Zeta Goes Gold 311
*no comment* writes "Be lives! yellowTAB has announced it's 1.0 release of Zeta has gone Gold and has sent it off to production. The word is that in about 2 weeks, you can have your hands on the latest version of this BeOS derivative."
The kernel source? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd feel kind of silly spending 99 euros for an operating system in which these guys don't even have the source - or even legally for that matter.
What app support is missing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Resolved: NeXTStep was More Advanced than BeOS... (Score:5, Insightful)
(My take: It doesn't matter. The NeXT purchase brought back Steve Jobs, who has been worth, at the very least, as much to Shareholders as OS X (I can't believe Jean Louise-Gasse (sp?) would have been nearly as influential, nor would he (or whoever followed Gil Amelio) would come up with the iPod or iMac). A very conservative estimate would be that the presence of Jobs added $2 billion to Apple stockholder value.)
Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Resolved: NeXTStep was More Advanced than BeOS. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't get it! Who's going to buy it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Free I could understand, we hobbiests are crazy, but 99 Euros? WTF?
Re:Reasons why you should care: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally? (Score:1, Insightful)
You are entirely correct. But the open source zealots who help give open source a bad name and strengthen Microsoft's cause would like you to believe otherwise.
According to them..
Because you don't edit and complile your own source code, you are dependent on "the man" and are not free.
Because you did not build your own computer from scratch you are not free.
Because you did not crack the molecules from crude oil in your mother's basement and fashion the plastic case for your computer on your own, you are not free.
Because you do not generate your own electricity, you are dependent on some utility and are not free.
Because you did not start out with a fist full of raw sand and turn it into a video card you are not free.
I'd like to know if the GP has the source code to his computer's BIOS, or the schematics to his motherboard or his processor. Because without them, he is not free.
Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally? (Score:2, Insightful)
Welcome to my friends list.
Re:Dear Timothy (Score:2, Insightful)
Just reposting this as the parent has been modded flamebait. Any modders with itchy fingers, note I've removed the naughty words. The sentiment though I endorse. My seven-year-old daughter knows that "it's" = "it is".
Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally? (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh? A person who DECIDES to use this operating system and who can BACK OUT by using some other operating system, is somehow deprived of the free use of their computer?
The decision to use this OS falls under a users freedom to use what they want on their computer. Ever thought that not everyone wants what you want and for some people the use of this OS might actually fit within the freedoms which they wish to exercise?
You sound like a broken record.
I'm a BSD user BTW. I also like and use OS X. I have the freedom to remove OS X from my Macs and install OpenBSD if I want. My free choice at the moment has me using OS X on my Macs and OpenBSD on my i386's and sparc64's. Mac OS X is not removing my freedom to not use it.
Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it would be nice to have access to the BIOS source and motherboard schematics -- just like it is nice to have access to the kernel source and to application sources. The more of these things are opened, the more freedom users will enjoy.
It is not zealotry to expect source code for an OS. Even Microsoft recognizes that universities can't study Windows to any non-trivial extent without allowing schools access through their Shared Source program.
In an OS, freedom means the ability of the user base to take action when security problems appear, to provide drivers for new hardware, and to control the configuration of the system. To be suddenly cut off from security updates on an old system, and face migration, upgrade, or compromise is not freedom. Dependence on a vendor and a proprietary OS may -- and quite often, does -- mean convenience and ease of use; it does not mean freedom.
Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally? (Score:5, Insightful)
You might be trolling, but I'll bite anyway.
Because you don't edit and complile your own source code, you are dependent on "the man" and are not free.
No. It is not because you do not edit and compile your own software; it is because you are PREVENTED to edit and compile your own software that you are not free
Because you did not build your own computer from scratch you are not free.
No. If you are PREVENTED from building your own computer, you are not free
Because you did not crack the molecules from crude oil in your mother's basement and fashion the plastic case for your computer on your own, you are not free.
No. If you are PREVENTED to crack your own molecules, then you are not free.
Because you do not generate your own electricity, you are dependent on some utility and are not free.
No. If you are PREVENTED from generating your own electricity, you are not free.
Because you did not start out with a fist full of raw sand and turn it into a video card you are not free.
No. If you are PREVENTED to make your own video card, then you are not free
I never walk in protest marches. Does that mean I would agree with taking away the right for OTHER people to walk in protest marches? No, as that would take away their freedom directly (and mine indirectly). I never build my own TV set. Does that mean I would agree with legislation that would prevent OTHER people to build their own TV set (without broadcast flag checking)? No.
Do I edit and compile the software I run? Sometimes. If I did not I would still see that someone preventing me from being able to edit and compile the software that I run is taking away my freedom
Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally? (Score:4, Insightful)
You are entirely correct. But the open source zealots who help give open source a bad name and strengthen Microsoft's cause would like you to believe otherwise.
