Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AtheOS Fork Brings BeOS on Top of Linux

Posted by timothy on from the bwa-ha-ha dept.

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)."

7 of 324 comments (clear)

  1. 'Way ahead'? by tswinzig · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That depends on how you define 'way ahead.'

    People like me who really like BeOS admire the entire structure of the operating system, from top to bottom. I have zero interest in running FrankensteinBeOS, which is what this sounds like. Therefore I am content to work on the OpenBeOS project, which may be 'way behind', but should have a nicer outcome (for people who like BeOS). The project is coming together quite nicely for something so young.

    (It's easier to see really far when you can stand on the shoulders of great engineers.)

    --

    "And like that ... he's gone."
  2. How close will it come to BeOS? by Ryu2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wasn't one of the touted features of BeOS its low latency, single-user kernel optimized for multimedia stuff? Demos had multiple video players all playing smoothly, while 3-D animations occured in other windows.

    How well can the Linux kernel deliver such performance?

    --
    There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
    1. Re:How close will it come to BeOS? by be-fan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Back when people used BeOS, Linux couldn't deliver that kind of performance. Linux users were trudging along with 200ms latencies and ext2 while BeOS users laughed at them from their journaled-filesystem, ultra-low latency machines. In a short period of time, Linux has come an extremely long way to becoming a kick-ass workstation kernel. In fact, it has even eclipsed BeOS in latency, filesystem, VM, etc. The only place where BeOS still has the advantage is in userspace, where BeOS totally whips GNOME and KDE in terms of speed, ease-of-use, simplicity, consistancy, etc. Apparently, this fork tries to take the best ideas from both sides.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    2. Re:How close will it come to BeOS? by foqn1bo · · Score: 4, Interesting



      So can you open 42 versions of the same .avi movie on your Linux Desktop and play them simultaneously without dropped frames while surfing the internet on a PII450? If not then regardless of the impressive numbers your assessment of comparability of Linux needs adjusting. Not to diss Linux or anything, but I don't think it is time to proclaim Linux has eclipsed Be's technology.

    3. Re:How close will it come to BeOS? by Adnans · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So can you open 42 versions of the same .avi movie on your Linux Desktop and play them simultaneously without dropped frames while surfing the internet on a PII450?

      Yes! Unfortunately (or fortunately) I don't have a PII450. BTW, most of those "cool" demos of BeOS running tens of player windows are done with a single avi (worthless to to test the real I/O), very low resolution, and without sound.

      Not to diss Linux or anything, but I don't think it is time to proclaim Linux has eclipsed Be's technology.

      You're right, that time has come and passed us! I'm playing 9 *different* avi's now (served over 100Mbit NFS btw), 3 mp3's *backwards* (haha, another stupid benchmark thrown in :), with xawtv in a corner, and typing this message in mozilla 0.9.9, and I still have CPU cycles to spare! Linux rocks ;-)

      -adnans (ex-BeOS user)

      --
      "In short: just say NO TO DRUGS, and maybe you won't end up like the Hurd people." --Linus Torvalds
  3. Re:Kurt is not pleased by Danse · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Which is exactly why things such as this split happen, and should happen. He can do what he likes, but if it doesn't suit enough people, they'll go elsewhere and make their own. So whether he likes it or not, this is how things should be. I'm glad to see someone doing something interesting with AtheOS.

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  4. No! No! OpenBeos! OpenBeos! by foqn1bo · · Score: 4, Interesting



    I appreciate what this guy is doing, but seriously folks, why the hell is everybody so intent on making some sort of BE/Linux hybrid? I support OpenBeos for the following very good reasons:

    1) Has over 100 developers now
    2) Intent on rewriting original Be api so that compile and eventual binary compatibility is attained
    3) Uses an alternate liscense to GPL so that open source is maintained without frightening away commercial developers due to fear of *GPL Contamination*
    4) Already has contacts with commercial developers and distributors (albeit kept well under wrap right now)
    5) Misc. Beos fans don't want to touch Gnome/KDE with a ten foot pole, and I know it would be way too tempting to port them for application compatibility purposes. Beos booted on my PII400 in 15 seconds, and was fast as hell. Would a BE/Linux combo keep Beos' vastly ease of use and configuration, or would it inherit Linux's most dreaded characteristics?

    I'm rambling like a rabbit with the flu. But these are some valid concerns. Check out OpenBeos right now and sign up if you have the time and skills.