"Simon Taylor" <simontaylor1@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I do see there is a certain inconsistency though, in that all the > teams > knocking out "internal" code are happy to take the API and then > implement it as they see fit, with whatever improvements they think > work in that framework - whereas the UI "implementation" is pretty > much > pixel-for-pixel identical to R5. Changes in implementation go from > the > simple "I've added flag y to our function x to be more POSIX > compatible", to "We're putting all the networking in the kernel" - > these type of changes are almost always welcomed. Yet if someone came > along tomorrow and said "I've made all the widgets look more modern, > and the OS as a whole much more appealing to a wider audience", I > think > they would face a lot of resistance getting the code accepted. Am I > the > only one who sees this as an inconsistency? There is no inconsistency - if we had decided to implement a new widget code, we would have done it. On our long path to create OpenBeOS, we try hard not to pick up the same thing again, but do it right on first try - because that saves time, and we want to get it done some day. If it wouldn't already be implemented, we could still discuss this thing - and have, in fact, a real discussion. From my perspective, you should have shouted earlier, even if I would have liked to see an updated UI as well. Anyway, and no offense, but your opinion would weigh in a lot more, if you had actually written half of the app_server or something :-) Bye, Axel.