This is some good trolling here - not sure why I've decided to bite anyway...
Any movement is defined, at least partially, by its fringe. This is true whether you're talking politics, (go Rush!) Religion, (go Misionaries!) or software. (go Debian!)
You can be very selective, and choose political conservatives who believe in aliens, and that the government is infecting the population with AIDS through airplane exhaust. (Google for comtrails produces this [apfn.org])
It would be very hard to say that conservatives are all about comtrails, aliens, and government conspiracy. Yet, some of the more vocal ones are.
Are you going to see me making a video card from sand? Come on, pal. You're being more fringe in your comments about the fringe than they were in the beginning!
OSS DOES benefit you, even if not immediately. Parent post mention that having the source for Apache doesn't help in any way. Except that it does:
1) Having the source freely available puts lots of plusses on the "supply" side of the economic scale, meaning the costs for obtaining the software will always be low.
2) Having the source freely available creates a culture of mods and patches, which make it much more likely that you'll be able to get much-needed features without having to commission your own software company.
3) Open source software can persist long after the original group or sponsor quits. Thus, we have evolution and ximian, and to a lesser extent, Mozilla. Oh, and don't forget the Firebird DBMS. [sourceforge.net] How many sponsors has PostgreSQL [postgresql.org] had over the years?
Another example: Microsoft discontinuing VB 6. A stable, workhorse of a programming environment, the "upgrade" was in fact a wholy different language. Without the marketroids running the show, the OSS solution would have been a fork of the codebase, leaving enterprise users free to continue to develop and improve the VB6 codebase.
None of this is new - it's been said many times before. Oh well. You trolled, I bit. I guess you got what you wanted...
Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally? (Score:2, Insightful)
First of all you should define what is yours and what isn't. If you are buying software from a developer who is only selling you the binaries or a license to use them, then the source code is hardly yours. Just like it happens with computers, TVs, and everything else. The blue-prints are not part of the deal when you buy those.
But I wouldn't accept a rule that tells me I should include my source code as part of the deal when I sell software either. That would take away my freedom, which is no less important than yours.
The key point in this discussion is that both the open source and closed source mentality have a reason to exist and none of them is inherently wrong.
Feel free to edit what is trully yours. If you need the source code then you are free to either go for open source software or buy the source code from the developer. Someone trying to gain ownership of my work without my permission would be taking away my freedom.
PS: this is not against open source, which is a wonderful thing, but against extremisms.
FOAD, Troll. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, you are, in a so-far successful attempt to rack up positive moderations [slashdot.org] from people who can't be bothered to read yellowTAB's statement [yellowtab.com].
Their very clear statement, linked above, says:
"lack of a clear statement" leading to "much doubt as to the legality of their software"? Go back under your bridge.
(If I'm feeding the troll a little snack, it's the gullible moderators who've served it a full-course meal of positive moderations.)
Re: What linux alternatives (Score:2, Insightful)
BeOS was like MacOS done right (God, I hate the old MacOS. 9 and earlier. Hate them.) with a healthy dose of OSX thrown in, except it was out way before OSX was even on the horizon for Apple. Oh, and it could run on x86, of course.
Not really any resemblance to Linux, aside from being a bit Unixy. It was really, really tied to its graphical environment, to the point that it was impossible (IIRC) to boot to just a prompt. It was OK though, because it was very good about being able to get to at least a 640x480 VGA desktop in emergencies. It was really hard to mess it up so bad that it couldn't at do that much.
You could install it on an old 486 or low-level Pentium and expect to get a usable, very responsive, fast-booting desktop out of it that had a low memory footprint and could do way more video or audio decoding than one would have ever thought such a machine was capable of. Can't say the same for Linux.
My memory may be colored by the fact that I got a copy of this OS around the same time as I got BeOS (Right before Be died, then), but I thought whatever version of QNX with its Neutrino (is that right?) desktop that was around then was a little bit like BeOS. I mean, in terms of responsiveness and the "feel" of apps running on it, and the cohesive feel of the overall user experience. They don't look at all similar, of course, and BeOS was far more capable for most desktop tasks, if only because it had more desktop-oriented software ported to it than QNX. QNX is actually made mostly for embedded stuff and for has-to-work systems like airline control type things; it just also happens to be good for turning your old Pentium I's into MP3 jukeboxes or dedicated web browsing machines
Re:Requirements? (Score:3, Insightful)
They do have the kernel source. This is not a patch, the actual problem was fixed. It will be interesting to see, as I've heard good word about the kernel Be was using in the end but never got released. This should be it.
I just can't wait to dual boot OS X and Zeta on the same machine. What a strange world we live in!
Re:Zeta Beta (Score:3, Insightful)