[openbeos] Re: Visual design stuff again

  • From: "Simon Taylor" <simontaylor1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 11:13:22 +0100 BST

> > 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.

I would agree with that.

> 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.

That too.

> 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.

The key difference here is 2-fold:
1) The large majority of the implementations of old and new are the 
2) A new look will have a dramatic effect on how R1 is perceived, and 
better reflect the fact that the OS is 100% new code, and the few 
hundreds lines of code are therefore justifiable.

Anyway, this is more a reason for why I should be encouraged to code 
something else, rather than an argument "for" keeping the current look. 
I have already decided that I will try to code a new look, just for 
personal interest. Whether you want it or not is what I am trying to 
work out.
> This is why I don't believe we're being inconsistent, but it's a fair 
> question. :-)

And a very good answer, I thought. 

> -Tyler


Other related posts: