Slashdot Mirror
Free Be
Big Al writes "Be announced today that starting with the next release of the OS (R5) it will be free for private and non-commercial use - downloadable from the internet. There will still be an 'enhanced version' but the free version is the same as the enhanced without some additional tools and utilities. "
Further proof that Open Source has made the Operating System Free (as in beer) but what about speech?
An employer of Be recently answered some questions.
The free BeOS will use a BFS partition in a file. BeOS R4.5 could mount such a file, but not boot from it. BeOS 5 is able to boot from it.
You still we be able to boot the free BeOS without starting Windows. (eg. with a boot disc)
You will not be able to switch between Windows and BeOS on the fly.
Whining about the GPL is just proof that you don't "get it"
Anyone else bothered by this statement?
comparing RedHat and the Salvation Army.
Hmmm...what is the Salvation Army's ticker symbol?
My personal experience with Be is that it is more polished, stable, and faster. Is there the huge amount of software for it? Nope.
But there is more software for Windows than Linux too. Does that make Windows better? I think not.
Its not Open Source which has forced Be to make this free I'm afraid, it is the steamroller from Redmond WA. Any OS wanting to compete with Windows has to be free to stand a chance these days.
But just know that the Open Source community is going to make one that is better, faster, and free.
Are they really?
Or is it more likely that they will badger and flame you endlessly to make your product free?
Personally, I've been following "Open Source" since it was called "Free Software". I have so much enthusiasm for it, but I'm disturbed by the recent trends.
The days of, "We'll do our own version," seem to be ending. Now, it's "We'll convince the company to open-source their existing product." Worse yet is the attitude that companies are OBLIGATED to open-source their software.
Unfortunately, the "hacker mentality" that once said, "I can do it myself," is being replaced by the "persuader mentality". This new attitude says, "I can talk them into doing it for me."
What happened to the real hackers? Where are the people who prefer writing their own software to persuading BigCo, Inc. to give away theirs?
I see a lot more politicians, diplomats, and wannabe executives than programmers on slashdot these days. That's fine -- spokesmen, representitives, and policy-debaters all have important roles to play.
But someone still has to write the code.
The free version will not include some codecs, Opera and the G2 Player. The expanded version will include these. The reason are "royality" costs, as Be has to pay for these things.
I see. The free version is the same thing as the enhanced version. The only difference is that they're "different". Oh well, I guess that fits my definition of "same".
I won't use an OS if it doesn't have software, and developers won't make software unless enough people use the OS. Now that everyone will be able to get it for free, we should hopefully see Be get off the ground. Never used it, but heard its very nice, both from a user's and a developer's perspective. I can't wait to download my copy.
Having used BeOS for over a year now, I'd like to clean up a few things if I may:
1) BeOS R5 will run from a file in Windows. It will NOT run IN Windows. The BFS filesystem will sit on your FAT partition as a normal file. When you click the BeOS icon in Windows the system will re-boot into BeOS, using the 'Windows' file as a normal BFS filesystem.
2) BeOS R5 WILL also be a stand-alone OS. You do NOT need Windows to run it. You will be able to install BeOS into a seperate partition and dual-boot it, etc.
Both of the above are stated in the press release.
3) BeOS IS NOT UNIX!!!, I repeat, BeOS IS NOT UNIX. BeOS has nothing to do with UNIX. You CANNOT use a Linux kernel with BeOS. It's NEVER going to happen. BeOS was written from SCRATCH as a brand new OS. It does use 'bash' as it's default shell, and it's own file-system (BFS) is very 'UNIX-like', but that is as far as it goes. The standard UNIX commands such as 'vi' and 'ls' are also available of course. BeOS does have a POSIX layer to the API. This means it's easy to port existing UNIX applications to BeOS. (Windows NT has a POSIX API layer, I am told...though I've never seen it myself.)
Below this line are personal comments only
------------------------------------------
To be honest, I DON'T want BeOS to be open source. If it was all that would happen is that the Linux gurus (yes I dual-boot Linux and BeOS!) would steal all the good bits of BeOS (i.e. the file-system, Media Translators, etc.), put them into Linux and then dump BeOS.
I like having a choice myself. There are some people out there that don't actually like running Linux, you know! (I'm NOT one of them :-) )
--------------------------------------------------
-
David Powell
Be Everywhere.
www.begroovy.com www.benews.com www.bebits.com
-------------------------------------------------
On the contrary, proprietary software is akin to extortion. It's just extortion done by companies with the backing of the government. (if you don't give us money, we will send you to jail). Does that make it right? Not necessarily.
Rights are a social construct that promote a better society. I don't consider the right to licence proprietary software an important human right. The only reason that right exists was because some people thought that it might promote the advancement of Science and the Arts.
Ok, so it seems you are a little better at English now. I said it was akin to extortion practiced by the government. After all, the means are very similar. (you aren't allowed to do something you would be otherwise allowed to do, and the reason why you aren't to do it is that if you do, people will imprison you, fine you, etc...) If it turns out the right the government enforces is unjustifiable, it is extortion. However, if it turns out to be justifiable, then it isn't. The very fact that customers are now rebelling and choosing non-proprietary software, despite the special legislative treatment proprietary software has, is a suggestion that perhaps the disadvantages of such a right outweigh the advantages. You seem to be anti-OpenSource. I think this may because you are afraid of it, that you are afraid that your customers will find out that you have been not giving them a very good deal all along. (Did you know that there is a technical term for when an industry decides to not be competetive for supposed mutual benefit. It's called a cartel).
No it's an essay. It explains my point. Please read it, there's a link to it someone where in this thread. Then at least you will be able to understand where I am coming from, even if you still disagree.
Go away and read the Magic Cauldron, by Eric Raymond. Come back when you understand that software is a service industry, not a manufacturing industry.
And I'm sure I'd love to talk to you in the future, but, as you might have noticed, you are an anonymous coward.
Apologies for the multiple postings, the link to the states burped. :(
Woosh! Point missed.
Linux does not need open source to be used.
Linux does need to be open source to be developed.
"You know you want me baby!" - Crow T Robot
The kernel loads stuff as it needs it but it all runs in one address-space.
I just love Be because it's a microkernel that gives that blowhard Torvalds the big middle
finger in response to his ignorant diatribes against microkernels.
Actually, you've made the same mistake I've made in the past. The BeOS doesn't use a microkernel architecture.
Most decidedly not, in fact. Just, y'know, FYI.
All I see are people missing the issue, over simplifying the issue or incorectly stating the issue. Be is going to be free to the home user. Just like Netscape was for some users, just like Solaris is (/was?) for some users.
This is good news... free is free is free. Because I gice you a free candy bar, are you not gonna eat it until I give you all the ingreedients, tell you how it was made and then help you figure out how to make it your self?
I am glad that a new version of Be is gonna be made. This is a good thing.
Even better, it is going to be a free thing.
Now with the OS being free, more people can try it with out the initial investment. This is great. The more users, the more apps.
Any reason to get upset, downplay or ignore the announcement is a flaw in character. Accept the free software.
If you want an open source version of Be, write it.
-I just work here... how am I supposed to know?
> The free version will not include some codecs, Opera and the G2 Player. The expanded version will include these.
Its all very well being anonymous and saying such things, but no-one knows what will be included yet, not even you. Codecs I have no idea about but I doubt they'll be excluded. As for Opera - its still in beta and definately not distributed with the system, and G2 player isnt even available yet.
1. Check facts.
2. Think through.
3. Make conclusions.
4. Press submit.
~Pev
They're not doing anything magical; they've just discovered loopbacks. I run Linux completely from a file on my Windows drive too. There's nothing noteworthy about it.
Thank you sir... your last section is oh-so-true. I have been flamed before for saying that open-source is not the greatest thing since sliced bread. As you said, Linux is great at networking, and BeOS at desktop multimedia. That was exactly my point. Just because Linux has done phenominally well as an open-source OS does not mean Windows or MacOS or Sun or QNX or BeOS will do as well.
To open-source advocates everywhere: Free your minds. To be truly computer advocates is to accept everything good that happens in the computer industry, not nay-say everything that isn't how you want it. A breath of fresh air IS required every now and then.
Oh yes...
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
Why don't you try and change that to :
Open Source. Open Minds. Open Horizons. Slashdot.
Wouldn't that be a much nicer slogan?
heh.. I overclock my celeron. I enjoy the work and risk that it takes. I just don't like the brutes who try and force their way of thinking upon everyone else.
Gee, open-source the world... what a concept. That sound OH-SO-SIMILAR to the world domination of some unspoken-but-in-big-legal-trouble company....
Be will not go Open Source, because there is no need to. All you linux fanatics want is to take what you deem is rightfully yours and leave the husk. GROW UP! You don't make money giving away your recipe for lemondade but set-up a stand nonetheless. Or better yet, charge to help people set-up their own lemonade stands. Be is still afloat, and is in an entirely different realm from Linux. You don't see any companies call BeOne trying to cheat investors out of millions of dollars, do you.
What? PR (Preview Release) was a disaster! R3 on Intel was horrendous. Really, the coolest BeOS version I used was DR8.1, back when it wasn't even called BeOS and didn't have a Journalling File System. Weird, but IMHO those were the glory days of Be IMHO, back when the BeBox was the coolest thing to own :-) Now Be is just another company trying to ride all the Buzzword bandwagons, without much success I'm afraid...
Ex-BeOS user
"In short: just say NO TO DRUGS, and maybe you won't end up like the Hurd people." --Linus Torvalds
Personally, I feel like ESR - I want to use software that doesn't suck. Unlike ESR, I believe that 'lack of suckiness' isn't an exclusive property of the open source movement - that there exists proprietary software which doesn't suck.
it's funny that you mention esr in your post. i saw him speak a few weeks ago and he made the point that most software developers that make a living from programming aren't doing it for something that becomes a resalable product. i.e. most are writing for internal systems. so the fact that we have a free os doesn't harm us at all. by your theory, linux should be a piece of shit because there's no money to be made doing it. sounds just like the played out anti-linux hype to me! why does linux exist when freebsd and openbsd were around before it??? can windows really get any worse??? windows is probably going to improve because all of these free operating systems are lighting a fire under its ass. this is a GREAT thing (tm)!
"The lie, Mr. Mulder, is most convincingly hidden between two truths."
--
And Justice for None
If anyone, Microsoft, not open source software, is to blame for your "dearth of innovation" in browser technology (Opera and Mozilla might beg to differ here.
And Open Source didn't ruin profitablilty in the x86 OS market across the board, just for some players. Microsoft still seems to be chugging along. BeOS just never seemed to catch on with consumers, probably because its other alt-OS competitors under cut it on price. Welcome to the free market, baby.
as stated in the FAQ it runs in windows and does not need repartitioning... what's this?
--
BeRoute
"Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
yes, BeOS Lite was announced some days ago, common' moderators, put the comment at 2 or 3
--
BeRoute
"Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
tomorrow transmeta will launch their crusoë, maybe there's a link between Be Inc. and Transmeta :o)
--
BeRoute
"Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
it's because Be Inc. changed the page today, the example you gave us was not there this morning IIRC
--
BeRoute
"Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
.
--
BeRoute
"Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
Look at Redhat, Caldera etc. They are making money for doing this stuff.
Well, no, they're not. Red Hat has a gigantic valuation and Caldera will soon, as well, but there's no evidence yet that they can make profit to justify that value. Besides, you're comparing apples and oranges. RH and Caldera can make that money because other people wrote software for free.
But just know that the Open Source community is going to make one that is better, faster, and free.
Hey, I write GPL software, too. But then, I don't make a living from computers so there's no downside for me. I love getting stuff for free!
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
This isn't stopping LinuxPPC from supporting all the latest Apple hardware. It's very possible to support the hardware without help from Apple.
Personally, i think this was just Be's excuse to shift to the larger x86 market. They had a very strong association with Apple in users' minds, which was probably hurting their buisness.
Also, they are a very small company, and i can see how maintaining both architectures could be a strain. So they moved to x86 only (for all practical purposes).
"I'm sure you're wondering why I've asked you here."
"-And why I've got a picture of a burger on my wall."
Whoops. That's Exeter. My bad.
Here's a suggestion: Get out of your bloody cave. It's really bad for the image of those of us who love and use Linux / FreeBSD / OpenBSD / etc. when outsiders see us as a bunch of idiots with no clue about the realities of the computer industry. Don't get me wrong, I love Linux, I love open way that things are done, and I would probably love any type BSD if I had a third computer. Win98 is on the second one for games. Yeah. Win98. Bite me. I happen to like Mechwarrior 3. But not everything has to be open source. Be put a lot of money, time, and effort into making a very sweet OS. Geez, can't some of you OSS fanatics just send a nice email to the folks at Be saying "Thank you"? Talk about a bunch of ungrateful brats. After typing this I realise that I've just responded to a troll, but I don't really care. I'm venting, deal with it. Can some of you widen your horizons just a little bit? Please? You're making the rest of us Linux users looks bad.
--- While this may make you believe noone cares, believe this: Be users are a loyal userbase, almost as stubborn as Amiga users :) --- Hey, you're right! If it worked for the Amiga, it might just work for Be! :>
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
You appear to be ignoring my point (except perhaps for the word 'supposedly'). Is there such a thing as 'natural law', uninterpreted by man over the ages?
Some people hold it to be self-evident that property is theft. The American penal system takes away both life and liberty.
My point being, that these are just interpretations of some underlying 'natural' law.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
I was very careful not to say that you had lost your principles, because I don't want to make the same assumptions about you as you obviously have about me. I work for a large multinational corporation. You have egg on your face.
I'm not flaming you about open source, I'm flaming you about your know-it-all attitude. As for Linus, well, I still don't see him making money from Linux, but I see him still giving a lot of his time to it, as he has done over the past decade (not all of which time has he been at university).
thanks for playing,
Hamish
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
Wouldn't it be nice if they were inherent and axiomatic? But where are they written? The Dead Sea Scrolls?
At least in my interpretation, if they are taken away from one, they are taken away from all.
Hamish
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
My apologies. My sentence should have read, "As for Linus, well, I still don't see him making money from selling Linux". That is, after all, what we were talking about, no?
My point (for your own benefit, since I'm sure everyone else has already worked it out) is as follows: you told Hadron, "You will feel differently when you exepect to get paid for the product you say you are not producing". Hadron obviously expects nothing of the sort, and would much rather earn his bread and butter selling services.
As for Linus - which one of interviews, appearances and stock deals is a product? And are you aware that he took the job at Transmeta on the understanding that he would have time to work on the kernel?
Hamish
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
Where do your 'rights' come from? Why do I have the right to breathe air? I don't even have the right to decide whether or not I am born. Do I have the right to take my own life? Do I have the right to take my own drugs? Do I have the right to bang my own drum? The difference between rights and privileges is purely that the former are (supposed to be) universal.
Hamish
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
Hmm. You appear to be defining the 'real world' by looking around your own local environment. Exactly what you were criticising Hadron for, really.
Just because you yourself might have lost many of your principles when you left college, doesn't mean to say that everyone does. Have you ever heard of a Mr Linus Torvalds?
Hamish
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
When you are in college, your future is entirely speculative. Who can say what exactly Hardon will be doing?
Not you, that's for sure. If I had to bet on one of the three of us, it would doubtless be Hadron.
Does the fact that he can work on the kernel at Transmeta mean that he has the right to keep the other Transmeta code closed. Is that code the property of Transmeta? Or are they just selling a service?
Linus is selling a service to Transmeta. He is also selling code to them. In effect, he is doing two jobs.
If Linus keeps it closed then he is a hypocrite by your standards. Please be consistent, and how do you want your eggs?
You seem not to understand what the word 'hypocrite' means. If I drink coffee in the mornings, and tea in the afternoons, that does not make me a 'hypocrite'.
I'll have my eggs boiled, please. You'd better have yours scrambled, by the look of your face.
Hamish
p.s. Why? Why can I never remember not to feed the fucking trolls?
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
You work for the fucking MAN!! I bet your multination corporation open sources all its software.
In fact, it doesn't. Given that I have nowhere claimed that I think all software should be open-sourced, could you please explain to me why you think your comment is so very clever?
Hamish
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
Actually, it's Offtopic, Flamebait, Troll, Redundant or Overrated. There are an equal number of positive moderation categories.
The poster in question had some good points to make, but the last paragraph of his post qualifies it as Flamebait or Troll:
Not all OSS software is better. BE [sic] is a better OS than Linux, has a ton more features, and is more stable.
The first sentence is undoubtedly true. However, in the second sentence, 'better' is completely unqualified and rather vacuous; 'a ton more features' is at best subjective, and 'more stable' simply untrue. Disclaimer: I use both BeOS and Linux according to their relative merits.
Hamish
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
Yes and the reason you are probably bothered by it as well is because the arrogant dick who said it is implying that because people don't agree with him means they just don't understand. Basically it ammounts to flamebait.
I'm no fucking Buddhist, but this is enlightenment. - Bjork
You are obviously confusing his statement. He said Linux does not need OPEN SOURCE to be used. Linux could be closed source, but still free, and people would still use it. Most of the people who use linux don't even look at the linux source code.
If Linux wasn't open source it wouldn't have been able to progress as quickly as it has, but that was not the point he was making.
What I think would be interesting to know is how many of the zealous open source advocates here actually contribute to and take advantage of open source (using the program source, not just the program itself.)
To do FOO should never require ProductFOO.
Is this like how buying a car should never require you to put gas in it, change oil, go for checkups, etc.?
It sounds like it, because if you don't do the above things your car isn't going to last very long. If you don't buy the software that is supposedly required for the class that you are taking you are likely to fail. Boo fucking hoo.
I'm no fucking Buddhist, but this is enlightenment. - Bjork
The freedom to be able to do something is often more important that actually ever doing it.
"We shall fight for your RIGHT to have babies, Stan - er Loretta!"
It wasn't free for business users, and that was where the money was. I've worked for many businesses which bought Netscape licences for all of their employees. I'm sure their business revenues were way higher than the revenues from individual consumer sales.
Selling their server software was also a big profit center.
Microsoft gave both of their competing product away free to everyone. They were NOT imitating Netscape, they were undercutting them via dumping techniques to drive them out of the market. Classic monopoly screw tactics.
Jon
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
Glad to see some scientific research behind this age-old argument.
According to the flyer I received from Be at comdex, they promised DVD playing support in the next release of BeOS. I guess that's not going to happen.. I really haven't heard much more about it. It would be fantastic to have a free copy of BeOS running to play DVD's!!
Does anyone know the status on DVD Video player support in BeOS? Software based or otherwise?
The only page that a distinct browser (say, the CNet browser, for example) would be able to "dictate" would be the default home page. This is the only reason that Netscape was able to use NetCenter as its chief money-maker during the last few months of its life as an independent company.
Curiously enough, this first page pole-position doesn't seem to apply to TV, as no one would imply that channel 2 has an advantage from being the first channel that a viewer will see when he plugs in his set. As Net newbies become more experienced, the default home page advantage will erode further.
Then again, I'll let you try to explain that to my father-in-law who feels most comfortable when he can start at AT&T Worldnet's default home page, "just like the software set it up to be"....
- Richie
The fact that most open source licenses repeatedly state "this product has no warranty implied or otherwise" probably does though.
God does not play dice - Einstein
Not only does God play dice, he sometimes throws them where they
I don't think it is a fair statement to say "Further proof that Open Source has made the Operating System Free." This type of free distribution is really just a marketing mechanism which was started with the whole shareware effort started by Buttonware in the late 1980's if memory serves me right. Since there is no source involved, it can be explained otherwise.
"When it became obvious the money was elsewhere..."
When did it become obvious? Netscape was making a killing until MS integrated it into the OS (for "free"). So yes, there was money to be made.
"This "innovation" stopped not because the browser was made free (beer, speech in some cases) but because there was no money in it."
I have to disagree. I believe it was more correct the other way around.
That's a bit misleading. BeOS ships with a couple dozen GUI apps and around 200 command-line utilities. But more importantly, there are more than a thousands freeware, shareware, and commercial apps available for BeOS. Just because they don't come on the CD doesn't mean there's no software. Just ask anyone who uses BeOS full-time.
Remember that this particular sword cuts both ways. BeOS has had USB support for a long time now. Similarly, SoundBlaster Live! support for BeOS appeared in working form for BeOS before Linux (at the time, Linux instructions were telling me to recompile my kernel -- puh-leeze!). In many cases, hardware vendors are willing to give specs to Be because they know they can get their NDAs signed without hassle. Linux isn't always ahead where hardware is concerned.
Excuse me? BEOS IPO'd at $6, then climbed as high as $38 before floating back down to $20. Check your facts.
Wrong. You'll get the BFS filesystem as well. A filesystem within a Windows file. You will not have to sacrifice the many advantage of the Be File System.
NetPositive is not all things to all people, but I prefer it over any other browser. Clunky? That's the absolute last thing I would call it. Small, fast, and graceful is how I see it. I hate using other browsers after having become accustomed to NetPositive.
BeOS 4.5 used a similar method, and no harmful partitioning was necessary. It did ship with a special version of Partition Magic or something like that (not fips unfortunately), and left an icon on your desktop that when you clicked it, Windows would shut down and Be would magically start up. It probably works like the previous procedure.
.exe(cutable) so I'm not going to be able (maybe) to get away with not partitioning for Be.
I'm wanting to know how they manage Linux+Be on one box (no Window$), because it's obviously not going to sit on my desktop as a
I'm going to guess they haven't thought this one through all the way, or at least the author of the FAQ doesn't have all the info.
ALL HAIL BRAK!!!
Nope, Netscape never made much money from their browser. In fact their original business plan was that it would be free for all users, and would serve as the best advertising money could buy for their server products.
However, Netscape found that corporations and individuals were demanding 'support', and so they begun charging a nominal fee (~$30) for a supported version of the product. I believe this policy started with version 1.1. Corporations had to pay for the supported version of the software, and individuals did to get a manual and save the hassle of downloading over a 28.8K link.
(In fact the corporation I worked for at the time refused to deploy NS 1.0/1.1 to a few thousand desktops unless Netscape took their money and entered into a support contract. Since Netscape was so small at that time, they were a little confused at this proposition.)
They never made any attempt to restrict Internet distribution to individuals -- their "90 day evaluation period" was essentially bunk because a new patch level or beta was usually released within 90 days. Not that they ever tried enforcing this restriction, even though they easily could have.
As for where Netscape made it's money (or didn't), it was primarily their web server product. They did get a little traction with the mail/directory/calendar/certificate server line up, but by then most of the potential customers (large corporations) had standardized on Lotus Notes or MS Exchange.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
The faq has been updated - you can run FreeBeOS as a standalone OS.
-lx
Disasterous showing? It's more than doubled, and beat the estimates that were expressed when they went public. Furthermore, no company has to be open-source to survive, as much as slashdot would like to think the contrary. Windows is doing fine, Office is doing fine, Real, and a host of others are handling everything just fine.
Open-sourcing BeOS would ruin Be. BeOS has advanced to a position far technologically advanced to Linux in the same amount of time, with far fewer people, and that wouldn't have been done without careful management. The open-source development model does not lend well to quick progress. It'd be nice if Slashdot could conceive of a company being successful without being open-source. The majority of software companies aren't.
-lx
The GPL allows you to sell software you develop. It also allows you to sell software other people have developed. It also allows other people to sell software that you developed.
I think that people have a point here, though. Opensource (especially Linux) is kinda like Microsoft in some aspects (i know... flamebait....) in that other companies really have the leadership position, and open source products just lumber along, steamrolling everything that doesn't move fast enough...
And i share the sentiment that if Open Source trully does win, it'll be a sad day for us all... Without the companies we've had investing billions of dollars in R&D, I don't know where the industry will go. But really, who will even want to learn to code if they know that they can make no money off of it, unless they also want to engage in support, etc?
One big disadvantage of beos will be, that it is not under GPL or a similar license. Of course Be tries hard to make developers write device drivers but on a system thats a) commercial and b) not widely spread and c) not available in source-code I dont believe this will change in the near future.
Poor beos. It was a very nice system - and fast. But I want my netscape, emacs, railroad tycoon and all the KDE-stuff. Well at least with this "for-personal-use-free"-license there is a chance...
Gery
------------------------------
The answer is yes, me.
This was the only thing holding me back from trying out BEos. I have been wanting to but didnt have the spare cash.
Microsoft aggravates my tourettes syndrome.
What can you use this OS for? I mean there are no mainstream apps for this operating system. No Office, Netscape, Quicken, recent games, nada.
:)
If your sole criteria for using an application is that it be "mainstream", then Windows 95 is probably the OS for you. If, on the other hand, you are actually trying to get something accomplished, you might try buying or downloading one or more of the following: Gobe Productive 2.0 (very nice productivity suite by the same people who made ClarisWorks for the Mac), Opera, Corum III, ArtPaint, Moho, BePlan, E-Picture, etc.
I need to get stuff done not spend hours learning new word processing, web browser, and financial packages.
You could just as easily argue it the other way: "I need to get stuff done, not spend hours working around Windows inefficiency and design flaws".
-Jeremy
ps If your post was a troll, then congratulations, you got me
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
nicely put, esp. 4rth para.
I agree with most of your points, I installed Be almost a year ago and couldn't be happier with the ease of installation, disk partioning, configuration, upgrading, etc.
:-)
The bundled apps are sadly lacking, though. Netpositive is very clunky and doesn't support alot of common plug-ins. (Including java)The text editor is very basic. No included graphics programs. You can tell that with the right applications the system could be very sweet, but the freeware (and non-free software) available doesn't seem to be growing and developing with the same vigor as apps for the freeware market (or even the Mac market!).
However, its just fine for what I used it for, which is basically dialing up and connecting with remote machines. So while I would like better toys for me BeOS baby, I think the $60 I paid for the OS was not wasted. Which makes me wonder a bit why they've freed the OS (as in beer) without freeing the code (as in speech). Will developers be more attracted to a widely adopted lightweight OS or an OS they can monkey around inside of? All the developers I know would rather the latter, but maybe the market will prove me wrong.
I was disappointed to see that cheapie PC maker (was it emachines?) go belly up. They were going to be using the BeOS as their "network appliance OS". It would have been interesting to see how that would have worked out for Be.
Is RedHat Be's only hope? I hope not. However, it would be interesting to hear Stephenson's reconciliation of his own metaphor -- would that be a Batmobile in a transparent case, spare parts under the hood and all kinds of gadgets poking out of every corner?
The article mentions something about Windows users being able to download the BeOS to their desktop and launching it like another application, no re-partioning required? I don't understand how (or why) that's supposed to work, is it like a desktop emulator without actually relying on the underlying OS?
Having some problems visualising,
sk
Given the choice, I would choose BeOS over Linux 10 times out of 10. This is an incredible move.. I hope Gassee has the finances worked out properly.. he should be seeing BeOS getting about 5X the desktops it has now on day #1, but almost no revenue coming in. Long Live BE!
www.jackasscritics.com
There is a demo of Ver. 3 available.. it's like $5 or something.. I've got one.. nothing spectacular... boots from the CD.. you can't install on any media...
bedepot.com I think has it
www.jackasscritics.com
I am on crack. The Demo CD is now up to the current version V. 4.5, and the link directly to it is here.
It costs $10, but if you purchase the demo CD you can knock $10 off the purchase of 4.5. Not like anyone is going to be purchasing 4.5 with 5.0 being.. ahem free. I would say now it's just a matter of waiting for the free 5.0.
www.jackasscritics.com
Correction: it won't run on PPC601-chips (it needs at least a 603)
BZZZZZZZZZZ...
You sir are incorrect. BeOS will in fact run on the only 601 PPC-Based Mac with PCI slots, that being a base 7500. BeOS does not have trouble with the 601 chip, it's trouble is with the architecture design of the Nubus Macs.
www.jackasscritics.com
Did you choose to take that class? Did you choose that course of study? Did you choose to go to that school? Or did someone put a gun to your head and make you do these things?
Stop trying to shirk responsibility for your own choices.
That's a very fault argument.
On more familiar grounds, Bill Gates is worth billions, and Linus Torvalds isn't. Does that mean Linus' vision has any less merit that Gates'?
Well, to properly discuss this, you first have define how you propose to measure "merit" and you have to identify who the benificiaries of this "merit" are.
Completely, utterly bizzare...
I agree with you that free markets are best -- and the more free, the better. What I don't get is your characterizing my previous posting as "total bullshit" and "Stalinesque."
When I buy a car, there are usually some choices I can make regarding available options for that car. It is not guaranteed that I will have any options, nor that certain options will be available, although there are a set of them that usually are available. One that is typically not available, though, is who the manufacturer of the engine will be. If I buy a Toyota, I almost certainly will have to do with a Toyota engine. Now, if for some reason, I really hate Toyota engines, then I either have to decide that I hate them so much I will not buy a Toyota car, or I will endure it because I find the utility of the package is great enough for me to want it, on the whole. In the second case, I am saying I will benefit by having that car and will pay $xx for that benefit. Otherwise, why pay anything for it?
From one perspective, you could argue that my freedom to choose has been restricted. After all, I have no choice about the engine. But, to argue that, you would first have to establish that Toyota owes you that choice! After all, until the cars are purchased, they are their cars (or the dealers'). So, they have the right to choose what products they will present to the market and we get to choose from those that are available. In fact, we do have choices here -- buy a different car, buy a Toyota, or buy no car at all.
Whichever choice I make, I then get to live with it. The "responsibility for [my] choices" is mine. This is not bullshit and it is not Stalinesque. Stalinesque would be to say you will take this car, or I will shoot you. Or, you will make this type of car, or I will shoot you, and when you are done, I will take it from you (and shoot you if you try to stop me) and then will give you what I think you need. How can anyone be responsible for his own choices at the point of a gun?
I assert he is responsible for his own choices -- you call it bullshit and Stalinesque. As I said, completely, utterly bizarre!
--
To do FOO should never require ProductFOO.
So, to play Quake 3 Arena should never require product Quake 3 Arena?
Rights are not arbitrary. If you pick them carelessly, it could very well result in your own destruction.
The recognition of rights is what promotes a better society. But not the recognition of just anything you arbitrarily decide to call a right. There must be a valid basis for asserting a right.
Based on your world view, I expect you will have no problem if I or someone else decides they would like to have your computer (or any other thing you happen to possess and think is yours) and comes by and simply takes it. It's your proprietary stuff (i.e. property) and, apparently, property rights don't matter. Given that, let's go all the way and simply enslave you - your life is forfeit to me; you don't own that either.
Is this what you want?
How *do* we define merit? Most accurate? Most appealing? Most realistic? (Not necessarily the same as most accurate.) Most forward-looking? I don't know, frankly.
I think the only way you can do it is to say what merits you, speaking for yourself, see in a given product. To try to predict what other people will like/not like about that same product is much, much harder to do. If it were easy, I'd make a killing in the stock market!
There probably are several sets of meritorious qualities in a given product, each valued differently by different segments of the population. What is merit to me may not be merit to you. The only way I know to assess the overall utility of a product is to observe how frequently it is chosen over the available alternatives -- i.e. how does it do in the marketplace? But, that measure can only tell us about it's general merit -- not its specific merits for a specific person.
Also, the paper worth of an individual may or may not have something to do with the merits of their vision. It depends on how the worth was aquired. If a person had a vision to produce a product that people ended up wanting in droves and if they showed that by trading for it in a free market, then the amount of worth attributeable to those economic exchanges is an indicator of the merit of that person's vision. If they desired it highly, they would trade much for it. I agree that vision is not a product in and of itself, but it can be measured by what it produces.
It's not a question of open vs. closed source.
If they Open Sourced it tomorrow, would anyone work on it? No, because it has very tiny mindshare as being an OS worth investing in -- either buying it, making apps for it, or developing it.
With other OSes still going strong -- Windows, Mac, Linux -- they have to find some way to compete for mindshare, and Open Sourcing won't do it, because most Open Source hackers are already committed to BSD or Linux.
Show of hands -- who'd buy it or work on it if it were Open Source? Really?
Government hasn't helped out Open Source Software? What is the color of the sky in your world?
Let's take a quick poll: how much of the work that has gone in the GNU toolset or Linux (or sendmail or browsers or...) has been funded, either directly or indirectly, by various governments? Public universities with high-speed network connections, government research labs, univerity research labs with huge government grants, and other organizations that are feeding at the public trough have been the backbone of Free Software. To pretend otherwise is delusional.
As for your other point, if you think that the work that I do as a professional is not worth compensation, don't use it. You are a thief, plain and simple, if you use the fruits of someone else's labor without compensating them as they wish to be compensated. It doesn't matter what books you've read that can justify being a thief.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
I'm not sure Be are COMPLETEY at a loss by selling their OS. There's a new wave of set-top boxes all ready to spring up, and of all the OSes I can think of BeOS seems to fit in beautifully. (ok, QNX/Neutrino falls into the same category). Linux is IMHO too resource hogging in an environment where cheap manufacture of components is so important.
I *hope* we'll have the option of doing both!
--- "If a man speaks in a forest, and no woman hears him, is he still wrong?"
This free Be could either onee of two ways from what I see. One, the availibility of free Be will spark a great amount of interest in the OS causing a much great amount of software and support in the BE community. Or two. The lack of indiivuals pruchasing Be will cause the company to lose great sums of money, forcing them to cut R&D from the OS. This would cause less and less advances in the later Releases of Be. This would essentially turn Be Inc into Micro$oft (Without the same sized checking account of course). I don't really see it to be that much of a deal to release the OS for free. When I started out in Be, I ordered R4.5 and the BeOS bible for a whopping 40 bucks. Thats really not that much to part with for one of the best OS's out there. We can always hope for the best. I have a great IDea. I say that we just release the source to Be to Carmack, then we would never have to worry about gaming for Be. We would be set for life.
Technology's a battle between companies producing more idiot-proof systems and nature producing bigger and better idiots
On the contrary, proprietary software is NOT akin to exortion. Here's why: you are not obligated to purchase it.
Nobody is forcing you to buy proprietary software. I've never heard of an instance where a shopper in CompUSA has had a gun held to his or her head and forced to buy a copy of Microsoft Office or Rainbox Six. As a result, it's *your choice* as to whether you want to use/purchase proprietary software.
If you decide to use proprietary software, you are implicitly agreeing to pay the purchase price. Otherwise, you may quite willingly - and are free-as-in-speech to - decline to purchase a commercial/proprietary piece of software in favor of an alternative that is either free-as-in-speech or free-as-in-beer (or both). Since you aren't being forced to buy a particular product, you aren't being forced to pay money - which means you aren't being extorted.
I try and be tolerant as well (although you might not guess it from my post above).
The thing that gets my goat are the hypocrites in the open source movement. These are the people who want me to respect their beliefs, ideas, and decisions, but promptly turn around and slam the living crap out of me when something I believe or do is contrary to their ideals. These are the people who, upon even the slightest inkling of misbehaviour on Microsoft's part, cry bloody blue murder - and yet, when the role is reverse, think nothing of doing the exact same things they claim are so unfair when somebody else does it to them.
I try and be tolerant. I try and accept that other people have differing opinions and ideas, and I try and accept that as best I can. But sometimes I simply have to call a spade a spade. I haven't had the same luck as you with the tolerance - I've encounter far more people who believe that open source is the one true nirvana and that anything else amounts to heresy.
Here's to hoping my luck changes.
It's not my theory that open source is a bad methodology. In fact, I admire what Linux has become through the open source method.
My point is actually contrary to what you stated it to be. What I'm saying is that while the open source movement has produced such magnificent software as Linux, producing good software isn't restricted to the open source movement. Simply because a product is developed commercial isn't an automatic stamp of inferior quality. BeOS is an example of a piece of proprietary software that is on par with Linux in terms of quality. Yet people denegrate it as if it was the latest iteration of Windows - the only reason being is that BeOS is closed-source.
I don't want to see any open source operating system go away. I think OSS is going to do great things for the software industry. What I object to is the insistence that open source and proprietary development methodologies cannot co-exist. What I object to is the notion that something is automatically deemed garbage simply because I don't have the opportunity to see the source code. I prefer to judge things on how they work rather than the intellectual motives behind it.
Let's see:
Could it be because BeOS is effectively about two years old? (When it first debuted on the vastly more popular Intel architecture.)
No, couldn't be. After all, when Linux was two years old the general populace thought it was the best thing since sliced bread. When was that? 1993? Yeah, Linux was *really* popular and well-known back in 1993.
Yes, it's your right to choose Free Software.
But it's also *my* right to choose proprietary software, and by embarking upon a campaign to rid the world of proprietary software you are depriving me of my right to choose it.
I'll stand up for your right to choose Free Software. But in return, I expect you to respect my choice to use and develop proprietary software, even if you don't agree with it.
If you don't respect my rights, then you are hypocrite. Espousing freedom, and then denying others theirs, is hypocrisy. Forcing your particular brand of freedom on me is no freedom at all.
(BTW, Extrasolar, this isn't a particular rant against you personally. This is aimed towards the very strict free software supporters in general. I apologize if you take any personal offense at this.)
Good point. :)
How *do* we define merit? Most accurate? Most appealing? Most realistic? (Not necessarily the same as most accurate.) Most forward-looking? I don't know, frankly.
But I *do* know that the paper worth of an individual has absolutely nothing to do with the value/merit/worth of their vision. "Vision" is an inherently personal quality - it isn't something you can walk into a 7-11 and purchase ("Yeah, I'd like a pack of Marlboros... oh yeah, and give me some vision, too.").
Actually, Be's kernel is their own brew.
Well, there were other discussions that I cannot provide a link to yet. If you read the Torvalds essay in Open Sources (not the addendum), he trashes microkernels pretty hard.
Basically, the gist of his argument is that microkernels aren't any better than monolithic kernels, simply because any tricks you can pull to optimize a microkernel can be applied towards optimizing a monolithic kernel. Microkernels aren't necessarily any more portable than a well-designed monolithic one, and they don't necessarily guarantee better performance. Further, they have some overhead that monolithic kernels can avoid.
I'm sure all of that is well and good, but the fact that the BeOS kernel exists, is a microkernel, and has a performance on par or better than (depending on the situation) the Linux kernel tends to, in my mind, dispute Torvalds' views that microkernels are basically intellectual playthings not worthy of implementation.
That's a very fault argument.
On more familiar grounds, Bill Gates is worth billions, and Linus Torvalds isn't. Does that mean Linus' vision has any less merit that Gates'?
Money has nothing to do with the value of somebody's visions. A windfall like Red Hat's is more of a "right place, right time" scenario than anything else. Linux happened to be in the right place at the right time, and the people involved in it now are making a killing. Three years ago, had Red Hat gone public, their stock would've been in the toilet.
I tried Linux a few years back, talk about buggy, crash prone, etc etc... I've used it sence, and know would recomend it as a server. THINGS CHANGE! Mlk
Wow, I should not post when knackered.
The thing that's really cool about this is how they've designed it. It's very similar to the "Linux Lite"-type offerings we've heard about. You don't have to repartition, it runs off your Windows desktop. You only have to click on an icon. I realize this won't help those who don't dual-boot, but it's a start. I've wanted to try Be for a while, but as a college student, didn't want to shell out $40-50 to do so. I'm gonna download it when it comes out...thank God for cable modems.
I betcha all the people who you're complaining about (who I've personally about had enough of) are also the ones who evangelize everyone clocking their celeron to 1500GHz and insult anyone who runs a chip at clock speed.
It's gotten to the point where Geek has become the latest trendy elitist social group. I don't know about you, but it's a label I'm increasingly less interested in being associated with.
-Chris
After first reading the headline, I thought this was going to be great. Free Be! But then after reading all the info, what is this "launching BeOS 5 will be as simple as double-clicking an icon on the desktop." I don't want BeWindowsApp, I want BeOS. I really like Be, and I hope that there will continue to be ways to update the current OS as well as this download. Maybe I'm panicing, but this could be a very bad sign. At the very least I hope they open source it, rather than let it die.
This item from the FAQ really worries me.
"Q: Will Be continue to update BeOS?
A: Yes, we plan on continuing to develop and release new versions of BeOS."
Why even include this? If not for the fact that they have already considered stopping development.
Saw this on The Register. http://www.theregister.co.uk/991201-000008.html It's like a demo+, that runs over/in Windows.
Maybe they're relying on the following type of situation:
1. I download Be.
2. Wow, it's cool, maybe I'll check out the development tools.
3. Wow, they're neat, and Be would be really good for application X, which isn't available for it. I think I'll write it.
4. Gee, although I've written it, I can't sell it because I've got the "Personal" version of Be. But if I pay the $60 for the full version then sell my app as shareware for $10, then everything past user #6 is pure profit.
Is it still as brittle as an eggshell? The last I tried BeOS (on a friend's machine, a few years back) it crashed at the slightest software malfunction. Not that there were many in the GNU tools that we tried, but it was still a bitch to reboot the system every 2 hours.
Which kind of reminds me of the AmigaOS; a great system, but a major problem for software development was that the system bit dirt every single time that one dereferenced a NULL pointer...
I don't get it. If there's no less than 3 different Linux distros that run on G3 Macs, why can't Be get BeOS on 'em? They're still pointing fingers at Apple about not sharing information as the reason, but there's got to be more to the story that I don't understand.
Can anyone shed any light on this?? I feel like Be is just whining about Apple as an excuse to not have to support the current Macintosh hardware.
Where the value of X-Mailer: is the true measure of a man...
i don't agree with that argument.
there are companies selling linux for ppc, they are just as liable for their product as Be is.
the fact that that a product comes with source does not exclude its distributor from liability!
greetings, eMBee
--
Gnu is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX
because we don't like that interpretation. we want software that we can change and redistribute.
i realize that neither 'open source' nor 'free software' are fit for this definition.
but trying to coin yet another term will not raise the chance that we are understood correctly.
personnaly i'd like to suggest 'freedom software', but knowing about the dynamics of language (which is quite static), i doubt any success.
greetings, eMBee.
--
Gnu is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX
greetings, eMBee.
--
Gnu is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX
you proposed that we should accept the plain english definitions for open, free and source.
this does not help, because we need a term that decribes the fact that we are allowed to change and redistribute.
what i am trying to say is:
as long as there is no clear term for the above, people will continue to disagree over the plain english definition.
greetings, eMBee.
--
Gnu is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX
i guess i didn't read your initial post close enough, before i havn't thought about taking that position, but i do agree with you.
thanks for the worthwile discussion.
greetings, eMBee.
--
Gnu is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX
Q : I still don't think that it will gain widespread acceptance until it is Open Sourced.
A : Why? look at all the major OS's that are commercial successes - Windows, MacOS, qnx et al.
Commercial success at what cost? What about the user who pays for an operating system but isn't allowed to modify or even redistribute it?
I think this is the single biggest reason *not* not to use Be. The second biggest reason is that Be is Free Software parasite. I have spent a little time browsing BeOS advocacy sites, they all want this or that application open sourced so that they can port it to BeOS. Does anyone else see the hypocracy in this? If it wasn't for Free Software, BeOS wouldn't have a decent compiler.
BeOS relies on free software but fails to play fair.
If users want Free Software then they would not choose BeOS. This is why BeOS won't achieve widespread acceptance. Users want Free Software.
>You could just as easily say that the release of >Quake1 under GPL destroyed the market for >companies selling Wolf 3d-era games.
or maybe it's opened the door for other companies to make changes to quake (like a partial or full mod) and sell it (with the source). i mean, why not?
believe it or not, but programmers ARE NOT A MAJORITY of the population. not everyone is going to have the inclination or ability to use the source code.
so, why can't these companies make a better version of their game with the quake engine, as opposed to relying on wolf3d technology?
OH! but they can!! don't you see??
....doesn't that qualify as "non-commercial" use?
Should read:
....doesn't that qualify as "commercial" use?
Apologies for any confusion.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
if they go open source?
This is a company with exactly one product, their operating system. If they give that one product away for free, including their ability to sell it for that much of a profit, due to other companies selling it cheaper, (I'm waiting for the era of CheapBytes Be for a Buck here) where does their revenue come from?
You can say support, but it's not like BeOS is a server platform. As a desktop OS, I don't imagine that it would require nearly the amount of support that Linux requires. BE is made from the beginning to be somewhat user friendly, the only profits from support would be the applications themselves, which BE does not make.
BE's future is in application developers (where it is making inroads in getting some serious music applications ported), the music industry has been waiting for something to kill of their beloved Macintoshes for years now, and this could be the OS to do it, if marketed correctly. Most computers used in music and video editing are used only for that purpose, so there is a future in making an operating system to suit those needs very well.
Profit considerations aside, I still see opening the source as a mistake, because then we would have a few thousand developers pulling BeOS in random, sometimes contradictory directions, in order to get it to do things it was never intended to, which was work with media.. Right now it is a tight, fast, media operating system, and it should stay that way.
There are many talented open source developers, but I don't see many of them having that much of a background in making something optimized for media editing. A lot of them come from a UNIX background, so if they got involved with the development of BE, I don't see BE going in an area where it needs to go, although I'm sure it will end up as a killer webserver. The types of optimizations needed for this code are probably very different than the optimizations needed for something like a TCP/IP stack. Musicians could tell you what it needs to do, but most of them don't code. Before anyone goes off at me, yes, I know BE has a BSD kernel.
Show me where in any countries constitution it says that open-to-all communications and formats are a right of all citizens. If I go to France, can I yell at them because they speak French and I can't easily communicate with them?
Micah
Torvald's point seemed to be that a monolithic kernel could be portable if it was coded well and for that purpose. Most of his posts were defending that position, not attacking micro-kernels, I thought . . .
I believe it open at 8 and it went down to nearly 6, for it all time low, but now its hovering near 20. It's still has doubled. Yes, it has followed the Linux hype, but it isn't Linux.
Its not like Be charged a lot to begin with. Hell, I went to CompUSA the other day and Be costed the same as the deluxe edition.
Hmmm. I've been a longtime Be watcher, but I haven't installed the latest Be (4.5). From the FAQ, however:
Q: Will I have to repartition my hard drive to install BeOS 5?
True? Required? Part of the mystique of Be has always been how system efficient it is, and how it is completely new (not backwards compatable) to take advantage of the latest in OS research, not more of the same. I've always been impressed with their 64-bit journalling filesystem. Is this abandoned? Is this still an option?A: No. If you're currently using Windows, you'll be able to download BeOS 5 via a Web browser and store it as a file within the Windows file system. Downloading BeOS 5 will be no different than downloading any application or utility. No repartitioning will be necessary, and launching BeOS 5 will be as simple as double-clicking an icon on the desktop. If you decide to delete BeOS 5 -- though we hope you don't -- doing so will be as simple as uninstalling any typical Windows application.
Well, as a short time BeOs user, I find myself spending more and more time in the environment, slowly moving away from Windows inch by inch.
It didn't take too much either. Once I found a Ethernet card that was supported (and this is still one of the key issues), there was less and less reason to use other OSes. The built in capabilities of Be are phenomenal, and the speed and utility of the OS and a pleasant change from any other OS I've used. Admittedly I prefer it over any flavor of Linux I've tried.
But what I see of the strategy may work. Give away the OS for home use to get people to try it, and then license it to corporations for business use. M$ could still make a killing by doing the exact same thing, as they are still the defacto desktop standard in offices around the world.
Be has also positioned itself as a OS for interent appliances, the stripped down 'Stinger' OS. Users can then have compatibility between their home systems and their road-ware, and (hopefully) still be able to make a buck or two. I really like using this, and don't want to see it go the way of the Amiga.
Anyways, enough rambling, back to work...
--sugarman--
slashdot-terminal said:
I have had to take classes where they used some form of proprietary software that was employed in the class where it was not necessarily needed. This required money but could have been replaced with another application that was totally free but had a different syntax or implimentation of the same idea. These products usually cost $100-$400+. Now you tell me is this not forcing me to pay money for something?
Actually, you just said so. Nobody forced you to take the class. Nobody forced the professor to choose an expensive software package. It's part of going to college. The professor's job is to choose the most effective tool to impart knowledge. In this case, he chose the tool that he knew (and could teach from) most effectively. Would you also argue that you are forced to buy textbooks, and that all textbook authors should give up all revenue and release their work for free for your convenience?
Nobody owes you any software. Nobody forces you to buy software. They choose to make it, they choose how to license it, and you choose whether or not to accept that license.
Forward, retransmit, or republish anything I say here. Just don't misquote me.
Don't forget
PREVIEW
FIX
PREVIEW
FIX
PREVIEW
SUBMIT
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
It has moved actually. :)
I've been watching it. It just doesn't move "as much" I've seen it vary anywhere from 14 - 23. While this may make you believe noone cares, believe this: Be users are a loyal userbase, almost as stubborn as Amiga users
THANK YOU!
I've been trying to tell people this all along. Open source is nice for some things. (do we really need proprietory versions of notepad?)
However, Be spent a lot of money to make an OS that is in many ways superior to its competition (though lacking heavily in its networking layer). They give the source, it will be stolen, and suddenly it's just another would-be OS whose features were stolen by the borg and a penguin.
Just about the media apps...
Many professional applications are slated for BeOS and are being worked on currently. Be is in a growing state still, and is still making its alliances. Be has this power for professional uses because for any realtime effects and such, its latency is next to nil.
Note: I am not a professional musician, however I am a very happy Be user...killed windows for linux, killed linux for Be. Though I do wish its network code was fixed already so porting all those linux apps I use would be easier.
It's called Habitat for Humanity, and I know a friend who did it last summer, he said it was one of the best experiences of his life. I strongly suggest that all geeks try volunteering for them some time. I'm certainly considering it.
They knowingly entered a market (the OS market) knowing full well that MS had over 90% of that market. They were probably thinking they could squeak out a niche in some corner someplace and make few bucks until MS noticed them and crushed them (or bought them). Well it worked kind of. they got along for a while went public and probably made some bucks for some people but the public never went for it (being oh so comfortable in their little MS world).
So unable to actually sell the damn thing they are giving it away hoping to generate some interest.
What part of that did I get wrong?
War is necrophilia.
Be never had a chance in the first place. Who were they kidding thinking they could go up against MS and win.
War is necrophilia.
MS killed any profit in the OS market. Who honestly thinks they can create an OS and charge for it when MS has 90% of the market. Be serious Open Source is a byproduct of MS monopoly just as BE giving away the OS is.
War is necrophilia.
somebody beats me to it. something that wasn't mentioned was the the OS was going to be runnable from with windows. i don't know how its going to work, but it didn't sound like it needed a dedicated BeFS partition. when i first read it, i thought it would run in a vmware-like environment. anybody know for sure?
Users are people, people each have their own needs and wants, anyone who generalizes about what "users want" will nessisarily be inaccurate.
I'm a user. I use software. For me, freedom in software is very important. If I don't have the source, I'm not going to trust anything more important than video game savefiles to it, and I'd rather not do even that.
As the concept of Free Software becomes more widespread and more well understood, serious users who give a crap at all about their computer will want it more.
I think that as long as BeOS remains closed-source, it will be doomed to an existance where at best people will know of it as "Oh yea, that shareware OS".
I intend to download it, but as a toy, nothing more. I may even install it on the computers of my relitives who don't have the time or inclination to learn how to use a real OS, the same way as I have my Aunt using Pine and Mosaic because they're so brainlessly simple, but I'll never use it as a serious OS, and I doubt that all that many others will eithor.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Free for non-commercial use; buy the full version for commercial use and extra features. I think there is already an accurate term for this: Shareware. Let's compare this to Windows. I can pay about $100-$200 (or become a criminal by copying it) but I can use it how I want. However I can't modify or redistribute it. I can't use it on more than one computer, etc. This would be the same as buying the full retail version of BeOS. However BeOS also has a Shareware version that I can use to try it out. I've always heard good things about it but didn't want to put down $80 (or whatever) to try it out. Now I can. Unfortunately I can't redistribute modifications (say, creating my own distribution with my choice of extra software packages) for legal reasons (I'm sure it's against the license), or modify the existing program for the practical reason that the source code is not available. No big surprise, this is the way shareware works. Then the shareware seller asks you to buy the full version if you want the company to keep making new versions. They may also say you are required to register/buy the full version after a certain amount of time, or to use it for commercial purposes. BeOS requires you to buy the full version to use it for commercial purposes. What I'm trying to say is, this Shareware is better than having only retail software but it is not completely giving it for free like some other programs with are freeware but don't include source, and is obviously not Free software in the GNU sense of the word.
Be is quite possibly one of the best unnoticed OSes. However, I still don't think that it will gain widespread acceptance until it is Open Sourced.
My $0.02
Oh, and First post!! (Maybe)
+-- (Score:-1, Moderator on Power Trip)
This answers better than I can
Wah!
First off, call me dumb, but could anyone (previous poster even) dig up a link to a page which explains how OSS created the internet? I thought Al Gore did that.
But seriously - The BeOS would never have been developed if it was open source. The sheer slickness of it is testament to how much close planning and discussion went into its design. The business model, in Be's case at least, can work very well for developing high-quality products, because of the fact that each programmer is working in sync with everyone else. Look at Gnome and KDE. Two projects aiming to accomplish the same thing, and thousands of hours of work wasted. Yes, I know, the programmers are doing it for fun, so the effort is technically not 'wasted', but seriously - Couldn't the people who are duplicating each other's work in C and C++ respectively be doing something more innovative with their time?
The fact is that the BeOS is a more technically sophisticated, better designed OS that Linux, and it is thanks to closed source design that it has gotten this far.
Wah!
It may be a process of beating it into shape rather then careful artistic planning, but the end result seems to be the same.
Example - X Windows, an old system designed for the amazing purpose of running remote applications through a GUI! However, it is now bundled with every distro as a regular GUI for use on your own computer. So, X programmers have to connect to an X server, and jump through local loopback hoops to get a simple window open and working. (not a programmer, so correct me if I'm spouting hot air). The Berlin Consortium, faced with the daunting task of making a modern windowing system for Linux, have struggled along slowly, 'cause not that many people want to code for them when X works 'fine'.
Second, it fosters an almost Darwinian approach to software development. Many ideas are put forward, and the best selected.
The competitive struggles of Open Source projects differ slightly from the other Darwinian selection going on in the software industry today. In a commercial setting, the motivation for improving your product is making money by attracting new customers. As we all know, marketing can also accomplish this goal if your product is 'adequate'. But with OSS, the reason to improve your product is just for the sake of improving it! Beautiful! In the commercial setting, competitors trying to steal your marketshare drive development. In OSS, dissatisfied users and perfectionists drive development. SO - Why is it good that Gnome and KDE are doing exactly the same thing? Especially when KDE does it so much better?
You don't put forward any arguments for either of your points: BeOS "better designed" then Linux
It's hard for a sunday fanatic like me to realize that not too many people are going to agree with my opinions without proof. Okay, the way I see it, Linux is based on the UNIX philosophy. "Good programs don't die, they just migrate". Or something. Portable code is the objective, and the speed problems "will be taken care of by next year's machine". That's a Good Thing (tm), but it doesn't lend itself to really tight, slick projects! The BeOS has
Better this time around? Hope you're still following up on this comment. I recognise your sig, so I'm sure you're very active here...
Wah!
So lets hope that since they got lots of money from Intel they will not impose things like 3Dnow tax or kiss Intels ass in other ways but suceed in creating a big userbase and then start producing cool hardware again since the X86 PC should be killed as fast as possible and nobody should shead a single tear.
And since the open source movement obviusly will have a hard time to creat its own hardwareplatform we should hope that companies that showd in the past that it is possible to create a decent "PC" (no that excuse for a computer which IBM invented and we still kinda use is not it) will beginn to to so again, because the real halt in inovation is in hardware - sure we got superfast 3D accelerators and GHz CPU but it's all interconected by a system bus that has only evolved bandwidthwise since the time of the 8086 and there is no OS that will ever make a PC as fast and stable (hardware) as a UltraSparc, MIPS or PA-RISC workstation and its sad that Be went the same way like NeXT by killing its beBOX to port its OS to a hardwareplatform which is IMHO completly unsuitable to do real work with. And if Apple can do it why not Be or SGI because I think word domination (TM) for Linux could be nice, all I really want is a computer that is capable of doing what we need in a sane way - balance I/O and CPU speed - on which we can run usefull software, wether it is opensource or just open in the way Sun saw it 15 years ago, and without having to pay for 50 % profit margins which sadly enough is expected today.
OK might be somewhat offtopic but I know some of you feel the same.
--Ulrich
On no accounts allow a Vogon to read poetry at you
And watch some little fascist moderate this down....
I could have moderated this down, but I decided the moderation wouldn't be quite descriptive enough. So, instead, I'm going to give a descriptive reply and let someone else moderate if they see fit.
Here's the reason I would have moderated your post down: It is flamebait. The problem is not in what you said, but rather the way you said it. Even though I am not a "Linux meathead" (I don't even completely consider myself a Linux user yet) I still saw what you said as insulting.
Next time, try being a bit more polite in what you say, and you won't have to worry about "little fascist" moderators. Insults are what lead to negative moderation.
They already open source some of their stuff but I dont see them completely rewriting their business model around an OS that they intended to distribute proprietarily from the beginning.
So yes, Be might go open source.
But only if, say, Microsoft leeched away all their market share until they were bought out by AOL and their last lash at the Empire before they crawled into their cave to lick their wounds was to go open source.
They're trying to drum up business, kids, not trying to bandwagon GNU/Linux. Not everything in the world revolves around everybody's favorite unix wannabe.
He still did not have to take the class.
To do FOO should never require ProductFOO.
Redhat probably has a requirement that to develop GNOME in their labs that Redhat Linux is used.
Now you tell me is this not forcing me to pay money for something? Do I not have to pay money for this? If I need an application and the only one there that does anything that I need for what I am doing is a closed source app what happens then? I 'have' to pay for it because the parameters of the taks 'required' (ie were needed in the taks to be completed to do step n+1) it.
Correct, you do not have to pay for it. This is the same scenario as you don't have to agree to the GPL for code reuse. Either way you don't get the program.
Would the situation be better if some company could step in, fork the OS, rename it, close the source to that branch, toss a WM on it, and sell it? That's all the GPL prevents.
The GPL can only prevent distribution of a closed-source branch. I could sell a fork of Linux under a different name with a WM on it. It is a common misconception that the GPL prevents this. I could even have closed-source version of Linux as long as it stays in-house.
Unless he's going to ProductFOO U., he shouldn't *have* to use ProductFOO.
;)
:)
Actually, he did not mention which university he went to.
I understand that life sucks. I have been in the reverse circumstance; I had to use a GNU tool even though a proprietary solution would have been more effective. I didn't HAVE to use it except I wanted to keep my job.
In my case, I did not have a physical gun to my head. Are you saying he did? If not, he did not HAVE to.
Nowhere in the Be page does it say that BeOS would be Open Source (truly free). It will be free to use, in binary form. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how it reads.
That's not the sort of freedom we're striving for.
Don't speak for me. I like free beer and free speech. They don't necessarily have to be one and the same.
Nowhere in the Be page does it say that BeOS would be Open Source (truly free). It will be free to use, in binary form. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how it reads.
That's not the sort of freedom we're striving for.
Don't speak for me; I can do it myself. I like free beer and free speech. They don't necessarily have to be one and the same.
will there be a way I can partition it for BeFS? or will this be something that only comes with the "special edition" downloading the OS as a single file is all well and nice, but I don't want to run it off of FAT, ugh!!
I believe this version of BeOS, free or not, will work like every other, except with the added option of trying it through Windows if you don't want to bother partitioning. Otherwise, it should come with a slimmed down version of PartitionMagic for Be that will run you through an easy wizard to create a partition for Be and then load the Be installer.
I know this is too late, but...
:o)
Don't want your pies, just the recipie.
I'm cool like a fool in a swimming p-p-pfft-pool
"It's the Brak show! And I've got lots of cool guests!"
"Nobody owns the fucking words man." - James Dean
I realize I was wrong, but how is this Redundant? Out of the first ten posts, it's the first one to ask this question....
>
"Nobody owns the fucking words man." - James Dean
It's only $40 as it stands right now...
Or you could say that Open Source has destroyed anyone's chances of making money in the OS market (at least for x86 hardware).
Didn't M$ already eliminiate these chances?
Apparently you did miss something. Nowhere in Rob's summary does he or BigAl say that BeOS has gone Open Source. He does say that the Open Source movement could be credited with driving Be to release the OS for no cost.
Well, this is actually what loadlin does under DOS to load Linux, and server.exe does under DOS or Win95 to load NetWare.
Sigged!
JUst for the record, the current price of BeOS r. 4.5 is 60 US$
Sigged!
Just for the record, the current price of BeOS r. 4.5 is 60 US$.
Sigged!
I bet you live in Finland
Sigged!
How come every time there's an article that mentions free something do I have to hear the lame free beer/free speech comparison?!
YES. WE'VE ALL HEARD IT MANY TIMES. WE CAN ALL FIGURE OUT THE COMPARISON OURSELVES.
If I see that comparison one more time in an article summary I'm going to have to gnaw off my leg.
I've always said that basic services, like OS level software, should be distributed freely. What better way to make sure your OS is successful than to give it away at every turn? If one feels the need to make money off OS development, then charge for support and other developement projects(drivers, API, etc.).
1) Installed from Windows? Isn't this susposed to not be a demo?
Which windows? 95\98? 2k? NT? Does it reside on the same FS? If so, we lose the kick-ass journaling filesystem BeOS uses.
Also, how the hell am I susposed to use it on my Linux (no windows) box?
(flame-suit on)
2) It's not Open Source. How do I patch a bug? Add functionality which I need? Wait for the developers to fix them? See this article for the speed at which OSS and non-OSS bugs are fixed.
(flame-suit off)
3) Licensing. (oh.. flame-suit on) I couldn't find a mention of the license for it, but I'm pretty sure it's not GPL\SCSL.
Sounds like a demo to me!
My 2^-2 cents....
What came before the Big Bang? Hum, it must have outside of time...
Free as in beer, not as in speech. BeOS is still proprietary, it's just freeware.
And as for "proprietary apples", Be originally made its own proprietary machines, then ported their OS to Apple's hardware.
Check out Project Upper/Mute, an all-around awesome compiler fra
Freeware.
Check out Project Upper/Mute, an all-around awesome compiler fra
I've been wanting to try BeOS for a while... but I've had no great "need" to. Now that it will be offered for free, I'll probably download it and give it a shot, to see, for myself, what kind of advantages it has over my current operating system choices.
... which adds one more user to BeOS's current group.
Which means, that if I see that it will benefit me at work, I'll have the company order it (them being a company and all,)
I'm sure there's more out there in the same situation as I, so I can imagine that this will definitely benefit BeOS.
ok. what's the need to complain.. it's not like you need to pay for your os anyway.. i dont think i've baught and os since win95b came will my box.
so stop bitching.. you all know where #warez is.
ERROR: Keyboard not attached. Press F-1 to continue.
hahaha! Every once in a while I love slashdot.
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
They're "written" in natural law. After all, "we hold these truths to be self-evident ... that they [all men] are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (Not a direct quote, because I don't have time to look it up. Emphasis added of course). In other words, it is (supposedly) obvious that all people have rights to life, liberty and property. These rights aren't given to American citizens by our documents, or government or anything like that. The above just acknowledges the existence of these rights that we all inherently possess. To suggest that these rights could be taken away would be to suggest that slavery and murder (among other things) is allright in this way ("Hey, they're just given by someone, they can be taken away."). US History does come in handy. Who'd have thought? Have a nice day.
I've come for the woman, and your head.
Expecting to make a living from writing software is not akin to extortion. No one is required to give you the fruits of their labor.
Ahh that's where your wrong. I have personal experience that will disprove you on that one. I have had to take classes where they used some form of proprietary software that was employed in the class where it was not necessarily needed. This required money but could have been replaced with another application that was totally free but had a different syntax or implimentation of the same idea. These products usually cost $100-$400+. Now you tell me is this not forcing me to pay money for something? Do I not have to pay money for this? If I need an application and the only one there that does anything that I need for what I am doing is a closed source app what happens then? I 'have' to pay for it because the parameters of the taks 'required' (ie were needed in the taks to be completed to do step n+1) it.
Spoken like a college student who does not work in the real world yet. Just wait, college boy, one day you might want to make a living from your work, and some punk like you
will come along and insist on you giving your work away.
I don't think that if you write a spcialized piece of software of work for anyone that people from the opensource community will just have a magical crystal ball and find out you are making commercial software then come to your house with baseball bats and reduce your skull to splinters. Not everyone is a 'college boy' in the sence of the word.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
Correction: it won't run on PPC601-chips (it needs at least a 603)
ps. why don't anyone read the article before posting?
--
--
E2 IN2 IE?
I am pretty sure beta versions were available last year... just not to you.
Private betas do exist, and tend to be policy for Be, Inc.
I would expect full Java support in the next full version (R5). It will definately be on the full CD version (which they still sell) and probably in the downloadable version.
I think it can all be summed up in this bedope article http://www.bedope.com/stories/0081.html
However, I can't run it full time as there are too many Windoze apps I need. Not to mention games. :) Hopefully this situation will change in the future as I really like what I've seen thus far.
The primary aim seems to be to get a larger user base so that developers will develop for it, as you say any-one serious about developing for Be would be likely to accept paying. Still, an included compiler won't hurt either.
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
I haven't read the article/press release, but it is possible to have an app you double click and have it unload the current OS and bring up a new one. This is one way to load LinuxPPC from MacOS (via BootX; in fact this is how the installer is run for R5 and later), and it wouldn't suprize me if the BeOS could do the same thing (maybe even under Windows).
Obviously there is some kind of kludge in place (it seems illogical to unload an OS and have an application still running), but it can do all the work required to bring up another operating system on reboot and reboot, etc.
- Sig
[esr] made the point that most software developers that make a living from programming aren't doing it for something that becomes a resalable product. i.e. most are writing for internal systems
Yikes! So *that's* what we should all do -- spend our days writing internal use purchasing systems for a buck, then go and code "real software" at night? No thanks.
I write shrink-wrapped software for a couple of different markets, and I like it that way. No way do I want to go back to a cubicle and do a 9-5 thing. I like being able to go play golf on a Thursday afternoon, even if I suck at it.
My commercial efforts are a contract between me and my customers. I agree that, to the limits of my and my team's ability, I will make software that does what it says it will, and won't suck doing it. My customers agree to give me a small amount of cash. Does everyone agree to this? No -- I've seen my stuff on the warez sites (and being slammed, too, for not having heavy-duty registration protection built-in). Fortunately, enough people feel like they're getting a good deal to keep me from hanging Dilbert or User-Friendly strips up on my cubicle wall.
Nobody's putting a gun to their heads. Potential customers can view screenshots, browse the online help, and download and use the full product for 30 days (or 30 runs, whichever comes later). I'm not playing "gotcha" -- I just want some compensation for spending nine months in full-time development on a project. As it is, I'm making far less than I would contracting myself out.
All this being said, there's a world of difference between an operating system and its utilities and vertical market apps . If people weren't willing to pay cash for a doctor's office program, or a childcare management program (one of my efforts), they wouldn't exist with the same quality of shrinkwrap apps. Those who could afford it would hire a programmer to write them an internal system, those who couldn't would do without. By selling the product as a commercial application, development cost is spread out through the user base. If there's not enough users willing to pay to cover development costs (which, by the way, are already paid out in full by the time the product ships), then the product (and, often, the company) ceases to exist. Additionally, shrinkwrapped apps are often of higher quality than internal use systems. You tend to be a bit more careful knowing that you just can't walk down the hall to the secretary's desk to see what the problem is.
When you start talking about a user base in the millions, or tens of millions, your development costs per user become so low that you don't think of things the same way. Additionally, if you've got a product that's that far reaching (like an OS), there are other ways to make a buck. Training, certification, ancillary products for subsets of your user base, fee-based support, books, t-shirts, stuffed penguins, web revenue from ads, "stamp of approval"-type concepts, etc. In fact, if you can make enough money off of the other things, you can write off the cost of development as a marketing expense. One example: Powersoft, the makers of PowerBuilder, make more money off of training and consulting than they do from sales of the product. Another example (duh): Linux. Sure, the software, in its base form, is free, but that doesn't stop companies like RHAT from making bucks and having a company valuation of a few billion. O'Reilly's doing okay selling Linux books, too.
Me, I'd love to be able to give my work away. I'd love to have a product that was so far reaching, that impacted so many users, that I wouldn't have to worry about making money from the code. Sigh. Maybe next year...
"200 Quatloos on the newcomer!" "300 Quatloos against!"
Well perhaps I'm a little behind the times then... when I tried it out yes, there were many utilities available, but other than some cheesy shareware, I couldn't find many more quality programs for it. Perhaps that's lessened; it's been a little while :)
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
That is completely dependant on what you do with it. If you want to install all of the extra crap and take up resources, you're free to do so. You are also free to strip it down, load it onto a 286 and use it as a wan router if that's what you need. Linux can fit on a freakin' floppy if you want. It scales up and down as far as you want.
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
Well, come on--let's be fair. Personally, I don't particularily like KDE but it's anything but a resource hog. I use GNOME, and it's much more of one than KDE, and a fair bit unstabler to boot. I use it, however, because I happen to like the GNOME interface better, that's all.
Getting back on topic, this is good news. Be is a nice little operating system, and the only thing I could ever fault it for is an almost complete lack of any programs available--maybe now that'll change.
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
Be ships with very little software, just two dozen or so little utilities and some shareware. Don't get me wrong, Be is a really nice OS, but there's barely any software available for it.
And the Open Source community doesn't do all of the R&D, what about RHAD labs? Red Hat pays a lot of programmers to write GPL code.
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
Go read The Magic Cauldron, dammit! He never asks you to take his words for it, he explains exactly how it is, and can, be done!
I see, you just refer people to other people's arguments. No thoughts for yourself.
Of course we think for ourselves. That fact is, though, that we agree completely with esr, and he says it far better than we will ever be able to.
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
In this post pev explained that Windows MacOS and QNX didn't need Open Source to succeed. Well that's true because windows, MacOS and QNX *established* their position in market long time ago.
I think it is very hard to compete against established operating systems with quality. Hype is *needed*. Linux has it shortcomings but it has succeeded because of Open Source which brought Hype along. I don't see this happening with Be. BeOS is wonderful OS which kills windows and MacOs in multimedia department but I fear that it will not give it market share.
Maybe I'm wrong, time will tell.
>Why don't they mention _anything_ about being >able to start BeOS without Windows? They did, it was further down in the FAQ: Q: Will I have to run Windows to run BeOS 5? A: No. Although we will offer an installation as described above that will allow you run BeOS from within Windows without repartitioning your hard drive, you will still be able to run BeOS as a stand-alone operating system.
>Why don't they mention _anything_ about being able to start BeOS without Windows?
They did, it was further down in the FAQ:
Q: Will I have to run Windows to run BeOS 5?
A: No. Although we will offer an installation as described above that will allow you run BeOS from within Windows without repartitioning your hard drive, you will still be able to run BeOS as a stand-alone operating system.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah crap
My home brew kit just exploded again, I was really hoping for that Open Source FREE BEER project.
" -- ow my brain hurts again -- "
Some are that way, and some are more like me. I am perfectly willing to admit that yes, there are closed-source progams that are better than their open-source alternatives. I will admit that Be is in many ways better than Linux. However, I think open-source is a powerful philosophy and is the way of the future. When I look at Be, I feel a bit of disappointment that it isn't open source because I know that it will not be able to outrun Linux forever, and probably not even very long at all. If it were open source, we could make good use of it rather than re-invent the wheel on our own. Inevidably, all their good work will go to waste. :(
But, yes, I do use Be myself when I think it would be useful.
------
-Everything has a cause
-Nothing can cause itself
-You cannot have an infinite string of causes
I'm sureprised no FreeBSD users have picked up on this....
:)
Like it or not, people will call this FreeBe. And we already have FreeBSD. So, now "FreeB" and FreeBSD... The newbies will be like "What's the SD bit that makes it better then the normal version."
Not since the "Whats's the difference between a 586 and a Pentium" problem of a few years back has there been such a confusing name situation for "idiots".
Thankfully fortune in an unfotuneate situation has both BeOS and FreeBSD as "alternate OS's", and only newbies to alternate OS's will ever experence this....
I'm just happy i'm not a memeber of any Be or BSD communities that will have to explain this....
Then before you know it, soicety as we know it is collapsing (OK, this is just me going too far as humour because i'm seeing something where there is nothing)
Sorry I even typed this spelling mistake ridden rant, it's 20 to 5 in the morning here... Please moderate me down
I'm so glad you put the :) at the end of that sentance. But then again maybe not, because you spend the next four paragraphs ranting about how this is evil because they haven't released the source code!!!! Wow, they must be a Bad Company! They're giving away their opererating system for free, along with the development tools to create apps for it (and it is a very good OS for multimedia apps) but because you can't fiddle with the kernel code this should be denouced as the enemy of every right-minded /. user. Grow up - if you don't like it then don't download it, but don't knock this just because it doesn't further the 'Cause'.
Wow, that's possibly one of the most refreshing comments I've heard here in a while. Not very nice, but true :) I'm getting somewhat sick of all of the blind faith in every thing to do with Linux and open source - if I wanted to see that kind of zealotry I'd go badger some Christian fundamentalists. There's a core of very thoughtful, intellegent people posting here, and then a vast herd of sheep following behind them flaming anything that dares to criticise their Favourite Cause. It's not religion, but it's the next best/worst thing.
From reading the article, it would appear that the free BE os requires Windows still...or at least it isn't clarified that it will run w/o Windows..
*tap tap tap* this thing on?
This is typical corporation-talk. Why don't they mention _anything_ about being able to start BeOS without Windows? If this is so, then this is just a test version, and it isn't even entirely "free beer". You still have to buy Windows. I _want_ to repartition my disks. It's what you do when you have multiple OSes on a disk. And I sure as hell don't want to go through my crashy Win98 boot-sequence to use BeOS daily. Is this a demo or what?
I'm lucky(?) to have Windows in the first place, as the OEM version went completely foobar. What about the (supposed) masses of Linux zealots around? What about them???? ;-)
It's a tiny step in the right direction though, and I applaud that I will be able to test the OS' capabilities first-hand soon.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
As many think that Linux for the desktop isn't much of a winner, one could think of solutions where Linux runs the server, and BeOs runs the desktop.
This isn't such a bad idea, isn't Apple Mr User-friendly, Mr GUI?
The founder of Be was an ex-employee (and one of you will ofcourse submit his name!) of Apple.
I myself find Be very interesting, have never seen it, but if I owed the money, I'd purchase an IMac, install Be, and network the Linux-Box / Be desktop together...
Bizar technology?
I really like Be. It autodetected ALL of my hardware on install, the only thing I had to manually install were the experimental opengl drivers. Anything that will get developers to write for Be is good. I'm going to buy Be 5 despite the decision to go free of charge. This could be a great platform, all we need is some developers.
Installing BeOS on Windows removes much of it's strenght, the filesystem is the main reason it's so good for video editing.
Video editing is, atleast for me, what symbolizes a true media platform, like Amiga once was.
"Last words are for fools who haven't said enough." - Karl Marx
"I suspect, very strongly, that Be will eventually go Open Source. They almost have to, now. They have no long-term future, if they don't" Linux's growth hasn't really increased all that much. Linux has only what, 10-15,000,000 users now? I personally like Linux a lot, but BeOS just works in ways that Linux cannot possibly match right now. A free BeOS will be more liberating for the public because it will allow the Linux/BSD folks to focus on winning on the server/networking front. BeOS is the only alternative OS right now that can whip NT as a workstation OS. Free is just as good as open source in many ways. Most people don't have the time to get to know Linux, that is why supporting BeOS R5/R6/R7 is so important. If Be can succeed under a plan like this, they will only get more liberal. That is the kind of company they are. Eventually they might release the source under a license that allows developers to get the code so they can code easier or something like that. Overall this is a really good thing for all alternative OS users.
Yeah, but if you think about it, there's really not any money to be made in hardware, either, and it keeps improving!
As far as not making money in the OS market, I disagree. There's plenty of chance to make money, as RedHat makes clear, even though the software is open source.
Mike
Sure, I have a thankless job. That's okay. I have a lot of (non
this is so weird: I did not propose any new terms, I just described the way real people really use plain old English in real life. You, on the other hand, did propose a new term.... kafkaesque.
Well, thankfully, Be isn't quite as foolish as QNX and will be allowing people to download a fully usable version of their OS. QNX seems to want a pound of flesh in exchange for their SDK, even for evaluation purposes.
Weapons of Mass Analysis
And, by another metric, the rapid increase in value for anything with Linux in the prospectus is a good indication that there is going to be a correction, soon. BeOS came into the scene before anyone else had started clamouring about Microsoft and monopolies, back when new operating systems weren't quite so fashionable on the market. I think, if we had seen the Be IPO this year, you would have seen the same overinflation you currently see with the Redhat stock. For all of you holding that high-value, low-yield technology stock, I would suggest ensuring that you keep your holdings diversified. Some of these high stock prices are unsustainable.
Weapons of Mass Analysis
They didn't drop the BeBox as a business decision. They dropped it, because the BeBox was dependent on the AT&T manufactured Hobbit chips, which, at the time, were tiny miracles. Unfortunately, AT&T stopped making them, and the BeBox went the way of the Dodo and the Amiga.
Weapons of Mass Analysis
Running out of coasters, AC?
Weapons of Mass Analysis
Hear, Hear! The best post yet. I totally agree, and of course, I will still buy r5 even though it's free. Why ? r4.5 is so damn good so r5 will be nothing less, and I gladly payed for both r3 and r4. BeOS is worth the money.
-- http://z80.org - all opinions, all the time --
The latest 'Be Developer Newsletter' was about how a demo coder can strip down the BeOS to 2.5 MB and run stuff on it.
BeOS also got full software OpenGL that can make use cheap accelerated hardware. An earlier issue of the newsletter told you about how they use generative assembler coding to get a kick-ass framerate in the next version.
So you can code a game for BeOS and get smooth multithreading, excellent SMP support and full OpenGL on cheap hardware. Now you bundle the game with a stripped BeOS - for free! - and sell it to windows users.
That's VERY cool. A top game for both Windows and BeOS users. Perfect.
I don't know why, but I really want to share this. Maybe someone from Be will read it.
I have been very interested in BeOS for some time, and I finally ordered the $10 demo CD (lack of hardware support was the reason I didn't just buy the OS). When the CD arrived, it was in an envelope with almost no physical protection and the CD was cracked completely through along a radius. I called and was told to send the demo copy back and as soon as they received the cracked copy they would send me a replacement. They could not do this without having the return first.
It has now been well over a month since I sent the damaged CD back, and I have yet to receive my replacement. I have sent an email and no one has responded. At one point I was very excited about BeOS, but now I don't know.
Maybe I'll give it another shot now since it is downloadable and I won't have to rely on physical media to acquire it.
--
hmmmmm. Maybe mine just got lost in the shuffle. I'll try giving them a call about it.
I am currently setting up a Linux server for my Be machine since Be doesn't want to see the NT box. It should be a quite cool setup eventually. After using Be for a while, other OSs seem pokey at best. Linux still rocks as a server, but the GUI on Be is untouchable so far. OS-X may be as cool though, that PDF based display is hot.
Jean-Paul Gasse BTW.
-=RR=-
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
ok so be is now going open source. a matter of four months after i bought R4.5. that's only slightly annoying. what's annoying is the comments in this thread. i read slash regularly and understand the oss bias of the site but the proprietary hatred is unreal. I'll return to that in a minute. first, be is in many ways just like linux. it uses all of linux's software but does it in a way that looks appealing and with the many advantages that others have pointed out (journaling being one of my favs) there should be love and harmony be linux and be users. in fact linux and be users should be the same people.
now onto the zealots. its my unscientific belief that the great majority of linux cum oss zealots only learned what modem meant two or three years ago. sadly once they started their AOL accounts and learned that only losers used aol and that truly elite people only use linux and local ISPs they immediately went into fullon evangelist poser mode, wherein they would find any opportunity to slam microsoft, apple, and others and promote linux in their innane way telling everyone how great and wonderful it was and touting their god Linus to the masses in the hopes that by doing so said god would come down from on high and bless them with his secret kernel tips. it is my hope that Linus is embarrassed by what has been made of his creation. I'm certain he feels some pride now and then but overall i would be ashamed of the way in which people who say "hey I use linux and I promote open source, I'm just like Linus." behave in his name, if i were him.
I'd like to say this. if not for bill gates and microsoft and DOS on IBMs more than likely we'd be using proprietary apples and the open source movement might never have happened. pc makers like dell and compaq and gateway might never have been born or made PCs because IBM would never have shown them it was profitable because IBM didn't have the OS. if not for AOL alot of you might never have learned of the internet or Linux. if not for aol possibly linux might not have happened. because the internet boom might never have happened and possibly Linus would have just posted his message on a local bbs or maybe over fidonet and it would have been missed. without IBMs success due to MS-DOS, IBM PC compatibles would never have been built and maybe we would have amigas and apples. and you'd only be able to use them in school cause they were to expensive for the regular person.
so please kill the immature rants about linux and against aol and microsoft and all the rest and realize you'd be taking truck driving lessons now and not learning perl if not for those very entities that you rail against.
p.s. who wants games by committee? open source doesn't work for eveything and in the long run i don't think it will work for most things.
-
I don't know if this was mentioned on /. before, but there's an interesting article by Jean-Louis Gassée talking about how Microsoft has made it quite difficult to get PC OEMs to install alternative OS's that are bootable out of the box. This article is available at http://www-classic.be.com/aboutbe/benewsletter/vol ume_III/Issue8.html#Gassee
--
"In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
I would say the whole open source discussion is OFFTOPIC, especially the part about browsers... I'm not interested in that...
:P
;o)
But do the moderators moderate them down? No, they moderate them up instead, as "interresting" or "insightsful"...
Guess you can't be offtopic when you're discussing open source issues, no matter the forum...
--
"I'm surfin the dead zone
In the twilight, unknown"
yeah, what kind of philosofy is this? I agree that open source software is cool, but 'opening' software that's already developed in a 'closed' way wont make it true open source. why? because the 'closed' start gives the software a given design that you cannot change without rewriting the whole program. yes, you could steal some code from a so-called 'open sources' beos, but it would not be very useful. and I think Be is the best people to fix their own bugs. as for drivers... you dont need the source for the os it self to do that. lesson over!
You did read the article wrong. CmdrTaco said that they were giving it away (in the free beer respect, not the free speech respect.) His comment on Open Source was that it was driving other Operating Systems to also be free - and asks the question of when will it finally become 'Free Speech' (IE - Open Sourced.)
Davis Ray Sickmon, Jr - looking for something to read? Check out my three free novels at MidnightRyder.org
I've stayed away from BeOS for a while now, to concentrate on Linux, but if it's now free for download, I think I'll take this "Batmobile of OS's" (to paraphrase N. Stephenson)for a test drive. This is probably the best move for a small OS to become wide spread (a la Linux). Vive la difference!
People, what the hell is going on here? Netscape was giving away their browser before MS even knew what the internet was!!! How many of you remember d/ling the latest ver from the site in 1995? Sure, it was only for home and educational use, but don't kid yourself....
Netscape Navigator was free-as-in-beer since day 1.
The reason MS made IE free was to COMPETE with a company that was doing the same thing. All in all, as we all sit here and yaw about what the future of OSS and MS and all the rest of it will bring, the only thing we can be certain of is that not one of us really knows how it's going to be....
-- This sig is.
I just hope it doesn't HAVE to run as a windoze app. I want to install it on a partition like a real os. If not, it will spoil all the plesure!
You know, I am an MCP, and I know all about things that are not open source. I am going to make a blanket statment here. Computers are great! We all (or most of us) got into all this stuff because we find genuine enjoyment in working with technology. Whether we get that enjoyment on Linux or Windows or a series of ICs on circuit boards with a ROM complier, we are all into the technology for the fun it brings us. I think we all need to stop arguing about which OS is better or if OSS is good or bad. Everyone know that open source is good, it allows us geeks to have an OS, a hobby, something to do with our lives. In some instances it has begun to bring us income, and that is not something that we reall know how to address just yet. But we will figure it out.
Munky_v2
Jay
You apparently miss how Open Source works. Have you ever read the GPL? It states that you can sell your work. Look at Redhat, Caldera etc. They are making money for doing this stuff. The point of the open source community is not to rob you of your work. You are more than welcome to go sit down in your little office and write code all day thinking that no one out there could do it better than you, and then expect to get paid for it. That is not what OSS is about. It is about the idea that by a whole lot of people collaborating on something they are all uniquely good at, we can make a great product and quickly adapt that product to meet individual needs.
We don't want to make you give away everything that you do. By all means, if you can make a product that you think people want to pay for go for it. But just know that the Open Source community is going to make one that is better, faster, and free.
Munky_v2
Jay
It accomplishes a few things. One. I can now afford it and will try it. Heres the cool part. They get tons of free Hype and Media on it! :-) It made it to /. it will be elsewhere now or in a couple of days.. Cool huh?
If you can't find any software then maybe you aren't looking close enough. There are a lot considering it's only a couple years old and the way the OS market has exploded.
Q: If BeOS is free, how does Be make money?
A: BeOS 5 is licensed free for personal, non-commercial use. Be will continue to charge for commercial uses of BeOS 5 and for all uses of the expanded edition of BeOS 5. Also, Be will continue to charge for all uses of Stinger, its software platform for Internet appliances.
This is taken from Be's FAQ. I will be downloading as soon as it is availible. We will see how it looks.
If you run beyond clock/bus speed and whine about instability then you need a big kick in the padded area. It is not a successful overclock if it is not stable. I don't care how many people have overclocked the same chip, it doesn't mean yours will be as stable on your system. I know Windows is a ways away from perfect but I believe (Opinion here) that a large amount of Win9x crashes come back to overclocking and/or low grade/faulty hardware.
Why is Win9x more popular than Linux? Could be because it is closed source? Great logic here.
Open source is a godsend but it isn't the end-all be-all. Why is everything "when it goes open source"? Companies are far more agressive about developing a product if they can make some money off than if they are going to give it away. Let face it, big corporations are spending a lot more time and money on development than most open projects could even hope for. Let's let them push then envelope and move forward.
You've never run more than one OS on a partition before?? Even Remond products are capable of going 2 or 3 on a partition if you are so inclined so why not *nix-ish derivatives?
Consider this simple comparison:
While Be's is still high, its not flying off into ludricous speed, I mean, hell, yahoo's Price/Earnings is up in the thousands, compare that to GM's of 8.
So I see no reason for Be to jump on the Open Source Band wagon. They're simply just trying to get their OS out now that its fully matured. I know this hurts a lot of people feelings, but Open Source is not for everybody, even if something is free. Netscape did the same thing a while back too, remember using it "for educational purposes only"? I'm a computer scientist, and I sure as hell don't want to work my butt off and make no money.
The guys make one of the most quality OS's that I've seen (although briefly) and I was amazed by the near direct hardware access. Can't wait until I can get my grubby mits on it. poor college CS student that I am. Maybe be's giving it away so that I'm suckered into buying 100 copies with my own start up in five years
Lemure, wtf! Don't you mean Lemur?
You work for the fucking MAN!! I bet your multination corporation open sources all its software.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Rights are part of the framework that defines a society. What "you consider right" thankfully is just your opinion, and that of an isolated minority of cranks. Please feel free to act on your beliefs, but please don't complain when you're given a mandatory warm place to sleep as a result of your actions.
Yes, maybe youre right about the macthing, but I was thinking of a free alternative...
BeOs is the future for the desktop...sorry, I really like Linux, but i think that most users will enjoy the easy environment of BE and of course the stunning performance! This being free is the best thing that can happen to people like my mom who are always having trouble using win98 and having no time to get into unix. Good news!
Actually, they do not have to be doing anything interesting at all.
All they are doing is using a big file as a way to reserve space so Windows won't stomp on it. Since the contents of this file is relatively opaque to Windows, Be can do whatever they want to within it. They can read FAT already, they know the name of this special file that they create, so they basically can get a list of sectors that make up the file and then do whatever they want to within it.
I wonder what happens if the file is moved or defragged under Windows. I imagine compressing the thing would be disasterous. If they make it survivable for defrag, or otherwise do not require contiguous space, it would seem that they would have to use all sorts of indirect stuff and links and there would be a bit of a performance hit for doing so.
If anything, it sounds like the same sort of thing that DoubleSpace / DriveSpace etc does.
This is my sig.
I remember a news conference where some corporate guy, in response to a question about MS's browser market dominance, made a comment like "buy Netscape." (I think he was from Sun).
I don't think it was ever Netscape's intention to give their software away for free. They could have made a nice little profit for a while as the market leader. But then Microsoft decided to give their browser away for free, and because of their market leadership elsewhere, the freebie approach quickly became the norm.
Does anyone else remember it differently? I don't :-P
You are right that FREE is not Open Source. I think this effort by Be is more to create market share for their OS. But, the more people that try it out, the better for alternative OS's like Linux (it really isn't mainstream, yet). The timing is good too, since the Micro$oft's Win2k virus will soon be released and people are thinking about upgrading anyway. I think its a good thing though. I was curious about Be. Now, I'll be able to try it out (with minimal effort, since I'll be able to install it on my M$ PC at work.) If there are any features I really like, I could go back to my home PC and look into incorporating them into my Linux system. That's what open source is all about. I don't think Linux would be to the state it is today if it wasn't for dedicated developers incorporating and enhancing current stuff. As well as throwing in cool stuff of their own.
I tried to get creative, but it just didn't work.
RedHat, Caldera, etc. did not write Linux from scratch. Be has invested millions in R&D. RedHat and Caldera get you suckers to do their R&D. They develop minor pieces of Linux, but the lion's share has already been done for them. Can you be any more naive?
I understand how OSS works. Selling support for most pieces of software is useless. How else are people supposed to make money from their software genius? According to you, it must be free. You and the rest of the GNU cult keep preaching it, but you insist that people will pay if the product is good.
Not all OSS software is better. BE is a better OS than Linux, has a ton more features, and is more stable. There is not yet an equivakent for VMWare. FreeMware is years behind, so once again you are wrong there.
You seem to miss what is ment by "Free Software", please send electronic mail to rms@gnu.org and he'll clarify the point for you.
Did I say that it was wrong? No, I didn't. I said it isn't necessarily right.
Now, I happen to agree with property rights, as I think they ultimatley benefit everyone. Therefore I am willing to tolerate selective government violence to enforce propery rights.
The benefit to society for proprietary software is a lot less clear. The fact that open source software has become a viable alternative despite unfavourable treatment from the governments, leads me to suspect that, in fact, the legislative interference has set back the quality and development of software, probably by many years. Certainly the Microsoft tyranny would never had been possible if they had not been backed by legislation.
I do agree that it would be unfair to effectively nationalise (or should I say internationalise) software, without giving due compensation to the owners.
However, if proprietary software cannot compete with open source software, then please excuse a total lack of sympathy from me. They brought it on themselves.
Please read the Magic Cauldron. It might help you understand economics as applied to software. Software is not a manufacturing industry, no matter how hard they try to make people believe it.
That's an interesting way of putting it. Would you also say that Police Forces have (or try to at lesat) destroyed anyone's chances of making money from extortion, theft, and so on?
Go away and read the Magic Cauldron. Come back when you understand that software is a service industry, not a manufacturing industry.
This shows, conclusively, that in the niche markets, closed source can actually not only be matched by open source, but passed to the degree that the closed source's existance is actually threatened.
I suspect, very strongly, that Be will eventually go Open Source. They almost have to, now. They have no long-term future, if they don't.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Linux does not need open source to be used.
This would be a very good statement if it weren't dead wrong. Well, that's not quite true; it's probably the case today that even a non-free version of Linux would be used popularly. However, do you think Linus would have gotten the same number of people working on it if it were non-free? Especially considering that he didn't have money to hire people? If Linux hadn't been released as free software, I suspect it would have vanished into obscurity by now and we'd all be running GNU/BSD systems or something. (heck, maybe the Hurd would actually have been finished..)
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Saw this extremely appropriate tagline from an AC, and I think it needs to be shown again.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
Ring a bell? Open your minds, get off the open source kick, and welcome anything that makes our lives better. Linux IS NOT the end-all OS. BeOS isn't either. So quit trying to make Linux (and open source software) out to be God's electronic gift from heaven.
This was rumored here alreday a month ago : http://www.theregister.co.uk/991201 -000008.html
none Yet.
Actually...
NS was making a boatload of cash off of their browser - the best choice for a graphical browser at that time.
MS wanted in on the business, but their product wasn't good enough (yet) to compete on it's own merit. So they made a *business decision* to integrate the browser into their next OS (Win98 at that time), and so released their not-quite-so-nice-as-NS browser for free, in order to eat away at NS's market share before they dropped the bombshell that EVERYONE running Win98 would have the browser on their system whether they wanted it or not.
Because they released it for free, many people gave it a shot, and figured "Yeah, it's not as good as Netscape, but it's free, and does enough for me to not NEED Netscape"...so it gained some legitimate followers there.
But remember, this is Microsoft. They never do anything based on cost or merit. They included their browser with just about every product they sold, as well as many, many other company's products. Many times, IE was installed with the other products, without informing the user.
A new icon appeared on Win95 desktops: The Internet. Most clueless users started using IE, simply because it was labeled "The Internet" -- and they didn't know any better. This, of course was Microsoft's plan.
Netscape was losing money on the browser now, but at the same time they were starting to rake in BIG money from their server products...so they had a paradigm shift...and the browser we now know as Netscape became free.
It had nothing to do with people realizing the money was elsewhere. It had everything to do with Microsoft devaluing the browser as a commodity by putting their browser, for "free", on desktops all over the world, by any means necessary...then nailing the coffin with the integration into Win98.
For MS as a company, this was a VERY good move - they would have forced NS out of business if they were solely reliant on their browser for income, and they *have* become the dominant force in the browser market.
For the consumer, this (frankly) sucked. The consumer wasn't just offered a free hand-out...it was forcefed, much the same way as Netscape users are forcefed AOL Instant Messenger. With Win98, this became even worse - there was no choice, you had IE whether you wanted it or not (yes, I know about 98 Lite, but they're relatively recent).
Okay, rant's over. I'm probably wrong on a lot of stuff, so feel free to flame as you see fit =)
Open Source Zealotry destroy a perfectly good OS simply because it isn't "open source". They don't have to open it up, ya'll don't have to run it.
Wrong. Be (BEOS) IPO'd somewhere around $6 or $7 USD. Now that they're up to $20 thats something like a 300% increase. That's all without having the buzzword-of-the-week (Linux) behind it.
The software I've written as Open Source and contributed to other Open Source products has been to 'scratch a personal itch' -- whether I wanted a particular tool, thought I could do something better with a tool I'd been using, or just had an interest in the subject. That's one benefit. Another is that other people may find it useful. Yet another is that some other people have contributed code of their own that makes it even more useful to me and to others.
I fully realize that the licenses I use allow RedHat or Caldera or even Be to sell my software. So what? That's my choice. To me, giving up potential (extremely low) profits from selling my software is worth it, considering the benefits I receive. I'm sure Be has come to the same conclusion, moving to gratis non-commercial use -- if Dell installs it on some of their computers, does that make Be 'suckers'?
--
how to invest, a novice's guide
I don't think we've actually seen a dearth of innovation in browser software.
From where i sit, stuff like Flash only became really prevalant in this last year, and it's been a long time since anyone made any money off a browser.
This is just like television, only you can see much further.
I am a little bit ignorant of Be's current business status. Can someone who knows please summarize: Is Be doing well from a commercial viewpoint? Are they successful from a market viewpoint? Or is Be on the brink of destruction?
------------------
------------------
You may like my a cappella music
Wow, I've never seen such a big chip on a person's shoulder before. Your basically taking the attitude that Be is going to be another MS because of it's model of selling it's OS. When Linux is old and not cool, and OSS is king, will you be a stick in the mud proponent of the status quo, or will you be able to accept that things change and all you can do is evaluate things and use the right tool for the right job?
I know which group I'll be in, and that means giving Be a shot at doing good instead of badmouthing Be just for being similar to MS. Maybe I should talk trash about you because you use a font that MS used in the past.
> Users want Free Software.
Users want software that does the job. That's *IT*. Period. Anyone who says different, isn't a user.
Bad Mojo
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
Oh, come on. No one prevented Microsoft from making money from the browser. They *chose* to not make money. No, on the other hand, look at all the innovation that has come once Netscape chose to open their browser. I think that proves a lot, don't you?
-BrentI don't have any first had knowledge of this , but I do have the BeOS preview release for PowerPC, and Be has an app that you launch from the MacOS finder that 'unloads' the MacOS and then loads the BeOS.
/dosutils folder on the CD there is a batch file called autoboot, that will unload DOS and load linux, Be could be doing something like this.
This might be what they're doing with windows. Have you ever installed Mandrake or RedHat (I must admit that I am ignorant about other distros) under the
A script/batch file that will shutdown into DOS mode and run a loadlin like program.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Nowhere in the Be page does it say that BeOS would be Open Source (truly free). It will be free to use, in binary form. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how it reads.
:)
That's not the sort of freedom we're striving for. In fact it would be better, in principle, to sell (for a reasonable price i.e. their current $100) the source code than to give away the binary.
IMHO, compilation is a value-added convenience, while seeing the guts of your system is a God given right.
[rant on]
There are a million reasons why open source is better than free binary. You get what you pay for is one. With a free binary, there's little impetus to improve or fix THAT version. The paying corporate version will get the lion share of closed developer time. Don't think for a second that there won't be a different version for the paying corporate users. Don't delude yourself that way.
Open source will focus critique of shortcomings in the implementation, possibly embarassing the developers into fixing things - while also providing amateur assistance.
Skill-specialized outsiders could do a great job contributing to an open source Be. People who have written exotic drivers would find it easier to port them to Be than would other developers. People who have worked in the dark corners of Linux and BSD could offer insights into improving BeOS.
Also, it will allow cross-polination of novel approaches to other OSes. Not to name any names, bit Linux would really benefit from a multi-media, data-moving based OS entrails being made open source.
[rant off]
What Be proposes is not freedom. It's a marketting move, like Apple's giving Macs to schools, so they buy them at college and at work. This is a move to hook people at home, in the hope that they'll push for buying Be for the office.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
is great! Not too many people see Be and want to try it because the OS itself costs money and then you need to find software for it. Maybe this will lead IS guys will try it out and decide to use it in offices and such, especially where user interface is important. I think a move like this will really help increase the user base of BeOS, people will be able to try it at home and get to like it. I can even hope that other programmers might adopt a similar distribution model with Be software, free software with enhanced versions and support available for people who want to buy it. Hmm maybe someday Adobe will port their suite of toys to Be.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
By "dearth of innovation" do you mean that no one is adding new tags like or ? If so, lack of innovation is a good thing. Browser development seems currently geared toward getting browsers to implement common standards, correctly. (By the way, previewing seems to screw up character codes in the text box, in case no one noticed.)
Weblogging Considered Harmful:
You've got to be kidding! What would they throw you in jail for? Refusing to buy their product? Or are you complaining that they would throw you in jail for not exchanging value for value -- for taking someone else's property without their consent?
If I write software and decide to give it away, it is my choice. It was mine to begin with and I have the right to decide what to do with the product of my own mind. I might choose, however, to sell it instead -- to seek comparable value in other products/services I don't already have. What a radical concept! It's how division of labor works.
There is no extortion here. I don't force anyone to buy what I have and no one forces me to buy what they have. And no one is forcing the other to surrender what is theirs by right.
Yet, in the thirst for a taste of Microsoft's blood and caught up in its own delusions of grandeur, the Linux community is actingmore and more like the very people they claim to despise. Any action is sanctionable as long as it furthers the goal of open source. Great products, whose only technical "flaw" is that they aren't open-sourced, are gone after with the same ferocity and tenacity as if they are the latest incarnation of bloatware from Microsoft.
In case you've missed it, this attitude isn't anything new. It goes back to the Open Source communities roots -- all the way back to RMS himself. Many zealots will say that ALL softare should be open source, and you shouldn't use any program that isn't open source.
Personally, I just like software that doesn't suck. Many mature open source software projects fit this description, and thats why you see me using open source software.
But, there is some proprietary software that doesn't suck. Be is one of them. I don't use Be because there is(currently) no compelling reason for me to do so. I hear that the media support is nice and all, but I don't do media, so unless they intend on positioning this OS as something more generic, and more applications become available, then I might have some compelling reason to move.
My current reason for using Linux is that it is an awesome developers platform. The development tools available on Linux are unequaled in the industry: no proprietary software package is better than what is currently offered on Linux, IMHO.
OTOH, if you are an idealist, like many in the Open Source community (ie, hackers) are, then you will probably say that NO proprietary software is better than its open source counterparts. If this attitude offends you, then maybe the open source community and places like Slashdot that support it are not where you should be hanging out.
I don't possess the attitude, but I understand it and accept it as commonplace. It doesn't offend me personally, although I don't necessarily agree with it. If I can be tolerant of other people's views, then I would expect the same of other people that they would be tolerant of my views. So far, I haven't been disappointed.
My journal has hot
Can you name one unique, one specific piece of open sourced software which has no equals on any non-open source system? ... There's no innovation coming from the OSS community yet, other than the fundamental ideals of OSS itself.
What, exactly, is your point here?
If you are saying that the innovative part about OSS is the development technique itself, well, you're right. That is the point ESR has been trying to make all along: OSS works better then closed development. The big deal isn't about the end product; it is about the process. OSS is a better process (yielding better software as an end result). That's the whole idea.
OSS often means building a better mouse trap -- not coming up with something entirely different. In the case of Linux, a bunch of people have decided Unix has the general idea down right; they are refining it. The rest of the world works this way (standing on the shoulders of giants, et. al.); why should OSS be any different?
Innovation is about taking existing ideas and putting them together to synthesize a new and better whole. If we are to be limited to that which has never been done before, we're doomed. Fortunately, that is not the case.
And, just for your continued edification, yes, I can think of something the OSS community has created that does not exist anywhere else: The Internet. That's right, the Internet. The Internet is a creation of OSS network development. OSS has enabled the very thing that makes this discussion possible.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
... could anyone (previous poster even) dig up a link to a page which explains how OSS created the internet?
:)
... because of the fact that each programmer is working in sync with everyone else.
:-)
:)
Hmmm. I don't think I have a link that says, specifically, "OSS created the Internet". For starters, the term "Open Source Software" hadn't been coined yet. Besides, assertions are worthless alone; it is the proof that backs them up.
So take a look at the Internet Engineering Task Force and this archive of Internet Requests for Comments (RFCs). You will find the Internet was developed through the same process of open development, code sharing, and peer review that define OSS software development. Everything you use on the web today, from the Domain Name System to the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol to HTTP itself was developed using OSS principles. "We believe in rough consensus and working code", to quote David Clark of the IETF. That seems to define OSS pretty well.
I thought Al Gore did that.
Cute.
The BeOS would never have been developed if it was open source.
See above about assertions without proof.
