Slashdot Mirror
MacOSX Vs BeOS ShootOut
Jolie writes: "After Palm purchased Be's assets, the future of BeOS became uncertain and a lot of users have left the platform. One of these users was Scot Hacker, mostly known for his 'BeOS Bible' book among other things. Scot tried to stick to Windows, then to Linux but he ended up with MacOSX. He has written a long and detailed article comparing, from the user's point of view, his beloved BeOS to his new favorite, MacOSX."
For those who don't like to click all day long- Here
BeOS 5 was released in two forms a PRO version and a Personal version. The personal version was available in 'Free' as in cost at http://www.be.com/products/freebeos/ and is still available on many mirrors, linked to from that page. If you have never tried it, give Be a try. It's quite nice, and different than everything else out there. Hopefully it won't die off completely.
-OctaneZ
From the article:
Bio-diversity is both the greatest strength and the greatest weakness of open source software. It is what will keep Linux thriving no matter how depressed the tech industry gets (unlike Be), but it is also that which practically guarantees that the Linux experience will never feel internally consistent.
That last sentence was the one that intrigued me - is "internal consistency" something that people really look for in an OS? Speaking for myself (somebody who spends 90% of their time at the CLI) I've never really had a complaint in the "internal consistency" department - in fact, I've always liked the fact that Linux has kind of a TMTOWTDI feel - I can set my desktop up completely differently than the guy in the next WorkCube and be productive as hell.
Maybe "internal consistency" is something that a mass-marketed OS might want, but for the legions of DIY'ers out there, is this something to be worried about in an open-source OS?
But what does my opinion matter, I just vote here. It's not like I have any money or anything.
It's like comparing SUVs to cars to trucks. They're all different, suited to different people's needs.
(A brief example, I'm sure everyone knows each individual point already)
Windows is for the everyday user, who doesn't mind a few crashes here and there if it means all their favorite software will run on it and the whole thing can be as user friendly as possible.
Unix is usefull for those who know what they are doing, and is usually considered faster and more reliable, and is in general more suited to business and (especially) software development.
MacOS combines the two, with a GUI similar to windows (suprise!) and more support for games and home use software, but with a Unix kernel and better reliability. I don't use them much myself, but I hear that mac's are the best choice for multimedia development (graphics especially, but they also seem to have some of the best music editing apps)
I myself prefer Windows for home use (it's all about the games) and Unix (solaris8 to be specific) for work development.
Why compare any of them in general though when they're all suited to different applications?
-Space for rent
Since I returned to the Mac in 97 and was using it for web work I got used to typing in the extensions to file names. I never thought this was a big deal having done it ion Windows a lot. When OSX came out and the metadata controversy reared its head I was unsure what the rancor was about.
After reading this article I can now understand why some people want a different system than that used in OSX. In some ways OSX takes a step backward by getting rid of the resource fork. On the other hand, it acknowledges the fact that to be compatible in a heterogeneous network you have to accomodate Windows and UNIX. The system Scot mentions that was used in Be sounds very intriguing. The fact that MS is moving to a database structure for their file system is also interesting.
While I would love the ability to use attributes in files like Be did, Apple doesn't have the luxury of starting from-the-ground-up. Still this was THE feature (aside from performance) that I wish OSX had. Would make Sherlock much better. Scot seemed to find some of this functionality in iTunes. Wish it was in the Finder.
With a little more polish (multi-user, better networking) it coulda been a contender.
Frankly, no. For a system with such a small user base and development team as BeOS, the product was *highly* polished. It contained virtually every feature of a modern operating system with outstanding features ranging from the kernel (true multithreaded processing) to the interface (the textual "move to" and "copy to" options are some of the most ingenious interface considerations in a long time). Tet it's obvious that BeOS wasn't a finished product, but it was definitely going places quite fast-- and if the company was actually able to get money, the rate and quality of development would have been quite impressive. Ever hear of BONE or BeOpenGL? Besides, does an OS really need to have "polish" to market? Think of a little company in Redmond and define "polished".
The real reason BeOS wasn't "a contender" is because Microsoft screwed Be over with the fine print in its OEM contract. I suggest that you read this article by Scot Hacker with an accurate description of Be's demise.
Scott's essay says: I don't mind AppleScript. I wish the system were open to other languages
Actually, the system is open to other languages, although I don't know how many of them have OS X ports. MacOS uses Open Scripting Architecture, which means that pretty much any scripting language can operate your Mac, given an appropriate OSAX plugin.
I've toyed with the ones for JavaScript, Perl, and Python, but decided to stick with AppleScript since I already know (some of) the syntax.
I mean this guy always manages to become an extremely experienced user of a doomed OS.
Troll alert!
I know I shouldn't be resoponding but I can't pass up a chane to prove an idiot wrong.
You may be right about the number of BeOS jobs (unless Palm decides to do something with it), but you are definitly wrong about the number of OSX jobs. Not counting the hundreds of people at Apple working on OSX itself, the following vendors all have OS X programmers:
Microsoft's Mac Business Unit
Intuit
Adobe
Macromedia
Qualcomm
This isn't even counting the small companies such as Thursby, Barebones, Omnigroup, etc. I myself work for a small company writing OS X software.
You should follow an old addage updated for slashdot; Think before you post.
The Personal Edition of BeOS, given away for free, can be turned into a full installation very easily. Check betips.net for details.
I'm the stranger...posting to
Before you speak to soon, bro:
from netcraft:
The site www.osnews.com is running Apache/1.3.20 (Unix) (Red-Hat/Linux) mod_ssl/2.8.4 OpenSSL/0.9.6b DAV/1.0.2 PHP/4.0.6 mod_perl/1.24_01 on Linux
Oops...how does that foot taste now that the other shoe is on it?
.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
What I saw will also be dogmatic and anecdotal, as it is being drawn from my own life.
Comparing Macs to Windows is not SUVs to cars and trucks. It is not about different, or suited to different needs, though one can very clearly make that distinction.
It's *almost* like talking about luxury vehicles though, as noxious as car analogies are. You pay for the Mac experience, where the Windows world spans the whole gamut of econoboxes to SUV.
I'm going to leave out Linux and Unix for simplicity and because with Mac OS X you get BSD 'for free' since it's built atop it.
For the average (not the specific individuals), a Mac is drop in compatible with a PC, about the same way that an AMD Athlon is compatible with the Intel P4.
Macs have less quantity software, but it is not without the entire spectrum (except, perhaps, maybe only in the short term, for VB virii)
What Windows has is the ability to transform nearly any machine into a Window's platform device. Think borg, think virus. A 486? A P2? A P3? A Duron? A MP P4? You can install Windows. It's not perfect, it's not seamless, it's not graceful, but it works. That seems to be the catchphrase that is Windows.
The Mac is arguably more tightly bound to it's hardware. It *is* seamless, graceful, and clean. Perhaps it wasn't like that in the past, but right now, and for the next few iterations, OS X is going to be hand tailored for the hardware and the hardware is going to be hand tailored for the OS.
If you prefer the simplicty of a single setup, like I do, you can get one Mac PowerBook G4 for home use (video, graphics, games, movies, etc) and for work (BSD, bash, gcc, etc).
GPL Deconstructed
I hear his kid's names are "Elite", "Supafly" and "Ownju".
He said: "Because the Quartz display engine is vector-based, it's possible to do things like providing sliders that adjust the size of the photo-quality icons from miniscule to immense with no dithering."
That bitmap-resampling that you see in the Dock isn't a simple dither, but it has nothing to do with vector drawing, either.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
"Freeware just isn't a part of the OS X culture, and shareware apps cost about 50% more on average than equivalent BeOS shareware apps."
There's plenty of Mac OS X freeware and shareware available, particularly for developers. You can find it at www.stepwise.com/softrak.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
One of the reasons it died is sort of summed up by this comment in the linked article:
Most of this applications section isn't really about operating systems, but about the apps available for the operating systems, so you might want to skip it if you're just looking for the OS comparisons. However, I believe that the applications landscape is an integral part of the total OS experience, so included it here.
The problem is that apps are not "an integral part" of a computing experience. They are almost the totality of it. With the exception of some supergeeks, nobody buys a computer in order to run the operating system. People buy computers to run apps. No matter how lickable the shutdown/adduser/finder screen interface is, without real apps a system is doomed. If Be had all the killer apps that people buy computers for, it would still be alive today.
Nobody cares about threading, "multimedia support", or POSIX. Users want Photoshop, MS Word, Quicken, Halo and that goofy little custom VB app that runs your small company's entire finance department.
Spare me the "OS Shootouts." Gimme the apps.
I'll raise my hand here and say I'm that guy. "Why?" you ask? Simple. Apple can do such a damn good job with the OS because they don't have to deal with metric assloads of third party drivers, IRQ conflicts, blah blah blah rest-of-x86-nightmare.
I'm actually very comfortable with Apple having extremely tight control over the hardware - and the integration and compatibility that comes from that, and if that means coughing up a few bucks on the hardware so they can concentrate on improving the OS instead of dealing with "this week's third party hardware shipment from China", I'm cool with that.
I'm an old school Unix user, and I will forever believe [forever] that users who say "command line is great, but for normal work, you want an integrated experience" --
these users do not really know what the hell they're doing in front of a command line interface. They may think they've mastered the shell of Unix or Linux, but they haven't --
because once you have, you will never really have a use for anything else -- the beauty of the shell is that all things and all functions are subsumed below it in consistent fashion, in one magnificent world-view, and all things no matter how complex become possible with a single, well-constructed command, almost like magic.
