Slashdot Mirror
AtheOS Fork Brings BeOS on Top of Linux
Eugenia writes: "Yup, Bill Hayden has forked AtheOS by using its app_server and Interface Kit (along with some other of its kits, like the filesystem layer) and ported it on top of the 2.4.x Linux kernel, without the need for X11. He already has the graphical environment working, and he also has some BeOS apps recompiled and working under Linux. Why BeOS applications? Because that was the reason of the fork. Exactly because AtheOS and BeOS have similar technical principles (highly multithreaded, truly preemptive, similar C++ API etc), by modifying AtheOS's API to match BeOS, Bill is trying to resurrect the BeOS. By doing so this way, Bill is already way ahead from the other two efforts to ressurect BeOS, OpenBeOS (dependant on the 'clean' NewOS kernel) and BlueOS (which depends on Linux and X11)."
Kurt Skauren(sp?), progenitor of AtheOS, cannot be too pleased about this. I remember the first mailing list discussion where this had been announced and he replied with a sad smiley.
The AtheOS kernel has always been Kurt's baby; his goal of developing an OS targetted solely to desktop applications where the kernel remains under tight control is severely compromised with this split.
I like AtheOS and have even contributed a couple drivers to it, and it just kinda saddens me to think of Kurt's reaction.
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
Originally found on:
8 21 5112&list=2311
http://www.geocrawler.com/mail/msg.php3?msg_id=
FROM: Bill Hayden
DATE: 03/26/2002 06:59:50
SUBJECT: [Atheos-developer] Atheos Fork Announcement
Well, it was not my intent to announce this quite this soon, but given
the recent conversation on the list, I feel that it's best not to wait
any longer.
I forked Atheos about 6 months ago and have been continuously developing
it since that time. I've taken it in some very new directions. I
should warn you that some of you will absolutely love the changes, and
some of you will perhaps feel that the "dream" of Atheos has been sold out.
The new project has had a name since the beginning, but I'm going to
hold off on releasing that until I can verify that the domain names and
trademark are secure. So I'll call it "New Atheos" for the purposes of
this e-mail.
New Atheos has the following major new features:
o Runs on top of the Linux kernel, not the Atheos kernel
o Atheos API has been merged with the BeOS API
o PowerPC support
o gcc 3.0.X compatiblity
o OpenTracker/Deskbar desktop manager
These features give the following benefits:
o Most BeOS programs compile and run with little or no changes
o Linux kernel means that CD-ROM, CD booting and installing, DHCP, etc.
work
o Linux kernel means that driver support is excellent
o Mac users get a piece of the action
Things I haven't even started on:
o Printing
o Media Kit
o Replicants
Existing Atheos programs will need changes to compile. I haven't found
one that took me longer than a few minutes to "convert". Where Atheos
and BeOS use different semantics, I chose the BeOS method.
I am going to hold off on a release until I can successfully compile and
run OpenTracker and Deskbar. They use just about every obsolete and
goofy BeOS construct that exists. I'm most of the way there, though,
especially for Deskbar. Kurt wasn't lying when he said it would be a
nightmare to port them. Of course, I'm doing an "anti-port". When some
BeOS program won't compile, I change the API to match it instead of
changing the program itself.
The first BeOS program that successfully came up was Pulse, and there
was no small amoung of satisfaction to see good ole' Pulse running on my
new system. Nostalgic BeOS users can perhaps understand.
I'm writing in a hurry, so hopefully I haven't forgotten something
important. And no, I can't give a release date yet. I hope to have a
CVS server up at the time of release.
Thanks,
Bill Hayden
X can do all of the things you mentioned via extensions like Xrender. Software needs to be written to use these extensions, but it's certainly easier to do that than to rewrite everything for a completely new windowing system. Like it or not (I personally like it) we're stuck with X for the foreseeable future.
"This is one to three orders of magnitude better than BeOS, MacOS and the Windowses"
Out of the box BeOs is better. As an entire OS/Drivers/Userland BeOS is better. Most Linux latency issues are in software above the kernel.
Not actual benchmarks, but look here:. php3
s /latency-icmc2001.pdf [PDF]
http://www.linuxdj.com/audio/lad/resourceslatency
More specifically:
http://mambo.peabody.jhu.edu/~karlmac/publication
Actually, none of those patches at this time. I do have a ll kernel handy for testing, but it has its problems (particularly in the disk I/O area, and VMware breaks with ll for now). Those things were done with "vanilla" kernel 2.4.19-pre3 :-)
My el cheapo trident soundcard can do sustained 1.3ms max latency audio output for hours on end with the ll patches. Not in full duplex mode though, but that's a hardware limitation (read: brokeness).
-adnans
"In short: just say NO TO DRUGS, and maybe you won't end up like the Hurd people." --Linus Torvalds
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Just for a simple reason that there is more than one computer in my household. In fact, everyone who has more than one computer (that runs linux) care about network transparency."
.
Thanks, stated well but I wouldnt discount anyone who has a mixed linux/windows network at home either. I run an xserver on my win2k box to bring up gui programs from the linux server, and its exactly the kind of feature that makes linux so good
Windows has been trying to copy this kind of behaviour, especially so with the latest features in XP. VNC is a popular application because it also provides remote graphical access, yet suddenly the troll on this page insists NOBODY wants it!
no sig.
The X extentions are so damn complicated that no ones using them, KDE isnt using Xrender, Gnome isnt using Xrender, hell even Enlightenment isnt using Xrender, the only people who seem to be able to make Xrender work, are the programmers working on it.
This only goes to advertise to the world exactly how little you know about X and how little attention should be paid to your misinformed rants about it.
NO where else have I seen alpha channeling in linux than from keith packard the creator of the Xrender extention.
Open your eyes then. It's everywhere, certainly all over my desktop anyway. If you want to live in the past, feel free. If you want to ignore it, feel free. Spreading misinformed, baseless FUD about one of the most significant modernizations to have happened to X in its entire lifespan isn't appreciated however.
What good is an overly complicated undocumented hard to use API on top of a bloated badly designed implementation of X?
The Render extension is a sensible, well-thought out solution to many of X's previous shortcomings. It's not perfect, but then - it's not finished yet. As for documentation, what do you need exactly? The wire protocol for Render is pretty comprehensively documented, and if you're merely trying to use it in an Xlib program, well, there's always the source code to look at. Yes, that's not perfect, but Render is the work of just Keith, and XFree86 is short-staffed enough as it is. Again - it's not finished yet! In any case, it seems that's enough for Trolltech and the GTK+ developers...
I'm also going to argue here that XFree86 isn't bloated and neither is it badly designed. What it is is massively short of good developers, especially those that are interested in working on the internals of the X server as opposed to just getting the latest and greatest features of their new graphics card working. It's an engineering project as big as the Linux kernel or KDE or GNOME, but with only about 5 people working on the core parts. Is it any wonder it develops more slowly?
Of course, if you were that concerned about X, I'd suggest you go and start hacking code for it, because that's the only way it's going to get better. Except, you're not a graphics programmer are you? Because if you were, you wouldn't have made such baseless allegations about X, and certainly wouldn't have made such basic factual errors as you did in your post.