Those comments have, in the past, been leveled at Linux users as well. How many times in the past couple of years have you heard somebody in the media gurgling FUD about, "It's just not immediately obvious what advantages Linux - and the open source model in general - provide"?
I will not gush about eight movies playing on the desktop. I will not make claims that BeOS is a better server than Linux. I will not tell you it is flaw-free, runs faster and more stable than Linux, and has a special demo app that will cure cancer, stop war, and clean your bedroom.
On the other hand, for the things that BeOS has, and especially for the things that BeOS has that no other operating system has, I will stand up for. Playing eight movies may not be a great example, but it's an example of something that is difficult to do on other operating systems (to a much larger extent, eight movies is more of a "wow" to Windows users than Linux users).
As for the strengths of another proprietary OS - those lie in what that OS has that other OSes do not. There are some technical features of BeOS that Linux doesn't have, nor can't have unless parts of Linux are rewritten drastically (for example, pervasive multithreading). Not only is the kernel able to take advantage of multiple processors, so is the file system, the input system, and even applications not specifically written for multithreading (details of this aspect can be found on Be's web pages). As a result, BeOS is more efficient - holistically - than Linux is at taking advantage of SMP.
Is BeOS designed to replace Linux? No. Are there lots of things that Linux can do that BeOS can't? You bet. Can you do everything you want on Linux and ignore BeOS? Probably. Does that mean Linux is the best solution for every user, every application, and every lifestyle? No.
When I used Linux, after using BeOS, I found Linux to be more intrusive. More powerful, yes. I could almost feel the OS humming beneath my fingers as I typed on the command line. But for the same reasons I bought a car with an automatic transmission and not a stick, I want an automatic OS and not a manual one. Linux is too manual for me, and while I might've appreciated that a few years ago, my lifestyle has changed to where I don't have the time or energy to argue with my computer anymore. BeOS fits *my* needs better than Linux does - and that makes BeOS have a major strength as compared to Linux. Linux is not for every user. Windows is not for every user. BeOS is not for every user.
I can hardly wait to read all of the comments. "BeOS sucks." "BeOS is a crappy OS." "BeOS has no apps." "BeOS isn't open source."
I wonder how many of the people who feel qualified to comment on Be and/or BeOS have actually used the operating system for any length of time and tried to be objective about it. From some of the content-free bashing on Slashdot, it seems that the extent of some opinions are formed from either somebody else's comments or from finding a screenshot off the web.
It may not be up to the same level of usability that Linux is, and it may not have the same level of developer support, it may not be open source, and _God_forbid_ that it have one built-in GUI with no themes support - but don't fall into the Stallman/Raymond-esque viewpoint of "all closed-source software sucks simply because it's closed-source software".
For all of the shouting the Linux community does about "judging Linux on its merits, not on the FUD Microsoft spreads," I find it very ironic that the Linux community turns around and performs the same Microsoft-ish actions to others. Judge BeOS on its merits. If it has lacking driver and application support (as it does), point it out. If you think the closed-source nature of the software is a negative, point it out. But at least give BeOS credit for the things it does well.
I understand the desire to be proud of what Linux has accomplished, especially given the mutually exclusive natures of Linux and the commercial software market - but don't let pride lead to arrogance. Be proud of what you've accomplished, but don't shit on the little people because of it. Arrogance stems from insecurity (example: Microsoft). If you really believe how great Linux is, there's no need to bash the other guy. Let the merits of Linux speak for themselves.
BeOS may not be Linux, and it probably will never be Linux, but not everything *has* to be Linux.
primitive data types are not objects, they must be coerced into an object for methods which expect an object, and coerced back for operators which expect a primitive
No offense intended, but duh. Primitives and objects are two completely different creatures.
no operator overloading
So?
collection classes are not convienent to use (take iterators for example)
Actually, that's a personal preference. I find the collection classes are quite easy to use. Regardless, it's the same type of construct that you find in the STL in C/C++.
methods can only return 1 value
Yes, but. Methods in C or C++ can only return one value as well. In Java, objects are passed by reference, which means you can pass an object into the function, manipulate it in the function, and the changed data stays even when the function exits. Just like references work in C/C++.
The idea is to put a [SPAM] or [AD] in the header line, not the body of the message. Sure, you still incur some overhead over simply blankly sending out the email, but you aren't wasting gobs of processor time wandering over the content.
That reminds me - if you have _two_ P3s, how does the system decide which processor ID is used for what? Does it pick the processor is the first processor slot? Does it do it randomly? Does it combine the IDs somehow?
I can hardly wait until Microsoft uses this to "justify" recording computer IDs, as well as having GUIDs put into their Office documents.
Methinks I'll go convert all my old Office documents into RTF.
The point of the movie was humor!
on
EDtv
·
· Score: 1
Could it just be that maybe it was _meant_ to be a humorous movie? That Ron Howard didn't want to make a serious study of the "convergence" of media, technology, and whatever else Katz mentioned, that he just wanted something that people would find intriguing?
I, for one, saw the movie Friday night and found it quite funny. A documentary or serious analysis of the issues isn't something I'd pay $7.75 for - I'd much rather watch it free of charge on A&E or The Learning Channel.
Slashdot Mirror
Those comments have, in the past, been leveled at Linux users as well. How many times in the past couple of years have you heard somebody in the media gurgling FUD about, "It's just not immediately obvious what advantages Linux - and the open source model in general - provide"?
