Slashdot Mirror
Be Buyout Looms Closer
Xaroth writes "The Register is reporting that Be, Inc. has found a buyer. For those that haven't followed Be's progress lately, they also eliminated about a third of their workforce on Tuesday (28 positions), consisting mainly of their sales and marketing departments, but that number also includes some of their development staff. The Register claims that these layoffs are part of the buyout agreement. While an official statement hasn't been made by Be, Inc., the suspected "Mystery Buyer" is either Sony or Palm. Be's stock was up as much as 40% today at the news. I hope whoever buys them (if this holds true) continues development for the desktop--'twould be a shame to let such wonderful technology go to waste."
Problems with BeOS:
1) Not multi-user. Sure you can talk about plans to become multi-user. BeOS has plans. Unix has been multi-user for what, 20 years?! Windows (NT) has been multi-user for what, 10 years?! Mac OS has been multi-user for... er... well they are now! And BeOS has plans. And yet, "Be is the best!"
2) C++ API. C++ is quickly becoming an obsolete programming language. No garbage collection, not fully OO, dangerous type casts, etc. Witness the horrible state of large-scale software products with all their memory-leaks, crashes, etc. Almost all modern programming languages now have built in garbage collection at least. Java, C#, Eiffel, all scripting languages, lisp, smalltalk, etc. Even pure C is much cleaner than C++ and paradoxically, it often results in code that is easier to maintain! There is a good reason why Linux development is focused on pure C (with the occasional C++ success story - KDE, etc.).
3) Dysfunctional API. I did do a little experimentation with the BeOS API, and it was *definitely* streamlined. However, it lacked many needed features. In particular, it's drawing canvas couldn't do everything that Xlib-based graphics can do quite easily.
4) Aboslutely horrendous apps. Due to (a) the API being new to developers (at this stage in the game POSIX, X, Win32 are well documented and stable) and (b) many [amateur] startup companies trying to create new software for it from scratch, the BeOS was plagued by buggy, featureless apps. I was not satisfied with a single donloaded trial app. Gobe was supposed to be really good, but I found its UI to be awkward (for example there was a zoom-slider, that you could slide around to make it zoom in real-time, but there was no way to type in a specific scale, so you'd wind up with 97% or 102%, but couldn't get 100%).
5) All that multi-threading stuff didn't improve performance that much. It might on a multi-processor machine, but how many people use multi-processor machines at home? Most multi-processor machines are used for network servers and such. BeOS might have been coded for performance, but the performance wasn't significantly greater than what was available on Windows and UNIX. Anybody who wanted REAL performance (music, video game, and movie studios, etc.) could probably afford 3D accelerated graphics cards for Windows or high-end silicon graphics UNIX boxes, so BeOS was a moot point.
BeOS was an important player in the fight to find alternatives to Wintel. But it is best to just leave it be and let it die. We all gave it a chance, but there is simply too much inertia for it to succeed at this stage of the game. Windows 2000 is very stable and capable (I'm quite impressed. Windoze Me OTOH is WORSE than '98 by far.) and since XP is going to be based on the NT kernel, we can probably expect pretty good OS products form MS in the future. I will be SO glad to see the DOS '95 series die off once and for all. Halellulah!
Of course I have been using Linux since RH 4.x series. Linux will continue to be my primary OS for doing cool stuff that Windows can only dream of.
So could it possibly become open-sourced?
Up For sale... Well that just goes to show, the computer industry is fickle. Be at the right place at the right time or you're dead. Be had a great piece of hardware, but couldn't sell it. They had a great operating system but couldn't find a platform for it. They had great visions for the information appliance market but they were there too soon.
Only 2% of all businesses in the US succeed to any great degree and here's more evidence of that fact.
The company has smart people, a great product but no one to sell to, and now they're up for sale. It's the american way... in a sad twisted sort of way...
