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.
... and nobody will remember what "Haiku" or "BeOS" is all about.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
runs pretty good on my pentium 1
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?
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.
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.
Luxury! I've just upgraded from an SX to a DX!
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
Why is the attitude that copyright infrigement is stealing tolerated so much more here when applied to the GPL than file sharing?
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.
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
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.