that you can separate the two, which means you have to
finish stuff. ]
2) the effective/efficient communication of such ideas/projects
Those two are at the base of everything. Everything.
To end this thread, I am fully aware that this list here is
populated by and large by developers who think and act in a
particular way. Consequently any views from outside, especially if
they are challenging the developer's current worldview, will be met
with hostility - a not uncommon sign of underenlightenment, if I may
throw some flamebait in here.
So... I didn't really expect any other response here. [Yours, Axel,
was the most sensible, hence my reply.] At the end of the day,
though, I sit here with enough money and time (and brainspace) on my
hands to write all this. Given that the first two are usually in
short supply with most followers of this list, I take that I may do
something 'right' - for lack of a better word. As a result it seems
stupid or foolish to me to discard my arguments out of hand. But
it's your (pl.) choice, and thus your (pl.) reality.
Success depends on a (w)holistic approach. If you think you've got
it all sussed out yourself, well, you don't, otherwise you'd do
things differently, and in this thread this is all about how GE is
treated.
I'll leave you with this. What you make of it is entirely up to you.
I just feel reminded of pretty much the same discussion I had on the
comp.os.geos newsgroup in 1995/1996. You know where GEOS is now,
don't you?
Helmar
Other related posts:
