Zeta Goes Gold

*no comment* writes "Be lives! yellowTAB has announced it's 1.0 release of Zeta has gone Gold and has sent it off to production. The word is that in about 2 weeks, you can have your hands on the latest version of this BeOS derivative."

Comments

Anywhere?

[SpartanVII]

ZETA costs Eur 99 and is available from our online shop or any of our approved resellers

So where is the .torrent? ;-)

Do they or do they not have the source legally?

[CyricZ]

I remember hearing that there was some speculation that they did not legally have the BeOS source code. While they would never comment on it, some people suggested that they must have had access to the code in order to perform some of the modifications they have done. Other people have suggested that they have merely patched previous binary releases. Now, my question is: do they or do they not have the source code to BeOS? If so, is it legal or illegal?

Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally?

[OSXexpert]

There is no question about the source leak. If you hung around the BeShare community long enough starting right after PalmOS bought the IP and engineers for 11 million, you could have a copy of the tarball. BTW, it was corrupted, only parts of the tarball came available to the general masses. I know, I downloaded from a BeSharer the tarball, uncompressed it and indeed had the sources. Kernel sources (partials), stuff like malloc and such. Seriously, the BeOS core code was last dated 1992-93, not kidding. A LOT of the core of the BeOS was and such still is in the form of Zeta/Beta, 12-13 years old. Now, that is true with a lot of other OS's, NeXTStep/OSX is a good example (classnames are NSClassName for example, too complex to change for both Apple and old time developers).... However, Zeta is not even available legally in source to anyone. Palm has denied it to Zeta, and to the community at large (in 2001 there was a campaign to get the source opened, PalmOS said forget-about-it with a big FU to boot coming from the 'community' in response).

Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally?

[Hektor_Troy]

While they would never comment on it

Not sure where you got that idea. I haven't been paying much attention to yellowTAB, but from what I've heard, including here on Slashdot, they bought a licence to BeOS just before Be was sold off to whatever company it was.

As for their never commenting on it ... I suppose it'd be too much trouble to actually check their website.

Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally?

[croddy]

It doesn't matter whether you personally have the desire or ability to patch the source. What matters is that someone does -- be it you, your neighbors, or others -- and that we all benefit from those patches. That's why open source projects have bug-report and feature-request systems -- so that users who aren't in a position to provide the changes they need can request them of others.

Yes, it would be nice to have access to the BIOS source and motherboard schematics -- just like it is nice to have access to the kernel source and to application sources. The more of these things are opened, the more freedom users will enjoy.

It is not zealotry to expect source code for an OS. Even Microsoft recognizes that universities can't study Windows to any non-trivial extent without allowing schools access through their Shared Source program.

In an OS, freedom means the ability of the user base to take action when security problems appear, to provide drivers for new hardware, and to control the configuration of the system. To be suddenly cut off from security updates on an old system, and face migration, upgrade, or compromise is not freedom. Dependence on a vendor and a proprietary OS may -- and quite often, does -- mean convenience and ease of use; it does not mean freedom.

Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally?

[leomekenkamp]

You might be trolling, but I'll bite anyway.

Because you don't edit and complile your own source code, you are dependent on "the man" and are not free.
No. It is not because you do not edit and compile your own software; it is because you are PREVENTED to edit and compile your own software that you are not free

Because you did not build your own computer from scratch you are not free.
No. If you are PREVENTED from building your own computer, you are not free

Because you did not crack the molecules from crude oil in your mother's basement and fashion the plastic case for your computer on your own, you are not free.
No. If you are PREVENTED to crack your own molecules, then you are not free.

Because you do not generate your own electricity, you are dependent on some utility and are not free.
No. If you are PREVENTED from generating your own electricity, you are not free.

Because you did not start out with a fist full of raw sand and turn it into a video card you are not free.
No. If you are PREVENTED to make your own video card, then you are not free

I never walk in protest marches. Does that mean I would agree with taking away the right for OTHER people to walk in protest marches? No, as that would take away their freedom directly (and mine indirectly). I never build my own TV set. Does that mean I would agree with legislation that would prevent OTHER people to build their own TV set (without broadcast flag checking)? No.

Do I edit and compile the software I run? Sometimes. If I did not I would still see that someone preventing me from being able to edit and compile the software that I run is taking away my freedom

Hardware Support Lacking

[Vobbo]

The supported hardware list seems to indicate that at least one common laptop maker may not be supported very well (supported inspiron 3200, partially supported LS L400, no other details). Hopefully as they get bigger, they'll be able to devote time and resources needed to get running on some of the newer laptops coming out ...

Re:Requirements?

[nocomment]

Hardware requirements

Minimal Requirements:

Pentium 200MHz (or Cyrix, Athlon, Via...)
32 MB RAM
600 MB Hard Disk Space
8 MB Video Memory
bootable CD-ROM Drive
Mouse, Keyboard, 14" Color Monitor
Recommended Hardware:

Intel Pentium III 1 GHz (Celeron, AMD Athlon Duron/XP)
256 MB RAM
4 GB Hard Disk Space
32 MB Video Memory
Soundcard
CD/DVD Drive
Mouse, Keyboard, 17" Color Monitor

|Poor Be.

[Fallingcow]

Man I wish Be hadn't died. Now THAT was a hell of a desktop OS. Dead simple install, simple UI with a lot unixy power under the hood. Booted super fast. Did things on 1995 hardware that other OS's couldn't do as well until 1999-2000 hardware came around.

The only downside was app support. If they were still around and had anywhere near the support that Linux does, I'd be back with them in a heartbeat.

Sad. :(

Zeta Beta

[debilo]

They've been selling beta versions of Zeta on German television for months touting it as virus and trojan free, and claiming it was actually "faster than Linux", whatever that's supposed to mean, showing it to run on a (supposedly) P1 with 128 MB while playing 6 video files simultaneously. I always got a good laugh out of that, but I'll probably try it out soon nonetheless. Can anyone comment on the quality of the beta version?

Resolved: NeXTStep was More Advanced than BeOS...

[Nova Express]

...when Apple made the decision to buy NeXT instead of BeOS. Discuss. Please provide sources and examples for all points, This will count 10% of your grade.

(My take: It doesn't matter. The NeXT purchase brought back Steve Jobs, who has been worth, at the very least, as much to Shareholders as OS X (I can't believe Jean Louise-Gasse (sp?) would have been nearly as influential, nor would he (or whoever followed Gil Amelio) would come up with the iPod or iMac). A very conservative estimate would be that the presence of Jobs added $2 billion to Apple stockholder value.)

Re:Screenshots?

[nocomment]

linky to screenshots.

Re:Resolved: NeXTStep was More Advanced than BeOS.

[CyricZ]

NeXTSTEP was indeed far more advanced where it came to networking and enterprise-related functionality. But BeOS was the supreme leader when it came to multimedia applications on the PC. While NeXTSTEP provided an excellent platform for Apple to build multimedia capabilities onto, BeOS already had them working and optimized.

Icon

[vinn]

I'm less amazed that Be's still alive than I am that you have a graphic for it.

Re:So there are...

[bnitsua]

there's a whole bunch of screenshots here: http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?re lease=223&slide=1
it pretty much looks like BeOS did, big surprise there, eh?

Reasons why you should care:

[CyricZ]

1. It's an alternative to Windows. 2. It brings extreme multimedia capabilities to the x86-based PC. 3. It features a heavily multithreaded microkernel and GUI that will inherently benefit from multicore and hyperthreading CPUs. 4. It provides a POSIX layer that allows UNIX, Linux and *BSD applications to be ported with ease. And that's just a small sampling of the many reasons why you should care.

I don't get it! Who's going to buy it?

[H0p313ss]

Who is going to spend time and money on this thing?

• It's almost as expensive as XP Home edition and half a dozen different Linux distros can be had for free.
• Who's going to pay 99 Euros for a squeaky new OS?
• Are there even any applications for it?

Free I could understand, we hobbiests are crazy, but 99 Euros? WTF?

Re:I don't get it! Who's going to buy it?

[smallstepforman]

Some people like to support the underdog. I have purchased the Release Candidate of Zeta, knowing more than likely that I'd be throwing money away. I think of it more like a donation, to ensure that an alternative to Windows and Linux continues surviving. Bernd seems to be managing the company quite well, so it looks like yellowTab just might make it. Once they have the 70 employees Bernd has been talking about, expect a full on revival of BeOS (awaken from the dead :-).

Plus, Haiku is getting closer, so by supporting the successor to BeOS, I am indirectly supporting Haiku. By showing that there is money to be made with BeOS, developers are more than likely to start offering software for another viable OS.

Re:Requirements?

[bnitsua]

whoa. be switched to intel? next you're going to tell me app... *head explodes*

Ab-so-fuckin-lutely

[Udo Schmitz]

Check this out:

http://www.openstep.se/jobs/

It is a NeXTSTEP 3.0 demo Steve Jobs gave 1992 (previously covered on /.). It looks almost like my Panther version of Mac OS X in 2005! When I first saw it I was even more pissed of at Bill Gates who I see responsible for depriving us of OS advancement through MSs monopoly actions :(

1992! Argh (faints ...)

Too late for me!

[The OPTiCIAN]

Once a 100% BeOS user, I played around with Be again a fortnight ago, hoping to get into working on the very very cool instant messenger kit. But it was too hard. I couldn't get SSH to work, there are problems with some tools (eg: Bethon) only working with R5, others only working with post-BONE releases, etc, etc, and the browsers are too heavy to run nicely on my compatible hardware (dual p2, 256MB) and I got sick of it. Until the community can get to the state where you can get a development workstation set up without having to bleed and until the distributions can get support for basic hardware like SATA (or else applications that work nice on the old compatible hardware), it's not going to get much momentum behind it.

This is a shame, because the interface is a damned side faster and lighter and nicer than either gnome or mac os x (and in spite of the yucky bloaty skinned rubbish that zeta has replaced the old beautiful elegant fast LAF with), and it used to be much easier for young developers to get used to the environment than linux (at least it was easier for me).

The coolest thing about Be though was the filesystem. Check out this: http://eiman.tv/imkit/use.html. This is an instant messenger system that's based on the filesystem. So each user's icon... is a file with metadata! Neat! All written by the same guy who's written this new metadata file system that's shipped with tiger.

Anyway - it's too late for me now. I only had one computer left that would run Be or Zeta (my newish mac and newer SATA x86 box won't run it. :( ) and my experiences trying to get basic tools up and working a fornight ago put me off one time too many. I installed debian stable on that on Sunday so it can replace my mailserver.

But I'm guessing that in ten or fifteen years we'll start getting to the point where kernels are interchangable, so I hope Be people keep up their good work because it was one hell of a fast exciting system back in the day.