Slashdot Mirror
Blender now available for BeOS if and only if...
you are an official BeOS developer.
Ton Roosendaal, author of Blender
writes: "I've posted the first official BeOS release of
Blender today at the web. Unfortunately almost nobody can
use it because Be refuses to publish the necessary OpenGL
library for it. All official developers have that library,
but I'm not allowed to distribute it.
I finished porting to BeOS already 6 weeks ago. Several bugs were fixed in the
R4.0 OpenGL library during the porting process. Blender doesn't run at all with
the original buggy 4.0 library, so I asked permission to distribute Blender
with the fixed OpenGL lib for beta testing.
Be decided it would be better to wait for March 12, when the BeOS R4.1 would be
out.
Last tuesday I received a (not official) message 4.1 won't be out until the 3rd
week of April.
I'm not very happy with this, as you can understand."
Today's been busy so I have not had the time to contact Be.
However I know they monitor /. Perhaps they'd like to comment?
3rd week in april?!?!?
I was hoping to get my hands on the be version of
quake II and that crazy cool 3d audio mixer, and the codecs for quicktime and a speedier media kit and,etc... I guess i can forgive them this time.
Its not like they make a habit of stuff like this.
"To make a mistake is human nature, to repeat it is just fucking stupid."
My roommate and I were up late last night working with Blender. It's harder than hell to use so I went ahead and purchased the manual. We got it about a week later and it's not the best manual in the world, but you really need it to use Blender.
Anyways, it was well worth it because I took a 3D Studio Max class at the old university and I'd have to say Blender is just as impressive, with about the same difficulty to use. But it's free. If I'm not mistaken, 3D Studio Max was over 2k.
BeOS should really reconsider this decision. Blender kicks ass and if they pull shit like this, I'll stick to Linux.
Just guessing, but it might also have something to do with the fact that almost noone uses OS/2 anymore...
the top portion of the application shows a 3d field with little towers that represent your audio tracks. you can grab the tracks and move them forward on the plane or backwards or side to side to adjust fade and stuff like that. you can grab on to the towers to adjust the volume of a particular track. below this screen is the sequencer that lets you mix the tracks into differant parts of a song.
simple but. kind of neat
Be needs to keep a grip on everything, and has to adhere to their "Quality Assurance" departement. In a year, when "no legacy code" slogan doesn't go up you'll find yourself in same tar-pit as many M$ users are in now: dependancy on one vendor and one vendor alone, if they screw up, you're screwed. If they go down, you go down. But the paradigm shift has already begun. Soon programming will be like bounty hunting, the first one who gets there wins and Open Source will be the rule and not the exception! It will get really hard for companies like Be to sell an Operating System that's not that much better then the free offering. The only chance Be has IMHO is to give away the OS and try making money on the application/support side.
Interesting times we live in.
-Me
No offence to the "not everything should be Open Source" crowd, but this is just one more example of why basic system services like the operating system, graphics libraries, and the like SHOULD be Open Source.
I feel Be is one of the best OS designs I have ever witnessed, however I for one will not be sucked back into the proprietary vendor lock that closed source platforms necessitate.
Huh? So you are willing to drop Linux and make yourself dependant on an OS company just to run the same applications as in Linux? Weird :)
I don't think you understand. A developer has to wait 2 months in order to release his app that is crippled by a buggy GL library. Be won't allow him to release his app with a fixed library though. :)
That's gotta suck
What is the holdup with 4.1? Damm, that sucks, I guess they might be trying to pack in as much as possible. The BeLine said it would be out soon two weeks ago, and that would make it 2 months.
you assume i only have one computer at home. I was thinking of trying out BeOS on one of them but since in my free time I do a lot of graphical stuff, screw them. I'll just keep Linux on all my computers.
I thought it was assumed that most nerds have more than one computer.
I guess that would put you on the same level as the "low level tech support employees", huh?
First, everyone has to do something for fun, I'm sure some of the Be developers have at least checked out /. once or twice. Secondly, I really doubt Be's entire staff graduated from Ivy League colleges w/Honors, most likely those people went to IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, etc.. (people who can pay them $). Finally, grades aren't everything and are really only a superficial measure of achievment and knowledge.
:P
you would be surprised.
people like you should be done away with, along with the lawyers. just havta screw up the grading curve, did ya??!! (rat bastard ;-)
Um, they released a broken open-gl library before; they just don't want a fixed library released. And as for shipping beta products, their OS speaks for itself.
Its really funny to here everyone compare Be's refusal to release beta software to the public to Microsoft.
... etc etc
There are many very valid reasons a company wouldn't want to release components early that don't have anything to do with revenue. Perhaps the library hasn't been completely tested with elements of the previous release. Perhaps it still has known bugs. Perhaps customer support isn't ready to offer assistance for it
I give them credit for _not_ behaving like Microsoft and slapping up various untested components instead of actually shipping an upgrade.
You moron.
Marketing has nothing to do with it, and the bottom line has nothing to do with it either. How you could possibly derive that line of bullshit from what was posted is beyond all human comprehension.
Be is simply trying to maintain some coherency to their product. Instead of releasing a little bit here, a little bit there, they're preferring to release everything at once. Is that so wrong? In case you're still unable to get a clue, it's the same reason Red Hat and Debian have "official" releases - so you get everything at once. In this case, Be simply doesn't want the OpenGL libraries out there (who knows? Maybe they aren't fully tested yet).
Be isn't acting like a spoiled brat in any way, shape, or form. They're simply trying to keep everything in one package, instead of bombarding people with a library here, a program there, and a couple of new drivers whenever.
Is it so bad for things to be packaged coherently, instead of slipshod?
Yeah, R5 will be named BeOS 2000, just watch :)
Calm down little Be person :)
There is no room for this old and stupid way
of "getting money": let every line of code
written inside that company be a trade secret.
Be is doomed, and it will fail miserably.
Is it so bloody surprising that a software company wants stability in their products?
Stability and maturity are evil, and everything should be RELEASED RIGHT NOW! I DON'T CARE IF IT DOESN'T WORK, I WANT IT NOW! NOW NOW NOW!
All the world is not Open Source, friends and neighbors, and I don't think it's negative to refuse to release something you're not ready to release.
Be, (like Microsoft, Apple, etc.) says they will never open source their OS. They don't need reasons to screw their users; it's just a mindset.
the minute Be became Open Source. Not that I don't like Linux, I just like the modernity of Be.
I wonder how hard it would be to start a FreeBe project? Or perhaps GNUBe. The naming possibilities are endless!
commie pig shut up you are not welcome in america we are the best country on this earth and the smartestz peoplez
Who can blame them for NOT going open-source.
They certainly can't forge a business model from it when all they do for now is make an OS (and even that hasn't had the chance to get much midshare).
For them to go Open Source now would mean a Bankruptcy Thing.
Oh boy, are you stupid :)
If BeOS would become open source I think all the good parts will flow into Linux. Thinking about it, all good parts WILL flow to Linux even if they don't go open source, it'll just take a little longer.
-AC
WTHIWWYP? (What The Hell Is Wrong With You People)
"Maybe they don't want to release it because
it's not done yet? Ever think of that you lame
'I want it now gimme gimme!' Open Source punks?"
What the hell do you think Beta releases are for?
Do we actually need to prove that the more beta
testers you have the better? With enough eyes
all bugs are shallow? Come fucking on.
BeOS has amazing technology in it. It'd be nice
if the company that whelped it had the modern
thought process to match it.
Yes, Linux kernel development has constant
releases. But that's obviously because they're
considered beta level. How many actual releases
do we have? 1 MAJOR release every 2 years?
Sigh.
Be has such potential and they've doomed their
market to a closed corporate audience. I applied
for their developer program but was refused
because instead of lying about being in some
corporate developer, I told them the truth and
that I wanted to develop applications for it in
my spare time. Can't have any of that huh? I'd
even pay for it. Guess they don't want my money.
I'll take my free no cost to me Linux
development any day. Idiots.
Be has the right technology and seems to be
making a lot of wrong choices. I see too much
of that on a daily basis to be able to tolerate
it anymore.
--Michael 'x86DeFile' Bacarella
Death to Corporate Earth, I say.
I agree! Be is just hurting themselves in the long run by not freeing their software. Too bad!
The world could use their knowledge, and they could use the world's knowledge.
On another note, is Blender GPLed? Their page just said it was "freeware," a term denoted as "ambiguous" by RMS.
for(;;);
Tell you what. Take the comments that he responded to, substitute Linux for BeOS and Linus for Be. See how many comments you get.
:-)
Personally, not knowing what all of the interactions of the system are, I would choose to believe the best until I hear otherwise. But then, while I run Linux, I haven't been converted to Stallmanism.
Moron.
Costs nothing to be registered as a Be Developer. Just buy the OS and enjoy the benefits.
*sigh*
May I point out to you that Be's largest advantage in the OS market is that it is a designed and architectured OS. Built from the ground up by a small group of focused people.
Linux is an OS that was written (by people in their spare time) to look like an OS built 30 years ago by folsk working on what, 16K boxes? There is something to be said for design.
Not everything is Linux, and not
everything should be. Be would not
be better off if they let BeOS be
open source _by any means_. The OS
is high quality, and will only stay
that way if developed in a controlled
environment.
The last thing (most) BeOS users want
is for BeOS to become like Linux (speaking
on behalf of #BeOS and #BeDev). Open
source will only corrupt the OS.
Next, Be never announced that R4.1 would
be out today, so how can you critisize them
because they internally changed their date,
better late than bug ridden like Windows.
Be doesnt want BeOS to run on every user's
desktop, the OS is designed to handle digital
media, so those who need this sort of editing
should use the OS.
Jory L Stiefel,
jory@[nospam]epix.net
(if you have a reply, email me,
I will not check this again)
What I'm saying is, if we have to live in a world where the developer can't release the fixed library, I'm glad it's ALSO a world where Be is taking the time to release it after testing and with other dependencies built in.
Reading Slashdot != Cluefulness.
Um. Since this app exists for linux why do we care
about BEOS? I mean if they can't encourage us to run their OS then heck we'll stick with the one that works already.
Good idea Be. Don't implement GL. I think John Carmack is going to have some serious issues with this one. No QuakeArena for Be. No loss either I guess.
If I had an ounce of visual artistic skill, I would check it out. It's too bad he hasn't GPLed it yet, IMHO. The sort of people that would give him money for a "freeware" program would give him money for a "copylefted" program, plus he'd share his knowledge with the rest of the world, and let the rest of the world use their knowledge to improve blender.
I guess he could change the license and sell it. But no one in the world buys proprietary software based on the quality of that software. They just buy it because of the name behind it. Regardless of the quality of blender, if he sells it as "NaN's Blender," he'll starve. If he sells it as "Microsoft's Blender," he'll be richer than Pluto. Just the way the dollar crumbles.
But yeah, the pictures that I saw on the site were positively bitching. I hope the guy does well.
Jeez, people, if you're so gung-ho over Open Source and OpenGL for BeOS, write your own implementation and quit whining!
Nothing of the sort.
It's apparently a requirement of the licensing agreement from SGI.
Oh, I hate to burst your bubble, but OS/2 is far from dead. Despite the negative press, declining marketshare and most importantly, poor mind share, there are a lot of very intelligent people who continue to use OS/2 for very, very good reasons.
If you want an OS that is more stable than Microsoft crap, yet is still easy to use and maintain, it's just about the only choice.
(FYI, I have had Linux on the same box for nearly 3 years. I know exactly what I'm talking about).
Hey!
Os/2 makes at 25% of the rc5 keyrate where i work. That's not no one for sure.
http://mowgli.otago.ac.nz/rc5/
Can't you people get it through your thick skulls that Be would rather release software that works than do what Microsoft does and give you crap that is slow and crashes your machine constantly?
R4.1 will be out when it is ready. Right now it isn't. If you got it in the state it is now, you would complain that it sucks big time. I am under NDA, so don't expect any details - BUT it's getting better and the wait IS necessary.
I have an interest in animation and did a search in the Blender News Archives for BeOS. I found the first post "New Group!", was on 1998-10-03, the second post "BeOS supports Blender!" on 1998-10-08, and a little over 3 1/2 months later, on 1999-01-27, "BeOS ready for test!". Later on, there is a post on 1999-03-01, "BeOS Blender available March 5 or 12" and today, 1999-03-12, on Slashdot, I discover this (already completed) port has now been delayed from release by Be.
My apologies for being gross, but this is similar to spending a great deal of time on foreplay only to have the lover excuse themselves, two seconds before climax, in order to go out and buy a new bed, because the sheets are wrinkled.
If I were in Mr. Roosendaal's shoes, I would be frustrated and upset too; not to mention, 'I like to hold up to my word', but what do I know, I'm just another Anonymous Coward (-; ~@~
well, open source means many many people can edit the software, and then release it again. because of this linux is one big hairy ball. the very fact that there are innumerable releases of linux available prolly turn many newbies away. it can make it very very complicated to choose which one is the best quality, because, invaribly, there :will: be crappy distros, and excellent distros. i am not saying this to offend linux users, (i am one myself) i am saying this because it is true. with only one distro, be stays neat and tidy, and with the way it is going, it looks like it is also high in quality!
ps, just because be changed a date, (an unofficial one) doesnt mean people should start fucking having flame wars all over the place, just because they want it NOW!! patience usually pays off!!
Is that one computer or one computer connected to the resnet? Arizona.edu also limits students to one computer on the resnet. It sounds like you need some IP Masquerading... :)
>It's not like Linus would have allowed some >developer to stick parts of 2.1 into the 2.0 >kernel and ship it because they just had to ship >today, not in a few weeks.
Ssshhh...hello...ssshhh...come in Dave...ssshhh...you are not making sense, over...ssshhh...
I wonder how Linus would stop this and then I wonder why. It's open, silly man. You are allowed to do what you like with it as long as it stays open. Now wether you can call it Linux is another story, but neither here nor there.
I can see why Be would want control (stability/support) and I see why Blender-man would bitch ("their holding me up, man"). It would be a bad thing to make too many developers bitch too much, but that goes without saying.
:/
screw Be and the horse they rode in on
> screw Be and the horse they rode in on
you do that, mate. i'll take Be and you can have the horse tonight.
so set your one machine up as a bridge and get another one, dildo. and you call yourself a nerd!
unfortunately Mesa is highly lacking in support for 3D cards - 3Dfx cards don't count cuz the image quality is such ass. Mesa might be ok in the future if more (recent) cards are supported. But even in that case, it ain't gonna compare to Be's Katmai optimized ogl pipeline.
Um, when did all the posters decide that slinging insults was a good thing?
My opinion - shipping your product with early, incompetely tested libraries is not a good idea. I understand how frustrating it must be, but doing so opens a large can of worms.
I'd like someone to explain how Open Source is an answer to this problem, since I can't think of one. (Only honest, intelligent answers need apply.)
I feel sorry for Be right now - they've have a developer that they'd love to spotlight, who turns what should have been handled in a couple of emails into a public laundry wash. The guy might be an excellent coder, but hasn't he screwed himself over here? Is this a case of not counting to ten before sending that angry email?
Show me an example.
Where exactly has open source software advanced past software of the commercial sector?
What groundbreaking new technologies are being developed open source?
Aside from stablility, which is what _everyone_ always falls back on to "prove" OSS's superiority, I dare you to give me examples.
According to support line reps at Be, the release date for Beos r4.1 will be most likely mid april.
(from the FAQ)
Q: Will Be ever make the BeOS "open source" (that is, release the source code publicly)? Everybody else is doing it...
Be already makes publicly available a great deal of source code to the BeOS, for the purposes of documentation, instruction, sample code, etc.
Indeed, we fully intend to release as much source code as makes sense, to make it easier for other, outside developers to write applications, drivers, add-ons, and other software for the BeOS. We find that releasing good example code "jumpstarts" development in that area, which obviously we think is a good thing.
We do not, however, have any plans to release the source code to the core operating system. Open source has its place, and can be extremely valuable for some kinds and niches of software (it's done amazing things for Linux), but for a variety of reasons we believe it is more advantageous for the BeOS to remain proprietary at this time.
Mesa runs on the BeOS already.
Hey there you little Richard Stallman monkey boy! The fact is that Be is doing awsome, and is not doomed in anyway, shape, or form. I wish idoits like you would get it though your head that open source is not the anwser for everyone. I'm sure that Be will keep it's source closed and will still kick some major ass in the multimedia area. Now I'll leave you be so you can finish up your Richard Stallman fan club news letter. bye bye!
NONONONONO! That's not how open source works!
You let others write the software for you,
and then tell everybody how great open source is.
Look around you. Look around again. Work in a company for a while. Understand how a business works. Look
around you again.
Tell me how many people are making money off open
source software.
Open source only works if you can make money off of
something else than the actual application itself, e.g.
by making it so damn hard to use that you can sell
people support, or by making it so damn big that most
people prefer buying a CD instead of downloading it.
A small, easy to use application will never be a
commercial success when GPLd.
GNUBe for the GNUbies
:)
AndyM
Umm,
- The internet was created by the government.
- BIND, DNS were developed privately by Berkeley.
- Sendmail was developed by one guy, who decided to release under Berkeley Software Distribution License. The hordes of glorious hackers everyone is always talking about had nothing to do with it. Note the (tm) next to the sendmail name, and the recent proprietary versions.
- gcc broke no new ground other than the fact that it was released open source.
I believe what you are referring to is the publishing of protocols, not source.
The challenge still stands.
They switched because Metroworks is a shitty compiler, and because all the developers were asking to drop it and go to either gcc or egcs.
:The internet was created by the government.
:to release under Berkeley Software Distribution :License. The hordes of glorious hackers everyone :is always talking about had nothing to do with :it. Note the (tm) next to the sendmail name, and :the recent proprietary versions.
They started the iniative for ARPAnet, but they have not "created" internet, not much code for internet come out of DoD, neighter constructed they the hardware. almost all work was done openly at the universitys, Stanford, Berkeley.
:- BIND, DNS were developed privately by Berkeley.
Yes, they were developed by sientists/researchers
at berkeley. But they are Open Source/Free Software and have always been.
:- Sendmail was developed by one guy, who decided
Sendmail have been Open Source/Free Software from
the begining, and its still today. It does not exists any propitary versions of sendmail. If you are refering to Sendmail Pro, that is a commersial
bundle of sendmail with GUI configuration tools thats propitary/closed.
Hey! That's MY line! :)
(But they ARE funny when they get excited, aren't they?)
How enlightening that the real task of the Open Source movement is seen by so many as one of destruction. Where, now, is the idealistic technological purism that used to be so prevalent in the movement? The more the Open Source banner is carried by people like you, who crave destruction of what they despise rather than elevation of what they love, the sadder I get.
What a terrible, terrible post. Suggesting that you should learn from us, take from what we've created, and then use it to destroy us. Listen to what you're saying! You should be ashamed of yourself. All we've done is tried to create something new and better, and every time we get the slightest bit of press on Slashdot, we're crucified for not giving our years of effort away for free. We've created a product with (we think, we hope) real value, and we want to sell it to people who want it. What a horrible crime.
And how DARE you make the suggestion (even in jest) that we should be _arrested_ for "drawing attention" away from open source software? Do you have any idea what you're saying?
I really don't understand people like you, "smoke", and I don't think I ever will. Thanks for the respect.
George Hoffman
Be Inc.
If you bothered to read the page that you mentioned, you would notice that the first sentence says:
"GLX provides the glue connecting OpenGL® and the X Window SystemTM and is required by any OpenGL implementation using X"
That and it was bloody expensive for an OS that costs $50.
George:
Technological criteria are certainly an important factor for most people in the Open Source movement, as you well know. They are not the only criteria.
Be has produced a remarkable OS. But it is also duty-bound by its legal form to maximize shareholder profit. This means that what is best for the customer must take second place to what is best for the shareholder, where the two conflict. I speak here as someone who was burned by Be and its geek-ported SMP boxes.
Your comment that all you wish to do is sell the product of your work to those who desire it does not distinguish you from any company. We are not accustomed to seeing companies saying "We think we have produced something of no value whatever, and we wish to pawn it off on as many unsuspecting sucker as we can. What a horrible crime."
Fundamentally, the ideology of free software is opposed to your efforts. Even the so-called "soft" free software proponents will insist on freedom for essential system components, of which the OS is surely one.
I do understand people like you, George. If you haven't looked at the essays on fsf.org, then maybe you won't ever understand free software. JLG, if I recall, was one of the key Apple people who argued against licensing the MacOS and probably kept Apple from being more then a niche player, so I suppose the mindset of greed is built into your corporate culture. But other people have worked just as hard as you, with goals just as lofty, for many more years, and shared their work with the world. If you don't want to do that, fine. But let's not here any more pontificating from you about the "respect" you deserve. You've got that already.
Moebius
Obviously, you're not talking about using preview.
Hmmm... I'm an official Be developer and I haven't recieved any OpenGL libs. I for one don't expect Be to release anything until they're good and ready. They have their reasons, I'm sure, and I don't suspect some conspiracy. Why should you, the great and wonderful Blender developer, be treated any differently from anyone else? Are you losing money because of this delay? No. If you don't think the Be team is worthy of trust, take your toys and go home!
I don't understand the venomous outpouring I've seen here against Be. What are you slashdotters afraid of? Not every company is like M$ or Apple, you know. Just because they want to sell the product of their labors for money, does that make them evil? How the f**k is Be supposed to make a living if they give away the product? Somebody present a viable business plan for Be if they do so - I haven't seen anything concrete here beyond vague assertions that 'open source is profitable'. _Exactly_ how would that work?
Wake up! Mesa supports 3dfx out of the box.. But it also supports Glint Delta/MX and Permedia 2 with patches under Linux. If you are willing to run mesa under windows it supports Savage 3d and a few other cards.
G200 support should only be a few months away too.
SO..... What does Be's OGL support?
Man, I'm a nerd and I only have 1 computer... if only because I have no money :-).... all my money goes for cigarettes and 40's. MMMmmm... ghetto beer......
much as they try, the people at be still have the
macintosh mindset. bunch of losers. that is why
stopped developing for them.
First off, all the core Linux developers *HAVE* met face to face. Have you met Bill Gates, or have you even ever seen the people who made win95? How about Be? Well I've sat in a room and spent hours talking with Donald Becker, Alan Cox, and others. OSS people *DO* meet and get more feedback from their users then any other development method.
Secondly, you can make money off free software. You can still sell it even if it's free to share. You can sell support and enhancements. Propritary software vendors frequently dont provide very good support, as they are too busy filling their wallets with money made from our freedom.
Why would you close the kernel source but open the UI? That is so silly. Go away dinosaur! go away! We need be tied by your chains no longer! Be gone!
Have their reasons
When they are ready
trust them.
HA!
Voodoo 2
It's a great program... however, it's not "one guy" doing it and deciding not to release the source code. It's the in-house rendering software for an animation studio in the Netherlands (I think.) I forget which studio, but go to http://www.blender.nl and they have a link to the studio's page. Some of the shit they have there is BAD ASS.
Not end users -- the argument you present is only valid if the people NaN want to distribute to are end users -- beta testers wouldn't be surprised if they needed a new library from a later release.
It has been the case before that some new software in the alpha or beta phase has required a patch on Linux 2.0, but not on Linux 2.1/2.2 since the required functionality was implemented in 2.1.
(someone else can name names -- but fs drivers are a case in point)
Also, anybody is free to stick anything they like into a Linux kernel and distribute it -- they have to put the modifications under the GPL and indicate that they have modified the kernel from the original.
Allow me to make some comments: It's not like Linux is much better. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Linux 2.2 kernel have even more problems getting released than R4.1? And what would open source do for Be? We all know that Linux would simply copy and paste Be technology. The BeOS would die. Someone ought to hold a poll for Linux users: If Be went open source, would you switch?
Well no shit Sherlock, of course we will copy from Be, we already do. That's the whole nature of software development. Or do you seriously think Be just thought up all that neat stuff all by themself? No, they "stole" from NeXTStep, they "stole" from AmigaOS, hell they even stole for real from Linux (but they corrected that :). So get over it. Why do you think all modern OSes still has a /dev subtree? Because it works silly!
Well said.
We live on internet time. One month is a LONG time. IF it really comes out in one month.
I sure would like to see one! It looks like a Great App!
I hope so. If we can provide the Blender folks with a LinuxPPC account somewehere I'm sure it will be a no-brainers (i.e. configure;make)
Be WOULD NOT DO LIKE MS if they could. Gassee left
Apple because he wanted better technology and less
consumer-orientation and marketing, so the longer Be takes for R 4.1 the better it is going to be
Linux sucks, it's for geeky fools that have no life other than programming. BeOS is real operating system, with the same looks on every machine instead of a 1000 window managers which are all no more that halfway-finished desktops (KDE included!) Until Linux setup is like BeOS/MacOS/Windows -setup you poor linux geeks shouldn't loose a word about BeOS
What is "internet time"?
Don't be a goof! Take your buzzwords and shove them up your ass.
You should ask your mother to teach you about patience...
Well, yeah, that was kinda my point :-)
Yeah, that's why the guys at Debian are rich beyond belief, and Microsoft, Sun, Apple, etc. are broke. Wait, that's not right...
Try writing some software and CHARGING for it. Use the money to buy yourself a clue.
Asshole.
Also, find a company who has actually written it's own code, opened all of it's source, and made a profit.
"Have their reasons
When they are ready
trust them.
HA!"
You my friend, do not have that beauty.
Whhhaaattt aaarrrreeeee yyyyyyyoooouuuuuu ttttrrrrrryyyyyyiiinnngggg ttttttooooo sssssasaaaayyyy ttttttoooooo uuuuuussssss???????
While I like RMS ideas you appear to be a
real Billy-G lover. Be wants to take over
M$ using the same tactics: closed source APIS.
Just idiots can see this as a good thing.
Bye.
Be doesn't *want* to compete with Linux. I mean, how many media gurus do you know who pull 4 streams of video through a box running 2.2 ? While the BeOS may not be doing that yet either, it has the potential, and is aimed at the guys who want to, and as such, the necessary things for that are already quite a way into development.
How many Avid or Harmony Gold wannabes are developing for Linux ?
Well where I get my wawa.
I won't ever. I love the API, the speed, the responsivness, being able to give to to my geekless friend and have them install the BeOS in 15 minutes, I love the entire OS. As far as going bancrupt, I don't think so, my self and many others would invest in Be the minute they went public. We may not be rich but we're not poor either.
Hell the last thing I want to see is 1000's of flavors of BeOS.
DOS rc5des is faster. In fact don't run rc5des when you run a multi task OS :)
Did someone urinate in your testtube? The connection that you tried to make between IBM-->Microsuck--> to Be is so far fetched, that every reader of this forum would have to smoke the same $3 Crack that you did, for it to make any sense! Let's face it, Be is well know for releasing good, WORKING, software. It does what it says. They did not "halfway" support everypiece of hardware when BeOS was young (unlike Microsuck), but they have added support over time. You can't short a software developer for wanting to release perfect software. You just can't! The reason Micfosoft is pushing back releases of Winhoze 2000 is because the 40 Million++ lines of code won't even compile!!!
Give Be a break. At least Blender has been ported and we will have a great OpenGL library. If Be were saying, "Sure you can have it now, but you must pay a $400 license fee, first!", then we could be pissed!
Eric Fretz
Yes, that's the only thing this thread was missing. BeOS is proprietary closed crap, it will be obsolete in a year.
QNX/AmigaOS, now there's a cool thing!
Look how hard it is to find all the libs
for installing simple programs on linux
nowadays. Thanks to Open Source everyone can
and does make their own standards which makes
the end user have to hunt for endless years to
install a simple window manager. Thank GOD Be doesn't do this. It'd destroy the entire OS.
Are you by any chance a Buzzword Enabled OS user?
Marketing still works.
Wait, have you actually tried doing that on 2.2?
I have right now 8 Movies streaming ony my Matrox G200 X server and it feels like nothings running. Please don't gloat over all the BeOS demo's, they're just that. You can very well demo Linux by playing 8 movies or whatever.
(incidentally those 8 movies are Animation1 through 4 , twice, as found on the BeOS CD. Woohoo, that means Linux is a MediaOS!!!)
wake up..
Oh, so you're pirating copies of BeOS for your friends and will invest in them once they go public? Dumbass!
Be has about $250 million to earn back, I don't see that happening anytime soon
IBM also makes computers which has PowerPC CPU. And there is some Amiga computers with PowerPC upgrades. If you can get users testing binaries, just cross compile on a Linux/ix86 machine. See URL: http://members.home.com/mmporter/cross.html .
No it doesn't solve the problem short term of not having a machine to debug on..on the other hand something to show off to potential hardware doner..my workplace is installing OpenBSD and Linux on several platforms and is looking at Blender support and services for several PPC machines, one used to run NT, one used to run AIX, some has Mac OS installed. It might not work due to the big-endian architecture, but if it links without error..
Blender!!
for one, really love the BeOS API, speed, stability, design, etc. In fact I love almost every aspect of BeOS. I have inally found enough time to explore the wonders of developing on R4 for Intel, and needless to say, I LOVE
:)
it--lots. I'm not the world's best der, but I have finally found an OS that I can make stuff for. Where else can you send an email from a C++ program in 3 lines? Where else can you play a sound of any format or codec in
about 7 or 8 lines?
Grock, why even program for an OS that tries to do everything for you? Be has a very high level API that's great for "not the worlds best programmer" as you put it, but that means your tying yourself even more to a proprietary API!! Lets see your C++ program that sends email with 3 lines code hold up in a multiplatform enviroment.
And I think you can play sound of any type in about 1 line of code: just write a program that accepts "play this_file.bla" as its input
and let the libs to the tinkering and playing
Well, Ill drop Linux for an OS thatñs better than linux that is suited for mulimedia apps as Blender. And ist Name is BeOS, either you like it or not!!
On the other hand I'll keep Linux for hacking and doing serverstuff.
It is not that hard to understand, so Understand!!!!!
Agree!!!
I Agree!!!
I ask my sefl to many times this same thing.Is it so hard to understand!!!!
I mean the Linux community should fear embarrased by these people.
MAN!!
You obviously are missing the
beauty of this haiku...
But if you want to test the libraries, you are a developer my friend.
And even thoiugh programming in BeOs is great, the goal is fo costumers. An aspect that is very away from what Linux is, a developers OS!!.
And if you need the libraries, then there is nondoubt you are the one who is beta testing BeOs R4.1
Thats because you guys see a super performing, stable, modern, ultra-fast operating system And you feel attacked. You see BeOS getting attention and you whimmp. YOu see anything that is not Linux ruuning the fastest and you want to slow it down.
I see envy here!!!
Understand!!
the OpenGL library will be released free, in a free Update that is called 4.1.
BeOS does not release it because it will just confuse users.And Users will still have it in their free Update.
Understand, And take Envy somplace else.
Hmmm... maybe they don't want to release the libs because they don't work so well with 4.0. They are making other performance related enhancements to the app server; maybe the 4.1 openGL libs are dependent on these.
Another possibility: they want to QA the 4.1 release as a unit; not feature A testing with 4.0, then feature A testing with 4.1, feature B testing with 4.0 then feature B testing with 4.1, etc, etc. If the features are interdependent (that is, adding feature A might break feature B), then you also have to test the different combinations: feature A alone in 4.0, feature B alone in 4.0, feature A and B together in 4.0. 10 features that are interdependent yeilds 2^10 possible combinations.
Another possiblity: they see people having too much fun with BeOS, getting accelerated video, etc, and they decide to put a stop to it before it gets out of hand.
>Be, unlike yourself, understands the basic economics behind the
>concept of a LOSS-LEADER
explain it to me. I'm interested, but I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.
Actually, the latest Metrowerks compiler performs much
better than the old one, much better in fact that gcc,
egcs and most of its commercial competitors.
So there...
YET to restrict access to a library that has no bearing on your ability to make a profit on your product PARTICULARLY when
you (you = Be Inc btw) are willing to GIVE AWAY your OS as a loss-leader...
You should perhaps take a look at blender, and particularly at the current BeOS port before claiming
how wrong it is to not allow distribution of the openGL
library. The author claims to have finished the port six
weeks ago, yet it still sucks:
- it continually sucks CPU, even when doing nothing.
- all the default file-paths are wrong
- the interface is nearly unusable
- it crashes for no apparent reason
It is more than understandable that Be does not want to
give the current BETA release of the OpenGL libraries
away for bundling with this product: the library is
still in beta, and the product sucks.
PS. Redhat is just selling code that others wrote.
PPS. BeOS is so easy to use, it's close to impossible
to sell service contracts for it.
I am not an A C , but couldn't be bothered to fill in YET another form.
Judging by the state of B3 just now, BE should be OK for April, but there are some really radical things going on in there.
Just how much , is astonishing.
Believe me it's worth waiting for , but let's make sure they get it absolutely right this time.
Please be patient you guys,- calm down.
R4.1 is good, and very stable just wait until you see what's due for R5
You crazy
You obviously don't understand the first thing about it + the modern television and radio Industry
They had Amiga once, now they're on dusty shelves
Now they're throwing away they're macs and buying NT
Beos is a worthy substitute very very soon
The GNU Manifesto advocates parasitically sucking dry those people who produce great software because they love doing it, and giving less than what it is worth in return, all through the control of the government. This is, to me, ethically reprehensible, and I have extreme problems getting into a mindset in which I can consider it as anything but.
Don't talk to me about my "corporate mindset of greed". First of all, what JLG did or did not do is irrelevant to my own opinions, and I do not speak for Be, but for myself. Secondly, it is not "greed" to desire fair compensation for one's services. I do not wish to give away we've created for free, and make a living from "support and services". The minute I do that, I might as well not be writing software, but instead be manning customer support phones, because that's where the real value is, according to the free software movement.
And I never claimed my goals were "lofty" at all. I'm just producing a product I beleive is useful. I'll leave it to RJS to give away everything in the name of "lofty goals" and so achieve Godhood among the free software faithful (motivated by spiritual "greed", perhaps?). All I'm trying to do is make a living.
I'm curious... how do you think it would have been in anyone's best interests to continue to produce the BeBox? We were selling them at slightly under cost. If we had kept at it fro another year, we would have gone bankrupt. Would you be happier then? Would that be in the best interest of our customers, who paid for their BeBoxes expecting a continually evolving OS to run on it?
Finally, my comment about respect (as well as most of my other comments) was directed towards the poster, "smoke", not towards you or the rest of the movement.
George Hoffman
Be is an Intel slut, more like pitty.
what are you talking about bud?
AmigaOS is not going to play a roll in video editing as it once did. It's going to be oriented at the destkop.
Around 30 major audio companies have said they would develop for BEOS. These are the companies that create the foundation for digital audio. Logic, EMAGIC, Seer Systems, Steinburg, to name a few. Professionals run these, and they dedicate computers and hardware to do so. It doesn't take much to see that BE is going to stay for awhile. The most influential audio companies see it. It doesn't matter if it isn't open source, if it isn't as good as linux, or if geeks don't like it. The world of OS's sadly, isn't about what is the best, cheepest, fastest. The world of OS's just like much of the modern world is about the dollar.
Well, when reading comments like this i just can only say the same thing over and over again: He who can read is fortunate. Please go back to the notice starting this discussion and read it again, if youre able to.
BETA Testers of R4.1 have the needed libGl.so to run blender for BeOS. But this is a closed group of about 100 people worldwide, so not much an audience for blender. Yet.
The whole talk is about distributing this BETA library to ALL users. And if i were a company shipping a product, and a developer came asking to me if he could distribute a part of a beta-version of an upcoming release to the public, i would refuse also. Of course all OpenSource-Freakazoids out there mention, that this would not be the case if it was OpenSource. Well, probably not, because then one could just grab the lib, distribute it to all users out there and possibly break some configurations with it.
A BETA test is for testing, not distributing, but in todays times with open beta tests from Microsoft or Netscape which just freely put out their sometimes crappy stuff, nobody recognizes this anymore. So if youre a part of a closed beta group, you have to respect the rules going on with this beta test, and dont have to whine about in the public.
It's bad to have to rely on a single commercial company for your OS needs. BeOS is a good thing the day it doesn't depend on shareholders and
VC's directly. We are moving towards open standards. I don't see Be contributing to that by introducing yet another proprietary API interface.
Oops, if you look at how many of those 30 companies actually have a shipping product (on any OS) you would see the number drop to the low tens I think. I really don't hope Be pushed itself in the audio niche cause Mac, Windows and even Linux boxen can do just as well in the pro-audio business.
QC? Isn't that where you give your users a development version and let them tell you what's wrong with it?
The X API is more like assembly language for programs that need graphical output. You can create just about anything on top of that and it's quite extendable. And yes, it *is* a standard. I can run my X apps on just about anything that can display pixels.
yes, except when you need to get something done.
Yeah, you're right... They just suck, and they're just doing all of this so they can prove to everyone how much they suck, so they can go out of business and we're all stuck with using Microsoft based products. Yeah, that's exactly what they're trying to do. And, next, you'll be telling us that the little green men who live in the president's head are here to steal all of earth's cheese.
i did not understand your comment about posix;
however, (probably) know more about it than BeOS,
linux, and the rest of this discussion.
care to explain?
Lest we not forget about the lowly Amiga. There is a platform that has literally been out of production for years, with no company officially supporting it, and it still has a strong (and fanatical) user base, and one of the larger software sites on the net.
That was an OS that was not only closed, but to upgrade your version, you had to pull the computer apart to replace ROM chips, and also replace OS software. So, don't say that just because a company has a closed system, the software community is tied to the wellbeing of the company.
You said:
> I write free, GPLed software. I get paychecks. Next argument?
Are your paychecks a *direct* consequence (sp?) of your "free, GPLed" software? If yes, how many people can do that?
You said:
> Ok, you tell me then why Red Hat is making so much money selling boxed sets of their products to a crowd largely not dependent on either printed manuals or technical support. Tell me how Red Hat Linux is available in more places in this city than Microsoft Windows. I'd love to hear your reasons for that, considering you pretty much lost your own argument with the tip to convenience.
How many Red Hat's are there in the world? How many company can pull off what RH is doing? Sad but true, until things change drastically, RH (and Caldera and...) is an exception.
Open Source is Good (TM) and contrary to what this Muth fellow from M$ has said, people working for free in their spare time *can* produce software of great quality. Linux, FreeBSD (and the other BSDs), et al. are proof of that.
BUT -- OSS is not always available as an option to make a living. And, even more sad, there are some categories of software that the OSS movement has not produced because it is not "cool". OSes are cool. Graphics libraries are "cool". But OA software, what your average Suzie Secretary and your average office worker is able to use, is not.
But with a paycheck at the end of the week and all other benefits a full-time job in a commercial software company can offer, this is how those "proprietary" software houses can get the Boring Stuff Out There.
Not all commercial software houses are evil like M$. Sometimes they can produce some really usefull stuff and (gasp!) act reasonably.
OSS has its place. "Closed" Commercial Software too. Let's not be phillistines and ignorant pigs and let's admit that both can co-exist.
It pains me to see the "no software can be closed, absolutely all software must be open" + "everything that is not Linux sucks" crowd display so much closed-mindedness. Aren't we supposed to promote freedom and diversity?
30, 10, they are still *the* most influentual companies. They are not developing for linux, which is a shame. Be is going to be a good audio platform that is going to be around a while.
I called IBM to ask if they would consider donating hardware for a port of Blender to LinuxPPC. Nope.
I called Apple. Nada.
I tried sending e-mail to some people working for Motorola. NT only software is what he says.....
I don't know. Hmm..why not IBM?
Maybe you can sell some R6000 machines..Deep Blue?
I bet they are nice for multimedia..Blender could sell hardware!
Why do you think all modern OSes still has a /dev subtree? Because it works silly!
/dev is a filesystem, not a bunch of "special" files. I'm actually thrilled to hear that someone has a devfs working with Linux and that it might end up as a part of the system someday. If I never have to mknod again I won't regret it :-)
... perhaps I'm out of touch and this is already happening. If so, good deal.
Ah, but our
It'd be cool to see the Linux community investigate "going beyond" some of the older unixisms and doing things in a new way
-- Brian Swetland <swetland@be.com>
That will have to be one hell of a large box of stationary ;). As far as I know there are at least 30000 BeOS users out there...
I think the logic, "X is a commercial/closed-source system, ergo using X entails lock-in" is faulty. Nor is it the case that all commercial vendors will try to force lock-in. As long as you, the client, insist on using only published, documented APIs/languages/data formats, or a non-proprietary layer, you will escape lock-in. Sticking to open standards is something we're getting better at as an industry, as we understand the implications more fully.
Some customers, however, will always take the lazy route - to them I say, good luck.
What meaning the word "naive" have for you?
Just a fool believes that a commercially-oriented
company is likely to make all its apis *not*
hidden...
What most of you seem to be forgetting is that this stuff _is_ available right now if you are an official BeOS developer. Now I'm not certain what the process is right now, but I know that when I first signed up to be a BeOS developer all I had to do was fill out an online form and then I was in. In other words, the people who want/need stuff like early access to new software should sign up to be a BeOS developer. Otherwise wait until the product is released. Be isn't out to screw anyone, they just understand that for most operating systems there's a difference between developers and users (a difference that Linux rips down every day). It doesn't serve the users for Be to release updates for their OS day-to-day, however it does help the developers. And this is why Be lets the registered developers have access to this stuff! If you guys _really_ want this then sign up to be a Be developer. If you don't need it right now, then wait for the release. If you just want to complain, then keep doing it. Just at least realize that there are logical reasons for this stuff.
And I quote:
"Unfortunately almost nobody can use it because Be refuses to publish the necessary OpenGL library for it. All official developers have that library, but I'm not allowed to distribute it."
There are a lot of lame posts on this topic
so it was hard to pick. Hey, guess what? Nobody gives a rats ass that you don't care.
I saw something like that at NAMM, but neglected to find out what it was. What is it?
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
It does suck that you can't distribute more up to date libraries, but I'm glad Be decided to hold off doing it themselves. Just like with the Linux kernel I'd rather they take their time and do it right than rush to market.
Posted by The Apocalyptic Lawnmower:
Cool. Huh huh. He said smart.
Posted by Biokernel:
AMEN. Linux rules, and Be will never be able to compete with Linux.
Posted by Anhydrous Cowboy:
Cheap and strong like ten cent perfume! Get the hell out of my face with your football-sponsoring yeasty liquid! Malt liquor: the people's choice!
Posted by AnnoyingMouseCoward:
I won't. In the 1980's, IncontinentBowelMovement was the evil empire. In the 1990's, it's MightGoSoft. What's the bet that in the 2000's, it will be ( someone like ) Be?
How quickly they forget. When will you learn, "propriatory = customer lockin". Forget propriatory systems. Like fashion ( read : Intellectual Fascism ) they come and go so fast they arn't worth paying attention to. ( Oh yeah, on that point, his Billness has already been making rumbeling noises that MighGoSoft has a 64-bit OS in the works, so kiss good-by to all your Win32 API's Microserf lusers...).
#define EXTREME_IRONY
I mean, after all, "Apple MacIntosh is the OS of the 1990's", right? Everybody knows that Apple MacIntosh dominated the desktop all through the 1990's by virtue of it's superior desktop, right?
#undef EXTREME_IRONY
C'mon dude! Be isn't doing this for our benifit. They just want to rule the world ( the may MightGoSoft does now ). Why waste your time on them unless you *absolutly* *have* *too*?
If your doing multi-media productions, then I could understand that you might have to give Be some rope ( since their multi-media systems are, by all accounts, pretty good ). Otherwise dude, give them a miss.
Linux, not only the choice of a GNU generation, but an OS that will still be around when I move into the old folks home ( in about 25 years from now...).
Posted by Stephen van Egmond:
I don't believe this guy.
First, let's start with where you're factually wrong:
1. Not all official developers have the 4.1 *beta* release. A hand-picked set of a couple of hundred do. Be wants to get the bugs out. The thousands of registered developers having their hands on this beta would make it a nightmare for the couple of people that are running the beta program.
Are you subscribed to bebetatalk@be.com? No? Damn, I didn't think so. You're supposed to be if you are approved for the 4.1 beta. The readme told you to. There's a whole bunch of people right there that can beta test your app because they have 4.1 beta as well.
2. You would be releasing the beta OpenGL to non-beta users. It might depend on something else in 4.1. Not only that, it's not finished. Be doesn't want to see unfinished code released.
Here's some points on which you and all the other Open Source flamers are seriously mistaken:
4.1 is a *feature* release. They want to get certain features in and finished. It is not a schedule-driven release to make something like Comdex or PC Expo or (heh) Macworld. As such, its schedule is free to fall back as far as it wants.
Finally, ANY development model, open-source included, has releases. OSS usually has releases slightly more granular than Be's which has been "about every 6 months" for the past 3 years. If you're complaining that they have a release, and don't want things released before they're done, that's just tough bananas.
Posted by Forward The Light Brigade:
Okay fine.. BeOS goes open source... it gets copied... every feature ends up in Linux...
DONT CARE.
the resulting OS would be better than the two that started out.... Be Inc. could
a) return to marketing PowerPC computers running said OS (I have no idea whether BeBoxes were PowerPC based, prob not, but whatever they WILL be, as there is no point having a seperate architecture.....)
b) marketing the OS (service sells and hell they are willing to give it away as a loss-leader ANYWAY as we have seen with their deal with OEMS...)
c) the issue is giving away the OPENGL LIBS!!!!!!
"come on" is right, but still....
to what end, Macbeth?
Posted by Forward The Light Brigade:
disclaimer : I am running Linux 2.2.3 not BeOS4 or 4.1
lets look at this OS (BeOS):
better filesystem
better SMP
better process/threading model
look we WANT them, oh and
THEY have a prayer of conquering the desktop...
so long as gnumeric randomly crashes if I divide two numbers without EXPLICITLY changing the given cell to a float point based cell......
we have no such prayer....
geez get a clue
(16 year old script kiddies.... (sigh))
Posted by Forward The Light Brigade:
okay can we draw a distinction between the OS and the freaking OPENGL LIBS!!!
they can make select parts of their OS opensource you know... will they not be able to sell their OS because their gl libs have allowed every freshmeater to reverse engineer their kernel??
besides that is NOT the issue...
free access to those gl libs... THAT is the issue....
PS Redhat makes money. BeOS is more desktop oriented... more service contracts to sell
PPS and what about the OEM deal? Be, unlike yourself, understands the basic economics behind the concept of a LOSS-LEADER?!?!
Posted by Forward The Light Brigade:
okay and just HOW are Be's (laudable) purposes in re: stability and handholding served by not ALLOWING the release of these libs?
realize you condemn your own arguement:
#1 these libs are not available to all developers (regardless of what the author of the article said, look at your fellow BeOS developers who responded here)
[no good reason for BeOS to do THIS]
#2 these libs are being PROHIBITED from release
this is different than simply not releasing them as a patch....
#3 can you explain to me the logical connection between the need to be a developer and the desire to betatest gl libs?
#4 now just how does this jive with BETA GRAPHIC CARD DRIVERS for example? there is NO principle of NDA; even when a given revision of drivers are too "beta" to be released on a webpage, using legal shackles to PREVENT such distribution is not only nonsensical (#2) but clearly is a principle that even hardware manufacturers (historically more closeminded about this sort of thing) dont feel necissary
Nvidia, Diamond, Creative, all CARE about these drivers as they are the enablers to their product. You can have BeOS with/without/with a flawed copy of OpenGL drivers... a graphics card needs those drivers...
the fact that THESE companies, hardly paragons of opennness, dont feel the need to be this anal definitely damages the case of Be Inc.
Posted by Forward The Light Brigade:
ok #1 one can make the assumption that these libs work on BeOS INASMUCH AS THIS FELLOW WANTS TO RELEASE SOFTWARE BASED ON THEM!! "yeah let me use these libs, they dont work i checked, but damn those features kick..." er no.
#2 "the Beta seeding for r4.1 was very small."
thank you
fine
WHY IS THIS?
#3 is he asking for a feature
OR ASKING THAT A LIB THAT BE HAS GIVEN HIM, HE BE ALLOWED TO PACKAGE WITH HIS PRODUCT
#4 Be is not being asked to sanction this lib.. they can ask that it be predicated by a dialog box saying "WARNING ALPHA BE VERY VERY CAREFUL" or something...
sorry but you are a poor apologist for a fallen angel
BeOS is business as usual
Posted by Forward The Light Brigade:
/. hordes....
DISCLAIMER: I do not believe you ought to be arrested.... but then I am more OSI than FSF
but having said that, some replies:
you draw a false dilemma by being "sadde[ned]" by "people like you, who crave destruction of what they despise rather than elevation of what they love"
realize that we see many good qualities in the BeOS from a technical standpoint.
many so-called "warez" sites refuse to carry BeOS believing to pirate your OS is immoral, (as opposed to another OS I can think of) (oh and I know this as someone in my hall runs one.. yes I am a student in college, let the stereotypes run wild)
YET to restrict access to a library that has no bearing on your ability to make a profit on your product PARTICULARLY when you (you = Be Inc btw) are willing to GIVE AWAY your OS as a loss-leader...
this is foolish, and wrong-headed
as such we oppose. we (or at least I) feel that if you must charge for your OS, fine. You created it, fine. You certainly have the RIGHT to restrict access to this lib. having said that you CAN, now SHOULD you?
well I would posit that while you sell your OS to get money (something I have no quarrel with) does this lib's release endanger this? if not, then why restrict access?
TO PROTECT THE OS:
yes. this is a legitimate reason.. this is the reason you have not released it, I assume. BUT if this fellow is willing to put, say a dialog box explaining its dangers, and explaining how Be Inc does not feel it is ready for release, then why stop him... now this fellow may not have offered this alternative, but you could have and you still can....
If you get "crucified", well realize three things
1) Be Inc. is probably more respected than almost any corporate entity aside from O'Reilly Inc. amongst the
for your techinical excellence....
we become wary when you act in this manner...
2) We expect more from Be than MS... why bother flaming MS, we all disapprove of almost EVERYTHING they do.... you on the other hand are the alternative that (at least I) would like to see on the desktop of tomorrow... Linux maybe in a few years but we are not a viable non-CS desktop environment yet... you are....
3) many times you are honored, the OEM deal drew rave reviews and fight songs....
this is not an action for which we can / choose to honor you for....
- Rahul Sinha
rsinha@glue.umd.edu
Posted by Forward The Light Brigade:
are we asking Be to go open source
well I guess many of us are, but, at least from the OSI end of the OSI-FSF spectrum....
what this fellow wanted was not source but the right to distribute a lib that does not impair Be's ablility to sell its OS....
try to argue the issue, please?
Posted by Forward The Light Brigade:
They dont "need" this lib to keep their OS proprietary... that guy doesnt even need source... just the bin
there is no good reason to deny him....
SIGH
I dont plan to run BeOS, but it would be nice if my roomie did (as opposed to win9x)
oh well...
Posted by Forward The Light Brigade:
sorry about the flamish tone I took
Loss Leader -> taking a loss now for gain later
since this lib will be "free" anyway,
lets say they get a bit of hassle in having this lib out now
they get having developers developing,not loosing interest etc..
the term comes from loosing money of something with the expectation of somehow getting a lot of money later or through another device....
ie MS IE
or more benignly
the free cell phones with the service contracts..
Posted by Forward The Light Brigade:
so?
to get better IT needs to be released for testing etc.
Posted by AnnoyingMouseCoward:
*Sigh*.
Normally I have more sense than to reply to a posting where someone wants to argue, but I'll give you the benifit of the doubt.
"The connection that you tried to make between IBM-->Microsuck--> to Be is so far fetched...".
Ok, so I'm middle-aged and cynical. No big deal.
"Let's face it, Be is well know for releasing good, WORKING, software..".
Never said they didn't.
"They did not "halfway" support everypiece of hardware when BeOS was young...".
Excuse me, but were you replying to someone elses posting? This is becoming very confusing.
The whole point of my post was that propriatory systems, no matter how good they may be, inevitably lock you in and decrease your options. I was simply stating the obvious.
Be may be acting in a reasonable way at the moment, but that could change very quickly. If you want to work on the development of software for Be, that's your perogative dude.
Me, I'll stick with totally open source systems. I've been burned before.
Just my $3 worth of crack dude.
Posted by Wayne Steele:
/.ers want Be, Inc. to fail so badly? If Linux and OSS is so great, why worry about what the commercial segment is doing? It seems your goal is total world domination at the expense of everyone else in the industry. Perhaps you can find some tips and tricks over at http://www.microsoft.com/.
I appreciate both Linux and BeOS because I feel each of these "alternative" operating systems makes computing more useful and fun.
However, if I knew nothing about Linux before reading this thread, I would be sickened by the whole OpenSource concept and the people who support it.
Can someone please justify to me why it is unethical or immoral to produce a product and then sell that product for profit? Maybe it's just my red American blood, but I think Be, Inc. is doing a GoodThing(tm) by bringing a modern, easy to use, easy to maintain OS to the market. In addition, I am happy to pay good money for the BeOS and don't give a rat's ass that I don't have the source.
And another thing, why do
Posted by Wayne Steele:
...when the exact same thing could be said about the number of Linux users.
Hell, there was even a time when Windows was unpopular because the DOS advocates said it would fail.
I guess history does repeat itself.
Posted by Wayne Steele:
I'm all for open standards. Tell me how BeOS not being open source prevents it from following open standards?
Just let them play. They may have great technology, so let them have fun with it. All the open source community can do is learn from and by that way destroy the corporate world. The task is getting easier each and every day. Look at the bright side :) :P :) Drawing attention away from a great concept like open source should get you arrested in the first place. :)
Oh and I'd really like to stick out my tongue to the BeOS team. Bleh!
I'll take Linux. It's already superior, and is only going to get better.
And decisions about it are going to be made by the user/developer base, for technical reasons.
I'll take Linux. It's already superior, and is only going to get better.
And decisions about it are going to be made by the user/developer base, for technical reasons.
it is free, and the author is still unsure.
he wants to keep it free and still make a living.
he tried selling a manual, but that did not make
much of a profit, so blender is still in that
uncertain stage. if NaN ever gets bought out (or
goes under, which would suck), blender will be immediately relased under the GPL.
blender is still one of the few non free (as in
free speech) programs i think are worth checking out. it puts to shame all the =$1500 3d packages
i know of and has built in sequence editing and compositing. it also has the fastest rendering engine ive ever seen, and a really good animation
system (rough for character work though, espeically if your use to maya and the like)
there will be RIB export following the release
of the plug in API.
the download is about 740k. (half a floppy disc)
Read the GNU Manifesto. Read it again. Read the GPL; understand it. Re-read the GNU Manifesto a third time. Get in into your head that commercial software can be GPLed. Get it into your head that a company can make money off fully free, fully open products. Get some real information into your head.
And I find it quite amusing how bold and wise you think you are, hiding behind anonymity. Perhaps when you figure out how to use a web browser (registering a user name is really a simple procedure even you could probably handle), then you might understand things like writing software.
Boy, talk about a loss for clues. If you'd done a hint of research you'd know exactly how much money Debian rakes in each year, and in how many states they are a money-making, incorporated entity. Oh, yeah, that's right--the answers are 0 and 0. They're a non-profit organization, Einstein. Next time you feel the urge to vent your misfortunes on someone happy with what he does, choose your straw men more carefully.
And about purchasing a clue? I have a paycheck coming tomorrow, actually, and do you know what I'll do come monday? Yeah, I'll go into work and write software; GPLed software, but of course that probably hurts you knowing that's what people do. So when you're ringing up another extra value meal, or making it back to class before the lunch bell rings, remember how much clue my paychecks afford, and that someday you might be able to put a down payment on your very own.
They get new couches and think they own the world? Sheesh!
I like BeOS very much, but if Be's going to act like spoiled brat... ah well, guess we'll see...
Jón
I don't think the big, boy's club, 4.0 MIT grads, silicon valley firms monitor /. as much as you think. There seem to be a lot of low level tech support employees in these companies who do hit sites and pass them around their department, but the guys who run the company, the 4.0 MIT grads who got hired for focusing on grades, are going to be as clueless about /. as you can get.
Its not like OpenGL is that big of a trade secret. I can't see why Be wouldn't want to have more applications, oh well, seems like Be is begging to suffer from pointy hair syndrome.
You do have a good point there. If I wasn't so busy working for a FreeBSD house (80 servers and growing each day) I'd take a shot at Be. I did just install Suse 6.0, more impovements and glibc now. But I need to figure out how NOT to have KDE as the wm. KDE is slick but I still use olvwm. 5 years to hone my conf files... I can't leave now. With the work I do (ssh to many hosts and telnet's to routers and switches) it does me just fine. Anyway, the only apps I really use are xterm, netscape and calc. Hell, I still read my mail in pine!
:)
Anyway, back to Suse 6.0: nothing really new on the install, but setting up X was so easy that I felt guilty. It even knew what a Smile CA-6736DL monitor was. The monitor data base is huge. Finding the specs for you tube has always been the bitch when it came to setting up X.
I should also note that I'm a bit biased. I do own the ftp.suse.org mirror. But when the company is shoving out 135Mb/s of porn, a small mirror is naught
-Joe
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
The difference is that if there is an app that only runs with the "development" libraries you can get them. I don't have anything against Be, but this is one area where Linux really shines. There isn't anyone that can keep you from accessing the programs you want.
Be is doing what companies do, they are trying to protect their reputation by making sure that everyone runs tested applications. In the meantime there are people who can't get the application they need because they can't get access to the development libraries.
Linux has the best of both worlds, tested stable releases AND the ability to run cutting edge (read un-tested) code if you absolutely have to (or want to).
I wish the best of luck to Be, but they are not only competing with the Microsoft and their desktop monopoly, but also with Linux, the most open operating system ever.
It's a hard world,
Jason
If you don't want the cutting edge releases then stick with BeOS 4.0. No one is forcing you to upgrade. It's no different than with Linux. I still have a RedHat 4.2 box ticking away.
But if you really needed to use Blender, then you would be screwed (and you would pretty much be FORCED to use Linux), and it is all because some company won't give you access to one library.
This might not even be Be's fault. They may have a licensing agreement from SGI that requires that they not distribute the library themselves. Either way, however, BeOS users who want to use Blender are out in the cold, despite the fact that the principal developer is ready for release.
I don't have anything against good software whether it is commercial or open source, but there is a definite advantage to having the freedom to choose for yourself.
Jason
I'm not that surprised by this. IBM has an OpenGL DDK for OS/2 that allows IHV's to update their video drivers to support hardware accellerated OpenGL. Unfortunately, you need an OpenGL license from SGI (which costs tens of thousands of dollars, I've heard) in order to get the DDK. The ironic thing is that a lot of IHV's and programmers know how to program their 3D hardware but don't have an OpenGL license. The end result is that the only people who can get the DDK aren't interested in it - so there are no hardware accellerated 3D drivers for OS/2, even though the DDK has been available for a year.
--
Timur Tabi
Remove "nospam_" from email address
OS/2 users number in the millions. BeOS users number in the tens of thousands (as estimated by the VP of engineering at Be).
--
Timur Tabi
Remove "nospam_" from email address
Firstly, not all official developers have received R4.1. Not even close. Around 100 have - I only got mine as I'm developing PCMCIA drivers.
Secondly, Be are not refusing to release the lib at all, they just waiting to finish testing it (ever heard of QC?) Why should they pre-release a development version for the edification of one application?
How about checking things are right before ranting like fsck - Another typical slashdot winge *sigh*....
~Pev
Ow, just install your Linux server and be happy ;-)
-adnans
"In short: just say NO TO DRUGS, and maybe you won't end up like the Hurd people." --Linus Torvalds
Be was using the Metrowerks compiler tool up until R3. Guess what they're using now, egcs. Egcs is an Open Source project. Whiner... 'nuff said
-adnans
"In short: just say NO TO DRUGS, and maybe you won't end up like the Hurd people." --Linus Torvalds
That was not the point was it?
The point was to show the original poster that Open Source is capable of producing very good (I would even say the best) software projects...
-adnans
"In short: just say NO TO DRUGS, and maybe you won't end up like the Hurd people." --Linus Torvalds
It was never a real challenge to begin with :)
It's like trying to prove the air you breath is not usefull..
"In short: just say NO TO DRUGS, and maybe you won't end up like the Hurd people." --Linus Torvalds
Well, BeOS is multiplatform. A simple re-compile and it will work on PowerPC. Sure, not 100 platforms, but the two biggest. If Apple wasn't blocking the specs to their G3 machines, then Be would have three platforms to play with. Not a single line of code would need to be changed.
Have you checked out the state of BeOS PPC lately? It's not that good, in fact rumor has it the PPC port of BeOS will be abandoned by years end (to coincide with dropping of BeBox support). Simple case in point: BeOS PPC is still PEF and not ELF, there are no plans to convert it to ELF, which means people are dependant on the Metrowerks tools
which are licensed to Be since MW doesn't see profit in there anymore. Which platform will prevail do you think? Already you see only x86 versions of most apps coming out. Oh, and just simply recompiling your app for PowerPC is not true (not unless you create a whole bunch of #ifdefs and many won't bother)
And that makes it exactly the opposite of almost all other platforms/OSes out there
now.
What we'll see happening is for real open standards to emerge. I.e. that companies/organizations let go of their proprietary interface in order for them to become standards (no strings attached). That, or they could see the whole market go by their noses (think mp3 and RIAA for example). At least that is my hope.
"In short: just say NO TO DRUGS, and maybe you won't end up like the Hurd people." --Linus Torvalds
> Oh, I hate to burst your bubble, but OS/2 is far
> from dead.
But its certainly not growing, esp. not like Linux currently is. OS/2 is so marginalized currently, that I would find it hard to recommend to anyone looking into non-MS OSes.
I would also disagree about OS/2 being more easy to use and maintain. Linux has come a long way in this department in the last 3 years.
When I think stable, I think *nix. When I think ease of use, I think Mac.
It's "Mesa", not "MesaGL". For trademark issues, I think.
Yeah, sure... Be is fully tested... which is why they sell "betas".
By the way... when Red Hat's not ready to release a distro I think you can get just about EVERYTHING yourself from various servers. You're not tied to RH - they could go under and disappear and you'd still be able to get everything you want/need.
Additionally, there's no need to wait for a new Red Hat, unless you don't want to or don't have time to do it yourself, you idiot.
Be is definitely not a "big boy's club" either.
This story has "leaping to conclusions" written all over it.. has it occured to anyone that there might be technical issues with the OpenGL libraries on R4.0? Be has shown themselves to be pretty up on this sort of thing many times before, and to not give them the benefit of the doubt without even getting comment from them is pretty beat, IMO.
As many people have said, R4.1 is NOT available to anyone but a select few right now. Most registered developers DO NOT have it.
Don't you love OS's where marketing and the bottom line impacts every decision?
Good luck to Be, but it seems like they would do the same things as MS if they could.
Yeah, Windows is a great example of a closed source os that is high quality.
How would opening the source of beos making the quality worse?
The Internet and DNS, Bind, Sendmail, gcc, etc.? Wouldn't you say all of that software broke new ground and changed not only computers, but all of society?
Certainly, closed source software has brought about a lot of progress in computers, but don't even try to discount free software as something that doesn't break new ground.
There is _ONE_ Linux kernel. Nobody plays with the kernel because people trust Linus, and also because if they want a change, and it's _techically_ good, then it will get implemented in Linux. They just need to prove it with code, which is what GGI, Alsa, etc. are doing.
And certainly one size doesn't fit all. But many people like being able to completely customize their environment, and yet be able to run all the applications everyone else can. That way, developers get and use distributions that are more technical, and newbies/people that just want to get work done can use easier-to-understand distributions.
Having more choice is a good thing, and I think it's actually helped Linux, if anything. Red Hat is the newbie distribution that everyone hears about and tries the first time, and then as they get more involved, if they do, they'll see that there are different distributions and they can pick the one that fits them the most.
But I agree. This is besides the point. Be can do whatever they want. Releasing their source under a true free license would make they best features be cannabalized by Linux pretty quickly, but Be would have a different priority than the Linux kernel and would, in effect differenciate itself.
Anyway, as soon as people start using it, bug fixing becomes easier, and they can run something like Mozilla.Org, and maintain Be like that. Has Open Source hurt Netscape any? They're still in business offering proprietary products on the back end supporting their browser. Be could do something that like too.
Then again, I've never used Be, but my arguments could apply to any operating system code being released to the public.
Alas, no, I am a nerd, and yet my University limits me to just one computer. A travesty, I say.
--
It doesn't cost a thing and nobody's turned down. I've been a developer for over a year now and I write BeOS software in my free time.
I've heard of people in the past who registered to be a developer just to get free copies of the OS but since the dev programs have been restructured, that's no longer a problem. You should try re-applying again.
-- "Never call your girlfriend 'Butterball'. Not even once."
I think he was saying that the new libGL might depend on some other component like the app_server that would make it incompatible with the R4 app_server.
If that was true, then people would still be unable to run the app if they didn't have R4.1
Did that make sense? *rereads* Yeah.
It's not like libGL is so monolithic that it doesn't depend on other components that may have undergone _significant_ changes. Be can do this with the app_server protocol, for instance, because the interface is through a library and completely transparent to developers
> Where else can you play a sound of any format or codec in about 7 or 8 lines?
I'm probably getting the name of the class insanely wrong, but there's a Qt widget that's like so:
QPlayer::play(filename);
one line. it just needs some more codecs. I'll give Be that, Linux has no coherent media framework. Kinda sad when you consider that it's so insanely easy to get a scheduler that favors media playback (setscheduler(SCHED_RT) or something like that)
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
http://www.thebeline.com/1999/0x02/is sue.html
So, I guess that just leaves us 2.9 MIT folks here... (by the by, MIT is on a 5.0 scale. So, 4.0 is a "B" average...)
I think the more relevant issue is how big the company is. If you're a big company, chance (at least statistically) that a person with power reads /. is low. However, if there are 30 people in your company, and only 1 reads /. - there's a good chance either the right person is reading it, or that person knows the right person.
Back on topic: I wouldn't be surprised if there is a licensing issue with the OpenGL libraries. Meaning, they (Be) may not be able to independently distribute them. Who knows. We should hear from Be before toasting them with the flamethrowers.
There is something to be said for waiting for a product to "jell" into a coherent whole first, then releasing it, rather than doing a rolling release. That's part of GNOME's problems with the general user population. It's great for developers to get early access to stuff (and in fact, I think it should be required), but releasing something to the general population before all parts are finished can be very bad.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
for what it's worth, NAB (National Association of Broadcasters --a big deal show for media creation and tool types)
http://www.nab.org/conventions/
runs from April 17 to the 22nd in LasVegas. They really need to have something to talk about, show, and ship by then.
SGI has made an X version of OpenGL source code public. See http://www.sgi.com/software/o pensource/glx/index.html. I don't see why this would not apply to the OS/2 version of OpenGL. Even so, you could use XFree86 for OS/2 to do an OS/2 implementation of OpenGL with hardware acceleration.
-- Julien Pierre http://www.madbrain.com/blog
No. Be users who want to use Blender are not "out in the cold." They just have to wait a month for the 4.1 release to emerge. I'm a 4.1 beta tester, I downloaded Blender, and it works just fine. The same functionality will be available to the rest of the users in one month. What in hell is so bad about waiting a month for software you want? Are you saying you've never waited for software you were excited about to be released? What's the big deal?
Uh, that and because moving from Metrowerks to egcs brought a 20-30% speed boost to the entire OS and all applications on the x86 side (OS optimizations in R4 also contributed to that number).
If I understand correctly, the idea is that you release an open source library while it's still beta so that you have a very large testing base to find bugs and patch holes that you might have missed in-house. This has the advantage of being fairly thorough in the long run, but takes a while to produce final results, and requires that the software in question be open-source (with all of the resulting advantages and disadvantages).
Um, you might want to doublecheck some of your statements.
Microsoft is infamous for *hiding* parts of its API. This means that you only have full access to its features if you work for Microsoft. This seriously hinders software development by third-party developers.
Be's API is right there for you to look at, in
Hidden APIs aren't the only tool that Microsoft uses to keep its monopoly. Integration of applications into the OS are a much bigger concern. I think that MS's next step in this trend would logically be replacing Notepad completely with Wordpad, to force people to buy Word-compatible word processors.
Be uses neither of these tactics.
Just a fool believes that a commercially-oriented
company is likely to make all its apis *not*
hidden...
Think about what you're saying before you type it.
Be doesn't have the resources to develop an applications suite. Hiding parts of the API would gain nothing for them. They have instead made a great effort to _display_ the API, providing documentation and support for anyone who wants to develop for it. This helps Joe Average Coder write BeOS applications, which helps Be by creating more nifty things that run on their operating system.
Believe it or not, not every company is a Microsoftian monopoly. Did you even look at the API documentation, or is this just a knee-jerk reaction?
Well, mesa doesn't support the TNT, and neither does Be's ogl. I'm perfectly happy to wait. I'd like to try blender too, but I can't see why the author has his knickers in a twist just because he has to wait a couple weeks to let people have it.
-lx
nope, I've spent about 200 bucks on opportunity cost tonight for a free OS.
What are you talking about? I applied for the same thing long ago and I just put down that it would be a hobby to develop on Be. I got signed right up. I don't even have a job as a developer. Be doesn't care. And Be does not make many wrong decisions. Most of their problems are from licenses and other companies' anti-competitive practices.
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
I, for one, really love the BeOS API, speed, stability, design, etc. In fact I love almost every aspect of BeOS. I have finally found enough time to explore the wonders of developing on R4 for Intel, and needless to say, I LOVE it--lots. I'm not the world's best coder, but I have finally found an OS that I can make stuff for. Where else can you send an email from a C++ program in 3 lines? Where else can you play a sound of any format or codec in about 7 or 8 lines? I've not seen it. BeOS is, in the words of Steve Jobs, "Insanly Great". (Ironic since Apple is now a major thorn in Be's side.. Oh well)
Anyway, I plan on buying R5 when it comes out. I also plan on buying good software to support BeOS developers.
I love Open Source(tm), but I am not so narrow minded to see that there is no other way. Red Hat is widly considered one of the best success stories of Open Source(tm), but why? They make money because Linux is very hard to use from a newbie point of view. It's hard to install. It's hard to download. It's even hard to upgrade. I use Linux. In fact I have two boxes here at home and a box at work. I like it. But I like BeOS better. Linux is not suited for the desktop--BeOS is. What ever happened to using the right tool for the job?
I say keep up the good work. Ignore the losers here on Slashdot that bash, flame, and attempt to destroy all that is not Linux. I can't believe what the "community" is turning into. Gone are the days of geeks being excited by new technologies and new ideas. It seems that more and more people are just out for blood. Linux has all the features of just about every OS. But Be has most of the features as well. Why not all? Be left out the crap.
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
"Lets see your C++ program that sends email with 3 lines code hold up in a multiplatform enviroment."
Well, BeOS is multiplatform. A simple re-compile and it will work on PowerPC. Sure, not 100 platforms, but the two biggest. If Apple wasn't blocking the specs to their G3 machines, then Be would have three platforms to play with. Not a single line of code would need to be changed.
And why does code need to compile on any platform? (I assume you mean other OSes and not just BeOS on other hardware) Each OS does stuff differently (hence the reason for the different OSes) What's the problem with changing a bit of code? Or building a wrapper? Really, the BeOS API is a VERY good wrapper. If you want to port to Windows or Linux or something, just create a wrapper that mimics the BeOS API for the classes you used. It's much easier to start with a very high level API than a low level one. That way all the other systems out there can be easily ported to by simply filling in the holes. Once you have a set of wrappers built for multiple OSes, porting becomes a dream. Sure you could start out like that on any OS, but Be has already done the hard work for you be creating a well thought out and implemented API.
That's part of the problem with porting to BeOS. It is based so much on object-type coding that most programs out there are hard to port. They were written at a much lower level (C instead of C++ and so are missing a lot of the object stuff). Basically, they had no API to handle all the little dirty work. In BeOS, you just deal with what you are trying to build. You don't have to mess with the details. And that makes it exactly the opposite of almost all other platforms/OSes out there now.
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
Well, Ok.. If I don't count the var setup and inits, then sure, the BeOS API is the same way. :-)
Logically, it's the best way to go. I've just never been exposed to that kind of an API before. Having done a bit of programming on Windows, BeOS has HUGE advantages. I admit, I have done almost no programming in Linux. It's on my desktop machine, but I spend most of my time between Windows 98 and BeOS. At least those OSes have a GUI that works. For some odd reason I can't get X to work with my AGP Matrox G200. I want to try out GNOME and KDE, but it's just not working.
To the general ultra-pro Linux people:
That proves another point--Linux has a LONG way to go. Don't get the cart ahead of the horses. (And wanting to use a GUI is not a l0zeR lamer script kiddie thing--it's an effeciency thing. It takes about 1 second to drag and drop. It takes a few more to type and hit enter. My typing is pretty good, but not as good as my ability to simply move my hand.)
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
Linux > NT
That's a given.
The discussion is about BeOS vs. Linux.
IMHO,
BeOS > Linux
Why?
BeOS is one solid product. I like Linux and use it every day for server projects, web projects, etc. I like Be and use it everyday to develop on, play with, and in general get work done without a single crash. Sure I could do that with Linux--but why? BeOS is a programmer's dream. It's almost like having VB in C++. It's easy, powerful, nearly perfectly designed internaly, and extreamly fast.
Linux is aging and falling behind. Sure, Linux ALWAYS catches up. But a true geek wants the latest and coolest stuff--regardless of what the stupid license is or if the code is "open".
Therefore, I choose Be "for technical reasons".
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
sounds like someone is a little green today.
"It's Brazilian"
Hello all...
I summarized the sentiments that are being voiced here and wrote a respectful email to press@be.com asking if they would consider making an official response to the question "Why is the BeOS closed source?"
I really think they're a good company. They just don't yet understand why Open Source will ultimately be a Profitable Thing.
At any rate, we can hope for an "official company line" on Monday.
>Be, (like Microsoft, Apple, etc.) says they will
>never open source their OS. They don't need
>reasons to screw their users; it's just a
>mindset.
I don't think Be is out to screw users. Their plan is to make a really good, modern OS.
After reading a lot of well thought-out comments, I'm willing to concede this point:
A big part of the reason why the BeOS has some of the clearest, most consistent and elegant APIs is because these APIs were developed in the cathedral, not the bazaar.
I still think there's a lot to be gained by letting other people fix your bugs and implement your features, but I'm not sure if the official Open Source(tm) system would work for Be.
Here, here. Well put.
I'm less convinced that Be needs to go open source to live up to its potential. There may be some middle ground between Open Source(tm) and totally closed propriatary-ness that works better for companies that are built to sell software.
Finally, what OS is this guy working on? Something for embedded systems I wonder? I would think we would've heard of it otherwise... curious
Well, that about covers it!
IBM can't do anything about that licence because Silicon Graphics charges lots of money for the OpenGL licence. It's interesting to note that there is ``free'' Glide source code in IBM's OpenGL DDK.
OS/2 is not a platform where 3D hardware acceleration means anything anyway.
I consider it much better to work with people like MesaGL where you can actually see the sources without being independently wealthy.
Is Be in the same situation with regard to SGI and the OpenGL licence?
<whimper> The more I deal with closed software, the more I come a freed software radical.
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
Personally, I think Blender looks like a great product, and plan on trying it out. But, I don't think it's unreasonable for Be to require that 4.1 be released as a whole. It's not like Linus would have allowed some developer to stick parts of 2.1 into the 2.0 kernel and ship it because they just had to ship today, not in a few weeks.
I think a lot of people gripe at any opportunity they can at closed-source companies. To which my reply is, shut the fsck up and start coding! You want an open source system that has the cool features of the BeOS? Grab the API/documentation off of the web site and start writing one. Here, I'll make it easy for you: Archived Be Book
Ummm, where on earth did you get the idea that Be was going to drop OpenGL? All Be has done is refuse to give Blender the right to distribute the 4.1 version of Be's OpenGL library. It will still be on the 4.1 CD when it ships (or when the update is made available on the net (or both)).
I can understand your frustration, but is it really with Be? They are not the ones that promised that Blender would be available on a certain date. Also, it's not that Be is holding Blender back from anything. Blender is the one that is asking Be for a favor. I would guess that Be has a very good reason for not letting Blender distribute the library. For one, they may not feel confident that it will be reliable when used with the 4.0 release of the OS. They may also have contractual obligations that prevent them from letting anyone else ship it. This is the most likely. Be did not write OpenGL from scratch, and they are not just using Mesa. So, they bought it from somebody, and I'm sure they did not get the right to license it again to somebody else (which is what they would be doing if they let Blender ship it.)
My point being that your analogy is not very good. It would be better to say that your lover has not come to bed yet because they have important business that must be completed first.
Sounds like something stupid like M$ would do...
I don't think you know what the hell you are talking about... Grades don't mean shit - college doesn't mean shit... If they did, I wouldn't be making a six figure salary only after two semesters of college...
(very special thanks to Sam Kinison for that line)
Gimme a break. I like BeOS, but the bottom line is that Sanscrit has more people using it, and silly things like this is the reason for that.
I do care that they're not being forthcoming, but the bottom line is that the "affected population" for this problem is so frighteningly narrow as to approach nonexistence.
Really, stop being a bunch of pathetic whiners...
Be is a great company, and makes a great product.
So what if you like Open Source. You know what, many companies can't ship open source software. Why? Our world is ran by money. Try running down to the store to get handed a new computer. Or food, or a new car. It doesn't happen.
Ask yourself why it takes so long for updates to major releases of the Linux kernel. Duh, Linus and everyone else has to pay for the expences of living, meaning, yes, they all have a job they devote most of their lives to.
Not only do developers spend more time on closed source projects, they also assure that everything works together, because they can meet face to face, and plan out what they are doing.
I'm not saying anything is wrong with Linux, but this is the real world, and people need to make a living. Closed source is not the ultimate evil. But open source is also not the ultimate solution to everything.
As far as what i prefer? My company will be announcing our own OS in a few months. The core components will be kept closed (kernel, grapchis), but many parts of the OS will be open sourced (undecided, but probably servers, multimedia, UI).
There are many ways it can be done, and I trust the people in charge of making that decision for what ever group will make it for what best fits what they do.
I think some people should re-evaluate the situation. We are not talking about a bunch of hackers that sit around all night programming for fun, we are talking about people who have to provide for their families, and the only way i ever heard of doing that well is to work.
Open Source would be better if we had a free economy, but until then, business, and personal decisions are based off $$$. Just be happy that the smaller OS makers like Be sell their OS's for a lot less than companies like Microsoft while providing much higher quality.
Dan Guisinger
(A)bort (R)etry (I)nfluence with a big hammer
www.atacomm.com - The Leader in VoIP Product Distributi
I thought it was stuff like this that MESA was created for...
AP.
Be's CEO Jean-Louis Gassée offered to give away Be recently to OEMs. Why not go Open Source?
rancor@mindspring.com
This was a great move for the developer community on Be's part. Programmers can see exactly how their time is wasted on the Be platform now rather than finding out that they've made a big mistake a few years from now when Be is bankrupt. I was going to develop for Be a year ago and fortunately saw Linux in time. The sooner Be developers swim from the sinking ship onto the bedrock that is Linux, the better. You'll be welcome here and sea sickness will just be a long ago nightmare.
Cheers,
Enrique
It was originally developed just for their demo, but I guess enough people asked for it that they've turned it into a full-fledged app/utility to be released as part of R4.1. It blew me away. I've got friends who are involved in home studio recording, and I think they would be quite impressed with that piece of software. Move tracks forward and back in the mix, move them left/right in the stereo mix, apply effects - all in real-time with a mouse.
The same, old OS fight... Yeah... Great... ;)
Could you please remind me the former subject, please?
Is there a Linuxppc port?
- ------------- - -------------
MItch
Hi Mitch,
Sorry, there's still not such a machine here. I received donations of a Sun, an
Alpha and a BeOS machine. Still waiting for a Mac...
A Blender for it can be made in a few days!
-Ton-
--
-----------------------------------------------
| Ton Roosendaal ton@blender.nl |
| Not a Number http://www.blender.nl |
-----------------------------------------------
It doesn't do wonders for you argument if you litter it with fallacies like When infact the Beta seeding for r4.1 was very small. I for one do not have a copy of it, despite being a registered developer, and having released products.
Be is looking after the interests of the OS by not allowing ITS beta library to be released as a separate component just to keep one developer happy.
"Hey Be, I'm writing an app that requires feature XXX in the OS - wanna add it for me and ship it tomorrow?"
Tom really needs to pull his head in. If all he wants is beta testing then he has access to all the same beta testers that Be is using, since they all have 4.1
IMHO he sounds like a spoilt brat. I doubt he's even checked whether the new libGL works on r4
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
Huh?
An API is just an API, I could write a complete OS, and make it totally Free [speech] and use my own API.
Would that make it better?
Be's API is documented. That really is all you get even in OpenSource
Please tell me what great open API Linux provides?
Posix? Well Be provides that too (not yet there, but improving) And it's hardly a great API, just a defined set of functions from UNIX (which was proprietry)
X? It's horrible, ugly and deserves to die. I would never write for an OS that designed its interface system around the X API
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
Well I have nothing against POSIX.
But, people argue that it is "The one true API" when it isn't.
The POSIX standard came about as a way to standardise UNIX APIs.
A good "Standard API" should not be based upon a particular OS (family).
Be attempts to be posix compatible (hasn't succeeded yet) but that doesn't mean a whole heap. It just means it provides some nice functions that have been well thought out through the UNIX years. But they're far from perfect.
I'm all for a standard OS API, but ANSI C isn't it, and neither is POSIX.
They don't provide enough features, and way too UNIX-centric.
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men"
Well, maybe Be just doesn't want to ship out beta products to the general public. That way, we'll all have an openGL library that actually works right, as well as all those media codecs.