Not quite. The filesystem was developed by Dominic Giampaolo, while working at Be. Dominic once worked for SGI, not Apple. There are however several ex-Apple engineers at Be.
Well, I learned bash from the ground up in BeOS, and haven't hit any limits yet. I think saying "It's an okay path for an average Windows user" is downplaying the power of both BeOS and the bash shell.
Why is an 18 petabyte filesize limit superior to a 2GB filesize limit? Have you ever tried capturing 30 minutes of uncompressed 640x480 digital video to disk? BeOS is a media-optimized OS. This kind of thing is critical. Nuff said.
Re:A Great OS Without Aps or a Market
on
Free Be
·
· Score: 1
NetPositive is not all things to all people, but I prefer it over any other browser. Clunky? That's the absolute last thing I would call it. Small, fast, and graceful is how I see it. I hate using other browsers after having become accustomed to NetPositive.
Re:It's a demo. Case closed.
on
Free Be
·
· Score: 1
Wrong. You'll get the BFS filesystem as well. A filesystem within a Windows file. You will not have to sacrifice the many advantage of the Be File System.
Remember that this particular sword cuts both ways. BeOS has had USB support for a long time now. Similarly, SoundBlaster Live! support for BeOS appeared in working form for BeOS before Linux (at the time, Linux instructions were telling me to recompile my kernel -- puh-leeze!). In many cases, hardware vendors are willing to give specs to Be because they know they can get their NDAs signed without hassle. Linux isn't always ahead where hardware is concerned.
That's a bit misleading. BeOS ships with a couple dozen GUI apps and around 200 command-line utilities. But more importantly, there are more than a thousands freeware, shareware, and commercial apps available for BeOS. Just because they don't come on the CD doesn't mean there's no software. Just ask anyone who uses BeOS full-time.
Not true -- you'll get the full benefits of BFS. BFS will actually installed in a FAT file. A filesystem within a filesystem (and not emulation, either).
My dad is a complete computer-phobe, and has been using BeOS for more than a year now, full-time. He says, "it works like I expect it to," but when I come over and show him some of the funkier things he can do, he always gets excited and digs in deeper. The bash shell still intimidates him, but that's the nice thing -- it's there for those who want or need it, but users can use the system full-time without ever opening a Terminal. He never calls me for support, either.:)
Just because the press release only came out today doesn't mean they started working on it today. They could have been working on this for a year for all we know. In fact, given that short time frame, I take it as a given that they've been working on it for a while.
I didn't say that no money is made from Linux, only that Linux competes outside of the traditional business model. 99% of the code written for Linux is written without intent to make a profit. You can't point to RedHat etc., since none of the companies packaging up Linux distributions are making an operating system -- they're just bundling up other people's code, for the most part. Support? Sure, but companies doing support aren't in the business of making an operating system either.
Yes, Linux counts as competition. Of course. But it's not competing to make money off an operating system, like Be is.
I found it significant that the judge singled out BeOS at several points in the document. Be's inability to make much of a dent in the market so far certainly cannot be ascribed to technical shortcomings, that's for sure.
Be struggles to convince PC makers to preload BeOS, but those vendors don't want to risk losing the rebates they get from MS in exchange for selling MS-only systems (this is changing slowly). Be struggles to convince developers to port their applications, but they are reluctant to when Windows has 90% of the market. And the same thing happens when Be tries to convince hardware vendors to write BeOS drivers for I/O cards and peripherals.
On a hypothetical level playing field, hardware and software vendors would consider the array of operating systems before them and decide which to support based on technical merit and suitability to the task at hand, not focus on a single OS with their only criteria being "because that's what the installed base uses."
Chicken and egg problems face Be everywhere they turn, and virtually all of them can be ascribed to Windows' dominance. Even in cases where MS has _not_ done anything questionable, the momentum of Windows still makes it almost impossible for Be to compete. The judge was right to hold up Be as an example of how difficult MS makes it to compete in the OS market.
To antipate a response: "Doesn't the open source model circumvent many of the barriers to entry that Be faces?"
Yes. But that's just the point. The success of Linux vis-a-vis Be almost seems like evidence that you can't compete in the OS market unless you do so without hoping to make money. Linux succeeds by not competing on the traditional business playing field, and there's something to be said for that. But if Linux were the proprietary creation of a single company, it would be exactly where Be is now, or worse. Moral of the story: unless something is done, it may never be possible for true competition to happen in operating system land. Scot
Well, I guess no one should ever try and start up a new film or record company, because the majors have the market locked up tight. Raymond is effectively saying that no other company in the future of the tech industry will have a chance at making a dent in the OS market, that it's a futile endeavor. Windows, MacOS, and open source forever and ever and ever. That's sad, fatalistic thinking that's not going to get us anywhere. Is there a place for new commercial operating systems? Sure there is. Just as much as there's a place for independent film and record companies. BeOS doesn't have all the apps and drivers that Linux has, but it also has a lot of technologies -- and ELEGANCE -- that Linux does not. And Be has accomplished this with a team of 100 engineers. Yes, open source has its advantages. But open source has not created BeOS, and I'm still not convinced that it can. Or maybe it can eventually, but BeOS is here now, and there's no way I'm going to wrestle with open source software when I can use BeOS. In terms of pleasantness, ease of use, ease of configuration, and modern technologies, there's just no comparison.
AudioCatalyst is based on the Xing encoder, which is about 10x faster than BladeEnc. And since you're on PowerPC, you get the floating point advantage. AudioCatalyst on the Mac is currently the fastest encoding solution available to general consumers.
Uh... hello? The Be hype machine hasn't even *started* yet! The Be Everywhere marketing campaign starts probably right after PC Expo. The attention Linux is getting in comparison to BeOS makes no sense to me. Yes, Linux deserves attention. BeOS deserves more. And any journalist who sits down and installs / tests both systems will discover that for themselves. Linux has a long way to go to approach BeOS' ease of use, ease of configuration, gracefulness, and desktop speed / responsiveness. Linux rocks as a server right now. It may rock as a desktop OS one day. But BeOS rocks as a desktop OS now.
How about because BeOS can address audio hardware *eight* times more efficiently than Windows on the same machine. How about because many of the BeOS media apps are capable of things that are simply impossible on other platforms? How about because you haven't seen all the media apps being released in the next three months?
I did *not* typecast Linux as a server OS -- my main point was that the open source model is a double-bladed sword: you get freedom, but you also get chaos. The partial result of that chaos is that Linux is not as good a desktop OS as BeOS is.
I did not criticize Neil Stephenson -- I said there was a danger lurking in the fact that journalists don't tend to push BeOS as a general-purpose operating system, and that they should be.
The lack of drivers on BeOS in comparison to Linux has a lot more to do with time (BeOS for x86 has only been available for 18 months, for godsake!) than it does with anyting related to open source.
Be actively supports the development of open source software for BeOS. Witness the port of Mozilla to BeOS, which Be is supporting financially. Not to mention the fact that Be releases tons of sample code, and source to many of the applications included with the OS.
Exactly. All of Be's support for x86 hardware has been created in 18 months! By my reckoning, development on BeOS is coming along *very* quickly. Lots of sample driver code, direct support for developers from Be, and very clean, simple APIs all mean that driver development happens fast.
It's been said many times in this discussion, but I'll say it again: BeOS comes with the gcc compiler, a full IDE and debugger, source code to hundreds of command line tools, source code to dozens of GUI apps... Be is very supportive of open source concepts, but they're not going to give away their business. But the point is, every BeOS user is as much a potential programmer as every Linux users. And there are lots of open source projects out there for BeOS users. Just look around.
Linux installation isn't so difficult... I don't really have a problem with it. The problem with Linux is configuring it. Anyone can get a RedHat installation done easily. But download some application that requires some other library or desktop environment that you don't have, and you're in it up to your neck. Swap out your video card and you're in trouble deep unless you really know what you're doing. A few weeks ago I replaced my Matrox Millenium with a Real 3D Starfighter AGP. Rebooted, and BeOS just worked. Didn't prompt me for video drivers or anything. Just worked. It took a day of tinkering to make Linux happy with the same card.
Slashdot Mirror
Not quite. The filesystem was developed by Dominic Giampaolo, while working at Be. Dominic once worked for SGI, not Apple. There are however several ex-Apple engineers at Be.
Well, I learned bash from the ground up in BeOS, and haven't hit any limits yet. I think saying "It's an okay path for an average Windows user" is downplaying the power of both BeOS and the bash shell.
Why is an 18 petabyte filesize limit superior to a 2GB filesize limit? Have you ever tried capturing 30 minutes of uncompressed 640x480 digital video to disk? BeOS is a media-optimized OS. This kind of thing is critical. Nuff said.
NetPositive is not all things to all people, but I prefer it over any other browser. Clunky? That's the absolute last thing I would call it. Small, fast, and graceful is how I see it. I hate using other browsers after having become accustomed to NetPositive.
Wrong. You'll get the BFS filesystem as well. A filesystem within a Windows file. You will not have to sacrifice the many advantage of the Be File System.
Excuse me? BEOS IPO'd at $6, then climbed as high as $38 before floating back down to $20. Check your facts.
Remember that this particular sword cuts both ways. BeOS has had USB support for a long time now. Similarly, SoundBlaster Live! support for BeOS appeared in working form for BeOS before Linux (at the time, Linux instructions were telling me to recompile my kernel -- puh-leeze!). In many cases, hardware vendors are willing to give specs to Be because they know they can get their NDAs signed without hassle. Linux isn't always ahead where hardware is concerned.
That's a bit misleading. BeOS ships with a couple dozen GUI apps and around 200 command-line utilities. But more importantly, there are more than a thousands freeware, shareware, and commercial apps available for BeOS. Just because they don't come on the CD doesn't mean there's no software. Just ask anyone who uses BeOS full-time.
Not true -- you'll get the full benefits of BFS. BFS will actually installed in a FAT file. A filesystem within a filesystem (and not emulation, either).
My dad is a complete computer-phobe, and has been using BeOS for more than a year now, full-time. He says, "it works like I expect it to," but when I come over and show him some of the funkier things he can do, he always gets excited and digs in deeper. The bash shell still intimidates him, but that's the nice thing -- it's there for those who want or need it, but users can use the system full-time without ever opening a Terminal. He never calls me for support, either. :)
Just because the press release only came out today doesn't mean they started working on it today. They could have been working on this for a year for all we know. In fact, given that short time frame, I take it as a given that they've been working on it for a while.
I didn't say that no money is made from Linux, only that Linux competes outside of the traditional business model. 99% of the code written for Linux is written without intent to make a profit. You can't point to RedHat etc., since none of the companies packaging up Linux distributions are making an operating system -- they're just bundling up other people's code, for the most part. Support? Sure, but companies doing support aren't in the business of making an operating system either.
Yes, Linux counts as competition. Of course. But it's not competing to make money off an operating system, like Be is.
Be struggles to convince PC makers to preload BeOS, but those vendors don't want to risk losing the rebates they get from MS in exchange for selling MS-only systems (this is changing slowly). Be struggles to convince developers to port their applications, but they are reluctant to when Windows has 90% of the market. And the same thing happens when Be tries to convince hardware vendors to write BeOS drivers for I/O cards and peripherals.
On a hypothetical level playing field, hardware and software vendors would consider the array of operating systems before them and decide which to support based on technical merit and suitability to the task at hand, not focus on a single OS with their only criteria being "because that's what the installed base uses."
Chicken and egg problems face Be everywhere they turn, and virtually all of them can be ascribed to Windows' dominance. Even in cases where MS has _not_ done anything questionable, the momentum of Windows still makes it almost impossible for Be to compete. The judge was right to hold up Be as an example of how difficult MS makes it to compete in the OS market.
To antipate a response: "Doesn't the open source model circumvent many of the barriers to entry that Be faces?"