The sheer slickness of it is testament to how much close planning and discussion went into its design.
OSS and planning and discussion are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, discussion is one of the key tenets of OSS. OSS projects are often characterized by the intense, often heated discussions that take place on their mailing lists. It may be a process of beating it into shape rather then careful artistic planning, but the end result seems to be the same. One man's hammer is another man's paint brush, so to speak.
The business model, in Be's case at least, can work very well for developing high-quality products...
Certainly; BeOS itself is evidence of that. I was never arguing against BeOS. However, the fact that closed development can work does not mean that open development cannot.
Again, that happens in OSS as well. True, as you note, you often find different people and projects overlapping. However, this is not necessarily a Bad Thing. For one, it offers a form of redundant protection against failure. Second, it fosters an almost Darwinian approach to software development. Many ideas are put forward, and the best selected.
Look at Gnome and KDE. Two projects aiming to accomplish the same thing, and thousands of hours of work wasted.
Interesting. When two companies compete against each other, that competition is generally viewed as a Good Thing (here in the USA, anyway). No one (other then socialists (no, I'm not calling you a socialist (nor am I offering opinions on socialism in general, one way or the other))) calls that competition "a waste". Why should it be any different for OSS development? The GNOME and KDE projects are both offering different solutions to the same problem. Cooperation between the two is quite good, so compatibility should be high. The end result is more choice and better software, as the good ideas live on and the bad ones die off. I don't regard that as a waste at all.
The fact is that the BeOS is a more technically sophisticated, better designed OS that Linux, and it is thanks to closed source design that it has gotten this far.
Ohhhh, inflammatory and unsupported in the same sentence! Did you do that on purpose?
Anyway, BeOS and Linux each have their strengths and weaknesses. You don't put forward any arguments for either of your points: BeOS "better designed" then Linux or that closed development has gotten BeOS this far. I could as easily say that "BeOS would be much further along if it was OSS", but I don't. Please add some justification for your argument, or stop cluttering up the discussion. Thank you.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Look at the dearth of inovation we've seen in the browser software area as soon as everyone realized that there was no money to be made there.
The mozilla browser project is full of innovations, such as XUL (the cross platform UI in XML), XPCOM (cross-platform common object model), RDF, full standards compliance, etc. MS is busy working on the 5.5 release of MSIE that will probably raise the bar once again. Finally, Opera is still making money selling their lean, mean, utilitarian browser.
So where is this so called dearth of browser innovation?
Closed Source, Proprietary/commercial software is good. It protects the investment of your purchase, it provides a constant resource for support. It provides the ability to roll out and standardize.
If every person had the source, or 10,000 out of the 10,000,000 using that package modify that source. Then that product is not the original product and can't follow the original support options and therefore can't offer a Business what it needs.
Open source can solve your server, you workstation needs and such in a small controlled environment. In big business, Microsoft works because a) hardware vendors support there hardware under a specific product b) microsoft supports there software on HCL approved hardware
So yes, buying a single software, a single hardware solution and support contracts on closed software provides the business the ROI it needs to prove the purchase as acceptable.
Yes, i can buy RedHat from redhat and get system from VA linux and get support options from both. But when it comes down to one specific part of the OS breaking down, is it up to RedHat to fix that part, release a new package into GPL, notify the original authors, and then resend me the product? Doesn't Paying for redhat services on software support to modify a non redhat portion of the OS piss you off as a developer that is looking for ways to make money? Should RedHat consult your services as a contractor to provide for your work?
I don't get what this hype about linux is. YES, i love linux as another unix clone. I hate the open source/GPL contraversy, but i love the concept. Its great to think this world could be a wonderfully FREE place. But its not.
You have to do what you need to do. That doesn't make you right no matter what. My ideas/concepts of how things work don't make me worse or better then a linux zealot. Because i post what i feel on slashdot and could give a rats ass about karma, i may get killed off as flaimbait or whatnot, but i expressed my vies and opinions. And i used to think that was what mattered.
One mindset isn't more perfect than another. Windows, QNX, Be, Mac OS *, Unix *.* and Whatever else out there is all a part of this computer evolution. Simply locking your mindset into one particular pattern makes this the computer de-evolution. Be yourself, use what you want, listen to others, and most of all, don't get cocky about feeling insulted because not everyone is like you.
maybe you think Red Hat's valuation is a mirage, but hey, it's Bob Young who's the billionaire. You're not. Maybe that says something about the relative value of your vision vs. his.
Bill Gates is a multi-billionaire, maybe that says something about the values of his vision versus yours.
QED
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Actually, a fair number of users are, I think.
Even my friends who can't program at all are into the open source aspect, because it can be modified, even if not by them. It's like buying an easily repairable car, even if you never open the hood yourself.
Many businesses (ISPs mainly, but a few others) that I know of are using Linux because it's open source, and if they ever need a feature that doesn't exist, or a patch, it'll be possible to hire a programmer and have it implemented.
The freedom to be able to do something is often more important that actually ever doing it.
Re: MacOS and Windows succeeding...
Of course, both of these OSes got a huge boost by being included with 95% of the hardware they run on...
I don't think you could ever buy a Mac without MacOS (maybe in the short-lived clone days) and we all know about MS and their predatory packaging schemes.
Using these as examples of OSes that have succeeded may be good from the point of view of investors, but not users. Both of these OSes are terribly unstable, and the companies that sold them aren't known for service.
BeOS is just another OS in a crowded market. Open source isn't needed, but if I was selecting an OS to run servers at work, open source is a feature I'd look for, just like journalling FS support, strong memory protection, and pre-emptive multitasking. By being closed source it'll have to be not just as good as Linux or BSD in all ways, but better, to be worth my while.
"Come on folks! Let's all email <xyz> and show `em just how much we want an Open Source version of this product!"
*sigh*
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
This also ignores your prattling hypocrisy about how you should be allowed to dictate what others do, and how others are "rude morons" for not choosing/having the same likes as you.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
What? Like producing multimedia cinematics/film/adverts/tv effects where "being able to spin 6 mpegs on a cube" is much more than a "parlour trick"?
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
It would be, but unfortunately would be representative of a lot fewer of the Slashdot population these days, more is the pity.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
You didn't read the original post very thoroughly, did you?
I'll quote: Linux does not need open source to be used. How many users actually use the source. It aided its development and growth, but not its usage.
No one is debating that Linux's development has been aided hugely by its open nature. But how many people using Linux today are doing so because they can get at the source? Some, sure, but not that many. Not that many have the education to understand the source (before I get flamed, I'm not being an elitist CS student - I couldn't understand the source) in the first place, so it's irrelevant.
Development has been aided, sure. Development has added to features and performance which have attracted users, sure. But users have been directly attracted due to the open nature? No, not in any great quantity. Believe what you like but to say anything else is to stick your head in the sand.
Greg
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
If you give me some apples but then demand a share of any pies I make, you're not really sharing.
Your attitude is quite common but nonetheless reprehensible. If you think your software should be free, all power to you and you have my congratulations. But that doesn't then give you the right to demand the same of others.
Free shouldn't mean "I'll share mine if you'll share yours" as that's a restriction itself.
Greg
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
My recollection of a friend at Southampton's e-mail address suggests you're a Computer Science Student. I am too.
I fully understand that view, I've seen it argued here many a time. But I'm yet to see any coherent explanation for why our labours and use of skills as software engineers should automatically be donated to the community for free to do with as they wish while I am free to sell the results of my labours as a musician.
Software development is a skill which takes a considerable amount of time and skill for most to develop to any standard. Anyone who says otherwise either doesn't code, doesn't code well or is absurdly talented. Now, there is a demand for this skill. So why should I not be able to sell my code? Because, whatever some may say, selling GPL'd code simply isn't practical.
Greg
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
The point is, while the direct unit cost of any software product may well be insignificant compared to its price, its sale would not be possible without substantial development overheads. The fact that they do not alter substantially depending on the number of sales does not mean that their cost should be disregarded.
Your problem here is an over-simplistic view of economics coupled to idealism. While I'm glad to see idealists, it's a pity you're letting it cloud your judgment here.
Greg
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
But, in this business model, the pie is the recipe. There's no practical value in anything other than the source.
Hence the analogy holds. Free software is fine and I applaud people for giving away their source, but to then demand others follow up your act isn't right.
Nor, for that matter, is to demand that their revisions to your software should be licensed under the same license you chose. That's a restriction on freedom of use, too...
Greg
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
I don't think you get it. There are good reasons for choosing Free Software. Some of us will not choose propietary software. This is our choice and our right.
Sometimes you need to look beyond the technology. Don't insult people for your own short-sightedness.
None. Commercial implies that it is a business. Businesses make money for people that do the work and invest in the product. Business != Charity.
That is true. But I was speaking in respect to Be. The other poster said that there are other closed operating systems with comercial success. I was questioning if comercial success was worth limiting their user's use of the system.
Perhaps you missed this detail in my post?
Again. This is COMMERCIAL. Does buying a book entitle you to photocopy it and give it to your friends to read? No.
This would depend on the book.
No. That is the USERS wanting things, not the company. The OS itself does NOT rely on OSS material. Things like the GNU tools are bundled, but most of the OS is proprietry. A couple of drivers and the pcmcia stack are OSS code, but this has either been donated to Be inc. for use, or they have licenced (with money) the code from the original author. This is very fair.
I think I have made a mistake. I do beleive that Be is benefitting by porting Free Software to their operating. But there is no reason they should not. They have every right too.
No, let me check. I seem to remember that the announcement meant the OS _is_ about to become free
No. Free as in Free Software. Has nothing to do with price.
To make a last point - if you decide to make your software that you write open source, that is up to you. By doing so you are declaring its there for others to use as they see fit. You dont expect anything back in return. You yourself in complaining about the validity of making use of OSS code are arguing against its principles. making code availiable means exactly that - you cant have it both ways.
You are very correct. I made a mistake.
nice quote, it's going on my MP3SDMIRIAADVDCSS page :)
+&x
I get the impression from the press release that Be hopes to encourage development on the BeOS by making it available free of charge. They make the point that the compiler and development environment ARE included with the download.
My question: Once someone starts writing and selling software for BeOS, doesn't that qualify as "non-commercial" use? It seems that a prospective developer might download and try out the platform for free, but must pay the license fee before they go to market with a product.
Not that I have a problem with this. The $60 or so I paid for 4.5 was well worth it and I would probably pay for version 5 anyway.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
LinuxPPC also isn't a commercial OS, and is less likely to be sued by Apple. Another thing to note, a large percentage of Be's programmers are ex-apple employees (last I checked) which means I wouldn't doubt Apple would use that to say they're using proprietory information if they just hacked it together to make it work.
That brings me to my next point, BeOS isn't an os that's hacked together. It's quite good and running the best it possibly can on any hardware, and making it half-way work on a new PPC would just ruin the experience. Be is about fine-tuning, not scrapping together and jerry-rigging.
I liked the look of BeOS back at v4, when cover CD's were bootable. It booted really fast, and the GUI was not only attractive, but quick too.
Then v4.5 bootable CD demo was even better, although no games. At the Linux Expo in London I was severely tempted to buy 4.5 boxed set, the only thing stopping me was cost - so this is brilliant!
I just hope that Be doesn't continue to be passed over, or get the label of 'freebe'.
insignificant sig
The operating system is free, but it's not open source. I think everyone here should be able to handle this concept.
So where's the fuss? It's a lot free-er than it was this morning, and you will be able to download the latest version when you want. Still not complaining?
Good. So Be isn't open source. That's the *operating system*, but who said you can't have open source software on Be? Who? NOBODY!
Open source is what you make it. Don't want to pay for a BeOS app? Write it. You did it with Linux, now you can do it with BeOS. Go ahead, knock yourselves out.
insignificant sig
>Or you could say that Open Source has destroyed anyone's chances of making money in the OS market
If that is so how come Microsoft makes so much money each year? What about Windows 2K, which is expected to be a big money maker? What about the valuations of many Linux companies?
>Look at the dearth of inovation we've seen in the browser software area
But there are MANY areas of software which don't make money and have loads of inovation. Look at almost any Linux project. Look at Quake 3 and UnrealT mods. Look at the many rogue-like games still going strong after all this time.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
I think this will be a great thing for Be. I've been a Be supporter for quite some time and got to be friends with a few guys there, and after chatting with them I think one of Be's biggest problems is getting the word out about their OS. Not just that it exists but why it's great. I think there are plenty of people who would jump at the chance if they knew more about what makes it special. I think making a free downloadable version of the OS is the perfect way to get people to check it out, as most people who are merely curious won't go out and buy it, regardless of the low price. I also think including all the dev tools in the free version is a great way to encourage development for the OS.
Way to go Be!
From their FAQ:
Q: Does this mean BeOS runs "under" Windows?
A: No. Although you can launch BeOS via a file within Windows, BeOS does not run as a Windows application. Double-clicking the file will exit Windows and boot BeOS from a large file in the FAT file system which contains within it a BFS volume.
Q: If I install BeOS 5 within Windows, will I still have the advantages of the Be File System?
A: Yes.
Q: Will I have to run Windows to run BeOS 5?
A: No. Although we will offer an installation as described above that will allow you run BeOS from within Windows without repartitioning your hard drive, you will still be able to run BeOS as a stand-alone operating system.
Q: If I install BeOS 5 within Windows, will performance suffer compared to the stand-alone version?
A: Assuming your Windows partition is not highly fragmented, in most cases you probably won't notice a difference in performance between installation methods.
Q: Will I be able to install BeOS 5 within operating systems other than Windows?
A: Not at this time. Note, though, that if you don't use Windows, you will be able to install BeOS as a stand-alone operating system as described above.
I mean, this is the third or fourth complaint about BeOS 5 requiring Windows, losing the advantage of BeFS, etc. How many clue-by-fours must be applied for people to finish reading the FAQ? Why must people stop right when they see "Windows" and go complain on Slashdot?
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
People! It's simple. Be allows us to download it from them, while retaining all legal rights. The word for this is
FREEWARE!
And the reason they're doing this is probably not because they want to get on the bandwagon, but 'cuz years ago, before the final release, it was available for free. Years of people begging them to continue this method of distribution have paid off, that's all.
The goal is to establish a user base, because people are most likely to try an OS w/ a simple installer & no cost.
In political terms, this means that they realize they don't have a good contender for the home market and they want to win over more non-embedded users.
Check out Project Upper/Mute, an all-around awesome compiler fra
Once a GPL program has entered a market, like Linux has in the OS market, commercial revenue margins come under assault. The hugh margins that some may view as extortion
cannot be maintained. Of course can one say that the "innovation" in windows has kept up with its cost. I don't think so. I think the majority of software companies are in for a
shock as in the coming years the margins that they have enjoyed will be greatly reduced.
Although it is possible to have an open source application compete with a commercial one I think that saying that open source will prevent people from making money off software and having a comfortable margin would be stretching it a little. If I hire several thousand software developers and several thousand beta testers for analysis of the software to do all sorts of error checking I will be able to produce a very good application. Now if I impliment features that rely on obscure methods to accomplish various tasks then I can sell said software. Now with windows and other products where (usually) open source is not as prevelent as with other places the commercial option is often the best one. Running open source programs on top of windows is like putting a leotards on a group of fat 50+ male bowlers who work as tow truck operators and then having them stumble drunkenly around and call it ballet. Now you have all the things you need: people in costumes, "dancing", even music but does that give you a quality experience?
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
In a way, this kind of makes the browser more of a "client" for the servers of the company which created the browser.
I always wondered whether a "one size fits all" browser was for the best - frankly, at least for specific applications, I thought we could use the bandwidth a lot more efficiently even individual companies could autodistribute clients for their servers (yeah, yeah, Java, security, mumblemumble...). Maybe the proliferation of browsers tied to portals would be a step back in that direction?
CmdrTaco's posturing aside this has far less to do with the cost of Open Source software and far more to do with the barriers to entry that Judge Jackson outlined in his findings of fact in the Microsoft/DOJ trial. The success of a platform has at least as much to do with harware and application support as it does with cost. As evidence review the success MS, Sun, IBM, RedHat, Corel and others have selling their sundrie OSes.
Where hardware and software support equal BeOS would be a strong competitor to free (as in beer) alternatives because it is higher in performance, and easier to use and administer. Unfortunately this is not the case. Free (as in speach) alternatives have better hardware and software support, and are therefore more successful even when they aren't free (as in beer). I believe Redhat sells more RH Linux than Be sells BeOS. Yes, you could argue that it is expressly because of the cost of free (beer) source that it has better hardware and software support, but I would argue that it has more to do with the free (speach) that people have invested their time and money.
It is for precisely this reason that I think Be's efforts are not likely to result in a great deal of success. Writing applications to take advantage of their platform is an investment in a limited market which is not likely to grow until more applications are written for their platform. It is a chicken and an egg issue.
Nice of them. Definitely worth the "40-60 Mb" download.
The English language has a problem with the word 'free'. It either means 'free' as in no charge, or it means 'free' as in freedom.
The Open Source License protects the software legally, this used to be a 'Free-source-license'. So the 'Free' word made a lot of confusion.
Advocates used metaphors like 'free-beer' and 'freedom' to explain what was meant by this 'free' word.
Today we talk about Open-source, such that the 'free' word doesn't confuse anymore.
The 'free-beer' expression is inherited by the legal problems Open Source used to have, it means gratis, no-charge etc.
Bizar technology?
