[openbeos] Re: Visual design stuff again
- From: Charlie Clark <charlie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 13:46:12 +0200
On 2003-09-24 at 13:08:54 [+0200], Simon Taylor wrote:
> It's not an issue of being mistaken for R5 - it's an issue that people
> will not realise there have been MAJOR changes from R5.
Rather than this discuss this here I refer to the FAQ on the website.
> It's not on GE because I'm still talking about R1. The fact that it isn't
> directly a developmental issue is why most of the emails have been
> private between me and michael, and why I didn't respond in depth to
> Adi's original question about what we had been talking about.
OBOS seeks to be a direct replacement to R5; changes in networking and
memory management notwithstanding. Even if you don't think this is a GE
issue it is at most a creative design issue and I would prefer to see the
work done over there. Technical implementation issues which affect the app
server or other parts of the system can then be aired here or on
interfacekit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> I think there's a few more than that - a few thousand downloads per week
> of PE - many of these probably can't even boot it and scrap it
> immediately, so won't even consider R1 if they perceive it to be the same
> thing.
Oh well, we'll just have to live without them.
> We tend to look at BeOS through rose-tinted glasses to a certain extent
> - we're the ones who actually use it. We forget that many people have a
> negative impression of R5 simply because it didn't work on their
> hardware. The best possible release of R1 needs to maintain the positive
> associations (like those we have) - but needs to show people with a
> negative view of BeOS that improvements have been made.
hehe, I spent two hours this morning helping a Windows user because of
exactly the same problem. My experience of users new to BeOS is continually
one of amazement particularly regarding hardware support and that despite
all the known issues with lacking drivers.
> > It's 100% new. Which is why it gets a new name.
>
> And the same look as an OS from the last decade? That is my point.
Why not? It's an operating system not a fashion accessory.
> > Key word here is "selling". That is what distributors and not
developers
> > do.
>
> Developers have to make a product that distributors are able to sell.
> Shared responsibility.
Interesting definition which I don't agree with.
> Also OBOS is not linux - R1 is going to be more than a kernel. A download
> of R1 from www.walteros.org will be akin to a download of PE from
> www.be.com. That is a truly great thing for consistancy - that the whole
> OS is developed by the same folks, and it really reduces the need for
> distributors at all. The only thing I can see commercial distributions
> adding are their own closed source things (Zeta's tracker) and support.
Distributors and retailers are essential for the success of any product.
They do a lot of hard work convincing people to try or buy their product.
They might even invest in improving the core product or adding to the
application palette. Think of Dane Scott's great work with TuneTracker as
an example.
> I stand by that. Buzzwords may get people interested, screenshots will
> decide if they can be bothered to download and install. I'm talking users
> here.
Again, I don't agree with this definition. What does OBOS gain from these
"users"?:
"Wow! 'WalterOS' looks great. Runs on some but not the stuff you need to
pay for and sign NDAs for to get the specs of my hardware. Still no apps
for it but who cares 'cos it's just so cool!".
Those are users?
Charlie
Other related posts:
