Slashdot Mirror


BeOS For Linux

Bob Gortician writes "The BlueOS guys have posted a few screenshots of their progress in porting the BeOS interface to Linux. Note that this is an intermediary step toward a BeOS clone OS. " I actually had a Be machine for a while, and played with it - nice OS, and well thought out, just a problem of very little applications for it.

9 of 271 comments (clear)

  1. More information on BlueOS by Eugenia+Loli · · Score: 5, Informative

    Please go to BeNews and read the explanation for these two BlueOS screenshots. The second shot uses a "dummy" content for its windows.

    Also, click here to read the Interview with the BlueOS project leader at OSNews.

    1. Re:More information on BlueOS by Eugenia+Loli · · Score: 2, Informative

      The CONTENT of the windows are just a picture. The window manager is real and fully interactive. It is just a demo/proof of concept to show that the window manager/environment works. They had to put something inside these windows, so they added this picture that looks like a real content, only it is not interactive, it is a picture.

  2. Re:Not so much applications as... by Eugenia+Loli · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually BeOS had quite some support with BeOS 5 and the third party drivers found on BeBits. I agree with BeOS 4 and 4.5 did not have many drivers, but version 5 was really good at the time. Now, it is 2 years with no BeOS official updates, so naturally, it is already out of date.. :(

  3. Joe Sixpack by MadFarmAnimalz · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've been here long enough to know that this thread is going to devolve faster than you can say TinyX into the only real challenger to the vim/emacs war; the Linux on the desktop debate.

    To save time, we should just symlink to the earlier desktop discussions. Here ya go.

    I'm just sitting here wondering why we seek the acceptance of Joe Sixpack.

    --
    Blearf. Blearf, I say.
  4. the *REAL* problem by Derek · · Score: 2, Informative
    "...just a problem of very little applications for it."

    Ummmm, try "just a little problem of a monopoly using illegal business practices to make sure it never reaches the market."

    Hell, PC manufactures were offered the operating system for free if they would just put it on their machines! (Not even replacing Window$, but dual-booting along side it!)

    To get the apps, it had to have some penetration in the market. It was penetrating the Microsoft controlled market that was the problem. Oh wait, are we talking about that anti-trust thing again!?!?!

    For a time, I used (and loved) this operating system. It had enough apps to do *most* of what I needed to do.

    -Derek

  5. Re:Fragmentation... by MindStalker · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wouldn't really call it closed source, its BSD, its the GUI thats closed source, and all the api's are fully published.

  6. GUI without the GUTS by glenmark · · Score: 5, Informative

    While BeOS had a nice GUI, its read strength was its highly efficient threading model, which made the OS very effecient and responsive. The OS was especially adept at efficiently utilizing multiple CPUs.

    While it is certainly nice that Linux users will have the opportunity to benefit from a nice new GUI and API, the best part of the OS, alas, is being left behind...

    --
    *** Quantum Mechanics: The Dreams of Which Stuff is Made ***
  7. Re:Linux's true way? by RevAaron · · Score: 3, Informative

    I run Darwin w/o Quartz. I still have all the Quartz/Aqua stuff installed, but quit out of it at boot. I run Darwin over Debian PPC for a couple reasons:

    1. Power management: Darwin works very well with the hardware (iBook). This manifests in more than one place. Longer battery life, and sleep works well (by shutting the lid).

    2. The option to go into Quartz/Aqua: One of the things I hated about using Linux/x86 (what I ran as my main OS for a couple years before getting a Mac) was having to reboot into Windows to play a game or use certain useful applications for which there's no equvilent in Linux. This was true back when I used Linux a lot more than it is now, though. But with OS X, I can play games and run real, useful apps. And if I choose to run XFree86 straight out of the text console in Darwin rather in tandem with Quartz, I can always quit X11, and go back into Quartz. A lot less hassle.

    --

    Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
  8. Re:Hours for iTunes? by fader · · Score: 3, Informative

    Part of the 'hours' were spent looking online for a player that didn't suck as much as iTunes. (I never found one for OS X, unfortunately, and I can't see running the whole classic environment for just an MP3 player.)

    But the consistency problems are hardly minor. They're part of a disturbing trend with Apple -- they're moving away from usability as their primary concern and going toward flashiness. Sadly, I've had much better out-of-the-box experiences with Linux (mostly Mandrake, but Red Hat is getting better and better) than I did with OS X. OS X is frustrating to use... Linux Just Works (tm). It's all a matter of taste. But I still wouldn't set up my grandmother with a Mac.

    (I pick on iTunes because it's the single most frustrating end-user app I've ever used. It won't play OGGs, ignores some directories of MP3s at random, is a pain to reorder files in (I have them sorted by filename in subdirectories for a reason, thank you. If you're going to sort by ID3 tags, at least do it by track number instead of track name!), etc. etc. It's just painful to use.)

    --
    - fader