Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Be:Niche or Competitor? 99

Aaron Tunnell writes "Once again Microsoft has used Be and BeOS as a answer for the governments continued attack on the software giant, Be has had enough and in a public statement reaffirmed that it is not marketing nor does it strive to be a Microsoft replacement, but a niche market product for digital media creation. It also said that it would like Microsoft to stop its continued references to Be as a rival to the OS giant. Read more link "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Be:Niche or Competitor?

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    I don't know about being a viable competitor to Windows, but if BeOS is half as fast and media-friendly as people say it is, it would make one sweet game machine. I mean, what else is a single user OS good for? It's all most of us use Windows for anyway. Anyone experienced with BeOS in this regard have comments?

  • by Anonymous Coward
    I can't believe that anyone hearing Microsoft's testimony is going to buy this or half of the other crap they come up with. I'm glad Be is standing up and telling it how it is.

    Off there a way to edit may account? If I could I'd use it again. Maybe I should just make a new one.

    Robert Dowden wishing he wasn't an AC
  • We in the Linux community need to make a similar statement, and have Microsoft stop taking advantage of us in their trial. The question is who should make the statement? Distributions like RedHat and SuSe? Individuals like Linus, Alan Cox, Maddog? Maybe in editorials at places like Linux World? What do you think?
  • Be is a threat to MS as much as a very smart and capable ant would be a threat to a slow, ponderous elephant.

    In a sense, MS is right, as the technology of BeOS would annihilate Windows if all other factors were equal (public visibility, cooperation from hardware vendors, availability of applications, etc.)

    However, at this time MS is just using Be as part of a lame "Windows isn't a monopoly" excuse.

    Oh, I feel soooo sorrrrry for MS - their "nice, friendly OS" is in such grave danger of being eliminated by a BIG, BAD competitor (never mind that Be only has 80 employees).

    M$ is the epitome of sleaze. I'm sure their company includes plenty of smart, nice people, but many of their business practices are unconscionable. I hope the DOJ nails 'em to the wall.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    I succumbed to the Be teasers on the Be website and ordered the 3.2 demo CD. It will not boot on 3 Intel machines I've tried so far. Linux boots. NT boots. DOS boots. Be no boot. I had extremely high hopes for BeOS - it looks tres cool. Mickey's junk at least boots.

    I spent 4 hours this weekend trying to hunt down a retail copy of R4, but no one has it.

    BeOS a contender? Not even remotely.

    Anonymous "Bucky" Coward, III
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Point 1: Operating systems are a solved problem. They've been solved for decades. Kernels, even stable ones, aren't hard to write. The two reasons that microsoft and apple can't write stable OS's is a) they're staffed by mongol hordes of 22 year old C weenies, and b) system stability would ruin their ability to undermine performance of competitors products(ie, leverage the op. system for application market gain....). You get a freebie reason in that reason 'a)' prevents them from doing complete rewrites.

    Point 2: BeOS sucks.
    "Oh look, it doesn't crash! Those guys at BeOS are so cool!!!" Yeah, and it's a single user only system. "But it's only meant to be a single user system!!" Fine, cut yourself at the knees; take away choice. Forget about a clean permissions system to allow your buddy at the office to use your machine. And your kid. And any network user. In a rapidly networking world. Yup, BeOS is just cool enough to implement an early 1960's OS design. For fuck's sake, they could just license the BSD source and write their own graphics libs -- but you can't do that when you're the old school, closed-source mindset("must own everything... must own everything...").

    Point 3: Gassee's a dork
    He was one the chosen few allowed to play around with Apple in it's dying days. The CEO, Scully, was like, "hey, I don't know anything about this business. want the reins for 6 months?" Gassee made the brilliant business decision of telling Apple to ignore the home market, to focus the business market. This was a _*bad*_ idea; check the context.

    Point 4: Fanatics.
    Don't get me started.
  • I think it would be silly for the government to try to regulate any software maker. Unfortunately, Microsoft may have a point there. However I think there still may be a solution to the problem.

    What if the government required all OEMs which sold over a particular number, say $10 million in sales, of computers each year to carry at least two operating systems, available to consumers at the same price. The OEMs could choose whatever OSs they want, as long as they come from different vendors. For example, Windows95, WindowsNT, and Red Hat Linux (or Be, DrDOS, whatever).

    Of course, that won't solve it there, but since Microsoft hasn't changed it's prices for a *long* time, the government can force Microsoft (and all vendors for that matter) to charge a certain amount. Just like Airline regulation in the 70s! No seriously, obviously Microsoft isn't forcing down prices so why don't we just make them not force prices down?

    Obviously it needs work, but what do y'all think?
  • It's nice to see someone calling a browser an app and saying removing it does nothing more than removing the ability to read HTML. Too bad others aren't so honest in both development and in rhetoric.
  • I mean, what? Microsfot will ship an IE-less Windows 98/Win2k? That doesn't hurt them, Netscape is already dead(err..bought by AOL..same thing). I just don't see what could really happen that would make Microsoft a "loser" in this trial.

    If Microsoft loses, there will be no "punishment" -- Microsoft is not a person, so the action, government will take, is not predefined by any law, it can be anything that fixes the damage, and damage is enormous, it can be evaluated as more than Microsoft, Gates, or whatever else can pay in any form. The goal is the elimination of Microsoft's current position on the market because there is no reasonable way to fix situation while keeping Microsoft continuing this practice, and it will make no point for government to do anything less than that.

    However if it will be done, Microsoft will be unable to compete at all -- it will either die (what will be well deserved), or become completely different, and definitely not as powerful kind of company (what will be enough to bring enough sanity back into the situation to let others fix things).

  • Posted by greedy:

    I'm sorry, Be is a real competitor? Isn't that a little like the local electric company calling the
    guy with the bike generator real competition? I don't think Be qualifies as a real competitor. They do make a real nifty OS, but if microsoft is going to highlight them on center stage, then they should also add the little asterix that indicates market share. From that perspective Be isn't even a blip on the horizon compared to microsoft. As far as competitors are concerned I doubt Microsoft even knew they existed before they desperately needed to find some evidence that they did have competition to support their "we are not a monopoly" case.

    Guess that means I weigh in on the real cynical side of this equation. If Be was truly a competitor, Microsoft would already have invested a boatload of money in them to help keep them alive (SEE APPLE). And those cute blue boxes that used to pepper the original Be site would at least be recognized by the non high-geek population.

  • Posted by WebGuy:

    Tell 'em...
    Chris Stoffel
    Webmaster - Positively Pixar []
  • Posted by Assmodeus:

    hell microsoft wants a computer in every bedroom and shower stall, not just every desk... but screw microsoft. im glad Be is telling it how it is.
  • Posted by OGL:

    Funny, I'm running UltraHLE in Linux as I write this, with perfect sound and visual quality.

    Ah, the wonders of WINE.

  • As far as the browser, we definately need to do that. It's quite obvious that browsers are NOT integrated into Linux.

    OTOH, we do aim to be a MS competitor in every way possible, with servers being our current forte. But it says a lot that one of the only viable all-around competitors to Windows is completely free and is the labor of love of thousands of programmars who are rarely compensated in a direct monetary fashion for their work.
  • Note your use of shell(s) - plural.

    Already, this proves that shells are not integrated into the OS. True, in almost all cases they are a necessary application, but it's not saying that bash and not tcsh is THE only shell you can use with Linux and work.

    Microsoft is saying that their OS won't work without IE. They're not saying it's useless w/o a browser, they're saying IE. Plus, you should be able to remove your browser if you don't care about reading HTML. MS says you cannot do this with IE because it's integrated.
  • That comparison might make sense if the issue were merely about bundling their browser with their system software. Unfortunately, the issue is about integrating it with their system software: they claim that they can't un-bundle without breaking their OS. There is no such similarity in the linux world, where the lines between kernel, application, and shared-library are all clearly defined. Maybe if you thought about it some more you might be able to come up with a fair analogy, but the one with respect to shells doesn't cut the mustard.
  • Creating ficticious competitors, creating videos of ficticious events (at least as far as the official description & commentary were concerned), creating ficticious grass-roots support...
    Microsoft is digging itself a HUGE hole, and one of these days, it's going to fall in. IMHO, that kind of fall would be undeserved, but entirely self-inflicted.
  • It's not so much a fair market as it is an educated market. As long as the market consists primarily of idiots, then whoever can market the best will win.

  • Be wants to sell an operating system that will be the premier OS for one niche of the computing public. Microsoft wants a computer on every desk, and a Microsoft OS on every computer. These are not compatible goals...

