[openbeos] Re: libscreensaver.so Proof of Concept
- From: "Michael Phipps" <mphipps1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2001 03:04:50 -0400
>
>>Was he a Be engineer? I don't ever remember hearing anything about him.
>
>>
>
>Noticed this latter fact, now that you say it, I'm less/not puzzled any
>more by your wording in your follow up to Manuel's message :-)
And don't I just have my foot in my mouth. :-(
>Or maybe it's me who's very confused (aggraveted by the fact I
>don't archive all the posts on the list on my hard drive) but
>it seemed to me to quoted manuel replying to peter, not to JBQ.
>Anyway, got to (humbly) grant you that Manuel's reply was
>more a soundbite than an argumented reply, but I've read him
>try the technical attitude as well in the past week and do
>detailed answers, without any more luck in getting understood.
>It's probably more than we can ask from ex-Be staff to hhang on
>here and comment since they probably have other stuff to do these
>days, so I wish people were more grateful for that.. but anyway i'm
>starting to sound like one of those usenet morale keeper freaks
>so i'll stop here :-)
I hope that some ex-Be folks will stay around, too.
>Anyway, best is probably to let you guys proceed with the project
>the way you want to, and keep our "told you so" wicked comments
>for ourselves when/if you ever get hurt in the process.... and dare
>I say myself, even hope your're right and the ""naysayers"" wrong,
>because
>performing this miracle would be f*cking cool (having a real
>genuine BeOS rewrite with your own kernel, and full binary
>compatibility).
I really appreciate the "Heads up - this is potential trouble".
I don't figure that we (as a collective group) are better than the
highly paid (relatively), hand picked folks at Be. Not at all.
Open Source is very good at taking someone else hard earned
design and (re)making it better. I have no doubt that without dedicating
a number of years, I (or we) could do better than Be, design wise.
I hope that we can come close, code wise.
>In the meantime it seems to me people are sending more or less
>subtle signals, but this is -- seems to me -- for the good
>of the project, to avoid wasted energy... so don't take it personnaly
>or anything if peoeple refer to this approach as a "miracle" for
>instance.
Miracle? I am not so sure.
I mean - which kit is impossible?
Which server so tough that NO ONE else could do it?
Sure, the kernel stuff is hard. I am living that right now. But we have an ex
Be engineer helping us. That is a HUGE boost.
And more would be MORE than welcome. Certainly, I think that JBQ, Manuel, you
and Travis and the rest of us could get the kernel ball really flying down the
hill. That would be excellent. If I had the money, I would hire you all under
contract. That would be ideal. I don't. :-(
But I am not sure that it is a MIRACLE. Not an easy task, though. Still - I
think that at least part of the task would be enough encouragement to get real
effort moving. Let's pretend for a moment that we had 3 or 4 kits, even the
easiest done. You could replace a significant piece of the OS with new
components. Let's say we had:
filesystem
mail daemon
screen_saver
print_server
game_kit
completed. Would that not seriously encourage everyone? Yes, that only leaves
the largest/most difficult. OK, fine. But working on a half done project isn't
so bad. Working on a 2% done project seems impossible and therefore wasted
time.
That is why I allocated people the way that I did. I know that if we don't
start kernel, networking and app_server NOW, we will never get done. But we
have to have people on the smaller kits, too, for encouragement and milestones.
>cedric (still pretending to lurk)
>
>--
>http://cdegea.free.fr/ | BeDev E-16870
>"God exists, and she loves Bill" -- BMessage
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
