Wolfgang Lenerz writes: <> > (...development being people driven) <> > I am in the process, however, of trying to collect the different ideas > different people have given me at different times to have an overview > of what should be done. > > In my opinion, there are, basically, three kinds of projects: > > 1 - Small improvements (e.g. Fabrizio's italian language support). <> > 2 - Important changes - the new WMAN and, possibly, rewriting the <> > 3 - Adaptions to various machines. It is probable that many a <>
You might add: 4 - Documentation (including design specs and structures) 5 - Support functions (eg the project web) > So how do we go about this? > > We can have a general scatter load approach, everybody doing > something in the corner, alone - as you pointed out, this will peter > out pretty quickly. And could lead to "political" problems due to information black spots and a perceived lack of openness. <> > (the website could): <> > > Allow downloading of components to registered developers > > This is the area where I balk the most. By making the sources > available to everyone, I still hope to draw people into development, > who whould not, normally, have done so. Making a distinction > between registered developers and those who are not (and don't > have accessto everything) makes me pretty uneasy. As an > example, I do not know whether Fabrizio would have become a > registered developer? Both modes of distribution could exist in parallel. There should be no need for immediate access to the latest sources for those who only have a casual interest, whilst for an active developer this is quite essential. > The fact is, that it was decided to keep destribution of the sources > in a certain way. Doing it on a website means either detroying this > way of duistributing the sources, or introducing a difference > between "normal" QLer and registered developers. > > If there really is a majority opinion to do it that way (and I would like > EVERYONE'S opinion on this) I'll bow to it, though. > > BTW, what do you mean by "component"? See * below. > Moreover, one of the disadvantages of the website will, of course, > be that some control is removed from me (at least that is a > disadvantage in my eyes :-)). No. You would be in control of all relevant UPloads to the site. > For the time being, most of the developers speak to me, and, as > said above, I try to nudge them in a general direction. > If we set up a website, the developers will speak to each other. I'm They will anyway. But with a central, open site at least we'll all have the chance to see what the results of those discussions are as soon as the outcomes have been agreed. > NOT saying that this is a bad thing but it will mean that > development will be made on a more ad hoc basis. As the software > registrar, with a mission to try to keep unified versions where > possible (and thus, trying to steer the thing a bit), that must leave > me with fixed feelings, of course since my power to influence > things will be diminished (if it ever existed). But again, if this serves > the community, I have no problems with it I think the best you can ever hope for is to have some control over the integrity of the sources. What facilities and improvements will be developed will be entirely up to the interests and abilities of the people involved. > > Allow downloading of the latest binaries to registered users > > That would be a definite no. The users should get their updates > from the resellers. The developers don't need to download the > binaries - recompiling everything is a five minutes process! At present there is virtually no control over who legal users are. If a reseller went down, or if there was a corrupt reseller (God forbid!) there is currently no way of knowing. My proposal is that each user license would come with its own serial number that the customer could use to register with the database to allow free upgrade downloads or support entitlement. Registration on the project web by users would, of course, be entirely voluntary. There is no privacy issue involved here, as the serial number only pertains to the user license. Obviously, if someone tried to register an invalid serial number, or one that is already in use, that would need to be investigated. > Moreover, some kind of validation process must take place, to > make sure that new versions are stable, before they are passed on > to the user. Absolutely. This is your domain ;) <> > > Hold a support database (a la M$'s Knowledgebase) > > THAT is a LOT of work! ALL of this is a LOT of work. So is upgrading Wman and GD2! But this would be ideal for someone who would love to contribute and support, but is not able/willing to program in m68. A knowledgebase utility is an interesting programming project in itself. It neednt be created by the webmaster himself. Once up and running it could save resellers as well as punters a lot of hassle. It neednt all be done at once: in the mean time we have this list! <> * Components: My not too deep musings so far have identified the following components (Im not talking about modules here, though a number of components do coincide with actual modules): 1) Kernel - scheduler, traps & vectors interface, etc - universal 2) Boot loader and hardware initialisation - platform specific. 3) Shell (SBasic) - universal but optional 4) Basic drivers - screen, pipes, etc - universal, possibly partially optional 5) Keyboard and language - universal but user specific 6) Pointer Interface - universal (but not everyone wants/needs it) 7) Other drivers - optional and platform specific 8) System extensions (Things, Hotkeys, etc) - universal, as for (4) 9) Foreign environment drivers (communication with host platform) - platform specific (The bits Ive called universal are to some degree platform specific too (processor sensitive)). These different layers and elements cannot all be considered in the same way. Per
