While I personally do not mind close cooperation with Ensemble or even
Cosmos, I'm not sure why we should go the route of having the same kernel.
There may be certain design decisions in various components that we may not
agree upon and I would prefer not to be tied down with the need to accept a
compromise for both projects. I'd prefer the freedom for both projects to
go whichever path each one wants. Now granted I expect a lot of
similarities, but I also expect some major differences in design
philosophy. Personally, I think maintaining compatible interfaces would be
a more fruitful approach, as it allows both projects to do whatever they
want in the internal components while still preserving the ability to swap
entire components without the need to do massive rewrites.
I also accept that there may be completely identical components, worked on
by both sides, in and out of the kernel. I just don't see a reason that
such sameness be a priority.
Sidenote: I think we should all stop resending the entire chain of messages
(or at least I should) since we're hitting the 50KB limit.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
SharpOS-Developers mailing list
SharpOS-Developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sharpos-developers
