Slashdot Mirror
BeOS Clone Haiku Releases R1 Alpha 4
New submitter kallisti5 writes "The Haiku project released their 4th alpha release today. A year and four months have passed since the 3rd alpha release. Haiku R1A4 includes several enhancements such as a large number of bug fixes, early IPv6 support, better drivers, improved file system support, better localization, and a wide variety of new features and applications."
Multimedia enhancements include support for modern Intel and Radeon HD cards.
WOW! :-)
... and nobody will remember what "Haiku" or "BeOS" is all about.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Or is it only fit for a virtual machine?
Rethinking email
I just got back from a trip in my DeLorean and in 2017 Haiku Release R1 Beta 1 was announced.
fuck you geek faggots.
Go ahead and continue. You got the format correct for the first line. Now you need to come up with 2 more lines for your entry to be complete.
This space unintentionally left blank.
Why GPL-free? How does having, say, the Linux kernel, under the GPL affect an end user?
between the title and the content, he just needs a middle line. I suggest "damn mother fucking os." Truly a masterpiece for the ages.
A year and four months
Passing since the 3rd alpha release
Beos Clone, not Windows
Yes, that would work. We can make a world class poet out of Mr. Ballmer yet.
This space unintentionally left blank.
BeOS was a good looking interface - for its time. Now it (and by extension Haiku) looks rather dated by comparison with modern GUIs (especially when you look at the lovely looking things that Apple, or google with its Android project buttery loveliness create.
~c
You naysayers can feel free to call me crazy, but Haiku has a better chance at winning the desktop than Linux ever did. It is exactly the kind of coherent and elegantly designed platform that is as attractive to users as it is to developers. Haiku has been a slow starter, so it may take a while to happen unless more devs start to look at the prospect of seriously contributing to it. But the truth is, quality takes time. The Linux approach of "code first, ask questions later" does get things done faster. The desktop is just one of those cases where better will always beat faster in the long run.
Surprisingly simple. Surprisingly amusing. Honestly, this troll post made me giggle.
I suppose the final release will be R2D2...
a) the GPL is considered pretty evil by lawyers. If you're trying to develop a commercial product, best make sure it has no GPL code in it.
b) some people hate Richard Stallman even more than they hate Steve Ballmer.
Obviously, gp wants to pass off someone else's work as his own.
If you're trying to develop a commercial product, best make sure it has no GPL code in it.
I think you mean: If you're trying to develop a commercial product by stealing others' code and claiming it's your own, best make sure it has no GPL code in it.
GPL code has no legal problems that aren't much larger if you base your work on someone else's proprietary code. GPL merely legalizes your "stealing", but says you must then permit others to "steal" your code as well. With proprietary code, anything you do with it is illegal.
Not that this matters much to the users, who mostly don't ever write any code, much less attempt to sell it.
(There's a long tradition in technical circles of taking insults and turning them into technical jargon. And there's the old saying that copying from one person is plagiarism, but copying from many is research. ;-)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Haiku, BeOS. / One inspired by the other. / R1, Alpha 4.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The Haiku project released their 4th alpha release today.....
Me? I'm waiting for their 2nd beta release.
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
If you can surf porn with it, its good to go!
Why is the attitude that copyright infrigement is stealing tolerated so much more here when applied to the GPL than file sharing?
Simple, because in the case of copyright infringement, no one is taking Rihanna's songs, posting them online and claiming them as their own (i.e. "look at these songs I made!").
What you are talking about, though, is neither copyright infringement nor stealing: it's plagiarizing. As in the simple pre-GPL world, the rules are simple: want to build derivative works off of mine and sell them for profit? You can do that, you just need a specific license from me to do that (as happens with any other non-free software).
So, yeah... basically, your problem is that you choose to use ill-defined words (i.e. stealing), rather than using actual appropriate and legally-meaningful concepts.
Here, I help you:
- "Stealing" (i.e. sharing, copyright infringement) GOOD.
- "Stealing" (i.e. plagiarism, taking credit for shit you didn't do, depriving people of their property) BAD.
See... it's simple. It's just complicated for you, because you wish to conflate two very different things (plagiarism and copyright infringement) with the same concept, when they're not.
So do you think that if a company decided to release a slightly modified GPL application without the source, and they were open about it being a slightly modified GPL application, people would be as forgiving as they are with file sharers?
a) the GPL is considered pretty evil by lawyers.
ITYM: the GPL is considered pretty evil by incompetent lawyers. It's good that way. If your lawyer has an irrational fear of the GPL, the fire the lawyer since it's clear you've wound up with a duff one.
If you're trying to develop a commercial product, best make sure it has no GPL code in it.
Like RHEL, IBM, Android, Linksys, and frankly, thousands of others. That's an excellent model to follow.
Oh you said avoid GPL. Right.
b) some people hate Richard Stallman even more than they hate Steve Ballmer.
Well, if people are going to make strange, irrational decisions based on strange, irrational assumptions about a person they've never met and who has little if anything to do with what they're using, then they get what they deserve.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Well, if people are going to make strange, irrational decisions based on strange, irrational assumptions about a person they've never met and who has little if anything to do with what they're using, then they get what they deserve.
You kind of have to admit that Stallman is doing more harm than any good every time he sticks his beard out of his hole. I mean, just look at him or listen to him -- is it any wonder then that people make irrational assumptions about him?
You have just made up a totally arbitrary distinction between copyright infringement on works you don't care about (copying Rihanna's songs) and copyright infringement on works you do care about (GPL software).
In both cases, the worse offence of making money off the copyright infringement still only arises because you have infringed on copyright. Plagiarism is nothing to do with it.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
no good browser for haiku
just plagiarism? /rimshot! //I'm here all week folks
Using a piece of GPL code in a proprietary software is not necessarily plagiarism. You may publicly announce the code is in there. It's still copyright ingringement in that it doesn't respect the terms and conditions set by the original author.
Much like the latest Rihanna's song.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
If someone is making money from adverts on their site, or paid subscriptions to a download service, they are using other people's music to make money. You don't have to directly claim ownership of a song to profit from it as if you owned it.
The key advantage to Commercial Software is you tend to know what the motives are for the software maker. To Make money.
For Open Source they have a lot of different motives.
Gain Experience, Give their Ego's a boost, Trying to give back to the community, Sell additional services later...
That is the problem, I agree Making money isn't the most noble cause in the world, however if you realize that is the game they are playing you as the consumer can use it to your advantage, because you can always say No I will not buy that unless you do X for me. When there are a different set of motives you get an inconsistent experience working the GNU software suppliers. Some will be great and you get software far better than with commercial. But you also get the people who will not do anything to help you (Write your own damn patch) because they are not interested in the end user at all.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
You have just made up a totally arbitrary distinction between copyright infringement on works you don't care about (copying Rihanna's songs) and copyright infringement on works you do care about (GPL software).
The concepts of copyright, patents and plagiarism are pretty arbitary to begin with.
I mean, just look at him or listen to him
... or smell him.
Can it run on Virtualbox?
I thought "by Anonymous Coward" was the middle line.
---sheath
Why not one of the BSDs then?
Nobody gives a shit about BeOS anymore because it took too long to become anything useful. Now it's just a hobby project run by a handful of people who are really the only people on earth who still give a damn.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I prefer copyfree software for philosophical reasons. Copyleft is not really free software - it is open source software with legal threats and anti-capitalist propaganda attached.
Notice how anyone critical of GPL gets "(Score: -1)", regardless of the substance of their arguments... This is making Slashdot look like a commie cult! Having a freer license is one of Haiku OS's greatest accomplishment, which needs to be recognized. They could have gone the easier route and borrowed code from Linux and other GPL projects, but they didn't.
So big kudos to the Haiku OS team for trying to create a Linux competitor in the market segment where the pure copyfree stack is rather weak: user-friendly desktop clients, netbooks, tablets, etc (although FreeBSD + E17 might be gaining ground as well).
--libman
Haiku OS has a different focus than the BSD's, and it offers a full client-side stack, from the specialized kernel to the widgets to desktop apps. Haiku is fully object-oriented code (which will simplify scripting). It offers an alternative not only to Linux but also to X / Wayland (the latter being Linux-only), and GPL-poisoned GTK+ / Qt / Java, GNOME / KDE / etc, and the apps built on top of them. FreeBSD + X + E17 is a promising combination, but Haiku takes a different approach and can thus deliver a more integrated and light-weight desktop experience.
It also offers an alternative to the "the browser is the desktop" HTML5+ paradigm, which I'm a big fan of (thinking of writing a package manager for locally cloning copyfree WebApps / SS API's / data dumps). This paradigm obviously still has many problems, especially performance issues for older or mobile computers, as well as usability issues, etc. (Plus there is no pure-copyfree modern UNIX Web browser yet. Chromium comes closest, but has "half of gnome" of dependencies. Opera has no GNUpendencies, but is closed-source itself.) As far as I know, by replacing dependence on GTK+ and the like, Web+ is the most copyfree HTML5 client in existence!) If Haiku OS can deliver sandboxed native applications via the Web (like NaCl, but on the desktop, and with rich-yet-secure access to OS API's), that would be truly revolutionary!
--libman
Fair enough... here:
- "Stealing" (i.e. sharing, personal copyright infringement) GOOD.
- "Stealing" (i.e. plagiarism, taking credit for shit you didn't do, depriving people of their property, commercial/for-profit copyright infringement) BAD.
Better?
I don't know you, and already hate you.
You sir, are a douchebag.
Sure, but one thing is to give away/share someone else's "intellectual property" and another altogether is to take another person's "intellectual property" and sell it or claim it as yours.
Plagiarism, commercial/for-profit copyright infringement, taking shit that isn't yours, etc. BAD.
Personal/non-profit copyright infringement, sharing among friends, etc. GOOD.
If my analogy wasn't good, then the other guy's analogy was even worse.
Disclaimer: I don't know about you, but I live in a country where personal/non-profit copyright infringement IS legal, so, as far as I'm concerned, what I'm describing in my post is not my moral view on it, but simply the legislative status of copyright in the place I'm currently residing in.
It's also worth noting that the GPL actually encourages plagiarism in some cases. Consider someone wanting to use freely available code as the basis for a closed source offering (or maybe even open source, but doesn't want to deal with the hassle of the GPL's draconian source archive management requirements). If the code the person finds that best suits his or her needs is distributed under the MIT/X11 License (for instance), that person might proudly refer to the open source roots of the software. If it is distributed under the terms of the GPL, on the other hand, that person might instead decide to conceal the source of the code, thinking it won't be discovered so that all that source archive management overhead can be avoided (and even if it is discovered the worst result will probably then be having to start sharing the sources in accordance with the requirements of the license, still having given the person a grace period with no costs incurred by that overhead).
When your license imposes the overhead costs of a bunch of source archive management, bookkeeping, and so on, it creates incentives to plagiarize for people working on projects that do not turn a profit or for startups. This is just one of the many unintended consequences that can arise from the use of highly complex, restrictive licenses that try to micromanage how people modify and distribute derivative works.
Unfetter your ideas. Copyfree your mind.
When your license imposes the overhead costs of a bunch of source archive management, bookkeeping, and so on, it creates incentives to plagiarize for people working on projects that do not turn a profit or for startups.
Once again, we might note that this isn't a property of the GPL; it's just as true for proprietary code. The only real difference is that GPL'd code is usually published openly and comes with a license that lets anyone use the code for free, while you typically have to pay for a license to use proprietary code -- if you can even get a license to use the code.
There is no difference in the legally required accountability when you use someone else's code. If you do this at all, you need to keep good records, or you are opening yourself and your products to serious legal problems. The GPL may "invite" this by making the code easily available, but GPL'd code is copyrighted, and is legally no different from proprietary code in regards to ownership.
Criticising someone because they make their code easy to copy, use, and build on is a rather bizarre sort of negativism. Do you really think it's better that you not be allowed access to the code at all, or that you be charged for non-commercial, personal use?
An honest person would consider it normal to keep track of what usage they make of other people's work, and would give proper credit to their sources. They would consider keeping proper records of such usage just a normal part of creating something new, not an unnecessary burden. Complaining about the need for something that's ethically required is a fairly clear statement of one's character. ;-)
(Yes, I do normally work from copies of all software that I "borrow" from someone else, and archive the originals. There are good technical reasons for doing this, in addition to the ethical obligation. I don't consider it a burden at all. And I've often found it useful during debugging. Sometimes the result is that I send bug reports back to the original authors, who usually thank me. And I've similarly thanked people for such info about code that I've made available to the public. ;-)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Hey, my post got an "informative insightful flamebait" mod! That's the first time I've got such an awesome moderation!.
Now I only need to get the ultimate mod, which of course also includes "funny". I've been trying for that combo for years, to no avail. ;-)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
I was surprised by how blazingly fast I got to the desktop when I downloaded the vmdk. Does anyone know how this is accomplished? Are they cutting corners by not loading stuff that otherw would consider essential or is the design really just that good?
You kind of have to admit that Stallman is doing more harm than any good every time he sticks his beard out of his hole. I mean, just look at him or listen to him -- is it any wonder then that people make irrational assumptions about him?
Irrational assumptions? I've been following his Web-site for years, and that's what I go by. I agreed with him more when I was young and stupid, and I agree with him a lot less today. Every tyranny inevitably comes packaged in a layer of truth, which in this case is Stallman's support for civil liberties, but that's just the cheese in his mousetrap.
I don't like it when people criticize Stallman for stupid things. He doesn't have a hygiene problem, and he's generally a pleasant-sounding and charismatic guy. I can tolerate socialists who just want to play socialism on their on turf and not use force against others. If that was the case, then we could be pals.
Stallman, on the other hand, is an aggressor, and he is willing to use the force of government to do his bidding - not just in enforcing the legal threats attached to his code (I mean GPL'ed code - he never wrote much good code himself), but on every level. He believes in massive amounts of government violence - with people like him in charge. Perhaps most significant is the fact that he wants to end all intergovernmental competition, thus ending the only effective counterbalance to government power...
--libman
When your license imposes the overhead costs of a bunch of source archive management, bookkeeping, and so on, it creates incentives to plagiarize for people working on projects that do not turn a profit or for startups.
Once again, we might note that this isn't a property of the GPL; it's just as true for proprietary code. The only real difference is that GPL'd code is usually published openly and comes with a license that lets anyone use the code for free, while you typically have to pay for a license to use proprietary code -- if you can even get a license to use the code.
It is a property of copyright restrictions in general, yes. This is, in fact, sorta my point. The GPL does not provide nearly the level of greater ease of code reuse that many people seem to think.
. . . and you completely bypassed my point, which was the fact that plagiarism is incentivized for GPLed (and, yes, proprietary) code in ways that do not apply to copyfree and public domain code. In short, any copyright restrictions that impose any overhead on the reuser of your code serves as a trade-off between chances of plagiarism and chances of someone using your code without giving you anything (other than attribution).
Note that this also applies to supposedly "permissive" licenses that come with nontrivial restrictions, like the Apache License 2.0.
There is no difference in the legally required accountability when you use someone else's code. If you do this at all, you need to keep good records, or you are opening yourself and your products to serious legal problems. The GPL may "invite" this by making the code easily available, but GPL'd code is copyrighted, and is legally no different from proprietary code in regards to ownership.
Criticising someone because they make their code easy to copy, use, and build on is a rather bizarre sort of negativism. Do you really think it's better that you not be allowed access to the code at all, or that you be charged for non-commercial, personal use?
Your straw men are burning.
An honest person would consider it normal to keep track of what usage they make of other people's work, and would give proper credit to their sources. They would consider keeping proper records of such usage just a normal part of creating something new, not an unnecessary burden. Complaining about the need for something that's ethically required is a fairly clear statement of one's character. ;-)
I wasn't talking about what honest people would or would not do. I agree that an honest person would make some effort to properly credit people on whose work he or she builds, but that does not in any way change the applicability of anything I said.
I hope you're not trying to insinuate that I personally object to giving proper attribution for others' work when I build on it. In fact, my approach is to just not use copyleft licensed code in my work so I never have to worry about its restrictions. Sometimes this makes things a little harder, but usually there's no extra difficulty at all, and I'm happy to give attribution for the copyfree licensed projects whose work I do use, and release my code under the terms of copyfree licenses any time I have a choice in the matter. So . . . no, I don't object to giving proper attribution. I just think people should stop equating copyright enforcement with attribution enforcement, and recognize that the two are actually opposed to some nontrivial degree.
Living in a fantasy land where as long as you talk about your intentions you don't have to worry about unintended consequences is kinda counterproductive, after all.
(Yes, I do normally work from copies of all software that I "borrow" from someone else, and archive the originals. There are good technical reasons for doing this, in addition to the ethical obligation. I don't consider it a burden at all. And I've ofte
Unfetter your ideas. Copyfree your mind.