On Nov 16, 2007 1:58 AM, Jonathan Chayce Dickinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hmm, I thought the current kernel was a POC. I don't mean the 'final
> version' but I do mean the 'final implementation', that is, what we will
> carry on working with from here on out.
>
>
>
> Again, can I get write access to the sandbox PLZ...
>
> Jonathan Chayce Dickinson
>
>
>
Frankly, if in every e-mail you demonstrate a lack of knowledge about the
project and its goals, (without stopping to ask questions first), and then
beg for SVN access - this is actually the kind of red flag that shows us we
need to take your suggestions with a grain of salt.
I can't speak for the group, but I can say from my own point of view, you
need to take a step back, ask some more questions, and read some more
mailing list archives.
The current kernel, I think, is remarkable for how it works, not necessarily
what it does. This project is about a unique methodology, not being "the
most awesomest OS, like, ever". If you've spent some time working in the
kernel, you would know this.
Please sit back and spend some time with the kernel before you insult our
hard work any more. We know we'll have to re-write it. But calling it "POC"
is not a good way to get favor from any of the people here that have spent
hundreds of hours working on it or the AOT.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
SharpOS-Developers mailing list
SharpOS-Developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sharpos-developers