What a stupid thing to say. Go read post #127 on this topic.
I said "price" and "cost". That post is speaking about "value". These are technical terms which one learns, especially in an academic setting, are used to represent different concepts.
Then go back to school until you learn to to think.
Gee, I guess this suggestion doesn't really apply, does it? Thanks for trying, though, and I mean it.
I would say that this is Be reaching out to grab one of the three things it still desperately needs: mindshare. BeOS is a wonderful environment, and one that hardly anyone uses, which could doom this OS to a life as an orphan if Be's backers lose faith. The kernel currently only lacks in its network layer, which, although it handles a normal client load quite well, doesn't do too well as a server. The third, and final thing Be needs, is software.. Hopefully, in R5, they will improve the Select() call, and fix several POSIX incompatabilities. They have also stated that they will be distributing their Metrowerks-designed IDE in the free distro, which should help out with lack #3. It seems like a very smart strategy to me. Lasso the high-tech home users, then capture the corporate users, later.
Weapons of Mass Analysis
Think about it: all this stuff was released one day before Transmeta is going to tell their big secret.
BeOS has proved to be very portable.
The Transmeta processor is rumored to need only 2 watts and to maybe emulating more hardware than just the processor. It might be just the thing for powerful internet appliances.
It might be just the thing for Be.
I really hope that Be makes it, but lately I've not been too happy with them. I bought R3 as soon as it came out, and happily played with it for many months and starred at the pretty rotating cube that was playing movies. then R4 came out, and I bought that too, but this time it wouldn't even install. aparantley, one of the new features of the upgrade was the fact that most of the intel drivers were rewritten, unfortunately my specific (and rather old) motherboard wasn't fully supported. They were nice enough to send me a free copy of R4.5 though, but that didn't work either. I guess the point of this little story is this, Be will never make it anywhere if they don't take a step back and say, stop, we need to get this thing fully functional as it stands. support all the basic hardware we can (motherboards, ide controllers, etc...), and stabalize it all. then start adding the nifty new APIs. as it stands, BeOS is nothing more than a really big demo OS. until they stabalize development, and make sure it runs on most systems, it will remain this toy that people look at and say "damn, I wish my primary OS ran this fast and could do this neat little demo", then reboot to their primary OS and do some work. Linux was able to get by because it was completely open, so if it didn't do something, somebody with the proper skills could make it do it. BeOS doesn't have that luxury though. I really hope that Be can make it, but they have to reevaluate what their goals for each release are. anyway, I'll be ordering a copy of R5 even though its free, and even though R4.5 wouldn't run on my box, just to show my support, in hopes of a better OS (not that Linux isn't great). Tim Malone
Even while BeOS is free, I still wont be developing for it because of philosophical problems.
I still believe Be's very selective inclusion of GNU tools while being actively hostile to any notion that technology they develop should be opened up is not playing fair. The world isn't a fair place, and they have every right to do this.
Luckily I too have rights to develop for platforms where the benefits extend beyond just immediate payment and use. The GPL is a form of idealism in a jaded world that I'm prepared to support.
---
Silence is consent.
I can't fault Be for making that decision, either. Of course, I still boggle at Apple pulling two years of profitability simply by coloring their cases.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
- WinNT4
- Win98 (for gamez)
- Linux/KDE
- BeOS
it installed more easily than any of the others, even win98. it doesn't prompt me that i've added new hardware every time i move a PCI card. and in general its a lot more pleasant than anything else.if giving it away for free, including the development package, can get some of the slackers to write quality warez for it then maybe both sides would gain.
--disgruntled NT pawn
...vividly encapsulates that post-Watergate/pre-punk/coked-up moment when you could trust no one, least of all yourself.
Please.
The value of one's vision has absolutely *no relation*, absolutely *no correspondence* to the intellectual "validity" of the vision.
True, Bob Young has millions, but on all scales *except for dollars* those millions have absolutely nothing to do with the intellectual weight of that vision.
Einstein's vision was one that pretty compelling -- but I don't see (or didn't see) millions upon millions of dollars showered on Einstein. Nor did I see millions showered upon Joyce, Proust, Hemingway, or Faulkner -- or Adorno, Horkheimer, et al. -- or whomever else can fill in the blank of the 'Important Intellectual'.
Your position is so laughably stupid (yes, that's right: I said "stupid") that it tells me a couple things about your thought processes: that you are an uncritical, uncreative zealot who follows around the latest fad and is more than happy to join in with the other voices in your cabal of lemmings, so long as your voice conforms to theirs. If it doesn't, then you promptly adopt their cause du jour, imagine yourself on the "bleeding edge," and sneer down at those outside your pack who have different (and most likely better -- yes, that's right, I said "better") ideas than your own.
It's typuical Slashdot mentality: if the pack says bark at Purina, you bark at Purina. If the pack says, hey, don't bark at Gaines Burgers, then, hey, you don't bark at Gaines Burgers. But because you're not the alpha and are instead caught in the back of the pack, staring hard at the dirty assholes of the other scrappy mutts, the best you can is bark at whatever else the pack is barking at.
Hmm, but is this an attempt to garner marketshare by giving the product away? This model is not alway successful ( as many members here can attest ). Hopefully _not_ the deathnell of Be as we need the variety in the OS space. I have wanted to play with it myself as a longtime Amiga owner from 'days of yore'(tm) but never found the time. The 'Free'ness wasn't the limiting factor for me. I just didn't have time to devote.
Be was perfectly happy to make use of Open Source code (even to the point of directly violating the GPL).
Then, there's the curious case of Sun Microsystems. You know them - the guys with the funny licence. Who's Solaris 7 was monsterously expensive, slashed to $27, and is going to be partially released as Open Source (if it hasn't already). The pattern sound vaguely familiar? No? Then maybe it should.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
> Commercial success at what cost?
... Be is Free Software parasite. ... ... they all want this or that application open sourced so that they can port it to BeOS. ... ... Does anyone else see the hypocracy in this? ... ... BeOS relies on free software but fails to play fair ...
None. Commercial implies that it is a business. Businesses make money for people that do the work and invest in the product. Business != Charity.
> What about the user who pays for an operating system but isn't allowed to modify or even redistribute it?
Again. This is COMMERCIAL. Does buying a book entitle you to photocopy it and give it to your friends to read? No.
>
>
>
>
No. That is the USERS wanting things, not the company. The OS itself does NOT rely on OSS material. Things like the GNU tools are bundled, but most of the OS is proprietry. A couple of drivers and the pcmcia stack are OSS code, but this has either been donated to Be inc. for use, or they have licenced (with money) the code from the original author. This is very fair.
> If users want Free Software then they would not choose BeOS.
No, let me check. I seem to remember that the announcement meant the OS _is_ about to become free.
> Users want Free Software.
Indeed. Feel free to argue yourself into a corner anytime.
To make a last point - if you decide to make your software that you write open source, that is up to you. By doing so you are declaring its there for others to use as they see fit. You dont expect anything back in return. You yourself in complaining about the validity of making use of OSS code are arguing against its principles. making code availiable means exactly that - you cant have it both ways.
~Pev
This is only the fourth change in Be's long term strategy. The only real question is: how long will be continue to support it's desktop OS ? [They stoped the Hobbit bebox, then they stopped the support for the PowerPC bebox, and then they stopped all active dev on beos PPC. NOw they where intel only, will they stop it too ???]
I really Like BeOS. And since some time now really dislike Be Inc the compagny
none Yet.
After reading the news release and articles over at some Be websites I'm still a bit nebulous about the nature of this. Be's president had talked about a sort of "viral form" of Be, but it sounded more like a demo.
Overall, this still has the flavor of a demo. I mean, it is a parasitic OS... it can't install to its own partition, and you need another OS to run it. I bought Be 4.5, and I'd think about upgrading... I don't want to boot Windows in order to boot Be.
What is interesting is that they are including the development tools for Be in this free version. I wonder if they are trying to get Be out to more developers, both as an ad for their platform, and as a way of getting more developers to pitch in. With many companies using things like VMware to do cross-platform development, this may be Be's way of joining in. They might hope developers will say "Heck, we'll download it for free, and see if we can get our software to work on it."
"...Open Source (truly free)..."
Very interesting, you use of the word "truly" as if it were an adjective whose purpose were to clarify the meaning of "free". Sort of makes me heart go flutter.
Hallelujah! All this time we thunk we was free when truth was we was only falsely free. We never made a voluntary choice or decision of our own will until we chose GnewLinux.
"...seeing the guts of your system is a God given right."
Okay, we're talking natural and unalienable rights here, eh? Fine, I'll speak that language. If there is the supreme (god given) right to the source code, then proprietary software is a crime. So what do we do about this crime? Arrest Bill Gates and throw him in in jail? Violate his god given rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and post the Windows source code to the net? Violate his god given right to free speech and compell him to speak what you want him to? Put him in the stocks? Then do the same with every other developer with the temerity to keep their own source code private. Whoohoo! That sure does sound like freedom to me!
"...while also providing amateur assistance"
You cite this as a benefit of OSS? I get the heebie jeebies just thinking about amateurs tinkering with airtraffic control systems, embedded pacemaker software, and my antilock braking system on my car.
"What Be proposes is not freedom."
BFD. My freedom doesn't come in an eighty dollar shrinkwrapped box of Redhat. I don't need to download it. It's something I already have.
You, and many other people, are extremely confused as to the nature of the "free" in Free Software. It is not free speech. Free speech gives Bill Gates the right to create his software with or without revealing the source code. Deny him that right and you become an intolerable hypocrite.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
From the comment with the story...
Further proof that Open Source has made the Operating System Free
Or you could say that Open Source has destroyed anyone's chances of making money in the OS market (at least for x86 hardware). Look at the dearth of inovation we've seen in the browser software area as soon as everyone realized that there was no money to be made there.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Now that Be is concentrating on the Internet, what about the JDK promised here? This press release says:
The Java 2 platform and PersonalJava technology are currently being ported to BeOS. Beta versions of the software are expected to be available before the end of the year.
The year being 1999. Does anyone know more?
The value of an operating system is a complex thing. The bottom line is that it is only worth the value to you of what you can run on it. Honestly, does anyone run a bare Linux kernel with nothing else. Let's see a show of hands. Right
What open source operating systems have done is change the range of options. At one time for the 8088, you could run DOS or CP/M. Other players came and went. Open source OS's are simply now among the choices. The difference is that for free, I can run a stable, powerful, reasonably lightweight OS with compilers, editors, games, text formatters, etc., etc. A competing OS is only worth as much more as the value of the applications that I can run on it and not the free one, or the value of the support that comes with the purchase price.
If corporate IS departments and government agencies can be educated that standardized protocols and file formats, not specific versions of specific applications, are the way to specify how they will distribute data, then stampede will be on. If I didn't have to read documents produced by a particular word processor in its own internal, undocumented, gratuitously changing format, I'd remove it and the OS it runs on from ever machine I controlled. Ooops, wait, I already did that. They won't let me do it at work.
My point here, is that if the artificial barriers that prevent running the pet applications fall, all the geeks in the world can switch to Linux, FreeBSD, BeOS, or whatever. Trust me, my boss hasn't seen my PC often enough to know what I am running. All he cares about is that I can read what he writes and that he can read what I write. And the corporate IS folks, when they find out will probably panic. Even if open source OS's were every bit as difficult to use and maintain as commercial ones, people who choose to switch and install it themselves don't generally want support. The first time they make noises about support, we're likely to say, "Fine, don't support us and don't bill our department for it either."
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
Further proof that Open Source has made the Operating System Free
Or you could say that Open Source has destroyed anyone's chances of making money in the OS market (at least for x86 hardware). Look at the dearth of inovation we've seen in the
browser software area as soon as everyone realized that there was no money to be made there.
I really think that this is not an issue. Think of it this way. Suppose we develop hardware capable of running AI on some level. A company (ever MS) decides to crate a series of AI extensions that are optional to the operating system but that come with it do allow for true AI and other activities such as multiple foreign language interpretation and real time analysis of facial expressions. Now with all these advances what if they charge the people about $100 do get it? Will this change anything and make everyone not buy it? No. This would only 'destroy' anyone's chances of making money from the OS if someone made that killer OS. Yes and I will be the first one to admit that linux is not that OS even though I use it every day.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
In the long run, of course, one dominant browser might still emerge as there is nothing to stop one browser from being customizable for all of the different parochial portal operators. But the browser that emerged emerged because of monopoly power over the desktop by a company that does not participate in either free or open source, not because of free download and distribution.
I think the trick to controlling this sort of monopoly abuse (and which would work for cable TV too) is to not allow vertical integration. If you are a portal/channel, you are not an ISP. If you are an ISP, you are not a software vendor. No bundling. AOL should have to open its protocols and allow other software to compete, Microsoft should have to open the desktop and allow other software to compete, and no ISP should control either your software or your choice of portal. Its how free-market theory actually works in the Theory that goes by that name.
And why do you take sides and say Open Source? Why don't we all agree to the following simple English. Actually, you can't disagree with me, we have all agreed, this is English. All of the pain and anguish is caused by those who would attempt to redefine English, but they have all failed. So, just to let the redifiners know, this is what the words mean to everybody:
I'm not taking sides on the licenses, I'm just siding with the people who try to speak clearly regardless of where they stand.
I tried BeOS about 3-4 months ago, when I first put together my current system. A Friend had the 4.5 CD, all my hardware was supported, and trying a new OS is fun :-)
The install was the best OS install I've ever seen. Had a spcial version of Partition Magic to partition, and clicked about 3 buttons and it was installed. The Bootloader was the best I've seen. Detected all my hardware and was up and running on the net as soon as I typed in my network info and clicked "restart networking".
Then I did what most people do when they install linux for the first time. Looked at my computer and said "now what"? Didn't have much for a web broswer. Net+ was so-so, and when you have to point at Opera as your top broswer, that's never a good sign. Mozilla is beign ported, but it was slow as nuts on a dual celeron 458 with 128megs RAM.
Then I thought, who would buy this? Although very user-friendly, it was $60. the OS itself offered ALOT of nice features, but didn't have any aps to warrent spending the $60 to get the OS. I mean, you thought Linux didn't have ap support. BeOS has about the same ratio of aps to Linux as Linux does to Windows. Thier market was soposed to be mediaphiles and professionals, but any media aps they had was done better elsewhere.
I wish that those rumors of RedHat buying Be Inc. went though. The BeOS has ALOT of fine advancements in thier desktop GUI, SMP support(which was excellent), and their internal media code. Such advanements combined with linux, could push a BeOS with a linux kernel very far on the desktop.
Q: As stated in the FAQ it runs in windows and does not need repartitioning... what's this?
A: If you read the FAQ, it states "you'll be able to download BeOS 5 via a Web browser and store it as a file within the Windows file system." so the money is it on being a filesystem implemented as a file under windows that the kernel will be able to mount."Thats able folks, not have to so you ll still be able to use BFS in a partition as most geeks will want to.
Q : I still don't think that it will gain widespread acceptance until it is Open Sourced.
A : Why? look at all the major OS's that are commercial successes - Windows, MacOS, qnx et al. They have not needed open source. Linux does not need open source to be used. How many users actually use the source. It aided its development and growth, but not its usage. If you wish to argue about the closed-ness of api's for writing drivers etc on the BeOS, dont worry as Be are very good at supplying full documentation and sample code as required
Q : Is Be doing well from a commercial viewpoint?
A : At the moment, not especially, but are heading towards critical mass steadily. People try to compare linux companies IPO's with Be's - this isnt really relevant as the stock price in linux case was brought up by hype and is not a true indication of revenue coming into these companies and is a debatable point whether it ever will be.
Q : But it's difficult to find anywhere in retail outlets.
A : But very easy just to call be, order one and have it arrive on your doorstep
Q : But how free will this be?
A : RTFFAQ - totally free for non-commercial and personal use.
Q : But is this an attempt to garner marketshare by giving the product away?
A : Probably. Who knows or cares. The fact is that unless you are microsoft, desktop OS's dont make money. Embedded ones do.
Q : If there's no less than 3 different Linux distros that run on G3 Macs, why can't Be get BeOS on 'em?
A : Because Be have no support from the hardware vendors. If they are have a commercial product that has a problem for a user, they are liable. Hence, if thats due to lack on info they cant get, they are stuffed. Linux etc. dont have this problem because if it doesnt work, it doesnt work, and no-ones liable.
Q : Whats missing from this "cut-down" release?
A : Well, it hasnt been announced but its easy to make a good guess - not a lot. The faq states We do plan to offer for sale an expanded edition of BeOS 5 containing a variety of special software components and other valuable utilities. The dev tools etc are there and as the distro is 40-60M (and all the be system binaries are only 20M) it should all be there. The missing things will likely be extra non-vital tools + utilities. The cut down bits are likely to be all the sounds/videos/images + source that are normally on the cd (an separately available anyway)
Q : the free version is really like a demo
A : No its not. Go read the FAQ before talking rubbish.
Q : Now that Be is concentrating on the Internet, what about the JDK promised here?
A : Well, I've heard its taking them a little longer due to the Stinger/IA push. Expect something RSN.
Well, thats about all I think I can add for now. Hopefully this should blitz some of the speculation and unfounded rubbish people have posted so far :-) That is assuming people read others posts as well as just posting their own opinions hoping to appear knowledgable.
Peace out, and try tasting the OS sometime soon if you havent already,
~Pev