Slashdot Mirror
What Would Happen To Linux If BeOS Were GPL'd?
j2demelo writes: "What would happen to Linux if BeOS were to be released under the GPL? How much competition, if any, would this bring upon Linux? I for one would love to see it happen. It would mean another low-cost alternative to Windows on the desktop, allowing computer manufacturers to reduce prices even more. We know Linux isn't currently ready for mainstream desktop use. Could the open sourcing of BeOS give it the kick-in-the-butt it needs?" Before you all start the advocacy wars, I'd like to point out that if BeOS was converted to an Open Source License, it would not mean the end of either OS by a long shot. Competition in markets usually means an improvement of the products in that market, that would mean that both Be and Linux would have to improve. What improvements would both OSes make and how would this affect the Open Source Operating Systems market?
another data point arguing for the importance of platform-neutral file formats and programs which produce them by default.
... how would you like medical charts that required every doctor who wanted to look at them and even had your permission couldn't do so without having the same brand of printer that created them?
...
To argue for that, let me argue for a second against the opposite situation;)
Microsoft Word, though I'm not a fan, is an adequate program for manipulating strings of words. It has find-and-replace (my favorite missing feature in pine;) ), a spelling checker, etc. Without getting into my particular complaints, I concede that many people like MS Word. But MS Word *could* be a morally / aesthetically acceptable program to me for all its failings, but it's not now. Why? Because its default file format is obfuscated and proprietary, and requires someone else to have either their own copy of Word or a special limited-purpose reader, and is difficult on anything but a Mac or Windows-running PC.
That's lunacy. Analogies fail. It's as if
At any rate, I'd like to see an open sourced BeOS (not that it seems to be in the cards) if it would poke people with the idea that HTML, SGML, RTF, plain text and other such *un*obfuscated formats are the way to go. Documents in (even half-decent) HTML I think will be more likely legible than Word version X in 20, 30, 100 years.
Anyhow, the continuing rant
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Quite a bit actually. BSD used to tout the vast superioirty of their TCP stack over Linux. That's less true today than it once was. BSD folks love (loved?) to tout the superiority of ipf over ipfwadm and ipchains (rightly so), but I think iptables (new for 2.4) has it pretty well matched.
You'd need to read the linux-kernel mailing list archives for a while to realize there's actually a fair amount of synergy going on there, and the core developers do occassionally discuss.
A while back, as another example, BSD analyzed Linux's VM system (and criticized as well as complimented it where necessary). A lot of those criticisms were taken to heart.
As for Hurd... I don't know enough about Hurd to tell you whether it even contributes to the community with new, interesting ideas. And darwin is just FreeBSD with apple sauce.
ok, i'm probably going to get moderated down for saying this, but... probably nothing. the open sourcing of other operating systems, darwin from the MacOS and plan9 haven't done anything to linux. the open sourcing of beos (which is _HIGHLY_ unlikely) would have NO effect on linux, aside from a few kernel patches if the license would permit (which it wouldn't). so, rob, can't you find a better way to generate more traffic? here's a few ideas for you to help add a few more $ to the money bin (like from duck tales haha)
Ask Slashdot: which is better, freebsd or linux?
Ask Slashdot: should i replace my NT server with linux?
Ask Slashdot: is mysql ready for the enterprise?
all of these discussions are just ploys to generate banner ad revenue. but, i KNOW that there have to be lots of decent stories out there getting rejected, just look at k5, it's pretty decent.
------------
a funny comment: 1 karma
an insightful comment: 1 karma
a good old-fashioned flame: priceless
this sig limit is too small to put anything good h
At the risk of being attacked brutally...
I think that more people cling to the GPL because of linux than the other way around. I don't see a lot of people screaming towards the HURD project, which is a pretty good concept.
I think that more people attack the BSD license because of what certain advocates say, rather than the licenses actual content. I am a BSD user. Anybody who has seen my car knows this.
I think that a lot of BeOS would get incorporated into Linux, but it would take time, especially considering the parts that are fundamentally incompatible, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.
And BeOS isn't going GPL. Why don't we talk about if Solaris or SysV or HURD, oh wait, that is GPL, go GPL instead.
