Re: Facing the End ;-)

> "Ingo Weinhold" <bonefish-CFLBMwTPW48UNGrzBIF7/[email protected]> wrote:
> > > I am not so sure about that... basically, we should be able to 
> > > hide 
> > > the 
> > > inner partitioning workings from the user. Of course, for so 
> > > limited 
> > > systems as the Intel partitioning scheme, it's beneficial (or 
> > > even 
> > > needed) for the user to specify a partition as primary or active 
> > > partition, but I wouldn't enforce a graphical interaction.
> > > Better have a standard structure for every partitioning module 
> > > that 
> > > can 
> > > be used by a graphical partition add-on as well as a CLI 
> > > implementation.
> > Mmh, you're not really proposing to provide an API for each 
> > partitioning scheme and file system, are you=3F I would consider 
> > that a 
> > bit of overkill. In my opinion the GUI add-on is sufficient and 
> > preferred by 99.99 % of the users. If someone doesn't like it, or 
> > has 
> > plans like mass-partitioning over network, well, the sources are 
> > open.
> 
> I was only aiming at one file system/partition specific structure to 
> be 
> exchanged by one API.
> 
> > BTW, for the intel partition module, I extracted the reusable code 
> > into 
> > separate source files (intel=5Fpartition=5Fmap.{h,cpp} for the 
> > structures 
> > and intel=5Fparameters.{h,cpp} for the conversion to and from 
> > parameters 
> > strings), that I intend to reuse in the GUI add-on. I would see 
> > nothing, that would prevent anyone from using them as well.
> 
> If I understand you correctly, that's what I had in mind.

That would be nice. I'm a bit confused, though. Just have a look at 
all, when we're done, and give a yell, if that isn't what you had in 
mind. :-P

> > > Oh yeah :-))
> > > If OpenBeOS turns out to be the one and only, we can move the 
> > > OpenTracker repository into ours as well, and maintaining it with 
> > > the 
> > > rest of the system.
> > I somehow doubt, that this will happen. Not that I wouldn't find 
> > that 
> > desirable.
> 
> I guess this depends a bit on Zeta, since that one will be the only 
> other binary compatible OS.

At least its first version, I suspect. I don't know what I should make 
of some of Bernd's mysterious comments. We'll see...

> Given the communicative ability combined with strange open/closed 
> source approaches of all those other projects, I think we are the 
> only 
> "real" alternative for most BeOS users.
> Well, no one can be sure for now anyway :-)

It will definitely help, if we are able to finish sooner rather than 
later, though. So spare your sleep. ;-)

CU, Ingo