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
They are in the same space as Be is trying to penetrate and I think they have the cash and the incentive. Gain some technology and eliminate a potential competitor for 'pocket change' (Be is worth about $20 million). Not that BeIA poses a big threat to QNX's offering.
...Yet that's EXACTLY what they've been doing for the last 2 years...
In the end I think it's poor management that killed Be (think: Commodore -> Amiga). Here's a quote from the quotable JLG:
"don't compare us to NeXT. We want to be a better tool for developers, not to be tasteful. We don't cost $10,000. We have a floppy drive. We do not defecate on developers."
-adnans (ex BeOS coder/enthousiast)
"In short: just say NO TO DRUGS, and maybe you won't end up like the Hurd people." --Linus Torvalds
... and even throwing the UI on top of OS kernels - but the tracker and deskbar, the cornerstones of the UI, are already open source ... opentracker.org.
Sure, BeOS is great, but the VPs just made a huge numbers of mistakes:
1) The BeBox: a completly new architecture. Neat for sure, but look at Apple...
2) They were planning to be "the Apple of multimedia production". Neat but maybe you should support more than 1 sound card (SB AWE32), humm?
3) For 6 month, BeOS didn't have an architecture to run on, while switching from the Apple architecture to the PC...
4) They just didn't listen to developers...
5) It was a single-user system...
6) Open Source would have been a good idea, two years ago, when they begun to run into serious troubles.
They didn't fail because of Microsoft, stupid users, the dot-com bubble burst or anything. They failed because they made stupid strategic decisions.
So long Be...
Nobox: Only simple products.
Don't BE surprised. When the BE IPO was floated, Uncle Bill seemed to buy the largest part of the pot I saw. Now if the IPO was in 1996 it could have been that BE was still in the running for Amelio to use it as the next MacOS (but Uncle Steve fixed that real quick), so MS needed to bolster potential competitors (with the DOJ still breathing fire from 1995), but the IPO hit in 1999 (so why was Uncle Bill interested?). I know the tech community has been praising the BeOS for years, but I've never had the fortune to run it (my first PPC was too slow to use it, my second was a G3 and Uncle Steve wouldn't let Cousin Jean-Louis have the specs - but I did have CodeWarrior so I if I was a programmer I could have wrote code for it). Best of luck to BE here forward (almost got a Sony eVilla just to see BE in action).
On a purely technical level, I'm hoping that Palm will buy out Be. Be's recent refocus on the embedded/internet appliance market really showcases the advantages of BeOS. Here, a real-time (or at the very least, low-latency) operating system can shine; moreover, since Microsoft hasn't yet conquered the embedded market, the barriers to entry aren't the same as the desktop market.
PalmOS is, IMHO, quite sufficient for the current generation of PDA's. However, as devices become more inclusive (personal organizer + mp3 player + cell phone + web browser) -- in other words, what everyone seems to think of the Star Trek "Tricorder" -- the need for a well architected OS is absolutely necessary.
I'm not one for buzzword compliance, but the fact that be is a modular, OO system will help in portability and tailoring for certain tasks. A PDA without sound hardware, for example, won't need a sound server runtime. Having the sound server be seperate and communicate via a standard API makes it really easy to excise that component without breaking any dependencies.
An area I'd like to see Palm/Be to venture into is programmable logic controllers. By marketing Be's technology, OS, SDK, etc. as a competitor to VxWorks, the move can be made into industrial and automated systems. While this isn't particularly sexy or well-rounded (something that Be strives to be), it's certainly dependable money. Hardware manufacturers such as Siemens, GE, etc. are always looking for something to replace their custom-written, more-spaghetti-than-olive-garden operating systems and applications. While most people associate Be with multimedia, DSP work, et al, the kernel proper can be slimmed down to handle simple serial input-output tasks. Once a hardware client starts to use the software, they're going to grow dependent on it, and that's a steady -- albeit not too grandiose --flow of revenue for Be (and its buyer)
Well, I can tell by the men in white coats encroaching that it's time to stop rambling.
