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?

Comments

Re:It will never happen.

[jd]

I suppose it's a waste of time to point out that the ethernet drivers in the early versions of Be were Donald Becker's, which were written for Linux.

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.

Re:Q + A

[pev]

> Commercial success at what cost?
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.

> ... 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 ...
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

Be will be focusing on Internet appliance

[Tsk]

The reason behind this is that be is focusing on Appliance; see the press release http://www.be.com/press/pr essreleases/00-01-18_free.html.
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 ....

May be a play for developers?

[Croaker]

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."

Re:Free Software != Free Speech

[Arandir]

"...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.

Or you could say

[Rombuu]

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.

Re:Or you could say

[tdenkinger]

I think the lack of browser innovation is due to the browser being viewed more as a utility application than as a "killer app" - which is how it began life. The original web browsers were highly proprietary and considered to be profit centers (I'm thinking Netscape here and many others that fell by the wayside). When it became obvious the money was elsewhere the browser was "freed" - and innovation (extensions, de facto standards, etc) stopped. This "innovation" stopped not because the browser was made free (beer, speech in some cases) but because there was no money in it.

The "freeing" of the browser has resulted in everyone running to the same destination and realizing that it's just a tool. Other than adding support for the most current standards, how much innovation does one need in a browser? In fact, I think I'd prefer less innovation in browsers; I'd like them to all render HTML in the same way, at least.

Will the same thing happen to operating systems? Maybe. However the free operating systems we all know and love were not dreamed up as "killer apps" that would be profit centers. They were created with the expectation that they would be useful to their users. This is what drives true innovation in the free software movement, I think.

If Linux, *BSD, BeOS and NT all ultimately end up undifferentiated, there will always be someone who wants to do something useful not supported by these crusty old OSes and will start their own initiative.

Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe we should all just give up and preorder Win2K.

Troy Denkinger

Re:Or you could say

[rhmiller]

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.

Re:Or you could say

[richnut]

While I agree it's a double edged sword, Be is doing this for one reason only, to acheive developer critical mass. I've run Be before (not currently) and the reason I'm not running it curently is there are no interesting apps. Personally I think that Be is the coolest media system I've ever seen. Even their simple utilities are astounding. (Playing 6 mp3's simultaneously at different speeds, some backwards using a SB 16 is some pretty cool stuff, not to mention their video stuff) But the high quality apps are not (or were not the last time i checked) there. Anyone who does media would gladly pay for a 'professional' Be if they were able to get their apps for it. To get the apps for it you need to get it in people's hands. Making it gratis will get it into people's hands. Then the developers will port the apps, then the people who need the apps wil switch the OS. Charging for upgraded capacity or more driver support, etc, will start to bring in the revenue.

-Rich

Re:Or you could say

[Shadowlion]

No. On the other hand, some of us don't subscribe to the notion that selling a proprietary product is akin to extortion and theft.



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. BeOS is a very good example of that software. Well architectured, easy to program for, and has technology that Linux either is only beginning to get, already has but in a very immature form compared to the BeOS implementation, or won't have for a long time (journalling file systems for the first, MIME-based file types for the second, and system-wide file translators for the third).

Unfortunately, the zealots have convinced the mainstream media that operating systems are a generic product. Perhaps it's true; perhaps it isn't. What that amounts to, however, is that a product that fits my needs far better than Linux can (now or for the forseeable future) has effectively been driven off the market by PR. It smacks horribly of the same tactics Microsoft is berated for by the Linux community.

When I first got into the Linux community, I was amazed at how farsighted it was. No stone was left unturned, nobody was ignored, and every possible repercussion was considered, both in software and in politics. Yet, in the thirst for a taste of Microsoft's blood and caught up in its own delusions of grandeur, the Linux community is acting more 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.

Freedom my ass. Paraphrasing somebody else in another article yesterday, if it were left up to the OSS community the only choice I'd get is which open source, free UNIX OS I want to install on my machine.

Maybe tonight I'll back up my BeOS files, format the disk, and install the latest version of Slackware. That way, I can hang out with a bunch of superhumans who know everything.

Re:Or you could say

[WNight]

Perhaps it's destroyed anyone's chance of selling an OS in this market, or perhaps it's just destroyed the chance of selling an OS that's not at least as good as the free ones.

Why should anyone pay for an OS when there's a free one, and why should anyone expect to get paid for an OS until they can provide something better than the free one?

You could just as easily say that the release of Quake1 under GPL destroyed the market for companies selling Wolf 3d-era games.

I think a quote says it best...

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit. That is all."

-- Robert A. Heinlein ("Life-Line")

If a company can't beat the free products, made by the users themselves, they don't deserve sympathy.

Re:You don't get it

[extrasolar]

So you'd rather go without than buy something for which the code is not available?

No. I beleive that having software no longer being useful is a greater evil than using propietary software. I also said that I wouldn't *choose* propietary software, implying that I had a choice.

There's a huge amount of crap from people who are just posting to flame anyone who says that Linux isn't perfect / closed-source or commercial software can be good / Microsoft and Bill Gates isn't actually the devil come to Earth.

Linux *isn't* perfect.

Closed-source software can only be necessary, never good. Commercial software isn't the same as closed-source. Red Hat Linux is commercial yet mostly free.

Microsoft and Bill Gates has nothing to do with religion. In fact, I feel towards them the same I do towards Be Inc. Rather indifferent since they don't affect me to a large degree.

I imagine there are few people who feel the way you think they do. You are counting the vocal minority. There aren't as many zealots as you might be lead to beleive. There are also zealots both ways.

How is he doing that? Either you're a master at reading between the lines or it's you that's being
short-sighted. His post simply says that anything that makes our lives better is good, no matter what that is. BeOS is far superior to Linux rently for any kind of multimedia work since it was designed with those tasks in mind. Linux is far superior to BeOS for networking, since it was designed with that in mind. Each is a solution for some problems - neither is the ultimate solution.

I percieved an insult when he labeled us with having a closed mind. That is reading the lines.

But I see that you fail to look beyond the technology. You label things as problems and solutions only as they apply to technology. But when software must be modified, there is a problem. Even if the user *wants* to modify the software, he cannot. This is a problem. The solution is Free Software. All users should be able to modify and freely redistribute software. This is why we must not use propietary software.

It's people like you who encourage people to post as Anonymous Coward when they say things which could be construed as being anti-Linux, just to avoid personal attacks and being moderated down to -1, Flamebait. Look at the recent GPL story.

Now it is you who are putting words in my mouth. I never accused anyone of being anti-Linux. I also beleive that personal attacks is the single easiest way of being coerced into a flamewar. I also am very much aware that I did attack the original poster personally with my short-sided comment. I wish to apoligize to him/her.


In effect you have completely misinterpreted my comment. I am against propietary software. This has little to do with Linux, open source zealotry, anonymous cowards, Bill Gates, or moderation.

Please quit arguing by false associations.

JDK?

[harmonica]

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?

Economics

[dsplat]

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."

Reality

[slashdot-terminal]

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.

open source did not destroy the browser market

[MattMann]

There's tons of money to be made in browsers, but you probably don't like this way either: the money is in giving away browsers that try to point users to certain portals. The reason for the dearth of them is that Microsoft abused its monopoly power. If other players had equal opportunity to cut deals with hardware vendors and/or ISPs to use their customized browsers, you would see more competition in the short run.

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.

open vs. Open, free vs Free, free vs. $$$

[MattMann]

What has made operating systems cost nothing is competition: free-market theory says that price will equal marginal cost, and the marginal cost of additional copies of software is $0 (zero). That's what makes operating systems free, not open source . But, it only lasts while there is competition. When there is none, monopoly pricing takes over. Monopoly in software is the enemy, just as monopoly is the enemy in every other market.

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:

• "open" source means you can see it. You might have to buy it, you might not be allowed to give it away, but you can see it because it is open to inspection. There is another meaning of open too, pertaining to standards. If standards are open, then you may make your own implementation free from restrictions. But that's all that open will ever mean. Capitalized "Open" has no meaning (you can't say capitals), just like "Coke" has no meaning. Useful in phrases like "Coke sux" and "Open sux".
• "free" software doesn't cost anything, and generally can be assumed to mean that you can not only take it, but you can give it away. Some will encumber you and only allow downloads from their own site, but this distinction you probably draw when speaking about it. "It's free but you have to get it from X," you find yourself saying, because that's what it means. Capitalized "Free" has no meaning, just like "Open" has no meaning. Useful in phrases like "Open sux" and "Free sux".
• source that is both free and open, with no special punctuation, does start to take on the magical meaning that the redefiners want, for if it's free to receive and copy, and open for inspection, it meets the Open and Free criteria, except it doesn't sux. Free, open and unencumbered gets almost all the way there, failing only to make the viral/copyleft distinction one way or the other.
• "GPLed" is how we make that distinction most conveniently, though "copyleft" and "viral" are almost as common.

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.

A Great OS Without Aps or a Market

[HomerJ]

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 + A

[pev]

Quite a lot of questions have been asked about issues here so I'll try and answer as many as I can :

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