Some of my fellow Linux or Unix users will understand what I am talking about here -- using the command-line interface is not, as this author says, like carrying around a heavy toolbelt all day when none is needed. Instead, once one has truly mastered the CLI, one is like a Jedi master -- all acts are balanced, rapid, skilled, both intricate and simple at the same time -- and all things are possible and as simple as one another. I can get more work done in ten minutes with my CLI -- including editing video streams and audio streams! -- than most users can get done in days using GUI-only tools.
Of course, OSX and BeOS both have a CLI -- but neither is very useful because much of the rest of the system and the set of standard tools is gutted or malformed in peculiar OSX and BeOS ways. Users of BeOS and OSX think they are getting a CLI, but it's as though they've been trained only by Obi-Wan and never by Yoda -- the real essence of the system is muddied and lost and the benefits are never realized -- or worse -- they are driven from the concept of a CLI unduly.
That is my belief: that users who claim to want a desktop in which CLI use is normally avoided really don't understand and haven't yet mastered the CLI -- because once you have, anything else feels like a straightjacket.
MHO
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Oh puh-leeze!
Nobody screwed over Be, as it was never a real contender.
I have BeOS version 3 and 4 at home, and while they were pretty cool I never found anybody who was remotely interested in them except some really perverse geeks like myself. Even the anti-MS Linux zealots universally derided it every time it was mentioned on slashdot.
Now this Scot Hacker might blame Microsoft for preventing dual boot, but it would not have mattered. If OEMs had installed BeOS on their systems along with Windows, they would have simply received a few million phone calls asking how they could free up the used space.
There was even talk at one time of Apple adopting Be, but instead went with this OS-X. But even then I don't believe Apple screwed over Be, because BeOS wasn't ready to replace MacOS and it needed the Apple commitment.
Be lacked applications, hardware drivers and all sorts of things which were necessary for it to succeed. But what it lacked most of all was a problem that needed to be solved that only it could do.
Nobody screwed Be over. Be was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong solution.
Two words "Linux Ready" I'm pretty sure that the current OEM License doesn't prohibit leaving empty space on the hard drive, or shipping a CD with the system that includes another OS. If I could find a site that had the infamous OEM Licence on it I could be certain. Worst case scenario they would have to ship the Linux CD seperately. Those OEMs that provide Linux-only models could overnight add a 'linux ready' option to thier windows PCs. A modified linux CD that installed linux in one click setup correctly for that model of PC could be shipped either seperatly or if the license allows with the PC itself.
/. Microsoft could well be reading it and sending the legal staff to draft up a New OEM license as we speak. However, I doubt that even Microsoft could win a court battle about leaving a hard drive partially unformatted as a user option. The trade secret status process should also delay things long enough that an OEM could start shipping systems with the 'linux ready' option before Microsoft could act, and could then SUE Microsoft for damages ala the Dr. DOS case.
Of course since this is posted to
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
> OS X does not have a journaled file system
... takes a second or two to format an 80GB drive.
... it's some kind of node number or something that is unique to that file, and so keeps shortened file names from conflicting. This is one of the top two or three "it's not going to kill me, but I sure wish it wasn't the case" types of things with Mac OS X. All you can say that's positive about it is that Apple is dealing with this issue better than Microsoft did with the similar issue on Windows.
S A/ jsDownload.html
/Library/Components for the whole machine or ~/Library/Components for just yourself), the Mac OS X Script Editor will now have a menu on the bottom left of its window where you can select the language you want to script in. Other languages are available for Mac OS 9 as well.
> (although, to be fair, I have lost power on
> this machine and found that it booted back
> up in a normal time span without appearing
> to do anything special).
Mac OS X runs fsck on each and every boot, but because of the way the HFS+ file system is constructed, running fsck multiple times on an 80GB disk takes only a few seconds, so you don't notice it.
If you check a disk with Mac OS X's Disk Utility, it actually runs fsck, and you'll notice it is done in a blink. Same with formatting disks
> The [long] filenames were truncated with garbage
> characters when viewed in the Finder.
They're not actually random garbage characters
> I don't mind AppleScript. I wish the system
> were open to other languages, but
> AppleScript does a fine job, and is very powerful.
The system is open to other languages. What most people call "AppleScript" is actually called "Open Scripting Architecture (OSA)", and AppleScript is just the default language. You can already get a JavaScript plug-in for Mac OS X.
http://www.latenightsw.com/freeware/JavaScriptO
Once installed (drop it in
The Mac OS X Script menu also launches Perl and shell scripts in addition to OSA scripts.
> This is fairly minor, but it seems that some apps
> remember their window positions when closed
> and some do not. Mail.app and Internet Explorer
> do remember their exact size and position
> between runs, but Terminal and many
> others do not. This is another good candidate
> for consistency in the user experience.
Mac OS X can hosts apps with a number of different heritages, so it's definitely true that there is great inconsitency between apps than there was before. As time goes on this will probably get better, as the "Mac OS X way" emerges completely and developers are all familiar with it to some degree.