Yes. But that's just the point. The success of Linux vis-a-vis Be almost seems like evidence that you can't compete in the OS market unless you do so without hoping to make money. Linux succeeds by not competing on the traditional business playing field, and there's something to be said for that. But if Linux were the proprietary creation of a single company, it would be exactly where Be is now, or worse. Moral of the story: unless something is done, it may never be possible for true competition to happen in operating system land. Scot
Well, I guess no one should ever try and start up a new film or record company, because the majors have the market locked up tight. Raymond is effectively saying that no other company in the future of the tech industry will have a chance at making a dent in the OS market, that it's a futile endeavor. Windows, MacOS, and open source forever and ever and ever. That's sad, fatalistic thinking that's not going to get us anywhere. Is there a place for new commercial operating systems? Sure there is. Just as much as there's a place for independent film and record companies. BeOS doesn't have all the apps and drivers that Linux has, but it also has a lot of technologies -- and ELEGANCE -- that Linux does not. And Be has accomplished this with a team of 100 engineers. Yes, open source has its advantages. But open source has not created BeOS, and I'm still not convinced that it can. Or maybe it can eventually, but BeOS is here now, and there's no way I'm going to wrestle with open source software when I can use BeOS. In terms of pleasantness, ease of use, ease of configuration, and modern technologies, there's just no comparison.
I've been using the BeOS version of lame, and agree that it's the fastest non-Xing encoder I've seen. Especially with the -f switch. Sounds great too.
AudioCatalyst is based on the Xing encoder, which is about 10x faster than BladeEnc. And since you're on PowerPC, you get the floating point advantage. AudioCatalyst on the Mac is currently the fastest encoding solution available to general consumers.
Uh... hello? The Be hype machine hasn't even *started* yet! The Be Everywhere marketing campaign starts probably right after PC Expo. The attention Linux is getting in comparison to BeOS makes no sense to me. Yes, Linux deserves attention. BeOS deserves more. And any journalist who sits down and installs / tests both systems will discover that for themselves. Linux has a long way to go to approach BeOS' ease of use, ease of configuration, gracefulness, and desktop speed / responsiveness. Linux rocks as a server right now. It may rock as a desktop OS one day. But BeOS rocks as a desktop OS now.
BeOS has been out of beta for more than a year now.
Take a look at the freshly updated Hardware Compatibility List:
http://www-classi c.be.com/support/guides/beosreadylist_intel.html. There's *tons* of new supported hardware on it.
How about because BeOS can address audio hardware *eight* times more efficiently than Windows on the same machine. How about because many of the BeOS media apps are capable of things that are simply impossible on other platforms? How about because you haven't seen all the media apps being released in the next three months?
I did *not* typecast Linux as a server OS -- my main point was that the open source model is a double-bladed sword: you get freedom, but you also get chaos. The partial result of that chaos is that Linux is not as good a desktop OS as BeOS is.
I did not criticize Neil Stephenson -- I said there was a danger lurking in the fact that journalists don't tend to push BeOS as a general-purpose operating system, and that they should be.
The lack of drivers on BeOS in comparison to Linux has a lot more to do with time (BeOS for x86 has only been available for 18 months, for godsake!) than it does with anyting related to open source.
Be actively supports the development of open source software for BeOS. Witness the port of Mozilla to BeOS, which Be is supporting financially. Not to mention the fact that Be releases tons of sample code, and source to many of the applications included with the OS.
Exactly. All of Be's support for x86 hardware has been created in 18 months! By my reckoning, development on BeOS is coming along *very* quickly. Lots of sample driver code, direct support for developers from Be, and very clean, simple APIs all mean that driver development happens fast.
It's been said many times in this discussion, but I'll say it again: BeOS comes with the gcc compiler, a full IDE and debugger, source code to hundreds of command line tools, source code to dozens of GUI apps... Be is very supportive of open source concepts, but they're not going to give away their business. But the point is, every BeOS user is as much a potential programmer as every Linux users. And there are lots of open source projects out there for BeOS users. Just look around.
Linux installation isn't so difficult... I don't really have a problem with it. The problem with Linux is configuring it. Anyone can get a RedHat installation done easily. But download some application that requires some other library or desktop environment that you don't have, and you're in it up to your neck. Swap out your video card and you're in trouble deep unless you really know what you're doing. A few weeks ago I replaced my Matrox Millenium with a Real 3D Starfighter AGP. Rebooted, and BeOS just worked. Didn't prompt me for video drivers or anything. Just worked. It took a day of tinkering to make Linux happy with the same card.