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)."

Comments

If BeOS gets enough development support, then

[HanzoSan]

Forget about linux on the desktop, my votes going to BeOS.

They got rid of X, bold but great move

I hope the Hurd GNU OS doesnt get stuck using X

Re:X sucks anyhow

[HanzoSan]

No one cares about network transparecy, thats a programmer network admin thing, honestly, your average user doesnt give a damn about it, the only reason thsat would matter, is if every electronics device in their house were hooked up to some main node which interfaces with them all, but we arent there yet so why worry about that.

Directfb has a much better interface, face it. Especially when we have stuff like Gforce5s

Re:X sucks anyhow

[HanzoSan]

X exention? The same one which has been complete for almost a year that has no documentation and is too complicated to use?

Not to mention its slow as hell.

Re:X sucks anyhow

[HanzoSan]

Not everyone works in the computer industry. I mean we do, but not everyone. In fact most computer users dont, and a Desktop should be designed for them, not for us, if we want X we can use the corperate Redhat Linux or Debian.

Re:X works, but not everoyne follows standards

[HanzoSan]

KDE is faster than Win98, but its slower than Win2k.

Its faster than XP, but XP has more special effects.

Win98 is sslow as hell, and crashes, KDE crashes once in a great while and its about the same speed, maybe alittle bit faster at very specific things.

2k is faster than KDE at everything.

KDE uses less than than all of these versions of windows, its slow because of X, not because of KDEs design, not because of bloat, because of X.