Slashdot Mirror
Gassee Challenges OEMs
Derek Cornish writes "Here is a news article about how Gassee, CEO of Be Inc., has challenged OEMs of the world to bundle Linux and BeOS for free on their computers. Unwillingness to do so would help show Microsoft's stranglehold on the computer market does, in fact, exist.
" I'd like to take this time to thank Mr. Gassee....
Nuff' said.
It would only show that Windows is in demand with the OEMs.
http://www.bedeopt.com is where you can order Be products online.
I am a moron with a bad keyboard. make that http://www.bedepot.com
I'm beginning to suspect Be has been secretly bought out by MS. Why else would they be playing Bill's game for him?
I repeat: The question is NOT NOT NOT whether MS is currently (ie during the trial) playing Mr Nice-And-Non-Exclusive with the OEM's. The question IS whether MS, in an abuse of monopoly power (which is NOT NOT NOT 100% control of a market, merely overpowering majority) forced OEM's to accept exclusive terms.
In other words, if the OEM's all started offering Be and Linux it would prove nothing--after all, many vendors offered non-MS boxes even before the trial. But the PR advantage would be enormous.
And if OEM's refused to sell BeOS and Linux it also proves nothing--"it just makes business sense", they'll say.
It is in MS's best interest to confuse the public regarding the issues, and Gassee is only helping.
am I wrong or isnt Be for sale?
How could anybody offer it for free?
I don't think the fact that BeOS is not open source will influence its target market of media professionals. Outside of programmers, hackers and network administrators open source is not a deciding factor in choosing an OS.
I run Linux and BeOS. The fact that I have access to the Linux source code makes no difference to me.
The challenge should extend to Apple. They're being very stubborn in providing Be with the specs that would allow BeOS to run on their new G3 lines. Screw Apple anyway...I don't think Picasso had an Apple (if you've seen those banners in CompUSA).
I agree - look at it like this - first we have BeOs humbly claiming themselves 'NOT A COMPETITOR OF WINDOWS OR MICROSOFT'- while in secret they are developing competitive products. Now the secrets have been found out - Be immediately hid themselves behind the forces of OSS/Linux by such proclamation - in an attempt to get a share for themselves to be installed on pcs from vendors. I truly suspects the motive behind this - BeOS is not free, and not opensource. They claimed not be a consumer desktop OS but a specialized media-optimized OS.
Yes, I'd much rather see other OSs offerred by the vendors other than BeOS. By issuing this public statement I have totally lost my respect for the company.
BeOS R4 is only $70 if you buy it at www.bedepot.com. If you're upgrading from a previous release, like R3, then it's only $25. It retails for $99 in stores, but I've yet to see a store that sells it.
To summarize: your initial purchase is $70, minor releases (x.1, x.2, etc.) are free and subsequent major releases (R5, R6, etc.) are $25.
Hey, $25 bucks is a good deal for what you're getting.
With this stunt, Be has just gained me as a customer! I've wanted to try the OS for a while, but was turned off by the price (I prefer paying 6$ for the media on my linux distro). But even if this will just support the anti-microsoft cause, I'd gladly part with the cost of this OS!
Good work, Mr. Gasse!
If there's any Be employees reading this, I'd like you to know you've got a new customer!
-Too lazy to get a login
bolverk: odin@nospam.psynet.nospam.net
From what I saw (OK I admit it, I only skimmed through the article), it looks like he's not asking them not to bundle Windows, but just to bundle Be or Linux. So they could, say, put on both Windows and Be, which would back up their claim to be more a compliment to Windows.
Wouldn't Microsoft love to have OEM take on Gasse's offer? Think about it. Gasse knows that MS influences its OEMs. I bet MS will *encourage* them to adopt alternative OSs.
Either way, Be can only win. If OEMs take the offer, then the BeOS will gain a tremendous distribution channel it did not have before.
If OEMs ignore, it goes on to prove that there is still pressure from MS to its OEMs. Which helps bolster the DOJ's case (not like they need any more help but hey).
Watch for Compaq to make some sort of related announcement to make up for its executive's poor performance on the stand.
Later..
I don't think it really matters. What the point is, is how will the media react when the OEMs refuse (and they will refuse). This isn't about Be as much as it's about Microsoft.
Don't let him fool you folks. He's just as bad as Billy Boy! Gassee wants to be where Billy is now! He doesn't give a fucking crap about you, only your money.
Proprietary OSes are obsolote.
I used to be a BEliever....
:(
Here's the deal. Intel owns part of Be, right? So basically Be will not run on PowerPC G3. (LinuxPPC runs like a rocket on G3 without Be's budget.) G4 Altivec and multiprocessing technology would make BeOS absolutely EXPLODE with power for multimedia. It might create whole new application catagories impossible before. Altivec may fall under supercomputer export restrictions, though
I predict that in the future BeOS will NEVER run on Alpha, or anything that does not originate with IntHell. It MAY run on IA64 in the distant future, but who knows (or cares really.) Intel has succeeded in engineering the marketplace where it fails at engineering silicon. And don't count on Be's multiprocessing to take you to the next level either, because Intel is determinied to cripple it and price it out of your reach....
So basically politics beats technology again. And so, the fastest OS will only run on the slowest silicon. Yet another proprietary sweetheart deal designed to eliminate real competion.
Wow. Death by constipation. Woohoo.
This sort of nonesense has already been shown to be a dead end time after time
I don't get mixed up with Be for the same reason I don't get mixed up with Microsoft. If Be would shift it's focus to it's customers and developers, instead of it's masters at Intel, I might care, but probably not, after all, it might just be another lie.
Most of the major OEMs are announcing that they're bundling Linux on request now. I think dude's just out for a little free publicity (Nothing wrong with that, though...)
Can someone with some low level processor and system smarts coment on this please?? We need to know the real deal.
It's actually expensive to include other OS's besides Windows 98. That's why most don't even include Windows NT yet.
Why is it so expensive?
A) Batch process - it's a lot easier to make all the computers exactly the same.
B) Testing - are of their testing tools are for 98, how are they going to test the linux and be machines?
C) Support - What happens when people buy a machine and it doesn't work with the 3d card they just bought? Even if the OEM can't provide techinical help, they still need people at the phones to explain that they can't give technical help.
D) Audience - 99.99% of their buyers WANT Windows 98. Have you ever been to BestBuy or CompUSA and seen somebody ask for a machine with Linux on it? Even if you could buy a Linux or Be machine at Best Buy or CompUSA - who's going to tell the clueless newbies that none of the software sold at their store will run on your new machine. People who buy Macs already have this problem. ("You mean of all this software I can only run the stuff on that single shelf?")
Jesus, that was one of the dumbest messages i've ever read. The
reason Be doesn't support the G3's is because APPLE will not supply
them with the specs. There are so MANY people who dearly want G3
support, but Apple feels their OS would be subverted if they let them
develope on them. Yes, Be like the Intel market because it's the easiest
access to share their vision. The majority of all users run on Intel machines.
Be itself would support everything under the sun if it could, their programmers have something other OS programmers short of Linux DONT
have. Soul. Wait till they get bigger, you'll see their full vision, and you'll see your beloved platform supported, but for this to happen, they need to get
what they get, and Intel is where thats at right now. Be's focus right now is on its USERS and DEVELOPERS. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about the BeOS knows this right off the bat.
The subject says it all...
Read Be's FAQ's: http://www.be.com/support/qandas/powermac.html
heh. Maybe you are right. I don't think it would be a great idea though. Unless you are a Redhat user, which is not necessarily to say Redhat isn't a great idea. It doesn't matter how many people you see asking about it...you can only learn Linux by installing it yourself. This is also the reason Redhat shouldn't be recommended to anyone.
So many people are missing the point about Intel's investment in Be. The money was certainly nice - I don't think anyone will argue with that. However they have supplied Be with engineering knowlege and help that they couldn't have gotten any other way. I'm sure Be would welcome Apple with open arms for just some specs - but Intel went the whole 10 yards and gave them a hand with the actual programming.
Like I said, I'm sure the money was nice, but it was the hands-on help that mattered.
If that were true than why the heck is R4 even on PPC? Intel is an
INVESTOR in BeOS, but it also runs on Cyrix and AMD chips JUST AS WELL. I'm sorry but your claim holds NO water. If PPC and G3 people
actually wanted to run BeOS, they would be pounding on the doors of
Apple telling them to open the flood gates. I would personally love to own
one of those new sweet G3 towers and use it as a dedicated BeOS box,
as would so many other people out there, but it's just NOT GOING TO HAPPEN because Apple is so farking dumb! They can hope with their MacOSX, but its all about CHOICE again. To me, Apple is just as bad as
MicroSoft and needs to be shut down.
Duh, the reason Be works well with Intel is because Intel helped them with their engineering, not because they "paid them off". You guys need to go back to your UFO's and Big Foot studies. Too many crazies out today. . .
Have you ever been to BestBuy or CompUSA and seen somebody ask for a machine with Linux on it?
Ummm...yeah. How many ancient Roman accountants have you seen asking for Arabic numerals? Roman numerals must work just fine for them.
People ask for Win98 because that's all they know about.
Ask them these questions instead and see what happens:
Do you stability?
Do you flexibility?
Do you want affordability?
What IS the difference between memory and storage? You seem to use them as subjective terms for different types of memory/storage, but the words are not intrinsically tied to either.
read their licenses. BSD doesn't force you to adopt some bizarre communal mindset.
Mediocre OS? Did you try it before making this comment?
What are you talking about? I have the source to OpenBSD sitting on my hard drive right now!
Now that it's getting so much more press, I imagine this might start happening, but until very recently everyone who knew about Linux wouldn't bother, already knowing the answer would be "no" (or "huh?").