--
Three Step Plan:
1. Take over the world.
2. Get a lot of cookies.
3. Eat the cookies.
Just speculating: how would *AOL* like to get Be? Great OS, multimedia-uber-capable (good for all their movie libraries!). Friendly and more ready for the desktop than most Linux distros. There was talk here yesterday asking AOL to "get their own OS" if they didn't like the icon placement on XP -- well, here's their chance.
On the other hand, there's a great article on the Reg justifying the Sony theory. Sony hates Microsoft with a passion, they think their OS's are crap; not fit for human consumption.
So, imagine a Sony Viao with a custom Sony OS(tm). Tuned for multi-media, able to interface with Sony digital cameras, video cameras, MP3 players, memory sticks (heck, even Aibo). Sony is one of the few companies with the marketing clout and the consumer know-how to pull this off. It could happen, and it would really put a chink in Microsoft's armor.
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
is that it's Kodak.
Why Kodak? because they were always about bringing the ability to create to the average joe. I don't think that it's too much of a strech to imagine them extending this philosophy to multimedia as well, especially after Microsoft started screwing them.
Imagine BeOS based kiosks, digital cameras, digital videocameras... Not to mention a BeOS based set-top box that shows all those pictures and video clips...
The possibilities are interesting.
The real Webmaven is user ID 27463. I don't rate an imposter, because my ID is such a lame-ass high number.
"I don't see what OS could have done for them, since they had a robust, fast, OS that they could not even GIVE away. All OS would do is guarantee that MUST give it away."
It could have ensured that the current situation, the exact one developers feared, would never happen. If you have access to the guts of the system, even if Be Inc. vanishes you can still carry on. People are a lot more willing to develop for a live platform than a dead one, and in the traditional sense open source platforms do not die. They may have very few users and developers, but those few are free to do what they wish. That's why Open Source attracts so many people. It was obvious that Be would not uproot Microsoft Windows, and until it did that it was not a safe platform to work on. Open Source platforms are safe by definition, since they aren't tied to the fate of any one company. Even if one project totally dies it's code can be fertile ground for another project - check out the dillo web browser for an example. This is what free software developers want, and what Be can never be.
Frankly, I myself wish that Microsoft would buy Be, scrap the Dos based crap they currently use, build a compatibility API to allow Be to run older apps, and use BeOS as the next generation of Windows. At least then we might not have such stability problems with Windows releases. I know people think Microsoft buying Be is silly, but frankly if done right the thought is actually very attractive.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
[P]eople in the know ... have repeatedly said that an open source version of BeOS will basically never happen. The system depends on licensed code that Be apparently couldn't give away even if they wanted to.
Gee, this sounds familiar...
People in the know have repeatedly said that an open source version of Netscape will basically never happen. The system depends on licensed code that Netscape apparently couldn't give away even if they wanted to.
Here are some things of interest about Be Inc. in recent months. #1 is that Apple very nearly did purchase Be back in March. They actually funded Be while they mulled over the decision. Either Be or Apple decided it was not a good marriage. That is why the buyer, if one exists, is not likely Apple as Be is not being funded and runs out of dough in about a week or so (and that is item #2). #3 Intel and AMD are definitely suitors as well as Be is not really being bought so much as its intellectual property will be purchased. This means that your stock is worthless and you should sell it while you can. AMD and Intel may like to have what Be has as both companies make chips for small devices and may want a complete solution. #4 Whoever buys Be cares squat about BeOS. Who would go against MS??? My personal hope is Apple buys them as they gain great software engineers and would eventually incorporate what is cool about Be into their own OS including pervasive multithreading, file attributes, journalling file system, proper mime handling, and perhaps some cool media capabilities. Newton II (if there is one) would run BeIA. Be would live on the most in Apple but as I said, they are unlikely at this point. Cheers.