What would happen if every linux project switched to the BSD license? Would everyone leave linux and switch to BSD?
(BTW, I also have a Linux box that I use the hell out of)
Eh...
So, this is another case of nVidiaism. They have contracts with other people which disallow them from opening the source. Stop bickering about it. Stop dreaming about it. It just ain't gonna happen.
Even if it could happen, I wouldn't want it to. All you linux zealots would dive in and try and start 'fixing' things. Then we'd get a "microkernel" as large as that monolithic piece of shit linux 2.4.0.
-G
BeNews Editor
Linux is only free if your time is of no value
Linux is only free if your time is of no value
Be in Your Senses
True.
:)
But you are missing one exceedingly important point:
Linux != UNIX
In so many ways, from the kernel not implementing all of POSIX (only the "nice" or "clean" stuff), to the user space apps having a distinctively different feel (than say Solaris), Linux is significantly different already.
Linux is different enough to break a lot of stuff that depends on system installs, and each distro is different enough to make packaging a bitch. It is not, however, different in the ways that are valuable. Linux distros are all just variations of a theme.
I hate to say it, but it seems like Darwin of all things is one of the most creative things in the "scene". Hurd is probably close, but it's doomed from the start by being associated with "microkernels" (see my comment about killing/hindering a project by ignoring it). Unfortunately for Hurd, for example, they will not have the neccesary developer base to get the ball rolling and self sustaining for a long time. By that time, Hurd may very well be obsolete.
So here is my battle cry: Lets try new, INTERESTING, things, and lets do them in the Linux context. Lets not break everything by changing something. Lets try providing extensions to Linux, and see how they work out. If they don't work out well (because they are inelegant, not because they are unused), then rip them out. If they work out well, keep them in, and start using them.
There are so many good projects laying around, that are predominately dormant, that would be interesting to pursue. A completely random example that just popped into my head is the ill fated (killed by the fbcon hack) GGI project. Another interesting project is Berlin (http://www.berlin-consortium.org?).
What would happen if these projects had a significant hacker base to draw from? GGI is much more powerful and interesting than fbcon, and we NEED something to take the baton from X.
Anyways, enuf ranting.
-Chris
Linux and BeOS are made for different sorts of people. BeOS is to Unix (Linux in particular) what MacOS is to Windows, in terms of simplicity of interface. We won't get into superiority arguments between Windows and MacOS users.
BeOS does not follow standards that are close to anything in the Unix world. In fact, now that I think about it, MacOS X seems to be a lot like BeOS. People who use Linux want a free, light Unix to use on their hardware. People who use BeOS want MacOS with bash.
I don't think GPL'ing BeOS will change that. For most people, the attraction with BeOS is that it is so foreign... I have been quite curious about it. However, there is a cost-free version available for download, and it will even install itself in spare partitions if you please. Freedom to modify the code will improve userbase very little.
Of course, I'm talking only about workstations and servers here. Maybe it turns out that BeOS is remarkably scalable, and fits well in the embedded world. This will of course change the prospects of Linux making it into embedded electronics.
I do not belong in the spam.redirect.de domain.
I think opening up BeOS would be pretty great, but I don't like this mantra that "competition is always good", because it's not. Just look at the wonderous results of the browser war - there have been hardly any improvements whatsoever in web technology since that competition started. And how about the original fracturing of UNIX? Competition is only good if all the players are honorable and open minded - aiming to win by being the best for the users. Otherwise it just turns into a snakefight.
Besides the fact that BeOS isn't going to be GPL'd anytime soon there is also the fact that that BeOS and Linux were created to do two compleatly different things.
BeOS was developed as a multimedia OS, and Linux was developed as a Server OS. The optimizations that are required for one would destroy the other. ie you can have the kernel doing the majority of it's processing with a video render or have apache running at full speed.. not both.
To paraphrase the perl advoticy article... there is no one OS for every task. Just like PHP is easier than Perl for certian projects, BeOS is easier than Linx for certian tasks.
To clarify for our non-geek readers... Both a hammer and a screwdriver will put a screw through a board... but only one was designed to do so..
Dave
btw: no I can't spell... I code for a living
Whats the point of being grown up if you can't act childish sometimes? ---- Dr Who