I just bought Red Hat 5.2 off the shelf at a CompUSA in Seattle, BTW, but (for the other reasons you mentioned!) I'm not very surprised we still can't get it preinstalled.
I'm not a mechanic, but I can hire them when I need to, and I'd be an idiot to buy a car with the hood welded shut. Why is this acceptable for software?
You "if it isn't free and open-source it sucks" people are really starting to piss me off. Why does it have to be free and open-source to be good. Is it now morally wrong for people to expect to make money for their efforts. Is any doctor that doesn't provide all his/her service for free a bad doctor. Must the doctors personal notes or thoughts about the patient be publicly available?
I'm sorry but some of you Linux users are way too fanatical. Most people don't care if they can look at and edit the source code. And most would like things to be free, but aren't unwilling to pay a reasonable amount for a piece of software. If you really like being able to see the source, great, but don't say that another OS isn't as good just because you can't see the source and you can't get it for free.
BTW I am not a Be fanatic, I haven't even used it but I've heard good things about it and I think some of you are criticizing it for no reason.
Read
www.az.com/~drysdam/GPL-as-strategy.html
This was the reasoning a lot of people had against using Macs (they definitely aren't perfect). I still hear that a lot. "If you have to use Mac OS you must be dumb." Simply because it's very simple. "There's no CLI!!! Using a CLI automatically means I'm a genius!" If you have to prove to yourself you're a genius, then perhaps you aren't and should move on and worry about other things.
I'd love to go up to my college professors and tell them I'm smarter than them because I can use Linux and they can't.
While the original poster did ask for no price in addition to open source, your response is still out of line.
You "if it isn't free and open-source it sucks" people are really starting to piss me off. Why does it have to be free and open-source to be good.
It has already been shown that open source development produces better software than closed/proprietary. And even if it didn't, it makes better business (among other things) sense because you aren't locked in to a vendor.
Is it now morally wrong for people to expect to make money for their efforts.
Most OS advocates do not object to commercial software--they object to proprietary software.
Is any doctor that doesn't provide all his/her service for free a bad doctor.
No and that's just the point. The doctor is providing a service. For that he deserves to be paid. A programmer does the same thing. But once the doctor gives me the advice, I'm free to do what I want with it. It should be the same with software. I bought it, I own it now.
Must the doctors personal notes or thoughts about the patient be publicly available?
What do personal notes/thoughts have to do with anything?
What exactly is harder about setting up a new connection in KPPP than in Windows?
You obviously do not understand anything regarding free software.
- a doctor can expect payment for his (gender neutral here) services, because he is providing a service. A coder is providing information. If he were to provide a service (documentation, technical support), he should expect payment
- there is no need for a doctor's notes to be publically available in most cases. The exception to this, of course, would be in extreme cases where the details (excluding the patient's name perhaps) may help to further medical research
and if you had spent even three seconds of your life researching the free software movement (before criticising it, please?), you would know that it has nothing to do with being the 'best' software. It is NOT about technical improvements, which is why in some cases, free software is inferior to commercial software.
Since you seem completely incapable of viewing anything related to free software (except Slashdot for some odd reason), I'll clue you in a little bit. Free software is about giving the power to share code amongst hackers. End-users are more or less a by-product of this, and are irrelevant. What is relevant is the ability for hackers to share, improve, discuss, improve, etc. software without restrictions. If you are not able to make improvements to software and rerelease it, or if you cannot distribute software without paying someone, then you are restricted, and this goes against the ideals of free software.
Note that I do not agree with everything that GNU or other free software movements say, but I would at least expect you to know SOMETHING (ANYTHING!!) about free software before criticising it.
Oh yes and you're a lam0r because you're an AC or something like that.
I agree with your comment. I am just commenting on the use of the term "free world" when refering to capitalism (and activities associated with capitalism). I don't mean to promote any other political/socioeconomic theories, but I do not see how our (the U.S.) system of capitalism makes everyone so "free". "Free world" would probably only fit rightfully with anarchism, which is a great "theory" that probably will never be able to work, or even be tried. I personally avoid ever using the term because it seems to pridefully boast capitalism (or the U.S.) as perfect, which I believe neither (at least whatever mutation of capitalism we have) are.
They challenged Microsoft because they believe that they have a stranglehold on OEM's. Obviously, Apple doesn't.
There is an option in there somewhere like "defragment all packets" for firewalling. Turn this option off. Watch linux run circles around BeOS NAT.
I think I understand what you mean. People like my wife hear 'megabytes' and are sometimes confused by the difference between memory and disk, for example. "Honey, the disk is full; Well can't you just add more memory?"
But you are wrong to claim that memory isn't 'storage'. Think about it, you store (and retrieve) bits to memory. IBM used to call the memory in their mainframes 'main storage'.
All this just shows that the vast majority of people care about the intricate details of computers about as much as the internal combustion engines in their cars, or the cathode ray tubes in their TVs. Doesn't mean they (or my wife) don't have a brain.
The only time i've ever seen Be unstable is when someone is playing with the 2 crappy IRC clients that exist (they crash, but the OS doesn't), or overclocking their system (*whine* but it works on linux, win98, and my mom *whine*)
I don't care if you gt pissed off.
Hey, anyone care whether this guy gets pissed off? Do you care that I am pissed off about paying for software that doesn't work as advertised over and over again? Didn't think so.
Frankly, having the source for at least the part of the win32 api that I am *required* to use would be very helpful, 'cause it don't work like the documentation says its supposed to.
That doesn't address the issue of X being slow during operation. X is no so much a GUI as it is a networking protocol, which doesn't work too well for the speed of the GUI as you might guess. It's done very well, but if you just use your GUI locally, then BeOS might be a good choice.
BSDs are free to be slaves.
Be has a money back deal in which you can return BeOS for a full refund if you don't like it.
Also, check out the developer's section on their web site and then form your own opinion about how much support they offer (along with free c/c++ compilers and IDE). I found copious documentation on their lovely APIs and have been satisfied with their responsiveness to bug reports and feature requests. I haven't needed it, but they also offer developer technical and run list-servs so that developers can help each other.
Finally, it costs $0 to be a developer for Be. I don't know where the $400 number comes from, but Be provides a web site (www.be.com/beware) solely for the purpose of helping developers distribute their software (at no cost to the developer). I don't know how they determine who gets shipped on their CD, but then is that really an issue?
The truth is out there. Don't believe the hype.
Your response was nice until the little addition of "Oh yes and you're a lam0r because you're an AC or something like that."
For one, the poster stated his thoughts, as he knows them, perfectly calmly. He didn't write his comments as Linux hater. The only thing he was getting sick of (at least it seems from his post) was fanatical users who will not use, or acknoledge as being decent in some way, software that isn't open source and/or free. The open source model definitely has it's benefits, and so far, seems to be working exactly as was expected (unfortunately, i'm pestimistic and, no matter what anyone, or theory says, expect problems to begin arising as Linux and it's user base grows).
But I'm not about to throw away using an Adobe, Macromedia, etc. products just because they aren't open source and/or free. I'll be a homeless graphic designer.
Please respect my right to post anonymously. I think that's called freedom of choice.
to say that an OS isn't as good because you can't have the source. Some people like being able to fix things themselves and not have to wait on a patch, or tweak their os to do what they want it to do, how they want it to be done. These options, which Be does not have, are perfectly acceptable reasons for prefering an operating system. How you can attempt to dismiss them as not being good enough reasons is beyond me.
... but Gasse is just as proprietary minded as Gates or Jobs (or McNealy or Ellison for that matter).
BeOS appears to be fine software but I'm not going to invest my time in a closed environment. Who's to say what kind of behavior to expect of Be or Gasse 5, 10, 20 years from now?
Great movie.. I especially liked the idea behind the Gesundheit Institute.
Not to mention many people have jobs. It was in only one location so people would have to fly out there, spending money and time they really can't afford to lose. Plus all the points you mentioned. Some users may also use Windows, need it, but not necessarily like MSs business practices, or even the OS itself. Oh, it was also kind of early in the morning, which is inconvenient for a lot of people who sleep until noon+. Then there's our natural tendency to believe "everyone else will do it, I don't need to bother." I'm sure a lot of people thought that considering all the press it got, so bothered not to come.
Considering all of that, 85 is actually a nice turn out in my opinion.
Good idea Im preparing my rocket as we speak.:)
They're being very stubborn in providing Be with the specs that would allow BeOS to run on their new G3 lines. linuxppc did it. Be could.
linuxppc did it. why cant be
linuxppc did it. why cant be?
1> You've never tried it. How do I know this? Because it is actually more
stable than my Linux box. Saying it's worse than 95? What? Go TRY a
copy first, THEN post.
2> Development is FREE. You dont have to pay ANYTHING. They GIVE
developers the OS for free, and all upgrades.
3> FULL docs on programming the OS are on their WEBSITE or can be
BOUGHT in Book format through BeDepot. They even help people out
in EMAIL if they're having problems. Sheesh!
4> You're right, you are flaimbait because _EVERYTHING_ you said is
100% _FALSE_.
Mr. Gassee is foolish to have promoted a GPLed product in the same breath as his competing commercial one. The purpose of the GPL is to drive commercial ones from the market via predatory pricing and destruction of markets. By advocating the use of such products, Mr. Gassee is falling into the "trap" of believing that the GPL is benign and/or won't invade a particular market segment. But it will, and Be will likely be crushed by the twin pincers of Microsoft and GPLed software. Which is a shame; he has a good OS to sell. He just won't be able to sell it.
--Brett Glass
Whatever. The BeOS conforms maybe 80-90% with the POSIX spec, and this will continue to improve (hopefully, r5 will have much better sockets, and mmap()). Be has always gone out of their way to make as much information as possible available to their developers. ...AND, most importantly, they don't sell hardware, which makes them leaps and bounds better than Apple or Sun, the kings of proprietary solutions.
Engineers (esp. good ones) like to get payed...
I enjoy using the Mac OS (minus the problems related to cooperative multitasking and no memory protection). But the whole design and feel of one is soothing and fun to me for some reason.
I haven't used Be, so I don't know if that experience is even greater on it (for me).
this is dumb. be has better things to do than chase apple around. when apple doesn't even reply to your polite requests for partnership, that's a hint. poking around in the guts of every new mac to make sure your os runs on one is a bad waste of time...for be. for linux, it doesn't matter, they don't have salaries to pay. how many times do the apple apologists have to hear this before they get it?
aw, look, a pissed-off Mac owner...you bought the proprietary hardware...you get what you payed way too much for (and i know _all_ about this).
the PowerPC market is a tiny, pathetic, overpriced, behind-the-times niche for one simple reason: APPLE. Be's financial interests are best served by focusing on the huge, competitive x86 market (they support AMD/Cyrix/IDT chips too!) and not bothering with Stevie-Boy's latest reality distortion.
As for LinuxPPC, IIRC, it uses code lifted from MkLinux, Apple's (now-discontinued) own flavor of Linux that ran on Mach (ick)...and I wouldn't doubt that Apple give the LinuxPPC people any hardware specs that they needed. IIRC, Apple dropped MkLinux because LinuxPPC is superior be a healthly margin...
Be has _style_...this is important to some folks.
*burp* (;
No, not really. But
>You obviously do not understand anything >regarding free software.
>A coder is providing information
and shall thus not be paid for it.
Sorry, buzz off. It is hard work. Sometimes
very hard work, requiring intense periods with
no holidays etc. I don`t belive you have ever
worked a 96hrs week to get something shipped.
You obviously do not work as a programmer. Or
do you? I work as a programmer.
1. I do not want to to support.
2. I do not want to do user-documentation
3. I want to get paid for *programming*
4. I want competent projectleaders with a connection to the market
5. I want to be able to get stocks in the
company
In short words, I want to get paid for programming, not for hunting down funding to
some free project. Who on earth would pay for the
development of, lets say, a projectmanagent-tool, if they couldn`t sell it afterwards? If software
is good enough, it won`t require that big deal
of support. Who is going to pay the programmers?
The project leaders? The UI-design ppl? Who will
guarantee the delivery to the customers?
Umm... wrong. Memory is memory. Storage is storage (normally disk these days.) Not the same thing.
Umm... please explain the concept of virtual memory to me then? How about a RAM disk?
This isn't really a flame, just to point out that you should really think these things through before you make condescending statements like this.
Linux has shitty default configurations, even on so-called user-friendly distros. A network card is assumed, backspace and delete keys don't work as expected (being tied to old curses protocols for remote logins that nobody uses on a home system), and default Window Managers have icons and menu items for apps that aren't even installed. Who the hell wants to install all these old motif and athena apps from ten years ago like xedit and xfilemanager?
To undo the damage takes MONTHS or messing with config files, even for a fairly knowledgeable user.
The solution? Get these jokers who are making distros for themselves (not for users) out of the distro business and get some people in the business with some smarts. Smarts do not consist of making things arcane and cryptic so that sysadmins have continuing job security. That's not a very intelligent approach for people who are trying to sell or distribute Linux to computer users. It may be for those whyo are trying to market to sysadmins and network administrators.
Better default configs would not dumb Linux down at all. Those who are administering large systems can get distros with default configs tailored to their needs, or change the configs themselves. That's what they are paid so well to do, isn't it?
Not to inflict suffering on home users and others who want to USE Linux.
A decent shell would also help. Bash sucks. Yes, I know that it's powerful or can be, but anyone who thinks unix shell scripting (with its over-reliance on cryptic text formatting) is anything like using a real programming language hasn't used one. I've seen a new lisp-like shell that looks promising....
Until these idiots and assholes who are now making distros get out of the business or turn over the job of configuring them to others, Linux will never break out of the nerd community. I really don't think they want it to break out. That will change, because the market will not let a few reactionaries who want to keep Linux a system for sysadmins (who are not even real programmers) block the way.
Going through the hazing of learning cryptic, arcane and otiose unix conventions has nothing to do with being intelligent. That this situation has been tolerated for so long is only a sign of cowardice among people who know better, but who may want to keep their little niches. These impediments can be removed without changing the underlying system (unix or Linix) at all. Of course, these same people say that unix is the shell and don't understand the difference. That's how smart they are.
Yes, Linux is much easier to install. I have never found it difficult to install even on a system with another os that requires non-destructive partitioning or installation from floppies. Configuration, not installation, is the issue.
Linux or any unix can be made almost idiot proof, with he right configs - and default scripts to create sensible user groups for home users for various activities, etc. Let's do it, and then world domination will be a reality.
"People like standards, and we've chosen Windows to be our standard," said Ted Johnson, executive vice president of Visio and an ACT board member. "It's a stable platform on which we all rely. It is not really a surprise to me that UNIX never really took off."
From: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9902/19/whatif.i dg/
I think an interesting thing is that no matter how much you love two things now, you might not in the future.
Experienced users know that Windows is crappy, and Linux is generally better (well, I beleave this anyways). People say let's use BeOS and Linux together, and get the best of both worlds.
Let's say, in the future, Windows is gone. Then, I bet people from either side will be taking the same pot-shots at the other OS as Linux users do towards Windows.
I'm not saying I dislike Linux or BeOS (I think they are awesome), but I think something similar will happen.
Hey who knows, just keep watching the skys
Pete
Oh come on.
$99 gets you the OS, IDE, compiler, debugger, APIs, docs and registration as a "enthusiast developer". In other words buy the OS, send them your name and you're in. Compare that to Windows NT plus Visual C++ Professional at over $750 for the pair.
If you actual read the page at the URL above you will notice that what you actually get for your $300 dollars isn't more software (although you get free major upgrades) or more tech support (although you get do get developer support as well. Try getting _anyone_ to pay attention to you at MS for $300.) but marketing and sales assistance. You get free banner ads on their home page and they actually sell your app for you via their e-commerce store. No more asking for checks, or contracting with "shareware registration brokers."
So tell me where else can you get advertising and e-commerce free? Even if you compare Be to Linux its a great deal. Try buying a copy of Red Hat and asking how many banner ads they'll run on their site for you, or how they plan to sell your product for you?
Please. $300 is a bargain and Be is most likely losing money on the deal.
- N
>> Have you ever been to BestBuy or CompUSA and
>> seen somebody ask for a machine
>> with Linux on it?
Yea. I was haggling with the sales guy over these
used monitors, and this knock-out blonde steps
up to the counter. Legs that went on for miles.
Nice smile. So of course the sales guy starts
helping her.
"Can I help you?" He purrs.
"Do you carry Red Hat? I run Debian, but I
want the boxed set as a gift for my brother."
She said.
I almost swallowed my pen.
So, yes, in fact I have been at a CompUSA when
somebody walked up. . .
and stole my heart.
Just a corollary- all too often do I hear statements implying that mastery of complex computer systems implies more intellect than the next guy. The clue density of most Slashdot commentary backs up my claim pretty nicely. :)
To me there's (in order of increased quantity and decreased speed) registers, cache, RAM, Mass storage (HD, Tape, Drum, CD-ROM, DVD, floppy, Zip, Sparq, etc), /dev/null. Users should at least kow the difference between RAM, Mass Storage and Cache. That's like knowing the difference between transmission fluid, motor oil and gasoline (if not by name, by color :-).
I certainly do agree with the point that average users don't care about the details of setting up a system. In fact the shouldn't have to. That's the one thing Windows has going for it, it's extremely to take the out of the box system set up dial up networking, desktop theme, etc.
I haven't tried BeOS but I have and do use 95 (Win 98 interface is a downgrade IMO), NT, Linux, FreeBSD and Solaris regularly. 95 as you all know is unstable, NT has the same user interface and is more stable and easy to configure many of the basics. Linux (distribution dependent) installs relativly easy, Solaris is not too bad and FreeBSD requires a little editing of config files with vi to really get things going.
Once installed, Win 95 has the problem of stability, NT is a resource hog and ocasionally needs a reboot, Linux and UNIX variants can run indefinately without a reboot.
For everyday use, the X interface lacks the consistency of MS-Windows GUIs. Window Managers are becomming better with GUIs to handle configuration but the apps much to be desired. Perhaps if there were Rapid Application Development tools like a C++Builder or Delphi like equivalent would help developers keep things consistent.
I'm writing this post on my K6-2/300 & Soyo 5EHM Super 7 combo under BeOS R4.1 right now, using the NetPositive browser. R3 also worked on this board/cpu combo. Your peripherals are what you need to be sure are on the list, as that's still fairly limited. Right now, this machine has an unsupported Guillemot MaxiGamer 64 sound card in it, and I'm trying to decide if I want to swap it with the SB AWE64 in my Linux box.
MKnepher
josefk@wenet.net
That doesn't mean closed source is evil. Besides, where are those opengl drivers for linux? You have to go to xi graphics and pay big bucks for them!
BeOS does less -- but that can be a good thing. I've noticed a lot of people under Linux using programs with more features then they ever use.
/etc/login. Then there's the daemons. Unless you often use a daemon, stick it in inetd. That way, you can still use it, and it doesn't have to be loaded at startup. I'm still not sure about some of the bootup, though. Things like why fsck takes so long to check the disks...
I feel a solution is in order. The kernel space in Linux is fast at booting, and works well. What takes the time are the user space programs. So, why not fix them? Of course, some people need the extra features.
I don't need a great huge getty, so I use a modified mingetty, which removes everything down to displaying
I think I'll have to see just how quick I can get Linux to boot by having simpler init scripts, etc.
There's still the thing about X being slow as hell, though. I'd also like the speed over network improved a bit, as to lag less etc.
First of all, didn't Intel invest in redhat? Oh no linux is intel only. And not only that, don't count on all those linux apps such as corel, oracle, etc to run on linuxppc either. There's just no market for it.
Be has more important things to do than chasing Apple around
Brett is far from being an RMS goosestepper. Brett thinks that the GPL is the most insidious, evil license ever concocted and that RMS smells.
Well, maybe not to that degree, but he doesn't like the GPL. I believe Brett prefers the BSD license.
MKnepher
josefk@wenet.net
There seems to be an abundance of fanatical-beyond-reason linux users and open-source zealots here on slashdot. I give away the source code with most of my apps, but I respects other authors rights not to.
of course the BeOS can also mix 16 tracks of cd quality audio in realtime from an ide drive and control the sound system in many Broadway shows. And play mp3's backwards. :)
ok it's $80. Still, when you add redhat+gnupro that comes to over $100 and you can get BeOS for $70. Not a bad deal.
can you play Flight Simulator on a Nintendo?
well if MS thinks Be Inc is competing with Windows it doesn't make a difference what Be Inc thinks does it? Anyway, if Be doesn't win MS wins. Are you happy?
I agree whole-heartedly. Too many slashdot kiddies lash out at the non-techie crowd for using computers as a day-to-day tool instead of using them as a substitute for a life.
So they don't know how to setup PPP and they don't want to know...so what? Well, being kiddies, they will learn (I hope!).
Please enumerate BeOS's mediocrity. Specifically, what, besides the fact that it is not Open Source(tm) blah blah blah, is bad about it?
all unices are going to be like that-not just the free ones. Now show me an open source OS that's not based on unix and I'll be impressed
You are arguing with people who don't want to hear. Yeah, right, like my mom's gonna read the source code so's she can install a word processor. I wish these guys would get real.
If Open Source has a flaw, it's with all these fanatics out there. They'll sink it yet.
A comment like this is no real surprise to me. Companies like Visio only exist for the ms platform, and that's where their money is made.
Unless if their product is so good, and then ms clones it and locks them out. Then they change their tune.
I tried for over 5 months to get my linux system up and running aND i TOTALLY GAVE UP! I first bought Caldera 1.2 and it sucked so bad that I couldn't even get more then 16 colors on pics when I used netscape. It was very ugly and I had xwindows wast set at 16 bit color. I then got redhat 5.2 and the color problem was gone but it was very unstable. When I installed apps and libraries on the the third bonus cd all my modules and my modules.conf file magically disapeared. they were still at /lib/modules/preferred but modprobe refused to look their. So I reformated my disk and lost everything and reinstalled everything including the source files and decided to compile the kernel myself. BANG > . The compiler went nuts, I tried again and again to compile and I even had a and a segmentation fault. The kernel eventually compiled with a make dep and a make modules and a make modules_install and it still didn't work. I wonder what the kerneld does if it cant find the modules. All this happened because I wanted to install gnome kde and enlightment and a fe libraries files and thats it. Boy I thought microsoft was bad about things breaking but they obviously are alot better then linux. I decided after a few months of constant compiles and installation that windows was better because I wouldn't have to do this crap anymore. I pictured myself doing installation all 8 hours a day for years on end when each new library update comes out and I also have to install all the dependences of that library or package. I got the old dos diskettes and I relized that the best os is dos. I just ran /dos/sys.com and scandisk and I relized that I didn't need to update any *.conf file or have recent libraries to run these packages but all I needed was the program. ALot of windows haters hate windows because of dependencies and dll's galore but all the alternatives are worse and more bloated. I thought linux was made to bring back the old simplistic roots and just run things reliablely. I installed windows NT server and Microsoft sql server and I huged my machine and said "where have you been for all my life" I installed microsoft office 97 and everything ran as smooth as possible with features that are years ahead of linux or be. For all you unix guys who say NT is too unstable, MY BUSSINESS WOULD BE OUT OF BUSSINESS IF NT EVER SUCKED!! I hAVE ALL NT SERVERS WITH 1500 CLIENTS WITH SQL SERVER ON EVERY MACHINE. I HAVE ONE LINUX BOX FOR SENDMAIL BECAUSE EXCHANGE IS TOO UNSTABLE BUT SQL SERVER ROCKS AND IT HAS ALL THE FEATURES OF ORACLE. ALL MY SERVERS NEVER CRAsHED IN OVER A YEAR AND A HALF. ZDNET IS FULL OF SHIT AND THEY ARE TOO ANTI MICROSOFT BECAUSE OF MS COMPETITORS CONTROLL THEIR ADVERTISEMENT AND THEY HAVE NO CREDIBILITY!IS IT WEIRD THAT REDHAT CAME ON TOP OF EVERYONE ELSE IN THAT LINUX TEST. HMMM. THAT TEST WAS PAID BY REDHAT! NT IS VERY A VERY FAST OS AND IT CAN"T BE BAD IF EVERYONE USES IT! I BET MY JOB ON NT AND I KNOW I WILL NEVER LOSE IT BECAuSE NT IS SOO STABLE! EVEN THE STOCK MARKET USES NT! THE NEW SPACE STATION USES NT AND MICROSOFT JUST OPENED A BUSSINESS WHERE YOU CAN BUY SATALITE DATA TAKEN FROM SPACE AND ANALISIED AND STORED ON NT AND SQL SERVER. ALL THE OVER SITES ON THE NET ARE UNIX BASEDD AND WILL BASH NT! GO read NT magazine.THey has some pro unix stuff as well as nt and the advertisement. HAven't you noticed that all the IT manager believe that NT can handle large loads and unix can't. THey all gree that NT mght not be as titghtly coded as unix but its darn good enough for the job. THe only thing that crahses on NT is exchange server and thats where you hear stories about nt crashes. THe oem's won't include the other os's for free because they all suck compared to windows. Customers say we want windows andthe computer companies relize that they can save money with windows because of less technical support. I can just imgane the calls from consumers wiht linux asking why the kernel now mysteriously refused ppp and vfat or uh how do I copy a file. WIndows is easier and it has features that consumers want. They don't want smp or even more advanced multiprocing or more shells. They want cute icons more features on office a more intelligent windows manager more multimedia and more regualr non technical apps. No one wants to run a server, they want to run their bussiness and use the computer as a tool for that and linux keeps geting in the way. They have to do alot of cyrptic command learn emacs jsut ro read a simple txt file. THAnk you microsoft. I am sorry I ever said your products suck. Where have you been for all my life.
Just found the cut and paste key, did you?
You guys who say Linux is BETTER AND FASTER AND SIMPLER don't understand that is because Linux is STILL IN ITS INFANCY. The Linux kernel gets more and more bloated each week as more features are added.
Don't lie and say its not true. How much more space does a current Redhat install take than the first RedHat install?
Linux is no silver bullet, it will continue to get more and more bloated JUST LIKE ANY OTHER OS as more features are added.
Also, the fact that Linux has a dispersed, disjointed style of development is a WEAKNESS not a strength like some think, especially as the size of the project grows and becomes more and more complex.
MARK MY WORDS!
Unfortunately, the destruction of commercial software, commercial markets, and job opportunities is what the GPL was designed to do. The design goals of the GPL has not changed since RMS, long ago, decided that the notion of intellectual property was Evil Incarnate. (I still recall Richard haranguing me at breakfast one morning at a convention: "Intellectual property is wrong and evil!")
Part of the way Stallman, and others, promote the GPL is to cloak it in rhetoric. Stallman cloaks it in exhortations about software being "free." (In this argument, Stallman employs a rhetorical device called "frame shifting." He adopted this device from the practitioners of a portfolio of manipulative techniques known as "Neuro-Linquistic Programming," after living with an NLP practitioner in the early 80's.)
ESR goes one step further. In his "Open Source" literature campaign, he hides the anti-business mechanisms of the GPL by carefully omitting key information about the GPL's intent and history. Then, using tactics akin to the American Republican Party's "big tent" strategy (in which moderates are "welcomed" but then deprived of any power), he claims to promote all forms of open soruce software while in fact only pushing GPLed products.
Another commonly-used rhetorical device designed to snare businesspeople into supporting an anti-business agenda is to claim that GPLed software can be "commercial." In fact, as we all know, none of the vendors who provide so-called "commercial" versions of Linux are actually selling Linux itself. They can't; they don't own it! What they are selling is disks with the code on them, and that is very different. The physical media can be said to be a commercial product, but Linux itself cannot be commercial. Neither can any other GPLed software.
--Brett Glass
Exactly. Most people doing programming now for Linux, as I understand it, are doing it on the side. Say their true love is programming, and that's all they want to do for a living, how will they make a living when they're expected to do all of their work for free? Work at McDonalds and come home to a roach infested apartment in the ghetto and program? And if the open source model makes the software so perfect, they won't be needed for tech support. And if multiple people were working on a program/project, who will be called? Who will be paid? Will they get enough money from tech support fees to keep the programmer alive? What if the programmer doesn't want to answer tech support calls (who would)?
On one hand people argue against "the man" and how evil all companies are, but then would throw the argument that they could work for one of these large "evil" companies to develop software. Right there that would cut off the conspiracy theorists and free software advocates. Then you'd have to be concerned about how many companies are there to work for (in that you would be programming specifically for Linux, and programming software that would be open source). Will they hire enough people to get everyone? If thousands of people are working for free on the side, they would probably hire less people than they would if those people didn't exist.
I'm not anti-Linux or anti-open source, but I'm trying to be realistic rather than overly optimistic.
But those terms are still too subjective. I would accept "temporary memory" and "long-term storage", or "temporary storage", and "non-volatile memory", etc. After all, it's the "stored program concept", so the program is usually in storage, right?
With GPL, the developer looses since he can't use the improvements the way he can use the org. source(which is his). So he must re-implement it anyway.
Look, if I write a program and GPL it, and other programmers contribute, their code is under the same GPL that mine is. I can certainly decide not to use the GPL in the first place -- but, as you seem to be suggesting, I am unable to impose that decision on anybody else. Is that what you mean? That the GPL (much like voodoo, trancendental meditation, chartered accountancy, or a new haircut) does not enable me to control other peoples' minds? Who cares!
I've read and re-read your post, and I'm sorry to say that I am simply unable to detect any sense in it at all.
Does anyone sell dual boot linux/windows systems? I think a lot of people out there want to at least give Linux a go, but still need to boot up windows - especially for games :-)
Dear Slashdot Anonymous End Lusers,
Where to begin?
First, the size of the RedHat distro and the amount of bloat in the kernel are completely unrelated.
You mention all this bloat that will be added in the future that will bog down the OS. I would like to know what huge features are missing, I can't think of anythng I can do under your beloved NT that I can't do under Linux (except run MS Office and blue screen...) If the distributed method of development was going to fail it would have done so by now.
Just because Mother Microdost feels compelled to create code-bloat behemoths like win2000, doesn't mean the rest of the world will follow them, lemming-like, off that cliff. Do you even know anything about Red Hat or Linux in general? Doesn't look like it to this casual observer...
finish elementary school first, then try linux again :)
> B) Testing - are of their testing tools are for 98, how are they going
> to test the linux and be machines?
Bah, you just boot off the Troubleshooter floppy.
> D) Audience - 99.99% of their buyers WANT Windows 98. Have you ever been
> to BestBuy or CompUSA and seen somebody ask for a machine with Linux on it?
Bah. Have you ever been to those places and seen anybody ask for a machine
with Windows on it?
If you want to use Gtk & Perl to do simple dialog boxes, check out the Gtk::Dialog module I'm writing.
Alistair Cunningham, ac212@cam.ac.uk
I totally want to turn off my tower and go play a few shoot-em-ups with no networking, no third-party levels, no 3D glasses or controllers, and a crummy little flickering NTSC picture. Oh, and no free demo downloads, no C&C, and no I-War. Oh yeah, sign me up for some of that!
Buying a console might not be totally stupid- if I didn't already have a PC.
A big advantage to open source, which is often forgotten about, is that the service your friends offer you can be much better. Even if you personally are clueless with computers and intend to happily remain so, you will be better off because your friends who do know something about computers will be able to do so much more to help you out.
You most certainly *can* sell GPL'd code - the license explicitly allows it, and Cygnus and Red Hat do that every day. You just can't enforce a monopoly on doing it.
You also seem to be assuming writing the code on your own dime and then selling the right to use it is the only way to make money here. I for one want to be rewarded for the work (rather than the size of the user base), so solutions like the Free Software Bazaar suit me better. I plan to sell binaries until I've made my fair share and then publish the source, at least until I have enough reputation that I don't have to write the code *before* being paid.
Reminds me of a long rant by an ex-LispM user about how disappointed they were moving to SunOS. They rattled off a big long list of things they expected to be able to do but couldn't, and the running gag was "but at least it boots faster" (and how often it had to demonstrate this)....
Most Linux vendors do own part of the information they're selling, having written it. You don't have to buy the bits from them, yet they sell them commercially. Sorry if that makes your brain explode.
Since information can be copied at basically no cost or degradation of the original, intellectual property is a competely artificial form of scarcity intended to reward production of information. I believe we need to find a better reward system, one that doesn't have to interfere with use of the information to work (and I think RMS would agree).
I don't know that the world could stand another batch of close-minded dopes running around saying that the only good things in life are free.
Well some of the best things are free but not all. Do you walk or do you drive? Last I checked, walking was free driving (a proprietary vehicle) was not. Do you buy books or do you visit friends and just talk? Do you pay for your net connection or did you build your own?
And by the way... I like all the OSes you mentioned. I just don't like these stupid comments about free source vs. proprietary. Whining about pay a few bucks a year for a definately NOT mediocre OS (stellar is the terms that come to my mind after using it and the other OSes you mention). And last I checked we need not just servers but clients. Do you really believe that the OSes you mention could compete with BeOS, MAC OS or NT as a client OS? Get real. They are no better suited as a client than BeOS is as a server. BeOS is a damn good client OS. Get over it!
Information can't be stolen - my making a copy doesn't deprive you of yours. What is stolen is the author's reward for the effort of creating it. The only justification for preventing me from (for example) giving copies of my favorite CDs to all my friends, is that our convention for compensating the performers involves restricting who may make copies of the performances. They wasn't scarce (making copies is trivial) until they were made to be so (rewarding the performer is not). Thus, for our lack of vision, most of us have to do without most of what our civilization has created, which sucks. There's gotta be a better way.
I can only afford to do that for a tiny subset of all the books and art and movies and music and software I might enjoy having. The *only* reason that's all I can get is this deprivation is currently used as incentive for some people to reward the creators. If we think of another way to do *that*, we can all have everything. (Well, other than tangible goods, which are inherently scarce unless we invent nanotech or something.)
Scarcity, while necessary at this moment, is evil.
The IP doctrine of Work for Hire disproves that. If my employer tells me to write something, I'm getting paid for the labor, not the right to use the result (the copyright belonged to them from the start).
Red Hat pays people to work on GNOME and RPM and such. I bought 5.2 for this reason, since I could have gotten the bits elsewhere and I don't need support. They're writing Free Software and we're buying the code from them. It's effectively Work for Hire for the whole community, and we don't want them to deny it to people who didn't pay up.
Those tangible goods are necessarily scarce because the time and resources fundamentally required to "copy" one are huge. This isn't true for bits; we've artificially raised the cost of copying almost all of our information simply because we don't know what else to do.
I don't want something for nothing. I want everything for everyone. I want a better way for us to pay creators, so that we don't have to tell people "you can't have this" where we could easily let them. I want an economy for information that actually works with information's strengths- one that doesn't suck.
Agreed, but "writing the code on your own dime and then selling the right to use it" is not "the only way to make money from being a developer." While my employer currently does that (we're moving towards giving away the code on the Web and selling our integration and marketing service), I don't, and neither does Red Hat or the people they hired.
As for clear title (one copyright for everything), what's the value in that? People pay Red Hat for contributing to the code, for providing the bits, and for supporting it. How is "selling code" any different than "selling copies of code," and why should they want to?
Gassee can offer it for free because he's the CEO of Be Inc.
On thing that we really have to remember is that although the DOJ winning the case against MS would definitely be a good thing, it is not the final result that we all are pushing for. What we all seem to want is freedom of choice in the computer world. We want computer products to be chosen on technical merit, not marketing power. If the DOJ winning its case does this, then great, but it would be even better if they same thing occured simply by the computer world making the choice not to bow down to MS.
Let's face it, regardless of the outcome of the trial, Windows is going to be around for awhile. Only be providing a viable alternative to Winblows will we break free of MS's dominance, and I think I am safe in saying that the DOJ can't do that.
I would love to buy BEOS. I have seen it used multiple times, and it's a beautiful os. However I was told I can't run BEOS because I have a Super Socket 7 MotherBoard.
Is this true? If so how soon will BE come out with a newer version so that it does support it?
I tend to trust something more when I can look at the pieces which comprise it, if I so choose.
- A.P.
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Posted by Wayne Steele:
Why would Be advocate another commercial OS besides their own? I think it's up to the CEO's of other operating-system companies to make the same challenge if they're so inclined.
Posted by Wayne Steele:
IMO, Gassee is doing a GoodThing(tm). Furthermore, I believe there is still a need/place for commercial OS's even though I also believe in what people are trying to accomplish with free software.
Have you ever thought hey maybe these people have used Be and found it quite hard to use after using there current operating system which allows them to fix any problems in coding as they see fit? If you haven't used it how do you know there not criticizing it for a good reason?
How I've literally explained some basic computer concepts (memory, storage, virtual memory, etc.) to complete and utter computer virgins:
Computer memory is basically how much "brain power" it has to "memorise" stuff. If If you try to do too many things at once, you start losing track of things and get confused; so does your computer, so much that it gives up in frustration when it runs out of "thinking room".
Computer speed is basically how fast it can "think". Some folks are faster and slower than others; some folks are faster at one certain thing than another. Same goes with computers; some are faster than others, with newer ones generally being faster, and some computers are better for CAD or graphics and some are better for games and some are better for "server" work.
Computer storage is basically how much room the computer has to store stuff. I usually use a family album, or a scrapbook, to show this point; in a scrapbook, you can add or remove keepsake pictures/articles/letters, organise them, rearrange them to take less space, add or remove pages or scrapbooks, switch stuff between scrapbooks, or even put locks on them. Just like in computers, you can add or remove stuff on the hard drive, save it to floppy, "organise" stuff (using directories), "rearrange" stuff (disk defragging), secure them (password protection, encryption, user permissions), etc.
Computer virtual memory is basically where it uses part of the hard drive as memory. I usually compare this to how folks take notes to remind them to do something, or how people take notes to remind them of the steps on how to do something. (Yes, folks I am teaching are often familiar with this; they take notes to learn how to do something so that they "don't break the computer" and to get any steps down. I do encourage them to do this, and to practice. :)
I've found explaining it this way gets through to most newbies, at least enough that they know what all that "megabytes/megahertz stuff" is. It might not be 100% technically accurate, but it's enough for them to get the basic idea of how things work...enough for them to learn more.
Posted by AnnoyingMouseCoward:
That's the main reason why Linux has my vote. With commercial OS's, my experience has been that the supplied documentation is
1). Out of date.
2). Inacurate.
3). Just plain wrong.
If you have the source and the documentation isn't up to standard, then you can examine the source to find out how it works. For commercial, binary only OS's, the only option is to read the binary.
So I'm sorry to say this dude, but you are just plain wrong. I'm not a kernel hacker, but having the kernel code can make all the difference to application development.
So in this sense, it's not a question of fanaticism - it's a matter of simple convenience. I'm well and truly sick of shoddy M$ documentation, and having to fork out $145 just to ring up "Microsoft technical support" ( a contradiction in terms, if ever there was one ) to find out about something that should be in the documenation but isn't.
Posted by AnnoyingMouseCoward:
Re-read my posting *jerk*. I clearly state that source code availablility is important to *application* *developers*, not *end* *users*.
Please ensure that your brain is switched on before you open your mouth, *jerk*.
In this respect, it's obvious to me that you arn't a programmer, otherwise you would know the difference. In which case - what the hell are you doing hanging out at a site devoted to programming issues?
Normally, I don't get so teed of at non-programmers, since many of them do a lot of *very* useful work by testing and documenting the code that people like me write. In your case though, I'm prepared to make an exception.
Now go back to kindergarteen and learn to read *moron*.
Posted by retroman:
;)
Well, for example that KPPP won't run at anything higher than 9600 BPS on a FreeBSD box...like mine.
Posted by Wayne Steele:
EXACTLY! I do NOT want to see computing come down to any single platform. Consumer choice and fair competition are what drive innovation. Microsoft is a perfect example of what happens when anyone gets too much of the market.
A future example might be Red Hat. Heck I already see gripes about this company getting too much of the Linux pie.
Posted by Wayne Steele:
My company started an ISP about three years ago. It was an all-NT setup and was extremely easy to get going.
However, six months into operations, we began to grow rapidly and soon found NT to be completely unscalable and extremely unstable. We had to do things like reboot systems on a regular basis just to keep essential services like DNS and RAS responding.
The final straw came when RAS refused to start one day and we attempted to remove and re-install the RAS service. When we got to the final "You must now reboot your computer for changes to take effect" dialog, the system rebooted and NEVER got past the initial blue screen.
After several wasted hours trying to restore this server to an operational state, I grabbed a Red Hat CD and never looked back. We've been 100% Linux for nearly two years and have had ZERO trouble. It was a pain to get everything working correctly, but now we have a system we can depend on.
Posted by Wayne Steele:
It takes time for an OS to get a lot of hardware support and a lot of applications. Linux had the exact same problem early in its life.
Fortunately, there were enough people brave enough to work with the system despite these shortcomings. Now Linux is a very viable alternative.
BeOS will be one as well. Just be patient.
Posted by Wayne Steele:
Isn't it amazing how two people can have completely different experiences with something?
For me, BeOS has been every bit as stable as Linux. I have a couple of flakey apps which bite the dust on an all-too-frequent basis, but the OS has never crashed on me, not even while developing code. IMO, Windows isn't even in the same league.
As for your comment about paying $400 to become a developer, that is simply false. The OS comes complete with tools, headers, sample code, and full documentation for the entire API. It is possible to write 100% BeOS-native applications from day one without spending one extra dime.
Posted by Wayne Steele:
Gassee singled-out Linux and BeOS because those are the ones Microsoft keeps pointing to as competitors.
The crux of his challenge was to show that there can be no real competition for Microsoft from ANYONE as long as all the channels are closed.
Regarding G3's (PPC 750s), i ASSUME you know why Be has not ported BeOS to it. If not, read:h tml
http://www.be.com/support/qandas/faqs/faq-0408.
Be is not the bitch of intel either, but it IS in their interest to write for highly-used platforms like x86. You dont HAVE to use intel chips either...use AMD or Cyrix if you want.
There is no demand for BeOS on Alpha...if there was large enough demand, Be would probably port to it...they dont have unlimited resources, you know...they are currently spending a great deal of time trying to support more hardware devices.
There IS hope regarding BeOS on PPC, if you visit
http://www.beforver.com/save_ppc.htm
you can check it out. However, again the demand for these other systems are not very large at all, and Be IS a corporation, and needs to maske money.
Oh well, i'm still waiting to my BeOS package to arrive...works great side by side with Linux.
Did you read NOTHING that engineer wrote? its all about resources and profit and revenue! sheesh
If they the OEM's refuse, MS could easily claim it's just because Windows is in demand, and that they are not forcing anything.
Be isn't ready for primetime, not to offend anybody but it doesn't have that many apps. It won't run on much hardware. When you raise that issue, the classical response is that Be is still at the geek level and it is pre-1.0. I agree with that, it is pre-1.0, so why then is Be trying to ride on the linux hype or even suggesting preloads? To make a buck. I don't remember ever seeing beta copies of windows preloaded.
The developers network is another prime example, after I forked over my hard earned money for the OS and the compiler (which didn't even have a debugger and didn't have a java VM like they had hinted on the website) I find out I'm expected to pay money to be treated like a real developer?!? I was a little angered by that and the response was that Be is still early in the game, it's for the 'hardcore' fans now.
Be has promise, but they have more than enough hype to go around and this is just another stunt by them to try and make some bucks. No different than anything MS would do.
My point was that you don't get anything for free as a developer. The claim was that developers got free upgrades, etc.. they don't. It's not a terrible deal but it's still a ot more than linux.
The problem with software is that it is viewed a lot like music is - you don't "own" a song when you buy a CD single - though you can sell/swap/trade cd's at will, you can't reproduce them legally.
Is this morally wrong, as RMS assumes with software? Software is a different beast, but it shared the "intangible" nature of songwriting.
Open source probably is a better way to handle things, but until the value of people's intellectual property is ably compensated under an open source lincence, it's not going to be viable for large segments of the industry.
The GPL is a good start - it ensures freedom - but it doesn't ensure an artist's right to LARGE AMOUNTS of compensation when people will pay for it - i.e. you're expected to charge a "modest" fee for redistribution of your software - not charge $15k. Furthermore, unlimited reproduction is also not a feasible assumption in today's business environment. I think that the main benefit of open source is the freedom to hack & to share IDEAS - not necessarily "free beer" - i.e. exploiting the work of others without due compensation.
-Stu
Unfortunately, the destruction of commercial software, commercial markets, and job opportunities is what the GPL was designed to do.
Not quite. The destruction of proprietary software and its market has been the design goal of the GPL from the start. This stems from the conviction that it is immoral to prevent people from understanding, improving and sharing their property.
The insight that free software has a potential to be technically superior because of the peer review process and because it attracts highly self-motivated talented programmers came much later. For RMS this is irrelevant, for others who followed him it isn't.
I agree with your point that ESR deceives businesses when he stresses the latter advantage without mentioning the original motive for the GPL. However, deceiving is what marketing is all about.
--
I don't have the know-how to fix my car if the engine breaks down either so therefore noone else should have the access to the engine. Leave it to the car makers to fix everything.
/mill
'Nobody will look under the hood when their brakes don't work'.
Although this will sound like Flame Bait, BeOS is just as bad if not worse than anything Microsoft could come up with. Ever tried it? I just got R4 in the mail a month ago, and was overly disappointed. It has many problems, more bugs than Windows (and a hell of a lot more unstable). Although it was an actually release for sale (99 dollars is its retail value), it acted like beta software. Yes, it is an alternative. Yes, it does do neat stuff. Yes, its multimedia abilities do smack the bejesus (no pun intended), but it has a lot of flaws. Want to develope for Be? 400 dollars is the going rate i belive. A friend of mine was coding a bunch of its sound system applications, guess what? All of a sudden he had to PAY to make applications being bundled with the OS, and he wouldn't get any support from the company either (ie: docs and info on the core). I don't really see the point in bundling at least BeOS, other than maybe proving a point for Microsoft, as 98/NT are more stable, reliable, and feature filled than Be. Maybe once Be stops with the insane developer fees and maybe gets a descent system out of it, sure, it'll be great to ship out... Until then its futile.
First of all, it's not bloat. It's functionality. Strip RH (or Slackware or whatever) down to the features set of the early releases and it gets much smaller. What I consider a complete winNT install takes way more space -- because it includes OS, webserver, ftp server, and VC5 (the compiler, webserver, ftpserver, mailserver, etc are all free and bundled with a typical Linux distro). And upgrades to the Linux kernel don't count as bloat if the new one's faster! :)
:)
Yes it's complex. Yes that's an issue. But M$ hasn't shown they know how to manage this any better (I don't see why they should be able to) -- I constantly fix MS idiocy on my friends' and relatives' computers as the machine completely dies or loses a modem or a HD or whatever by random chance. Ordinary users are lost on Win95 w/o a techie to coax the thing back into semi-workingness.
Yes, constant updates to Linux are an issue. So you skip the ones you don't need, i.e. I don't worry about apache updates cos I don't run apache now. The reason the updates are constant is cos the OS is _improving_ instead of stagnating. Only real nuts manage to get the absolute latest version of _everything_. BTW I think a good package manage (a la Debian, RH) makes things much easier but some still prefer compiling and installing their own tarballs.
When I first installed Slackware (many years ago) I didn't try it on my own, and I'm glad I didn't. I wouldn't want to try to figure out Linux w/o a guru available, but the distro's these days (with a few intentional exceptions) are very easy to set up and get working, eg. RH, SuSE, Caldera. I'm inclined to say the poor fellow who never got his Linux working took a poor approach to it. It's just not that hard. No it's not obvious -- so don't try it alone.
My redhat install takes 300megs. I consider that pretty tight considering how much garbage total I have on my computer
What the hell is so great about BE??
