[openbeos] Re: read this article...
- From: DarkWyrm <bpmagic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 18:37:05 -0500
>At the risk of sound snippy, we've been over this several times and have
>elected, for pragmatic reasons, to do our best to maintain binary
>compatibility for the first release -- which rules out GCC3.x for the
>time being. This does *not*, however, rule out moving to it at a later
>date -- or even providing a parallel set of libraries which have been
>built with GCC3.x (just a "for instance"; no flames, please). Folks
>keep insisting on thinking we've maneuvered ourselves into a dead-end by
>striving for binary compatability at this time, and that just isn't the
>case! I respect Nathan's perspective (as well as his ability), but
>aside from whether or not we successfully achieve binary compatibility,
>this is a total non-issue.
>
>e
I agree with Erik - this is a non-issue. In light of many discussions I've
seen on this list since its inception, I doubt that we are *just* making an
OSS clone of R5. There are a wealth of ideas that have cropped up which have
received the response "Sounds cool - let's wait until R2." Even though we've
got a (seemingly) long road to go just to get to R1, the fact that we're at
least shooting for binary compatibility across-the-board means that we'll see
things become useful. The advantage to OpenBeOS is that it *is* open source,
meaning that if someone wants to migrate to GCC 3.0, they can. With all due
respect for Nathan and others who share his opinion, I politely disagree.
--DarkWyrm
Other related posts:
