BeDope clarifies iToaster issue
Sebbo writes "The latest article at BeDope has coverage of the iToaster confusion. It includes a nice photo of Be's VP of Developer Relations, Tim Self, demoing BeOS R4.5's new Death Ray app on the president of Microworkz. " Ya know, it's just good to have this whole thing cleared up. For record, AOL might buy Microworkz, and Microworkz does not run a BeOS/Linux hybrid, but an OS based on the ideas found therein.
1) the iToaster runs BeOS. Period
2) BeOS is not based on linux or the "_idea_" of linux. Yes is partialy POSIX compliant, and yes it does have some unix style aspects (the shell) and it does ship with gcc. But its not *nix, its not inspired by or based on unix or linux.
3) According to the info filed in connection with Be's upcomming IPO, they plan to provide BeOS for little or no cost to OEMs such as microworkz to gain market share, exposure and hardware support.
$200 products such as the iToaster obviously would not be possible if M$ style lisceneing costs were involved.
So, Mozilla could get a huge number of users in a future incarnation of the iToaster (if it takes off) in fairly short order. A good opportunity, I say.
Finally, some clarity. I e-mailed the CEO, Rick Latman and received a nice response. The hybrid OS stuff being reported is, as we suspected, incorrect. He said that they had originally planned on adding a "Linux panel", but those plans were cancelled.
"iToaster is a BeOS backend with a customized gui."
With regard to third party development opportunities, he said they will exist. He did warn me that "this is not BeOS as you know it. It is a very specialized version." Hmm.
Interesting tidbit to those of you looking for a BeOS programming job - he said "we are hiring Be programmers as fast as we can find them."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I run BeOS. The rules don't apply.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I run BeOS. The rules don't apply.
The last paragraph of the article mentions that Microsoft is now no longer the only OS maker with a death ray. Further explanation of that remark can be found in the second article here.