Be-Alike: BlueOS Uses Linux For Its Kernel 170
OSBlue writes "A few days ago, news emerged regarding the OpenBeOS project, while now there is more information regarding the other effort to 'save' BeOS, BlueOS. BlueOS uses the Linux kernel 2.4.12 and Xfree as as the base of their OS. For now, they are building a BeOS look-alike Interface Kit and BeOS app_server on top of XFree, so it is not just a simple window manager, but a whole new API and environment. In future versions, the BlueOS team will completely bypass XFree and have a stand alone BeOS compatible app_server which will only use some of the XFree's system calls to be able to use its 2D/3D drivers. Guillaume Mailard, team leader in the BlueOS project gives more information in an interview to OSNews."
fork? (Score:1)
I dono.. (Score:2)
A better project for them would have been to write a new BeOS like API to replace X and wrap over Linux.
I have a little concern that BeOS and AtheOS are both going to suffer the same problem. By not using CORBA or COM, they gain in simplicity, but C++ linkages are just not stable, especially with respect to future expandability and changing compilers.
Re:I dono.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I dono.. (Score:1)
Sheesh,
/s
Re:I dono.. (Score:2)
Is it because people don't want to give the linker explicit knowledge of C++ and OO programming methodology?
Why not just expand the linker to be a little more intelligent - it would have advantages for other OO languages too, I'd imagine.
Re:I dono.. (Score:2)
And that wouldn't really help, because different C++ compilers do things a little differently. Differences in RTTI, exception handling, memory management, etc. come in to play.
Which is why a system like CORBA, COM, or the like is so useful.
Except that all of those systems are slightly annoying on some level, so people want to avoid using them. So I'm not sure what the best answer to that is.
Legal? (Score:1)
Re:Legal? (Score:1)
It stuns me that there is STILL so much interest in BeOS among so many, yet the "owners" of BeOS STILL refuse to make it available! It's like they made such an amazingly BAD decision with this Internet Appliance thing that they can't face up to the reality that they had a good thing going.
all I can say.. (Score:1)
Re:all I can say.. (Score:1)
What's the point? (Score:2)
In fairness developing such wrappers would give developers a very nice working environment but the original benefits of BeOS would be lost.
Somehow I don't think this is gonna fly.
Re:What's the point? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:What's the point? (Score:1)
Re:What's the point? (Score:2)
Re:What's the point? (Score:2, Informative)
Can you elaborate? There is nothing wrong with Linux threading. I had heavily threaded BeOS code which was ported to Linux and it ran just as efficient, if not faster! BeOS is known for its "pervasive multithreading", and there's nothing particularly "superb" about it. In fact, for large applications it pretty much sucks ass since BeOS can't guarantee 100% message delivery. Many big name vendors simply abandoned BeOS apps because of this trouble. Or, they created a global lock which got rid of the "pervasive" part of the threading just so they could predict the behaviour of their app. Imagine having your application running fine on a fast 1GHZ box, while it crashes and burns on a slower box because it looses 1 or 2 important messages! Of course, this would indicate a design flaw, but you can't blame the engineers for getting it wrong the first time. Unfortunately for Be, since they were a new entity it only took a couple of wrong turns to tick off potential customers.
Read more on the art of loosing BMessages here (particularly JBQ's posts) [osnews.com].
-adnans
Re:What's the point? (Score:2)
Think about this: it's not open source. They have a whole question on this in the FAQ: Why should we trust them? I agree with you, but with different reasoning. There's no point in a (partially) closed-source clone of an existing dead project -- it's an attempt to profit off of something that didn't pull a profit in the first place.
When BlueOS dies I want its creators to take a lesson: the whole point of cloning something is to future-proof something that seemed like a good idea but was locked up. Locking up the clone is pointless and self-defeating.
/Brian
Re:What's the point? (Score:2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;
Only for developers too stupid to learn to do proper locking... Kernel developers deal with multithread issues on a regular basis (a SMP kernel behaves very similarly to a highly multithreaded application) and there seem to be no major stability problems in Solaris or Linux. Also, they abuse threads where it makes sense (the GUI). If you're doing much more in a GUI thread than drawing some pre-generated data, you're application design is wrong.
Re:What's the point? (Score:2)
Neat toy, but Id rather see a Linux Framebuffer... (Score:3, Informative)
M$ finally dropped dos, lets drop xwindows.
DirectFB was discussed a few days ago on Slashdot [directfb.org] in case you missed it.
Re:Neat toy, but Id rather see a Linux Framebuffer (Score:2)
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/12522
Re:Neat toy, but Id rather see a Linux Framebuffer (Score:2, Insightful)
*cough*
Not to get all flamey, but this project gives me somewhat of a bad taste in my mouth. I understand that Linux is the main driving force in the open-source world today, and that many current open-source projects are being actively developed by Linux users for Linux users. I am very thankful that many of these folks choose to make their works of art (software) portable to other Unix systems.
However, Unless DirectFB can be emulated somehow on non-Linux systems, the amount of Linux-centric software which will not be portable to other Unix platforms may begin to grow (depending on the popularity of DirectFB).
Right now, I'm very happy with portable X-based tools such as LyX, Gaim, and Mozilla - to only name a few. Without Linux, I beleive these projects would not be as popular as they are right now. As soon as projects like these that provide such useful functionality come to depend on DirectFB, I will be very disappointed if I am unable to run them on my choice of OS - which very often does not end up being Linux.
So anyhow, after this extensive rant, I hope I am not the only one that is a bit weary of DirectFB becoming the de-facto standard of newcoming Linux graphical application developers.
Re:Neat toy, but Id rather see a Linux Framebuffer (Score:2, Interesting)
X is a big reason for them all to die. For that and other reasons they are dying.
Linux should not follow them down that dark path. If Linux survives by cutting loose the boat anchor of X and hastens the demise of proprietary Unices, so be it -I say AMEN.
If *BSD cannot implement the same fb layer then it couldn't evolve fast enough. So be that, too.
Re:Neat toy, but Id rather see a Linux Framebuffer (Score:2)
Actually, I think most of the criticism of X is due to highly limited protocol specification - I mean you don't have alpha, only 1-bit mouse cursor and stuff that was undestandable year 1985 but not today. Sure, it has extension protocol and that's pretty much all we run nowadays if possible. This is pretty much the same thing as with OpenGL right now. You can do all the stuff with the officially supported protocol, but you really want to use all those extensions to get yourself off the ground. To say that X as a protocol is the way to go is obviously wrong. Creating a fresh protocol for network transparent windowing is the way to go - for example Berlin [berlin-consortium.org] shows a great promise but seems to take eternity to complete. Hell, you shout out loud when we see another x86 compatible chip how we should drop backwards compability for better ISA and in the same time you don't want to drop ancient API to get better results. It's only software for Pete's sake.
Not so .. (Score:1)
If DirectFB becomes a viable alternative to X, GTK/GNOME and QT/KDE will be ported pretty quick. Thereby abstracting the applications written for them from the display type they will run on. There's already a non-X version of QT, so it won't be that hard.
With the majority of future Linux apps being either server based (and not needing a GUI) or written for the above toolkits, portability will not be an issue.
Besides which, dismissing DirectFB without giving it a chance is very unfair. The right thing is for us to have a choice of both, and then to let the best technology win.
Some stiff competition might even be good for X, after all, it's not done KDE or GNOME any harm has it!
Re:Neat toy, but Id rather see a Linux Framebuffer (Score:1)
Because DirectFB is a pointless hack. If implemented correctly(ie, not reliant on any X protocol stuff), such a BeOS wrapper for XFree would probably run faster than DirectFB would simply because DGA and Xv get to use video card drivers that recieve much more attention and are consequently better tuned.
I don't really check up on these things much, but just how fast would a nVidia card run without their closed source drivers? Also how about 3d acceleration with any other card? X integration would do much for its 3d capabilities.
M$ finally dropped dos, lets drop xwindows.
M$ has yet to drop DOS, it still seems to be in WinXP after all. They simply replaced pure DOS with something that could do everything it can (including run DOS) plus some extra crap. Any X server supporting DGA or Xv can do everything DirectFB can, but can DirectFB do everything that X can?
Re:Neat toy, but Id rather see a Linux Framebuffer (Score:2)
That's a very narrow view. Who knows what the future holds? Currently XFree86 gets lots of attention, while Linux Framebuffer drivers do not. There is no reason this can't change.
I do like the remoteness of XFree, but other aspects are just plain bad. The most obvious problem with XFree is the inclusion of drivers. Every other driver I use in Linux is controlled by the kernel -- except for video. Why? There is nothing special about video that requires it to be separate. I should be able to just "insmod video.o" and install the driver. Fortunately, that's what the Linux Framebuffer is trying to correct. Video access is controlled by the kernel, and the display is served up on
This would ensure longevity in drivers. Right now, if we were to abandon XFree86, closed source X drivers would become worthless. This is why writing drivers for X is senseless. They should be written as kernel modules. This way, our display system is irrelevent. It could be DirectFB, X, or anything, and the driver stays the same.
The Linux Framebuffer also solves the permissions issue. To run an X server requires root access (so the executable is setuid root). The Linux Framebuffer, on the other hand, has permissions like any other 'device' (just chmod it) and you don't have to be root to use it! Yay! Maybe this fixes some security issues too? The Linux Framebuffer obsoletes svgalib in this regard as well.
Really, the Linux Framebuffer only brings good things. About the only counter to this argument is that not all other *nixes have framebuffers, and so it is the job of X to provide this. And to that, I say: Wrong! Time for these other *nixes to evolve. Linux should not be dragged down.
Please, move all driver development into the kernel realm, and call XFree86 finished. The only new things coming out of XFree are video drivers which have nothing to do with the X protocol anyway.
In short: X should not die, but X video drivers should.
Re:Neat toy, but Id rather see a Linux Framebuffer (Score:2)
X as a protocol should be separated out from actual hardware level display by having a single X server make all the kernel calls. As you said, hardware interface should happen only at the kernel level, and the fact that it doesn't currently is really poor design. There's no reason to chuck X entirely, but to remove many of the dependencies that we have on the XFree project would be a major bonus.
I think the reason for all this X vs. FB bickering is that people are forgetting that X isn't XFree, and that we can have our cake and eat it too by simply breaking up the tasks that XFree is responsible for. XFree is so huge (not bloated, just big) that it's overwhelming. Small is beautiful is the UNIX philosophy, and the fact that so much revolves around X is a major break with that. Putting the hardware where it belongs will clean things up to a major point. I think this needs to happen, and I hope it does. It'll be a major shift for everyone, but it'll be worth it.
Re:Neat toy, but Id rather see a Linux Framebuffer (Score:2)
This is what MS did with Windows NT. This is what caused all those blue screens of death when a badly written video driver went wonky.
The kernel hackers seem to have a rule: if it can go in user-land, keep it in user-land. This allows them to keep the kernel, upon which everything else depends, simple (to them anyway), stable and reliable.
Of course, there is a point where the benefits of centralisation surpass the drawbacks of complexity. Perhaps DirectFB reaches that point, but your arguments don't convince me.
Your main argument seems to be about inclusion of video drivers in X. You don't explain why that's a problem. Perhaps you could.
I solve the "permissions issue" by running GDM from rc2.d.
Re:Neat toy, but Id rather see a Linux Framebuffer (Score:2)
I will admit that there is some complexity to video card drivers, in that there are both 2D and 3D drivers/APIs for many cards. But I don't think all graphics should be pushed into user-land. The fact is that with modern boxen this is an integral function of the system.
Note that I would still not like my box to hard crash when XFree goes down like a 2 dollar whore, if at all possible - but if the interface is well designed, I don't see why a crash in user land (X window system) would pull down the driver in kernel land.
As for sufficient justification - no matter what you here from the crusty old *nix gurus floating around here about how modern X implementations are really great, the fact is that XFree86 still sucks, though in version 4 it sucks somewhat less than it used to. 2D rendering is still slow (relative to what I expect from Win2k - not terribly slow with a fast box, but slower than it should be), configuration is still complicated and the X extensions like Xrender are just NOT well integrated into the framework - if you don't understand what I'm talking about look at how many different places font settings are stored on your box if you have Xft enabled and anti-aliased font rendering under KDE.
The fundamenal problem is that as long as there are less than PIII/Athlon/GeForce boxen around, people will want to get around X because it's too slow, and projects like Linux FB and DirectFB will flourish. If we could just unify the Linux video card driver work into one place (kernel modules) and make XFree a cleaner system that works on top of it, I think the world would be a better place.
Re:Neat toy, but Id rather see a Linux Framebuffer (Score:2)
Re:Neat toy, but Id rather see a Linux Framebuffer (Score:2)
However, I also cannot name the number of times I have been able to ssh from one workstation to another which has "hung" and type:
killall X
and "rescue" the unresponsive station from a power cycle. This has happened with a number of different types of graphics hardware. Had those video drivers been in the kernel, there would have been no choice but to hard reset or power cycle.
Not everything should be in the kernel...
Re:Neat toy, but Id rather see a Linux Framebuffer (Score:1)
I'm not sure what you would call it, but I call replacing DOS and the win9x kernel with NT Loader, the NT kernel, and cmd.exe (for when you want that command prompt) "dropping DOS". As in, DOS does not exist. Sure, you can still make a DOS bootdisk, but that's just functionality added for the sake of format.exe. Make that dos bootdisk, then try to run windows (win.exe) from that command prompt. Unlike win9x, that's not going to happen with XP. XP is based on Windows 2000, which in turn is based on Windows NT 4, which ... you get the picture. DOS is gone.
Re:Neat toy, but Id rather see a Linux Framebuffer (Score:1)
However, they would rather be creating a GUI/wm for DirectFB more than DirectFB. It would be nice to see DirectFB used instead of X to begin with. They might even decide to keep it that way so that it could be easily ported and the driver database kept current.
Re:Neat toy, but Id rather see a Linux Framebuffer (Score:2)
2. Migrate Linux users to DirectFB, lose interoperability with the rest of the open software (a.k.a. Unix) world.
3. X is not necessarily slower than a framebuffer, it depends more on the driver than on anything architectural. Even for 3D Nvidia's driver gets X to within 1% or so of the Windows FPS rates. DirectFB with the same driver implementation as X for each type of hardware will end up with more or less the same performance for each card.
Some people use X as a scapegoat for everything... Yet it's fast (with good drivers), it keeps adapting (anti-aliasing, dga, xvideo, xtt, etc.), it's network-transparent, and it's a long-standing standard that is open and interoperable. It should be a model for open software longevity, rather than a whipping-boy for Linux's hardware support shortcomings.
Re:Neat toy, but Id rather see a Linux Framebuffer (Score:1)
However, I also see their reason to go with X, for now (I am playing the devil's advocate, here, because I personally hate X), and that's the huge number of supperted graphics cards.
Good decisions so far... (Score:1)
On the other hand, I dishearntened to hear XFree was going to be used. X is notoriously bad at pretty much all the things Be could do well. Then I read a little more and realized X is just a stepping stone on the way - it provides a stable, well developed point to work with for now while the other APIs are fleshed out.
I think this approach will work well for the project - it allows functionality tobe put im place first, while it is abstract enough to replace most of the low-end without problems later. I hope the best for the project, and I'm excited by the recent number of BeOS-related OS projects. I hope one (or more!) of them get(s) to a truly usable state in the near future.
Missing it (Score:1, Insightful)
Now these developers have opted for (surprise surprise) a Linux based system.
How many OSes need to be based off Linux? It seems these days someone gets an amazing idea for a new OS, and instead of working from the ground up to realize it, they just decide to make another incantation of Linux.
Seems there are all these projects going on now for new "alternative" OSes. I can't think of them as an alternative when it's still based off Linux. So much for being creative or original.
Re:Missing it (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Missing it (Score:1)
is BlueOS Linux? (Score:2)
Is it BlueOS or BlueOS Linux?
Or perhaps Rick Stallman might suggest GNU/BlueOS? GnuBlueLinux? B.I.L.? BlueOS Is Linux
Now I have a headache.
Re:is BlueOS Linux? (Score:3, Informative)
According to the article, BlueOS is only using the Linux Kernel and X. Guillaume Mailard says they are NOT creating a new (GNU/)Linux distro.
Re:is BlueOS Linux? (Score:1)
please, please... (Score:2)
The number 1 problem with the Linux OS, at least as far as I'm concerned, is that multimedia developers cannot fully support Linux. Each and every one of use has to dual boot to get anything done. I long for the day that I can truly be well and gone be done with Windows. For a long time, it seemed like BEos was the way to go, but then BeOS went Belly up and sold off to sony to keep from dying.
Well, here is a tired Windows/MacOS/Linux user who is tired of dual booting. Please make OpenBe what we can all look forward to in the way of multimedia OS.
Quibble (Score:2, Informative)
You mean sold off to palm...
sean
Re:Quibble (Score:1)
This still needs to be sanctioned by the shareholders on Nov 12th.
Interesting project (Score:2)
Now, with these new Beos clone projects starting, it's conceivable that in time I could migrate over to using one of these OSes (I personally lean towards the OpenBeos project), at least part time. The idea to use the Linux kernel is probably a smart one, although as someone on osnews.com commented, it sounds kind of "messy". I bet they'll have something usable up and running a lot sooner than OpenBeos though.
I've played around with Atheos as well, which borrows ideas from Beos, but the source code looks kinda ugly, and the development is tightly controlled by one person. I can't feel at home on an OS like that. It's a neat project, but only time will tell if it amounts to anything really usable. I wonder the same about these Beos projects.
Re:Interesting project (Score:1)
WHAT activity? Have any apps that WORK shipped? Can anyone use Linux on the desktop yet? Open Source DOESN'T WORK because there is no INCENTIVE to get anything DONE! No one gets PAID for their work.
Just look at Gobe Productive to see the difference in quality between open source and commercial software!
Re:Interesting project (Score:2)
I wasn't specifically referring to Linux, I was talking about FreeBSD, where I can subsribe to the freebsd-current mailing list and most definitely see a lot of activity and development going on. Personally, I find the development of the OS itself more interesting than most of the apps that run on it.
For example, I run KDE as my desktop. It pretty much stays out of my way, and has 95% of the features I need. I'm typing this message from Konqueror, which I consider near the quality of Internet Explorer and better than any version of Netscape. I would consider that to be software that WORKS. But I don't follow the development of KDE very closely because I don't find it too interesting. It's the operating system that interests me. That's why I said I wouldn't run Beos, because I wouldn't be able to view the details of its development.
Open Source DOESN'T WORK because there is no INCENTIVE to get anything DONE!
Your statement is far too sweeping and shows your trollish nature. I think the amount of progress that has been made to create KDE in such a short amount of time alone proves that you are wrong. Open source may not work in all situations, and it is certainly no guarantee of quality software, but it does work sometimes. The same can be said of proprietary software. Not all proprietary software is successful, is it?
No one gets PAID for their work.
There are many people hired to work on FreeBSD, Redhat, and other projects.
Threading will be a huge problem (Score:1)
For example, every single GUI element of a BeOS app is at least 1 thread, possibly more...
Linux was not designed to create and destroy such a large amount of threads so frequently.
How are you going to deal with this problem?
Re:Threading will be a huge problem (Score:1)
Using the Linux kernel has many advantages:
1. They don't have to write their own kernel from scratch.
2. They benefit from the man hours spent on the kernel, and the devices it supports.
Plus, any changes they make will be released and contributed back to the Linux kernel.
Anyhow, it'll be interesting to see how it develops. And for those many comments as to why they bother doing such a thing, I have simple answer.
They want to. Period.
Re:Threading will be a huge problem (Score:1)
Re:Threading will be a huge problem (Score:1)
then they'll make a library that will use user-level threads (not kernel-level threads)
since user-level threads have the smallest context-switches time.
Re:Threading will be a huge problem (Score:4, Informative)
No, every single BWindow has its own thread. All GUI elements in this window are controlled by the window looper. Of course you can spawn additional threads per window, but it's not as horrible as you sketch
Linux was not designed to create and destroy such a large amount of threads so frequently.
It wasn't? Who said this? It sure does rock then for a system that has supposedly slow thread creation. I just wrote a tiny app that spawns 1000 threads in less than half a second. That's should be enough for the things they want to do. I can't imagine anyone creating more than 1000 windows per half a second
How are you going to deal with this problem?
Apparantly this is not a problem at all!
-adnans
Re:Threading will be a huge problem (Score:1)
two words: p0rn popups
Bleah. (Score:2)
This sounds like just another X11 "desktop environment" wrapper.
I'd rather see someone attempt to implement an open, binary-compatible BeOS kernel, and display layer.
Yeah, it'd be a real bitch of a project, but it'd be super l33t.
But I'm sure something like that would be possible if the "open source" community would
stop writing more goddamned window managers for once.
Oh, yeah. Before you pledge your support, take notice that this project is NOT under a BSD or GPL license.
It doesn't even sound like they're going to release the source to world+dog at all.
M-X Bitter-And-Jaded
Re:Bleah. (Score:2)
Re:Bleah. (Score:2)
I am also rather annoyed w/the comments I have been reading about this, "why are they wasting their time making new binaries, why are they wasting their time doing this, it is just another WM for X." -- no fools, it is a project that someone wants to do. Let them do it stop judging so fast. Remember Linux started the exact same way and heard the exact same comments...
Re:Bleah. (Score:2)
Not really.
OSX is mostly based on NeXT technology, which Apple acquired several years ago.
Apple just prettied up and modernized the OpenStep OS for the general public's use.
MacOS 10 runs through what appears to be a VM on top of OSX.
So no, old MacOS has not been fused with BSD.
(And OpenStep has always been pretty damn close to UNIX.)
C-X C-S
ObBitch: Anyone know why a goddamn PCI ATA controller costs $100 for a Mac and $30 for a PC?
The only thing that appears to be different is the ROM. Fuck!
Goddamnit. (Score:1)
That should read "MacOS < 10"...
The end of X! (Score:2, Interesting)
This leaves me wondering why X still exists. I would be extremely happy if the BlueOS team could implement a replacement for it. There isn't a concievable way that it couldn't be better than X. I was kinda disappointed that they were gonna start with X. They could probably replace X quicker than they could learn and develop for it.
Maybe, they can make an interface worthy of teaching my mother
Re:The end of X! (Score:2)
X still exists because it's useful.
You need to go look at a real, well built unix network sometime.. workstations, servers, the works.. where everyone is running a combination of local & remote apps, seamlessly...
And when you say Linux isn't ready for the desktop.. what you MEAN is that Linux isn't ready for the masses until you can teach it to your mother. Very true. The same goes for ANY os out there, including Windows.
As for MY desktop, linux has been ready for quit some time, and has now surpassed my expectations.
Re:The end of X! (Score:1)
My mother runs linux, but she knows the interface. She does not know the operating system. Her machine is running QVWM with a gtk theme based on the reigh engine. Screenshot [hostnoc.net]
She has no problems with it. it is easy, it works, and it is fast.
Re:The end of X! (Score:2)
Plus, there are still a LOT of very important environments with existing Unix installations and existing X-terminal installations that Linux needs to be interoperable with, unless we are willing to give up on Linux for anything other than a "home" operating system for desktops.
Re:The end of X! (Score:2)
It's a pig.
TightVNC performs better in this case than ssh-compressed X-Windows, but the really sad thing is that Windows Terminal Server blows them all away.
The fastest Remote Access technology for the GUI desktop is currently only available on and for Windows, and the OS/GUI that supposedly was 'built around network transaprency' is sadly not even close to WTS in terms of performance.
If These guys make a new GUI that works as well as the BeOS does, with a remote client application that uses local copies of the BlueOS widgets in preference to the remote ones, then they will have something that, at least for me, would easily be better than X for both local and remote display purposes
Re:The end of X! (Score:2)
Re:The end of X! (Score:1)
I can't help but think that this might be because on X, with GTK, QT, and so on, the rendering for all the widgets, menus, etc. is all done client-side, then sent to the X server as pixmaps, whereas I expect Terminal Server can merely send events - 'make a menu with these items', 'make a button called this', and so on, since the remote server knows what the widgets look like.
If only that could be incorporated into X somehow - make it use GTK/QT/whatever, and have GTK apps send events, not pixmaps.
Just a thought.
--Dan
Re:The end of X! (Score:1)
The problem is that this is more or less dictated by the genericity of X - the widget sets have to be rendered on the server because widgets aren't part of X itself, but rather are tacked on top of X. Some argue this makes X flexible, you can have GTK+ widgets, Athena/XAW widgets, Qt widgets, etc. It may be possible to tack some other egregious hack on top of the current X window system, and if widgets are available on the client then render them there with far lighter messages, like you said. But then you basically aren't using the X protocol anymore.
Also X has so many extensions and egregious hacks already in place (Xrender/Xft font crap for anti-aliasing, the direct multimedia extension - whatever it's called), that adding more just makes my skin squirm.
The fact is that 1-bit bitmaps for fonts doesn't hack it these days, rendering widgets on the (X-client) server side is slow and the concept of entirely separating widgets from the windowing environment is not beneficial for remote usage of GUI apps nor for consistency of look and feel as a whole. These are required features for a modern graphical environment, and BeOS and MacOSX do this well. Windows also does this well, even though it sucks in many ways. And this lets WTS beat the pants off of X for remote display, and lets Windows beat X for local windowing operations (this is an empirical statement based on my observations and not something I can prove meaningfully to you).
BeOS Strengths (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:BeOS Strengths (Score:2)
Non-unixlike linux (Score:2)
Re:Non-unixlike linux (Score:1)
Mac OS X? Oh wait, that's on BSD, not that it's a big difference from a PAI point of view.
Forgive me for my ignorance... (Score:1)
Re:Forgive me for my ignorance... (Score:1)
Resources? (Score:1)
I thought one of the points of Beos was to run on minimal hardware with a microkernel and everything?
I would like to see more support for QNX. I've been toying with it, and if it had support for my laptops Yamaha/opl3 soundcard, I might actually switch completly over to it.
how is this (Score:1)
s/GNU//g (Score:1)
I was very disappointed to see a lot of earlier OS projects (including the other BeOS-based ones) starting from scratch with their own kernel. This is nonsense. A startup group is never going to be able to write Ethernet drivers or debug VM code faster than the Linus-led kernel group. Why not just start with the Linux kernel and build up from there? Even if your project does need extra kernel-space functionality, just write a Linux module to provide it.
Don't get bogged down starting from scratch on your own MM system or IDE drivers when working, well-tested code is just waiting for you to reuse! (and if the GPL bothers you, there is this thing called FreeBSD...)
Splitting hairs. (Score:2)
But.. the thing is... when people say 'Linux' they mean the common group of unix-like systems based on the Linux kernel. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.
This is like trying to argue the meaning of the word 'Hacker'. Words mean what people take them to mean. Get used to it.
Ohh. And Linux has always been referred to countless times as 'A unix-like operating system aimed at posix compliance'. If that only brings to mind a kernel.. so be it.
Wow. (Score:1)
Why not spend their efforts working on something compatable, or porting the various 'good ideas' they have to linux? (I Guess they are, kinda), rather than suffering the 'Not Invented Here' syndrome?
Serious question. (Score:2)
BeOS was about more than look&feel... it had some really cool things going on under the hood. Using the linux kernel & Xfree as a base.. doesn't sound like they are really going to bring much to the table, other than look&feel, and a way to compile BE apps (big deal... most BE apps were ported FROM unix in the first place)
Re:Serious question. (Score:1)
But what on behind the scenes was so *smooth*. That was impressive. As you opened up more apps everything just seemed to slow down, but nothing stopped, nothing seemed to stuggle. It just got slower gracefully as you loaded the machine.
I think they're trying to reproduce the wrong part.
Re:Serious question. (Score:1)
Yeah, completely agreed about the way BeOS handles itself when you start to drain system resources
Personally I hope one of the Be impersonators can emulate/rewrite both aspects.....
Regards
Re:Serious question. (Score:2)
It had to be said... (Score:1)
Blue's CLU's?
Microsoft does this too (Score:2)
At the cost of performance.
Re:Microsoft does this too (Score:2)
/Brian
I remain skeptical (Score:1)
I've seen quite a few of these "projects" announced on Slashdot turning out to be vaporware projects/products. And, I must add, quite a poorly named one.
Sounding overly ambitious, one thing I noticed is the website portion mentioning goals denotes ReiserFS, stating in exact words "a complete system needs to be done" for a better standard in their system. While ReiserFS may not be that great, by the time [and if] they actually have an alpha release, XFS will (and, despite it's current kernel updating latency, I truly believe this) be up to date in terms of patches (or perhaps even integration into the kernel tree itself. This, I'd very much like to seee, as I'm really excited about this high profile technology we could see in Windows. They must have a lot of time to waste.
My question is this: Does anyone actually have access to the Consortium Area and would like to invalidate my comment; saying, perhaps, they have atleast started work? It's easy and common to get excited over a dream computer related, believe me..... but sitting down and actually doing it is much, much different. This fantasizing goes too far when people put up pages boasting of their work but don't have anything whatsoever to show for it.
Notice I will not tell BeOS programmers and users to "look elsewhere", I just despise the idea of people continuing to cling onto what was a failure of an operating system via being mislead by shit like this. My attitude will change when they have something to talk about.
Sad enough.... (Score:1)
BeOS wasn't very pretty. Enlightenment is. It wasn't the eyecandy that made BeOS, it was the seamless integration of the kernel and widgets and grafic stuff that made BeOS. And made it so f+cking fast.
I doupt they'll make BlueOS boot into the Desktop in 10 seconds flat with a Linuxkernel. Which the original B actually does.
They might as well take the BeOS Theme for E.
Too many UIs (Score:1)
If The OpenBeOS projects could make EVERYTHING look like BeOS, it would work. But, if I have Mozilla running its UI, things running Qt(KDE), GTK, Swing, Athena and WINE, things start to look like crap.
If BlueOS can fix these problems, life would be good. Otherwise, I'm sticking with BeOS 5.
What I don't understand... (Score:2)
Of course, this still ignores the fact that there's nothing inherently wrong with X anyway
Re:What I don't understand... (Score:1)
Well, there may not be anything 'inherently wrong with X', but X is wrong for a lot of things - for what I do, I don't need remote X serving, multiple display support, and a hundred other things that X provides. What is nice is having a uniform API, fast, responsive, and streamlined.
In my opinion, X/XFree/etc should be the exception in the UNIX world, not the rule; I'd guess 99% of people spend 99% of their time not using 99% of the complexity of X. It's a waste of memory for me, and I wish there was an alternative.
Then again, I use MacOS now, so...
--Dan
Am I missing something? (Score:2)
Applications are not exactly BeOS' strong suit.
Re: (Score:2)
The Way I see it... (Score:1)
Re:I wish these people would spend their time: (Score:3, Informative)
BlueOS is implenting the app_server *on* *linux*. As in, within linux, you will be able to run beos programs. I can't think of any other way to make it simpler, so I'll leave it at that.
And if I seem cranky, it's because I am. Stupid headache.....
Re:Beos users should switch ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Beos users should switch ... (Score:1)
When You buy acosumer product from apple you get loads of software bundled with It, (iDVD, IMovie) etc
Re:Beos users should switch ... (Score:1)
Re:Building this on top of X is beyond stupid. (Score:2)
Re:A lot a confusion (Score:2)
"The main reasons why I don't like Linux are the non-flexibility and the "chaos"."
If you don't like why do you use it?
>>>>>>>>>
I think he is making the distinction between Linux the kernel and Linux the OS. Linux is a great kernel. It is a sub-par desktop system.
Quote 3:
"For "performance" addicted people, a version of the app_server which will only use the XFree86 drivers will appear on the BlueOS v2, it means that BlueOS will not use the XServer anymore!"
I'm quite interested how he will do this.
>>>>>>>>>
XAA is the new X driver architecture. Its nice and clean, and any windowing system should be able to load X drivers and use them (in theory).