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?

Comments

YO SLASHDOT

[VAXGeek]

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

Well...

[Dungeon Dweller]

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)

Open source the world?

[GandalfGreyhame]

Blargh! What is it about open source zealots who fail to reason and who fail to even do one IOTA of research on the subject? Open sourcing BeOS just isn't going to happen. To quote Tom Maddox, Listmaster at Be

I'll probably regret posting this, and doing so goes against the advice of my fellow co-workers, but there's a very good (and oft-stated) reason why BeOS in general and Net+ in particular cannot be open-sourced: we have legally binding contracts with the makers of proprietary technologies we use which forbid us from releasing their code into the public domain. Even mentioning making BeOS or Net+ open source sends our corporate counsel into hysterics.

It ain't gonna happen.

.http://www.escribe.com/software/beuserta lk/m40678 .html

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

Re:Assimilation is futile..

[sabre]

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

Very little will change.

[commandant]

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.