[openbeos] Re: Visual design stuff again

  • From: Sam Persson <astromek@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 16:37:42 +0200

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?

If we had a roughly working and nearly complete userland networking system, and someone came along and said they were going to do a kernelland version, with a boottime flag to choose between the two, I for one would argue they should spend their time elsewhere till we get R1 out. We don't have such a system, though, so we may as well do it all in the kernel to begin with.

If we had a roughly working and nearly complete implementation of the R5 equivalent of the DiskDevice API, we probably wouldn't be doing a new and vastly improved version like we currently are.

If we had a roughly working and nearly complete set of R5 UI components, which in this case we do, and someone said they wanted to add in a new look, I would say we should wait and do it right later once we get R1 out.

This is why I don't believe we're being inconsistent, but it's a fair question. :-)


This was actually the best argument to not implement a new, although wanted, UI yet.
I think this should have been said earlier to calm a lot of us non-devs lurking this list who, too, would love to see a modernization of the BeOS GUI.

To be honest.
IF there was to be a GUI change I'd say there's more to do than just change the way it looks (with nifty shadows, smoother widgets et.c) but also change a few things in the way it works.
I cannot really point to any specific problem a.t.m. (haven't been using BeOS for about 1½ year since it won't work on my new computer) but I recall there's was some work needed to be done to ensure better compliance to Fitt's law.
I had some more things on my 'list' too, but to remember those I have to be able to use OBOS (or whatever the new name might be), and refresh my memory.

Anyway... as a lover of nice GUI s, both UF and sleek, I have to say I'd rather be able to use OBOS faster than be waiting for a sleekification.

To the devs: I LOVE you people! :D

// Sam P

Other related posts: