Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: petros-project.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to petros-project.com.

Comments · 7

  1. Re:So long... by ArnoldYabenson · · Score: 1 · on Be Throws in the Towel
    Did the Palm sale end plans to implement BeOS API support in Petros? In fact what happened to Petros, anyway?

  2. Re:So long... by ArnoldYabenson · · Score: 1 · on Be Throws in the Towel
    Did the Palm sale end plans to implement BeOS API support in Petros? In fact what happened to Petros, anyway?

  3. Petros? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Michael Robertson Interview about Lindows

    Has anyone tried the new release of Petros? Does it work?

  4. All aboard! by edunbar93 · · Score: 1 · on Peter Tattam Of The PetrOS Project Talks To OSNews
    A) Cheap alternative for desktop users ... PetrOS will have to sell for $50 or less, then.

    It does. They've released version 1.01 and they're selling it for $50 a copy. Whether it's going to be profitable has yet to be seen.

  5. Re:But it's a moving target! by kilgore_47 · · Score: 3, Insightful · on Peter Tattam Of The PetrOS Project Talks To OSNews

    Linus could have said the same thing to himself in 1991. UNIX at the time, as most people seem to forget these days, was in a downward slide that started in the mid 1980s.

    Linus made a difference by making his OS open source.

    To quote the PetrOS FAQ:
    We are open to selected developers or OEMs having access to source code under suitable licensing conditions. Some selected parts of the user layers will be open sourced.

    This is not an open source operating system.
    This is a tiny windows compatibility layer on top of a small kernel written in Object Pascal.

  6. Microsoft licensed Trumpet Winsock? Prove it by joneshenry · · Score: 2 · on Windows XP: Prices, And One Reaction
    Okay I'll play. I've read quite a few accounts of Peter Tattam's adventures starting Trumpet Software including this and this. I don't see any mention anywhere of Microsoft licensing Trumpet Winsock. Nor is any such thing asserted in the alt.winsock FAQ. The closest I could come is Tattam's comment in the interview: "I had by that time established a good reputation producing internet software and was even offered a job by Microsoft as a consultant at one point. I'm glad I didn't take it up..:-)"

    As O'Reilly states, WinSock is more a specification, a set of APIs. Anyone could write an implementation. Several did. It just so happens that Peter Tattam wrote the best for Windows 3.1. Also he wrote a scriptable dialer which back in those days was what a lot of people needed to negotiate the hodgepodge of dial-in methods required by the much less consolidated ISP industry. And Tattam gave his package away as shareware so it could spread very fast.

    It gets better though from the perspective of an argument against bundling. There were quite frequent warnings as you can see in the alt.winsock FAQ about having the "right" WINSOCK.DLL installed with all others removed. And with the change to Windows 95, I can remember the huge amount of hype over whether one should go "32-bit". Here's a sample from back then which includes advice to simply remove Trumpet Winsock under certain circumstances.

    Unfortunately for the opponents of bundling, the problem with this otherwise perfect example is that it is inconceivable that a modern consumer OS would lack either a TCP/IP stack or a dialer. Trumpet Software had the clear market leader. Microsoft in Windows 95 bundled both its own TCP/IP stack and a dialer DUN. This bundling introduced potential incompatibilities that even led for some to advise uninstalling Trumpet's product. So should the government have had the right to force Microsoft to stop invading this software niche? Should it have mattered that Tattam wasn't the head of a much larger company such as Netscape? Should it have mattered that Tattam wasn't American?

    By the way, Trumpet Software is currently developing a new 32 bit OS PETROS.

  7. Re:Open Source doesn't mix with Commercial Interes by PTrumpet · · Score: 2 · on GCC's Response To Red Hat
    come to the PetrOS Forum and find out :)

    I have rigid deadlines that have to be met, so it does look like Q4 2000-Q1 2001 will be the release date - hope I don't burst my boiler doing so :)

    The first target (fully functional kernel capable of providing base win32 kernel services) has been reached without blowing out by more than 3 months. The next target is a GUI which could effectively run a thin client or bare bones windows apps - this is about 30% done and I hope to achieve this by the end of the year. The graphics framework is running, and all I need to do is build the widgits and glue code to interface to applications and we're pretty much there.