> >On 2002-08-03 at 21:07:54 [+0000], you wrote: >> No, there is not too much focus on the kernel. Not even close. >> >> Ok, several people have made statements like this lately and it is >> starting to get my goat, so I've got some of my own comments to make... > >oops, seems like I have a talent for putting my foot in it ;-) It's ok. If you were thinking it, I am sure that others were, too. >I'll refrain in future from any such judgements. Thanx very much for >explaining the situation. I think your mail would be a good newsletter by >the way. Up until now I and presumably others thought the NewOS kernel was >to be a drop-in replacement for the Be kernel. In some ways, yes. I mean - it has fast, pervasive threading, a great architecture (porting to other systems would be fairly easy, for kernel work), and mostly works. There are really three flavors of "work" going on in kernel land: 1) Making it more Be like - renaming, tweaking APIs, etc 2) Completing functionality - PCI and tty/terminal devices are in this catagory 3) Bug fixes and improvements - NewOS had a bunch of "XXX - Do This" comments... >The offer concerning USB still stands. I remember it well. ;-) >Michael, I read your posting about USB as saying you'd rather not have to >pursue it as you really need to concentrate on kernel and other stuff. Nope. USB had to go on hold for a while, since it really depends on things like PCI and VM working properly. I would be glad to have someone else take over USB, or I will finish it. I don't care all that much. I spent a lot of time studying USB and I doubt that anyone out there already has the knowledge, so it seems like the time for someone to learn would be about the same as me finishing the other stuff that I need to and finishing it myself. Either way, (and this is mostly true for all of OBOS) I don't care who does it or how, so long as it is legal and gets done. ;-) >Charlie > >