I will not gush about eight movies playing on the desktop. I will not make claims that BeOS is a better server than Linux. I will not tell you it is flaw-free, runs faster and more stable than Linux, and has a special demo app that will cure cancer, stop war, and clean your bedroom.
On the other hand, for the things that BeOS has, and especially for the things that BeOS has that no other operating system has, I will stand up for. Playing eight movies may not be a great example, but it's an example of something that is difficult to do on other operating systems (to a much larger extent, eight movies is more of a "wow" to Windows users than Linux users).
As for the strengths of another proprietary OS - those lie in what that OS has that other OSes do not. There are some technical features of BeOS that Linux doesn't have, nor can't have unless parts of Linux are rewritten drastically (for example, pervasive multithreading). Not only is the kernel able to take advantage of multiple processors, so is the file system, the input system, and even applications not specifically written for multithreading (details of this aspect can be found on Be's web pages). As a result, BeOS is more efficient - holistically - than Linux is at taking advantage of SMP.
Is BeOS designed to replace Linux? No. Are there lots of things that Linux can do that BeOS can't? You bet. Can you do everything you want on Linux and ignore BeOS? Probably. Does that mean Linux is the best solution for every user, every application, and every lifestyle? No.
When I used Linux, after using BeOS, I found Linux to be more intrusive. More powerful, yes. I could almost feel the OS humming beneath my fingers as I typed on the command line. But for the same reasons I bought a car with an automatic transmission and not a stick, I want an automatic OS and not a manual one. Linux is too manual for me, and while I might've appreciated that a few years ago, my lifestyle has changed to where I don't have the time or energy to argue with my computer anymore. BeOS fits *my* needs better than Linux does - and that makes BeOS have a major strength as compared to Linux. Linux is not for every user. Windows is not for every user. BeOS is not for every user.
But BeOS *IS* for *this* user.
I can hardly wait to read all of the comments. "BeOS sucks." "BeOS is a crappy OS." "BeOS has no apps." "BeOS isn't open source."
I wonder how many of the people who feel qualified to comment on Be and/or BeOS have actually used the operating system for any length of time and tried to be objective about it. From some of the content-free bashing on Slashdot, it seems that the extent of some opinions are formed from either somebody else's comments or from finding a screenshot off the web.
It may not be up to the same level of usability that Linux is, and it may not have the same level of developer support, it may not be open source, and _God_forbid_ that it have one built-in GUI with no themes support - but don't fall into the Stallman/Raymond-esque viewpoint of "all closed-source software sucks simply because it's closed-source software".
For all of the shouting the Linux community does about "judging Linux on its merits, not on the FUD Microsoft spreads," I find it very ironic that the Linux community turns around and performs the same Microsoft-ish actions to others. Judge BeOS on its merits. If it has lacking driver and application support (as it does), point it out. If you think the closed-source nature of the software is a negative, point it out. But at least give BeOS credit for the things it does well.
I understand the desire to be proud of what Linux has accomplished, especially given the mutually exclusive natures of Linux and the commercial software market - but don't let pride lead to arrogance. Be proud of what you've accomplished, but don't shit on the little people because of it. Arrogance stems from insecurity (example: Microsoft). If you really believe how great Linux is, there's no need to bash the other guy. Let the merits of Linux speak for themselves.
BeOS may not be Linux, and it probably will never be Linux, but not everything *has* to be Linux.
You know, with a little creative editing...:
... and the ... thing I want to do is spread fear, uncertainty and doubt in their minds."
:)
"People will spend millions of dollars
Heh.
Ignoring the obvious troll/MS-bashing of this post...
Oops. I guess there's no post to respond to, then.
Just some comments and notes.
primitive data types are not objects, they must be coerced into an object for methods which expect an object, and coerced back for operators which expect a primitive
No offense intended, but duh. Primitives and objects are two completely different creatures.
no operator overloading
So?
collection classes are not convienent to use (take iterators for example)
Actually, that's a personal preference. I find the collection classes are quite easy to use. Regardless, it's the same type of construct that you find in the STL in C/C++.
methods can only return 1 value
Yes, but. Methods in C or C++ can only return one value as well. In Java, objects are passed by reference, which means you can pass an object into the function, manipulate it in the function, and the changed data stays even when the function exits. Just like references work in C/C++.
Excuse me?
The idea is to put a [SPAM] or [AD] in the header line, not the body of the message. Sure, you still incur some overhead over simply blankly sending out the email, but you aren't wasting gobs of processor time wandering over the content.
That reminds me - if you have _two_ P3s, how does the system decide which processor ID is used for what? Does it pick the processor is the first processor slot? Does it do it randomly? Does it combine the IDs somehow?
I can hardly wait until Microsoft uses this to "justify" recording computer IDs, as well as having GUIDs put into their Office documents.
Methinks I'll go convert all my old Office documents into RTF.
Could it just be that maybe it was _meant_ to be a humorous movie? That Ron Howard didn't want to make a serious study of the "convergence" of media, technology, and whatever else Katz mentioned, that he just wanted something that people would find intriguing?
I, for one, saw the movie Friday night and found it quite funny. A documentary or serious analysis of the issues isn't something I'd pay $7.75 for - I'd much rather watch it free of charge on A&E or The Learning Channel.
Well... that was certainly random.
Perhaps the only saving grace of the post was that the author actually had a point.