I don't get it. Yeah, it's an alternative to MS, apple, etc. but I don't see any features that make me want to "trade up" to it or anything.
would some kind soul please clue me in here!
/dev
"There's no secret. You just press the accelerator to the floor and keep turning left." -- Bill Vukovich
It's truly a challenge to Microsoft. In the DOJ trial, Microsoft has consistently listed BeOS and Linux as competitors that could take the market away from Windows (and completely ignored the other OSes you listed). Gassee was a little upset at this - see his Another Bedtime Story article from the Be newsletter. I'll bet he's doing this to show that the BeOS and Linux can't compete with Microsoft, because even for free no OEM will preload either of them. And if one does bundle the BeOS, than it's to his benefit.
Colin
Thank you for saying it. It's past time that people realize that what's good for the computer industry at large is good for all of us too.
-Perrin.
Now I want you to go in that bag and find my lightsaber. It's the one that says bad mother-fscker on it.
I for one am happy to see Be willing to give out Be for free to OEMs, if for no other reason to to increase mindshare. Be has gained alot of press lately, and I really think they have been helped out by it.
But what I am even more happy about is the hopes that this effort by be will make the respect between Be users and Linux users rock solid. What is good for Linux is good for Be. And what is good for Be, is good for Linux. It looks like this is going to go a long way towards helping people realize that. The battle is over choice, not a my OS is better then yours. I could care less what you think the best OS is, I just want the chance to choose my own.
Elwood.
Elwood
> The fact that I have access to the Linux
> source code makes no difference to me.
You are a fool if you think this. The fact that you do not personally hack the kernel does not imply that having access to it means nothing to you. If Linux weren't free software, I'd say it would be considerably less complete and (sorry Linus) considerably more buggy. And you therefore probably wouldn't be running it.
Try to think about what you're saying before you say it, people.
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
[ home ]
Are you truly so deluded that you think Apple is outside its rights in not supplying some sort of information to Be?
Be is abandoning PowerPC support for their own reasons - probably having something to do with their being invested in by Intel. Apple may not be giving them tons of specs anymore (note that they have cut all sorts of 'other' wasteful spending in the last couple of years), but all Be needs is located in the LinuxPPC and MkLinux source code.
How come LinuxPPC and MkLinux have no problems with Apple?
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
- Jeff
sigh
We've been over this before. BeOS doesn't run on G3 Macs because Apple won't cough up the specs for their motherboards. Apple has had this bug up their butt about releasing specs ever since the first Mac hit the shelves. While it's nice that LinuxPPC works, I can practically guarantee you that Apple will break it on the new G4 systems when they fiddle with the motherboard design again. Reverse-engineering is extremely time-consuming, and we just can't spare the people.
If Apple is truly interested in seeing BeOS run on their systems, they know where to find us.
We would love to see what BeOS could do on an MP Alpha system. But the fact is that such a port would require a gargantuan engineering effort, and Digital/Compaq have not made the request (so far as I know). There are only 80 of us, and it's taking all our efforts just to keep Intel and PowerPC moving forward.
At the risk of appearing like a PR flak, our resources are so limited that we have to direct them where we feel they will achieve the best returns. Right now, for better or worse, that direction is Intel-based platforms.
But that's exactly what we did do. Our customers told us, "It looks like it could be really nice, but I'm not willing to buy a new PowerPC-based machine just to try it out." Our developers told us, "Nice system, but it's hard for us to stay in business. Can you do anything to expand the potential market?" So we ported to Intel. And we made it co-exist with Windows. Thus, you can try it out at very little expense and risk.
Intel is simply an investor. They are our "masters" to the extent that any shareholder is our master. They occasionally help us out (like they did with the Pentium-III), and for that we are grateful.
I'd personally love for a modern CPU architecture to start gaining market share. I have managed to earn a living for the last 20 years avoiding the PC architecture. I came from the land of the MC68000, the ARM, and the PowerPC as well (via Amiga and 3DO). So when I joined Be and cracked open a book on the Intel Pentium for the first time just last year, I was appalled. "Only eight registers?!? A 'stack-based' FPU? No pc-relative addressing?!? What the heck is this, a 6502?"
We are fully aware of the vagaries of the Intel architecture, and all that implies. Believe me, we know. When it becomes possible for us to support a more modern architecture and stay in business, it will be a happy day for us all.
Disclaimer: I am an employee of Be, Inc.
Further Disclaimer: I am a lowly graphics device driver engineer, am not an official -- or even unofficial -- spokesperson, and my views are entirely my own, and should not be construed as the Officially Sanctioned Position of Be, Inc. I'm just foaming at the mouth here...
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
It's fast as hell.
:P
from POST to GUI in about 8-12 seconds.
the browser is lightning fast (altho lacking javascript support)
everything on it is fast as shit including it's free NAT which is faster than IpMasq on linux
Ask them these questions instead and see what happens:
Do you stability?
Do you flexibility?
Do you want affordability?
What about the questions
"Do you want usability?"
"Do you want to play games?"
"Do you want ample hardware support?"
Good on 'im, but what does this 'chalenge' say about BeOS's claim to be a 'niche' OS and not a competitor? I for one think it would be a waste for them *not* to compete as BeOS is the best client-side OS I've seen. Even with KDE, 'easy' dists, etc. I can't see Linux becoming the standard among those who aren't and have no interest in becoming even a little computer savvy. But with BeOS ont he client side and Linux/*BSD running the servers, for the first time I can see a world w/o Microsoft! And best of all, that world could be made without all this DoJ crap. If BeOS and co. Can just get one foot in the door, then *maybe* the fact that they're superior will give them the sway they need once people see what they are.
Anyway, maybe I'm just being naiive.
You know, some people use computers as tools. You and I use them as a tool, a hobby, life. But many who have far more knowlege than any of us in some other field still have need of a computer if only for word processing, net access, whatever. Most of them haven't the slightest inclination (and why should they?)to deal with setting up PPP in Linux when for them it's worth using Windows to be able to just click on 'make new connection' and be done with it. Just because someone prefers user friendliness to geek-appeal doesn't make them stupid. That's why BeOS would be great for end users (notice that I'm not talking about them adminning a netword or anything). It's stable, fast AND (let's face it) a lot easier to use than *nix.
"They've taken what already existed, improved upon it in most cases, and released it freely."
:)
Exactly! The FSF has spent the last 15 years creating the core of a free "UNIX"; forming a free foundation for later generations to build on.
In another 15 years they will be legends
.
You should'nt forget those people that actually buy a Macintosh from Apple because it HAS the MacOS preinstalled/bundled....
I did, and I'm happy with it.
It's not quite as simple as Gassee puts it; there are other costs, not the least of which is tech support. It would probably cut badly into the (already slim) margins of most of these companies to ship a variety of operating systems. A better test, I think, is whether they will ship computers with no operating system at all, and not divert one red cent from that sale to Microsoft's coffers.
/. peeve #274: The word is neither "walla" nor "whala", it's voila. Phonics is a tool of the devil.
Makes me feel a little better 'bout the whole intel thing.
Ahhh, the Amiga. The Workbench is basically an ultra stripped down single-user version of UNIX with an intergrated GUI and absolutely AWESOME hardware to back it up (for the time anyway.)
But of course people just purchased PCs instead and used DOS and were impressed when EGA came out. Sigh.
That's not what I meant.
This is off-topic as such, but...
Take a look at the source to their pages, if you're really masochistic. Aaaugh, could you make something more hideous and bloated if you tried? They serve 69 lines (2.5K) of one actual article in 55K...
Remind me never to go to zdnet again. I'm gonna go vomit repeatedly now for their sins against HTML.
I think that between motorola's G3 docs, apple's hardware technotes, diagrams, and pinouts, open firmware, and the fact that G3 isn't an entirely new computing paradigm, that Be could support it, with little cost, if they wanted to. I mean, it's not like the G3 is some crazy new CPU with all sorts of kooky features, it's just a 603 with some fast cache. And Apple's desktop G3s aren't terribly different from any of their other computers either.
That being said, I also think Jobs doesn't like Gasse.
--"In dreams begin responsibilities" - Delmore Schwartz
Ever considered that? I had a little trouble getting linux up but it runs fine for me and never does all these things. But hey, your typing style is perfect for NT and not Linux. Clickey, clickey the mouse!
Ex Machina "From the Machine"
xm@GeekMafia.dynip.com [http://GeekMafia.dynip.com/]
I'm not a computer programmer or a network administrator and I don't intend to be. My love is biochemistry and molecular biology, and that's what I'll be doing with my life. I do like computers and I like messing around with Linux, but it requires far too many hours to tweak it to the point where it's as functional as my Windows 95 partition. When that effort starts to cut into the time I could use for studying, I know Linux isn't really worth it. I'll keep playing with it because the journey is as much fun as the destination, but other people are allowed to entertain themselves in other ways.
I'm not about to let myself fail any classes just so I can spend more time on Linux to prove I have a brain. And I hope you can see the irony in doing so.
The developer does lose, because any improvements to the software after being taken "under the covers" do not make their way back to the original codebase.
Subject says it all!
Not that I would to sound presomptuous, but have you ever thought of going to school and learning how to write? Also, please note that only schoolchildren and fools think that the use of swearwords make them look stronger or more competent.
You are absolutely right in saying that tinkering with configuration, reinstallations and the like should not suck one's time.
Sadly for me, I am computer-savvy and know several non-computer-savvy people that run Windows 95. As a consequence, I'm frequently asked to repair their computers.
Windows 95 is an user-friendly OS... as long as nothing goes wrong. As soon as there is a little problem, it can drive you into pure Kafka.
For instance: Windows 95 can detect a peripheral and DEMAND that you introduce the CD-Rom for the drivers BEFORE it has detected the CD-Rom drive and has installed the drivers for it
For instance: I had to reinstall Windows 95 on my mother's computer because she had installed the driver for her printer off-site (ie without the printer connected). After we connected the printer, the system would DEMAND that we give it some weirdo file, then hung.
Repairing 95 on other people's computers can suck a significant part of my time (repairing my mother's means spending the week-end there).
I'm not the only person with such problems: a friend of mine spent half the afternoon with his father, then his father-in-law, each having trouble with this supposedly "user-friendly" OS.
Let's face it: Windows 95 is unusable by a non-computer-savvy user, as soon as there is the faintest trouble. The online help is designed for idiots (ex: you have printing problems, all it tells you is to check whether the printer is on...) - my mother, being a totally nontechnical person, has become allergic to it since it doesn't address any real problem. There are tons of undocumented things to know to repair anything.
With kpackage, install a RPM is easy. Anyway, rpm -i is far more easier than installing a MS-DOS application (remember, DOS and its brain-damaged memory setups?), and DOS used to be popular...
What I think is badly designed is default configurations. Things like:
- autofs should be used by default for Zip, CD-Rom and floppy;
- KDE should be default, using kdm for login;
- kpackage should ask for the root password when wanting to install something when non-root.
Etc...
Wow. This is simply amazing to me, he's really strapping them on. Nice to see that Linux users aren't the only passionate people around.
Where can I pick up a copy of Be? It would probably be worth it just to support their efforts.
I, for one have, a different view of this comment. I do not like it. Although BeOS is an excellent operating system, it is not in the same league as Linux. The main reason, BeOS is not Open Source nor is it free.
My question is this: Why not say Solaris, SCO, OS/2, BSD or any of the other excellent operating systems that are out on the market. They are all great systems and commercial, just like BeOS. SCO and Solaris have a non-commercial free version (Pay for media). BSD has FreeBSD. OS/2 is around the same price as BeOS.
I guess my rant is this... is BeOS making this challenge to place itself in the same media hype that Linux is in or is it truely a challenge against Microsoft?! Are they also challenging Apple to do the same?
DavonZ
"If Microsoft were to vanish, who would we hate next?"
You are right, Apple is not an OEM. Apple is also not giving users a choice of operating systems. You can't buy a Mac without the Apple System OS. I know this... I own 2. I also purchased BeOS separatley, yet I HAD to pay for MacOS when I purchased my Mac. I was not given a choice, nor could I buy the Mac without the OS.
Why should apple be excluded? This is about the users having a choice not the computer manufacturers!
"Apple is perfectly within their rights to ship their own OS on their own hardware'. Hmmm... Let's examine this statement. Dell, Compaq and Gateway make their own hardware, so they must have the right to ship whatever OS they want with their systems?! NO! I do not want to pay for an OS I do not want. Be it MacOS, Windows, OS/2 or whatever. It is MY money and I will spend it on what I want!
If you really think that MacOS is free with your Mac, guess again!
DavonZ
"Ignorance make the world go round. Ignorant People make my head spin"
> I'd really like to try Be, since they now have experimental drivers for my TNT card, but if I have to pay another $25 to buy R5, I'll just wait for R5 to buy it! I'm not going to start shelling out $25 every four months just to get improved drivers and bug fixes that should be free with a commercial OS.
As was noted above, "improved drivers and bug fixes" ARE free with BeOS, in the form of the minor releases (R4.1, etc). R5 will include significant new functionality, which will no doubt be well worth your $25.
And from what I've heard, even the experimental TNT drivers are quite stable now.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
> Even if you could buy a Linux or Be machine at Best Buy or CompUSA - who's going to tell the clueless newbies that none of the software sold at their store will run on your new machine.
Nobody will need to tell them that. Gassee was suggesting that OEMs bundle BeOS *with* Windows. The computers will therefore run all Windows software. The same thing can be done with Linux.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
> Although this will sound like Flame Bait
It sure does... I hope it's not just a troll.
>BeOS is just as bad if not worse than anything Microsoft could come up with. Ever tried it?
Yep, I use it every day, and I haven't been this impressed with an operating system since AmigaOS back in the '80s. (and yes, I have used most of the popular OS's out there)
>I just got R4 in the mail a month ago, and was overly disappointed. It has many problems, more bugs than Windows (and a hell of a lot more unstable).
Your experience is completely different from mine, then. I've seen some applications crash, but the system itself is more stable than all but a few OS's I've used. The only real problem I see is lack of apps.
>Although it was an actually release for sale (99 dollars is its retail value), it acted like beta software.
Perhaps there was a hardware problem/incompatibility with your machine. It doesn't act at all "beta" on my machine. Maybe someday you'll get a chance to try it on different hardware, and it'll work better for you then.
>Want to develop for Be? 400 dollars is the going rate i belive.
Now THIS is completely false. All you have to do to develop for be is buy the friggin' OS! The compiler is there, the include files are there, the documentation is there. It even comes with a nice IDE. If you're referring to their developer program, that's free too (at the "Enthusiast" level). Sure, you can pay if you want extra support, etc, but it's hardly required (or even IMHO the least bit necessary--since their APIs are so easy to use)
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
While reading Slashdot every day might make one think otherwise, I'd be surprised if even 1% of those who order from companies like Dell, Gateway, and Compaq request Linux, never mind the more obscure Be. Consequently, it's not in vendors' best interests to expend the money on training and hiring that preinstallation, configuration, and support of these OSs would necessitate.
:P)
While I'd love to be able to buy the latest dream machine from Dell w/Linux and Be installed and set up on it, I think a more feasable request would be to ask vendors to ship computers without any OS preinstalled and without charging the customer for the non-existent Windows software. That not only would make some of the alternative OS crowd happier, but would actually be a more direct demonstration of the relationship between OEMs and MS: if it's all good, what problem should they have selling "naked" systems? (Though I wish it weren't under the cloud of an antitrust trial.
Typo! Try this link
perl bindings
These are really good for simple apps. Sys admins will love this stuff!
You're right... however... :) )
The real problem is these people who, without the basis of knowledge, proclaim themselves patron saints of technology. (not to say that dogbert isn't qualified...
A prime example is my (former) high school computer programming teacher, who has said such remakably stupid comments as: (paraphrasing)
"Windows is what the computer uses to load the hard drive", then goes on to "teach" students the single correct way to program. If a completed example didn't follow the exact format that she expected, down to the detail of comment style, the assignment would have to be repeated.
In fact, the only way the students really interested in the computers were able to get by, was to create programs went over the teacher's head (not difficult), and watch the teacher nod, and hide any evidence of incompetence.
bleh.
"You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
Awesome!... I'd love to see people like IBM, Compaq and Dell take advantage of this!... Go Be! Go Gassee!
You are an angry angry person
Well, it seems that Apple's sales tactic is to sell the OS bundled with the PC; yes, if they so wished to could sell with LinuxPPC installed, but it's not their OS and it's not their support problem.
On the other hand, it's like demanding VAR research install Win9X on their systems when you buy from them, no?
AS
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
No. Unwillingness to do so would show that there is so little demand for a non windows pc that it wouldn't be worth their while.
Remember: only 85 people turned up to get their money back from microsoft, even though the event has worldwide publicity.
The truth hurts.
MEEPT!!
Hi, I'm an owner of a small OEM who has been making the choice available to the enduser about which OS or combo of OS's are installed on the system. When I saw the article about Gasse telling OEM's to install the OS for "free" I thought hmm, does that mean I'm supposed to buy the OS for 30 to 70 bucks and give it away with the system, That only work with Linux if you have something that doesn't cost you anything to start with. If Linux is going to be installed on the system, I actually advise endusers that they might really prefer to get a commericial distribution to get the book, cd's and extra applications included with these distributions. Most endusers agree. OEM's really can't afford to include software for no cost when they pay for the software, being that the profit marging on hardware seems to be disapearing. If you give something away for free that costs something, you have to make up the profit somehow, or be prepared to lose lots of money. /..
Anyway, I emailed Be the question, "Are they prepared to give out free copys of their OS to enable OEM's to ship Be free with the system?" If anybody is interested in this question, I'll post their response (if any) to
"
Mr. Moreen,
We're in the process of formulating the specifics of the challenge. Can you
check back later this week?
In the meantime I'm sending you a "reseller kit" containing a free BeOS and
a video for you to evaluate.
Thanks,
Dave Johnson
--------
Dave Johnson
Sales Manager, Retail Channels
Be, Inc.
http://www.be.com
>
> >Attn Jean Luise Gasse
> >
> >Ok, I'm an OEM, and Mr. Gasse wants me to have an optional install of
> Be
> >for free on my system. Exactly what price am I buying the Beos for
> these
> >machines. If I am to install Beos for free, and support the os for
> free
> >(generally assumed by endusers that this is the way to go) then will
> you
> >let me get the OS for free? BTW, Linux is already an option on my
> machines.
> >I'll either set up Linux as the sole machine or have the machine dual
> boot
> >into windows and Linux.
> >
> >Doug Moreen
> >Silicon Mountain Technologies
> >814 Priscilla Way
> >Hamilton, MT 59840
> >dogem@initco.net
> >
> >
>
"
If you follow Gasse's comments on the weekly Be Developer letter, you'll find that Gasse isn't completely turned away from the open source market. He just wants the first version to be solid and have some momentum toward his visions of an OS.
I wouldn't be surprised if BeOS went the way of Mozilla (open source, but still own sourced) shortly after the first public release.
Dell ""Dell can and does accommodate such requests [for PCs without Windows preinstalled] when doing so is worthwhile to the customer."
What kinda crap is this?
Friends don't let friends buy Compaq's. (Dell/Gateway... same same) You want a good computer? Build it yourself.