It's The End Of The Be As We Know It 216
JRAC writes "Be Inc. has replaced their web site's entire contents with information on the sale of Be to Palm.
Stock holders can find all relevant info on the Stock Information page.
BeOS 5 Personal Edition is no longer available from the site. Looks like it's time to hit the mirrors. Try ftp.planetmirror.com/pub/beos for files.
" The official sale was approved just over a month ago.
This is exactly why we need Free software. (Score:4, Insightful)
If only Be had released the source under the GPL prior to going under, BeOS could have continued and evovled. As it is it's something of a Neanderthal - an evolutionary dead end.
Re:This is exactly why we need Free software. (Score:2, Insightful)
If they had GPL'd their code then they would most likely have declared bankruptcy instead of selling their IP and assets to Palm.
Opening Be wouldn't really matter anymore... (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, this isn't what hardware manufacturers want to support. They want to support Windows and maybe Linux. From a conspiratorial standpoint, you could always think about it as the hardware manufacturers simply sticking to Windows because the power curve keeps increasing so often, new parts are always in vogue. From a more realistic standpoint, it's likely because the manufacturers are broke due to economic conditions, or simply too inexperienced to handle multiplatform development. Can open source volunteers make good drivers? Sure, we've seen this with xfree86, but look at what's happened to X. It's huge, considerably bloated, and with the exception of a very few window managers, ugly and unwieldy.
The Be kernel and design methodology were excellent, with few major flaws. The file system design was incredible and should be the first thing remembered if anyone does try and develop another operating system, or add support for it to Linux. Unfortunately, I just don't see evidence that the open source community can come together to create the kind of experience we're starting to see from Mac OS X, in regards to the Be effort. You need hardware, you need vendor support, and you need -rapid- development to get momentum going.
OSX's major flaw so far has been performance, because the BSD/Mach codebase it's built on it simply unwieldy without further refinement. Too much RAM is sucked up by the GUI, which at least manages to be the most functionally attractive one out there. It does what it needs to do, looks good doing it, and actually does mange to innovate, something that hasn't honestly been done since the original MacOS. Say what you will, but the windowing paradigm hasn't evolved much until transparencies became a feature of a commercially successful OS. Apple was able to make this leap by having control over the drivers, and the operating system. As a ten percent underdog, that's not the bad kind of monopoly. Particularly as Apple increasingly, yet slowly, warms up to open source.
Do I support work on OpenBe and like projects? Sure. Do I expect they'll change the world? Not at all. I -wish- they could, but if a system with as many developers as Linux still fails to impress me as a desktop solution due to clunkiness and the interface nightmare that is X11, I just don't think open source will be able to develop an interface that'll compete for user friendliness.
Will I use Linux and X11? Yes, of course. But I'm not the average home user, and that's where the battle for vendor support for an OS lies. I hope someday open source will come around and realize this.
Re:This is exactly why we need Free software. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ummm, Be sold BeOS to Palm to gain $11,000,000, to pay off creditors and try to give some money back to the shareholders that poured a shitload of money into BEOS (for example, ME).
On top of that, for the upteenth million time, BeOS could NOT have been open-sourced, because it contained a lot of code that was not Be's to give away. Obviously they did not feel putting a ton of engineers on the task of preparing the source code to be given away.
NO! Wait! This is Too Cool to Kill! (Score:2, Insightful)
I was looking forward to some kind of os updates... with the right supporting programs, this OS could be what makes me switch full time from Wi...er...that other OS...
This is absolutely fantastic...I mean...I've been using and experimenting with computers since I was 13 years old...(so...cripes...18 years???Yeesh...) And this new (to me, at least) os is making me feel like a little kid again...when hardware wasn't cheap, and coding HAD to be tailored to be fast...It's very apparent that a LOT of hard work and love went into crafting this...
Palm? Are you listening? PLEASE don't kill this... Extend it. Release it. Open Source it...Continue it...ANYTHING but kill it...
And..um...Yeah...it's pretty keen...
Re:Opening Be wouldn't really matter anymore... (Score:2, Insightful)
The Windows monopoly has -won-. Buisnesses need Office, suits buy what they know about regardless of quality, when it comes to computers. You can argue until you're blue in the face that Linux is a more stable, securable, and cheaper alternative but the question will -always- be asked.
"Who do we call if something goes horribly, drastically wrong? And by the way, where's Office for it?"
Maybe they can call IBM, who knows. But as to Office, Microsoft has essentially shut open source completely out. But they've made one possible mistake, and created possibly the best Word and Excel solution on a non-Microsoft operating system. THIS more than anything else is what open source developers who truly want to change the world should look at, the fact that Apple's finally rising to the challenge, with the -support- of Microsoft's Macintosh Business Unit.
If you want to change the world, make Mac OS X and the Darwin/x86 core better. Let Apple handle the GUI, let Apple design the hardware. Yes, it may cost 10-20% more for the hardware, but it's a small price to pay for the closest thing to a free chance at actually getting a truly kick-ass OS into the hands of the masses.
Instead of considering Apple a closed-source evil, look at them as a company that knows how to do three things well. They know how to design killer hardware, they know how to create a user interface that doesn't suck, and they know how to -survive-. You don't get bitch-slapped in the marketplace by Microsoft for nearly two decades and remain in business by living on your stock inflation alone.
The whole Amiga mentality (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Opening Be wouldn't really matter anymore... (Score:4, Insightful)
On another note, I am firmly convinced that the reason OSX is slow is Mach. Experience in my department has established that throughput on a loaded server with a microkernel-based OS (MkLinux with a Debian binary set) is a good 30-50% slower than with a non-microkernel OS (monolithic Linux kernel with the *same* binary set). That is not a performance loss to sneeze at, no matter how great microkernels are.
I personally think the reason Linux is the top competitor to Windows is simple: it's a Unix-like operating system and after 30+ years, no better paradigm for rapidly-deployable general-purpose computing (i.e. everything from office tasks to embedded systems to network serving) than Unix+X has yet been seen, regardless of BeOS, OS/2, Amiga Workbench, ad infinitum.
The "good enough" effect. (Score:5, Insightful)
Mark Twain went broke investing in the best linotype machine on the face of the earth. It could do anything and everything. However, people wanted the machine that was easier to get and "good enough".
RIP BeOS (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:This is exactly why we need Free software. (Score:1, Insightful)