Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Zeta Goes Gold

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the obscurantism dept.

*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."

8 of 311 comments (clear)

  1. Do they or do they not have the source legally? by CyricZ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    1. Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally? by OSXexpert · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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).

      --
      --- Old Time NeXThead
    2. Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally? by croddy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

  2. Re:Requirements? by nocomment · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    --
    /* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
    /* http://allyourbasearebelongto.us */
  3. |Poor Be. by Fallingcow · · Score: 5, Informative

    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. :(

  4. Zeta Beta by debilo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  5. I don't get it! Who's going to buy it? by H0p313ss · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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?

    --
    XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
  6. Ab-so-fuckin-lutely by Udo+Schmitz · · Score: 5, Informative
    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 ...)