On 15 Mar 2002, at 2:43, Phoebus Dokos wrote: > I suggested Source forge due to the many tools available. CVS etc. and not > to suggest total anarchy! Good!
> I do agree in any case that for an OS a "tighter" control should be > implemented. > Don't forget that the project manager in any case is the one that handles > the CVS tree and regulates submissions. To be quite frank, I'm not really familiar with that. But I'm learning... > On top of that I don't believe that the core of the OS should be changed. > What should be changed (and normalised) is the way drivers are written etc... That already is normalised in a certain way. What most of us want to do is change the drivers (e.g. take out the slave blocks), I presume. > I think that the Open SMS project should begin, by going through the > sources and completely documenting them first and then start doing changes > to bring all the versions on all the machines to the same level. > Additionally a fully documented source would be: .. a shortage of income for Jochen Merz. is that what we want? > 1. An Invaluable tool for all programmers > 2. A good reference point to start if we are to step up SMS to a different > platform (yeah yeah I know... don't shoot!) Oh, by all means, if we can get I must point out, though, that I do not, for one minute, believe that even a better, faster etc... SMS will be able to break out of its current niche. Others have tried (e.g. Beos) - and they had MUCH better tolls than we have now... In that, at least, I agree with Tim Swenson: let's try to make a nicer OS for us, who are already using it, not try to build something that might lure in hypothetical new users. Wolfgang ----------------- www.wlenerz.com