    Of course, the judge would do well to keep in mind that "victory" for Be constitutes grabbing and holding that 5% market niche, not dethroning MS.
  • I'll avoid the temptation to reply to your little flame bait, and respond to only point 2. BeOS has support within its filesystem, and hooks in other parts of its OS to support bein a mult-user system. It is quite possible, in fact I'd venture to say probable, that they will add support for this in the future. However, since their goal is to be a media OS, the implementation of SMP, threading, (both already done years ago) and support for a lot more hardware (being done, but still needs work) is obviously a higher priority than adding multiuser support.
  • > You dildo. "Graphical terminals?" Brilliant. How long did it take you to think THAT one up?

    You fuckstain. It figures you would ignore all the content and skip to the iMac slam. Don't call Apple's current situation a Comeback in any way/shape/form. Very few people, including their stockholders, believe that their little sliver of marketshare will last at all..

    Of course the Mac devotees are going to say "People have said that Apple has been going out of business for 10 years.."
  • My point isn't the GUI... when I say interface I mean at the coding level. The source code is a joy to read, and the object model is well-designed.

    If we had the Be object tree on Linux, it would be something I'd be interested in developing for.

  • R4 is a great improvement over R3.2, and as an R3.2 owner, you can get an upgrade for less than $30.

    However, we are the first to admit that not everyone will have a smooth experience with BeOS. This is why we offer a no-questions-asked money-back guarantee. If you don't like BeOS for any reason, return it, and we'll give you your money back. (We won't even make you play legal games with the license.) Whether our product addresses our customer's needs or not, we want them in any case to get a fair deal.

    (not really speaking for Be)

  • All one needs these days in a game machine is an emulator. The N64 emulator on Windows is SICK!!! The connectix playstation emulator on Mac should reinvigorate that platform... if Linux had a good Playstation and N64 emulator the problem of games on linux would be solved...
  • I almost agree. I think the DOJ should not focus on the browser issue because, as you point out, a browser is becoming a required tool on the desktop. The issue is whether Microsoft is a monopoly, and if so, do they use their monopoly position illegally. I believe it is hard to deny that Microsoft has a monopoly in the Desktop OS market. Given the facts that they:
    1. Replaced their per CPU licenses with per model licenses.
    2. Intentionally polluted Java in an attempt to lock developers to the Win32 environment.
    3. Forced OEMs to bundle IE with Windows 95, which clearly did not require IE.
    4. Prior to #3, MS explicitly told Netscape that if they didn't play ball, MS would crush Netscape.
    The list goes on, but I it seems clear to me that MS illegally exploits their monopoly position.

    I don't think the major issue in the DOJ case is that MS "gave away" the browser. The issue is that MS forced OEMs to use IE as the primary browser on the desktop (especially for Windows 95 OSR2). Microsoft's assertion that IE is part of the OS is absurd, IE is an application that is used by the desktop and other MS applications. It would be fine to say that in order for the MS desktop to work, you need these IE DLLs, but that's not what MS did. They said "if you don't configure windows to use IE as the default browser, you can't ship Windows." Compaq, Dell, etc., should be allowed to ship Netscape as the primary browser if they choose.

    I need Gtk+ to run Gnome, that does not make Gimp "part of the OS." I hope MS is found guilty of exploiting their position and I hope the US government stays out of the OS design business...

  • We've already seen the Be press release on /.

    However... Many people have long thought that ZD was in Bill Gates' hip pocket. This article would tend to corroborate that. ZD hack. On MSNBC. Mmm hmm.

    And did you get a load of the first sentence?

    Most software vendors would love a little attention from Microsoft Corp.

    Oh, I don't think so. "A little attention" means that Bill is toying with "embrace, extend, extinguish".

  • Nonono, ship it without a TCP/IP stack. Mean ol Linux putting everyone out of business giving tcp/ip stacks away.

    Maybe the government should stop chasing this goddam RED HERRING and concentrate on the OEM lockins, vaporware strikes, and strategic buyouts and STOP TELLING ANYONE HOW TO BUILD THE GODDAM OS.

    But of course as long as they're after The Enemy, the government is The Good Guy. What simpletons.
  • > What if the government required all OEMs

    Stop right there. The OEMs are not on trial here. The day Linux is put under a mandatory quota to "help it out" is the day I club the penguin over the head and toss his sorry fdisked carcass off my drive forever.
  • The honest answer is that from from a technical standpoint, Be is a competitor for Microsoft. While you can state that they cater specifically to the media crowd, that seems a bit like saying that Apple in 1984 catered to the GUI crowd. Be is simply ahead of the times - they occupy a space Microsoft will certainly move their consumer OS (not in terms of media authoring, but in terms of the ability to use more media in apps like games, which is a market that Microsoft covets).

    The cynical answer is that Be is nothing more than a catalyst to get the OS market to mature. With nonexistant market share, and press and brainshare moving towards linux, its nearly impossible for them to get much attention these days.
  • > Extreme stability with uptimes of months is important for servers but not for desktops

    May I politely say, bull****. That desktop computers don't need to be reliable and fail to crash is the biggest computing lie ever inflicted on the public. There is no reason that ANY computer should spontaniously crash, shy of electrical failure or component malfunction.
  • Be sounds like a cool venture, and the OS is certainly cheap enough. I'd love to support it, but I don't quite see where it fits in the OS ecology.

    Won't MacOS X/Rhapsody eat it for lunch? Thanks to Carbon, Apple should have a strong, stable "Media OS" with an excellent track record and tons of applications.

    BeOS sounds like a great system, but I don't see how it can beat the one-two punch of MacOS X (for the Media People) and Linux (for the geeks).

  • It's kind of too bad, really... the PowerPC architecure is so sweet, and the x86 is so... old. I didn't realize the full extent of this until I had to study them for a CS class last semester.

    I would *LOVE* to see the BeOS running on G3's! I was never a big PowerPC fan because the only OS that really ran on them was the bloated MacOS, which I would Insanely Hate to use that much. (I know, don't start pestering me about Linux...)

    So, due to Apple's fear of competition, I doubt that BeOS/PPC has much of a future. This irks me beyond belief. The BeOS is really really cool... why does Be's future have to be on an architecture that so clearly belongs in the past?

    - Slarty
  • Yup... seems extremely stable to me. I've had it freeze a couple of times doing certain activities, but I think this is a hardware problem... it does exactly the same thing under Windows, Linux, and DOS (the last time I used it.) Not something I worry about, as I can't afford to replace my video card (the likely culprit) and it doesn't happen too often. Especially not under Be or Linux. (gee, wonder why...)

    Other than that, it's rock solid. I can crash NetPositive reliably by opening up the admin stats page on Legions and resizing it... that page has LOTS of tables. But it never takes the OS down.

    I do lots of BeOS dev work, and my programs have had their share of nasty crashes... I think that I can claim to have stress tested it more than the average user. :-)

    - Slarty
  • I'm mean, it's nice and all that Microsoft is finally getting thier schlongs rubbed in the mud by everyone. But does it matter?

    I mean, Windows in STILL going to be on 9 out of 10 desktops, it's STILL going to be a monopoly. So take out the bad press(and any press is good press) and it's a win-win situation for Microsoft.

    I mean, what? Microsfot will ship an IE-less Windows 98/Win2k? That doesn't hurt them, Netscape is already dead(err..bought by AOL..same thing). I just don't see what could really happen that would make Microsoft a "loser" in this trial.

    And for everyone that says they will open-source Windows, it's not going to happen.
  • In my experience (and yes, I use BeOS frequently), BeOS is more stable than 95/98 and less stable than Linux.

    Under normal use, BeOS won't destabilize. Applications also have a very hard time taking down the entire OS, unlike Windows.

    However, if you start calling drivers directly, you can wedge the system fairly easily by tying up semaphores. A fork bomb also works quite well. I'm told that memory protection leaves a bit to be desired too, though it certainly seems more stable than Windows in that regard (it survives segmentation faults).

    Bear in mind that BeOS is still an OS in development. All of the "R#" releases are preludes to version 1.0. That having been said, however, I doubt that it will ever have quite as much bulletproofing as a good Unix variant, because it's intended for the single user/home user market (as opposed to servers).

    I personally think that it looks neat, has a nice interface, is easy to write applications for, and is reasonably efficient. SMP was also handled quite well on the machines that I've tested it with (negligeable overhead, unlike Windows). Unix is still my environment of choice for stability, but I think that BeOS would be a wonderful replacement for Windows for the average home user, once the 3D drivers are finished and there are more 3rd-party applications available (there are still several now).

  • DOOM was ported a whle back, though I think that the x86 version is still only for R3. The Heretic source was released recently, and porting that to BeOS wouldn't be too difficult.

    Anything that has source available could be ported fairly easily, as the BeOS graphics API is reasonably nice and quite easy to use. There's even software OpenGL if you want it.

    I doubt that Be will be doing ports itself, as they are all quite busy developing the OS, and this is a relatively low-priority item. However, they seem to actively embrace third-party software for their system (check the BeWare pages on their web site), so any game ports should be welcome.

    Hardware OpenGL support would make porting 3D games extremely easy. R5 is probably a good estimate for the timeline for this, as someone already posted.

  • Re. BeOS's timeline, it's on the order of 6-12 months between major revisions, and R4 came out fairly recently, which means that 2-4 years would be a good estimate.

    Re. open source for development, from what I've seen Be is actively embracing third-party developers, for applications, at least. Check out the BeWare pages on their site for a list of third-party applications. The API is quite easy to write for, is reasonably clean, and isn't hidden (heck, all of the headers are in /boot/develop/headers if you want something that isn't covered in the Be Book). Sample code comes with BeOS, half of the applications on the BeWare pages offer source code, and the Be newsletter has useful programming articles in every issue.

    IMO, forcing the OS itself to be open source would just remove the ability of BeOS to develop it, as they'd have trouble finding investors if the product isn't going to produce revenue.

    Re. driver development, that's being worked on by both internal and external developers. Development could be faster, but it's adequate IMO.

    Re. being a contender in the desktop market, I think that BeOS most certainly is. The interface is nice-looking and easy to use. There aren't any obvious drains on processing performance that I can find. The API is reasonably clean and is easy to write for. All you need is 3D accelleration, and you have the perfect platform for Joe Average User. Hardware accellerated 3D will probably be out for R5.x, IMO. You can already call a software OpenGL library as it stands.

    I agree that Be is probably being wise in not calling this a competitor to Windows, but IMO it's still a very good one (though hard-core programmers will still prefer Linux).

  • From what I've seen posted here and what I've heard from other Linux users and advocates, I seriously doubt that a "we're not a competitor" statement would fly. Regardless of whether Linux could in practice compete with Windows, a lot of people want it to.

    So, I'd rather that the Linux community leave perjury to Microsoft :>.

  • Right now BeOS is most certainly a single-user system, and AFAIK making it multi-user is pretty low on Be's priority list. There's no real need to for their target market, and many other things that need to be worked on in the more immediate future.
  • MS is obviously trying to win a PR battle. These arguments should not fool anyone with a decent education. They know they're going to lose, and they're trying to win over Joe Sixpack before the appeals process. MS would have you believe that the only barriers to entry in the OS market is the ability to create an OS. If this were true, Linux would own NT's market share, and BeOS and the like would be on everyones desktop. Based strictly on their merits. But this is not the case.
    MS has a couple major things going for them. One of which is that since Windows is the standard desktop OS and most consumers demand it from OEMs, they are able to exert a great deal of influence over those OEMs. The OEMs' profit margins these days are very thin, and everyone knows that they can't sell if they don't preinstall Windows. MS basically tells these OEMs what they should do, or MS will charge them more then their competitors. A couple bucks might not sound like much, but to these OEMs it is a big deal. Like it or not, few people are going to spend money to try installing an operating system on their own with unknown results.

    Another advantage is that MS also has control over most of the standard applications. People want and need these applications. It is very hard for competitors because MS doesn't disclose their entire API. In fact, MS does just the opposite. They alter windows in little undisclosed ways to make the competitors products crash and operate slower. Companies like Be may have a superior OS, but they simply don't have the applications yet. Without a significant market share no one is going to develop strong applications for the alternative platforms. Also, without well recognized competitive applications to Office* and the like, there is no competitor who can port their killer app and lend clout to the likes of BeOS.

    MS has their competitors by the balls in significant ways. These are just two barriers to entry. If I were the DoJ, I would demand the following:

    a) If MS wishes to produce both applications and the operating system that they run on, they should be forced to fully disclose their API and the like. Furthermore, MS should have to pay for a full time arbritation board composed of people who are familiar with the software industry and who have full legal authority to make key decisions. My reasoning for this is simple. I do think government regulation of the software industry could indeed be very harmful. MS can argue this effectively. For example, lets say if the government introduces a new law that seperates software application firms from operating system firms. There is a strong argument that it is neccessary for the operating system firm to produce applications for their OS initially. To both demonstrate the potential of the OS, and to provide atleast some reasonably productive products. My proposal would atleast level the playing field for the most part.

    b) That MS be prohibited from using any discriminative pricing amongst OEMs. The argument of economies of scale simply do not apply to such software distribution. The ability to price OEMs differently, with little to no immediate regulation, allows MS to use the stick and carrot approach with OEMs such that the OEMs sell as they wish. This simply can not be allowed. Whatever arguments can be made for such pricing, pales in comparison to the draw backs for society and for the OEMs.

    Although this does not address every problem with the beast that is MS. It addresses two of the most significant problems with MS.
  • Just what is the pedigree of Be? It sounds to me like they're a company founded and built, by an on, former Apple-ites.. It sprung on the scene recently, just as MS started to get pummled for being a monopoly. Around the same time MS gave Apple a whole lot of cash...

    Now MS is paying for Apple's SuperBowl ad, and Be says it is NOT a contender.

    Methinks the alternative OS doth protest too much.
  • A few years back the US Federal Government mandated that they would only buy computers that were "Energy Star" compliant. Very quickly, all manufacturers leaped to meet this criteria. Power consumption is now taken into serious consideration (for various reasons beyond the original government contracts) when hardware, and increasing software is designed. Everyone benefitted.

    What if the Feds were to step up to the plate again with a new initiative; All operating systems on Federal purchase orders must have a retail shelf price of $30.00 or less. Already Linux and *BSD are freebies, and I'm certain Be would negotiate with a bonanza like that offered. :) That only leaves you know who.

    If Microsoft does play ball; The prices come crashing down to Earth! MS would start unbundling their OSes to make money the stuff that should be separate in the first place, best of breed software returns. OEMs have a set low price no matter which OS they choose to offer. MS loses it's ability to threaten price increases.

    If Microsoft doesn't play ball; Linux, BeOS and their ilk start appearing on lots of computers. With a huge market created, it's fair to assume that many new programmers (plus the reassigned Government coders) and companies will release more applications and drivers. It would be the snowball effect that Windows currently benefits from.

    Either way; Other countries and Fortune 500s, would monitor the outcome closely. A major precedent will have been made and it would only be a matter of time before the world followed. This defiantly would need to be a phased in program, (unless Microsoft agreed the same day) and there would still be teething problems, but a lot of Taxpayers money would be saved.

    There would be no need for Government regulation. If Microsoft (or any other vender) doesn't wish to sell at that price, then they should leave to tender bidding to competitors that will. US Capitalism would have an opportunity to save face.

    Mainframes would be a harder lot to lump into this equation, but with the value of service contracts spanning over several years, IBM could probably give the OS away. :)
  • Just a simple question: how do you crash less often then never?
  • True, I keep forgeting that Be is still in the devlopment stages.....still, we need more toys....Be could easily become one of my primary OS's if it just had more stuff on it. I love Linux for its versitility, and its politics, but frankly I don't really have enought time to get the full benefit out of my Linux systems. Its odd that Be crashed....I have tortured it and have not been able to even lock up a program...but my hardware, through sheer luck, is right off of the list....and I've only had R4 for several days, so who knows.
    I would be truely sad if Be went would be nice to see them open source it if it died, but thats still a hollow win. I would rather them OS it and still keep activly developing it....but that might not be fesable. I'm just sick of seing superior technologies die due to the mass stupidity of the average buyer, and lets face it, if the average buyer is not using an OS, then it will be religated to a niche role, always playing second fiddle in terms of applications and the like (though linux seem to be changing this somewhat) really would be nice to be able to run everything I do one one os....curretnly I'm booting between three. Windoze for games, Linux for actually doing stuff and Be for shits and giggles. I've said it before and I'll say it again....if Be and Linux could somehow be merged....than the resulting combo would simply take over the world.

    I actually think that Be is striking a good median between OSS and propiratory. Some of its code and much of its developement community is OSS, and the API is open (I don't code, probably the only /.er that doesent) so I tend to overlook these things), yet the company has enough closed that it can feel secure in its product. I wish everything could be OSS, but work needs to be done on the business model before it really becomes viable....and its being done, just not ready yet. In the meantime, Be seems like a benevolent company, making a great product, and I am happy to give them my money. If its got to be propriatory, then they are doing it in a respecatable manner. Lets hope they remain that way.
  • Point 1: OS's impact anything one does on a computer, the basics of their design may have been mastered awhile ago so that they are no longer "problems", but OS's are stll of vital importance.

    Point 2: Stability is only on of Be's strenghs, it is also extremely fast, has an extremely clean interface, and supposadly has a great API. Multiuser is nice, but really not needed for most people. I, for instance, have almost no need for it. BTW, at some point I believe Be was intended to be multiuser, the home directory remains, but I think they ditched mutiuser plans....anyone know more about this?

    Point 3: Who cares the CEO, its the product that counts. Yeah, I've heard bad things about Gassee too, there was a Wired article several years ago that was scathing...hey, maybe he learned from his mistakes.

    Point 4: Well, yeah, fanatics suck....but most Be users are, in my experience, far more reasonable than most fanatics....all OS's, even the crappy ones, have fanatics......and their annoyingness transcends to OS.
  • From a purely technical standpoint....Be is superior to almost anything out there for the desktop market....sure the Unixs are far more flexable and make far better servers, but when it comes to a pure desktop, Be is as stable as Linux, faster than anythings I've ever seen, and easier to use than even the Macos

    None of this matters, if the superior product would have one in the market place, the world would be running OS/2 right now rather than windows.

    Be would make a better destop os than any windows products, however I have a feeling that Be calls itself a niche as it is trying to avoid falling under the wanton eyes of Microsoft. But lets fact it, what desktop application would not benefit from the advantages of a mediaOS....basically means it runs stuff faster than hell (no, it is not a good server OS)

    I just really with it was open source, not that I think that everything in this world has to be open source, but being open source would solve many of Be's problems, such as lack of HW support and a more active developor community creating and porting software to it. There already is a certain OSS feel to alot of Be software, alot of it is open, however it definetly lacks the vigor of something like Linux...

    I'm not sure of the dates, but Be was around long before MS started investing in Apple...I think its atleast acouple years old. Its CEO and founder used to be an Apple bigwig...I dont know about the rest of the people there though.

  • Good for you! You don't need a copy of MS Bullshit! You've got integrity!

    Folks, if you are gonna buy a commercial os (No, Linux will NEVER fully cover the world), buy BeOS, AmigaOS, or OS-X/server.

    P.S. Remember how much money Standard Oil gained FULLY after dividing? Yeah, MS is an even bigger threat...
  • IMHO the fact that Microsoft is pointing to BeINC and saying "LOOK LOOK!, they make an os!" is PATHETIC! It's a sure sign they are heading to their own destruction, and i for one will be there to help smash em apart ;) I wonder what DRUGS the person at M$ was on when they came up with that defense. Be would be lucky to have sales of their os reach 1/20000 of the those of Windows. sheesh.
  • Well, from what I understand, R3.2 isn't that great, R4 supports so much MORE hardware. I know findign a copy of R4 is hard, but try Http:// its $69 for the full version or R4, each .x release is FREE and each major relase is just $25. I know Be has very limited hardware support now, but with only 80ppl working there, I am impressed with what they have support for.
  • Not the same thing at all. If you Remove the shell you can still put ANOTHER SHELL IN ITS PLACE. None of the shells are integrated parts of Linux. A web browser is a program that lest your view HTML over a network. IT has no buisness being an integrated PART of the OS. Included/bundled with the OS, definatly. How would you like it if you biught your new car, and it cane with a built in Hanson CD that can't be removed without destroying the car, and auto-runs when you turn the car off? BLAH
  • I sir wanted to talk to you about naming CopenOS in your latest lawsuit as a competitor. An OS that I wrote, that only works on my computer, and only runs a crappy IRC program, a lame text editor, and a java compiler probably doesn't count as "A Serious Competitor". I too market to a small niche, being ME. Please leave my name out of all your future lawsuits or I will be forced to get the CopenOS legal team to look into the matter. Thankyou.

"The one charm of marriage is that it makes a life of deception a neccessity." - Oscar Wilde