BeOS targeting Music Professionals 37
OS News is reporting
that
Be Inc. is targeting music/audio professionals. This makes
good sense since musicians are not averse to other platforms:
in the 1980s they swarmed towards the Atari ST (in-build midi ports)
which had a disproportionate number of professional music programs
from Steinberg and co. Interestingly
4Front the makers of the OSS sound drivers in the kernel
and the OSS API will be supporting BeOS.
BeOS lacks innovation (Score:1)
Linux too (Score:1)
First I heard Linux was for geeks only. Then it was _the_ internet server, and now it's supposedly to be ready for Joe user's desktop. What's the deal, does anyone actually know what's going on over there?
Wait a minute....
Jón
Er.. (Score:1)
No Cubase VST... (Score:1)
Logic (Score:1)
No Cubase VST... (Score:1)
No Rebirth that I've heard of, but there are software synths--check out ObjektSynth (www.objektsynth.com), and also look for Rack747.
No Cubase VST... (Score:1)
Pro-Tools for BeOs! (Score:1)
I might actually have to convert a Linux Box to BeOs if that happens.
I like Be (Score:1)
And it seems that every day Be is taking advantage of what linux/gnu has already done. Between using libs and now OSS, perhaps one day there will be no difference in compiling between the two(other than asm, but then again there is nasm).
Hmmm, have I ever told you guys the story of how I ran the BitchX config script on a be system over telnet the day after R4 was out? The thing almost gave me a makefile, other than it couldn't find the arpanet headers.... which exsisted, just not on R4 for intel yet.
What happened to the "internal memo"? (Score:1)
Who sensored it?
Err, deleted??
I have it saved if people need it
Er.. (Score:1)
Now, there are many BeOS users who'll tell you that it makes a great general purpose OS and, well, they'd be right. Hey, I've got pine, a browser that can read and post to
BeOS and collective unity (Score:1)
Jean-Louis Gasse is out of his gourd (Score:1)
Hardware is cheap. Nobody cares about squeezing maximum efficiency from a single- or dual-CPU workstation. If they did, the Macintosh, with its zero-scalabiliity, not-quite-multitasking desktop OS would be dead as a doornail by now. It's not.
Very few people currently care about having a desktop OS that has high uptime, and fewer need one. Those that do already use Unix-family OSes. And by "care", I mean care enough to be willing to switch to something with less software.
Most open-source developers dislike the work required to keep their software compatible with multiple non-Unixy OSes. Some software gets ported--eventually--to OS/2 and NT. But most never does. BeOS is just as far removed from Unixen, in ways that are different from both.
The fact is, the artists and musicians that psychopath Gasse claims he's targeting don't give a damn about (and seldom know about) the internals of their OS. They just want to get their work done, which means they need apps and they need ease of use.
First, apps:
With MIDI connectivity standard on 99% of all x86-compatible desktop machines made in the past 6 years and hardly rocket science on Macs, what does BeOS bring to the table besides a lack of software apart from a few shareware-quality titles? What musician is going to choose an OS that can't run any of the top ten sequencing, patch-library and compositional tools?
Now, ease of use:
Why is the Mac so popular in design and music? Because Macs are generally maintainable by an artist or musician, and so many designers and musicians work solo out of home or in freelance situations. Sure, techies who also make music use Unix and Windows. But apart from them, when you see an artist using a Unix or NT workstation, chances are they're working in an office setting with a dedicated IT staff to shield them from most of the necessary system maintennce tasks.
The probem with BeOS is its premise: that the Mac end-user community is crying out for a technologically superior desktop OS core to run the same GUI, the same hardware and the same kinds of apps they already use. What malarkey. They just want an applicance that works, and they've got one already. Linux, user-hostility and all, has better prospects in this market than BeOS because the developer community is so much larger and more diverse. Check back in two years. BeOS may still be around thanks to Gasse's checking account, but it won't have more than 200,000 active users.
Don't tell anyone but,... (Score:1)
Hmm? I wonder if I can network my Akai DR-16 recorder to the BeOS ? Now that would be cool.
Cake and Forge would be nice... (Score:1)
re: ** EMAIL THEM *** (Score:1)
Woo hoo! (Score:1)
OSS (Score:1)
OSS (Score:1)
(And assuming Be's driver model is as straightforward as the rest of their API, it should be easy for 4front to create drivers that don't stink)
BeOS lacks innovation (Score:1)
In technological terms, BeOS, Mac OS X, and Linux are pretty much on similar ground. Sure, each one will have its streangths, but only one represents the future. GNU/Linux is so much more than just an OS. It represents a dream that so many before us have strived to achieve, and failed. This is the dream of Collective Unity. Think about the amazing phenominon that is GNU/Linux. Now, I don't for a moment believe that GNU/Linux will save the world, it wont. But it represents, to me, a glimmer of hope for things to come. Perhaps my words don't do justice to what we have here before us. My hope is that others too realize the far reaching implications of what is happening here. Linux breaks new ground because no generation before us could claim to have done what we are now doing. That is the heart of the matter, that is why I love Linux the way I do.
A real browser - like say Netpositive? (Score:1)
You mean they way NetPositive 2.0.1 can?
Get it from BeDepot.
BeOS lacks innovation (Score:1)
the new media kit provides a powerful API/framework for processing audio, video and other data in real-time. The kit handles timing, streaming, codecs, mixing and other system wides issues allowing separate programs to work together and provides a constant environment for programmers and users alike.
While MacOS X will be a great improvment, it finaly brings the Apple up with the rest of the pack when it comes to protective memory and premtive multitasking. While I don't know what the final word is on SMP support in MacOS X, I do know that OSX is wont run on anything less that an G3. Apple hasn't created any MP systems in quite some time and the G3 isn't wasn't desinged to run in a MP system.
The BeOS was designed with SMP and multi-threading from the begining. Most of the OS is thread safe (except for most of the posix stuff) and it breaks down nearly everything into threads. I think the BeOS has made some invoations here as well.