This interview was originally conducted by Matthias Breiter for Technoids, a German-language publication. It has been translated by Mark Patterson and this English version is being published exclusively by OSNews. Learn a little more about the OpenBeOS project from one of its primary contributors.
Post a Comment
Actually, it was not the newer PPC CPUs that BeOS didn't support but it was the "new world"-architecture of Apple's G3 and following computers. To my knowledge, it is possible to run BeOS on "old world" PowerMacs or clones that have G3 or G4 upgrades.
I thought this OS was opensourced and under the GPL.
"7. As opposed to some other free BeOS derivatives, you are not basing the kernel on Linux but on a "genuine" BeOS kernel. Why?
Well, there are a number of reasons for that. One of them is the GPL. Although of course I don't fundamentally disapprove of it, I see it as only being of limited use in the area of operating systems. E.g if as well as the kernel, XFree was also under the GPL, many Linux systems today would be stuck with VESA graphics mode . Even though it's not exactly obvious, I consider the driver situation with Linux to be something other than optimal. Many firms shy away from developing open drivers for Linux. Besides in my opinion the GPL generates an impression that we don't quite want, that everything has to be free of charge. That could send the wrong signals for a small market like ours.
Besides, for technical reasons I would prefer a kernel from FreeBSD, Darwin (the open source part of Apple's OS X - Ed.), etc, rather than Linux."
It is opensourced, but under the MIT license.
"GPL generates an impression that we don't quite want, that everything has to be free of charge. That could send the wrong signals for a small market like ours. "
What does "everything has to be free charge" mean ? That really stood out to me. Companies can make money selling linux software but i don't think thats what he means. I am still confused. I am on the Beos mailing list. Maybe time for a question there.
Who exactly thinks that a GPL OS implies that apps have to be GPL too? Now I understand (and respect) OpenBeOS's position on *their* license, but there is no point in giving further justification to totally unfounded rumors about the GPL.
i think axel is primarily referring to the situation with hardware manufacturers where not many want to provide open source drivers and instead provide binary ones.
pragmatically, this situation is not likely to change, so an mit-licensed system is more compatible with corporations who want to preserve their intellectual property.
additionally, there are many who just use linux and other gpl software because of the price. these people do not really care what the license is as long as they don't have to pay. not many share rms' zeal for treating the world right by not restricting their freedom.
Yes, Stew is right about the BeOS G3/4 support. I run a UMAX Supermac (Mac Clone) S900, which has a G4 processor in it. BeOS runs just fine on this. Unlike Mac OS 9, which requires a software add-on to fully support the G4, BeOS needs no modification or driver support; it just works. My only problem is with the lack of good two button ADB mice out there... my Macally mouse isn't fully ADB compliant and so therefore the second button is useless in BeOS.
You can also run OS X on these older Macs as well, btw, with "ExPostFacto."
Great interview, btw. Thanks, OS News. The translation was excellent, too.
Top Interview of a Top Bloke.
Nice Translation too. I know many have been waiting on this.
I think he may (also) be referring to the arbitrary "if it's not free, it sucks" attitude prevalent in the Linux community. The BeOS community, in its heyday, had no such hangups - as a consequence, we had stuff like Mail-It, Postmaster, and Adam while the choices for GUI mailers on Linux were basically Netscape Communicator and a bunch of perpetual beta-ware that usually couldn't do POP/SMTP on its own and required you to have your own mail spool.
Hey Axel, YellowTab are hiring - check their webpage...
OBOS is probably the only alternative that has a promising future which is an OS developed during the 21st century. A long way have they gone, but a long way they still have to go.
What is unfortunately left out of the interview is that R2 is also under development through the Glass Elevator project.
Things drop in all the time, this interview is a bit out of date. Open Tracker 5.2.1 was released today and things like MDR for instance is already well tested and fully functional which are drop in replacement for R5 that should be considered OBOS R2 things.
Things look promising, quite soon we might have some option to MS and OS X on desktop use...
Good job Axel, you know all people in the community love your work...
OpenBeOS is a good example of failed commercial projects can be resuced by open source community. Netscape, Be and many other are gone but their grate works remain alive thank to opensource mechanisms.
BeOS's kernel is actually pretty good. Unlike Windows or UNIX, Be is free from legacy; Win32 APIs are ugly and UNIX programming is still doing things like file descriptor, though I don't like Be's C++ APIs because I detest C++.
Anyway, it is nice to see be is still alive.
What, praytell, is wrong with the concept of file-descriptors? A single integer that can represent everything from a local file to a shared memory buffer to a file residing on a machine 2000 miles away? Its not complex enough for you?
> Netscape, Be and many other are gone but their grate works remain
> alive thank to opensource mechanisms.
Okay, Netscape are gone? Compare these two URLS:
www.netscape.com
www.be.com
i.e. Netscape are still very much on life support, if not running about. Sure, their browser is a mess (IMHO) and I can't imagine why anyone would use it in preference to Mozilla, especially considering Netscape's spyware (or so I heard). Netscape DO still exist.
Now, back on topic.
The remnants of Netscape are owned by AOL. The remnants of Be are owned by Palm. Effectively both are dead. Your point was?
Remember Be technically has one employee. The law firm prosecuting the case against msft. And they have legal audience in this case, so it's likely Be can win.
Whether they will be back, that is up to the shareholders to decide with the BoD membership(right now, not technically consisting of anyone, but that can change when Be wins, that's the thing.)
As for file descriptors? They can be considered "too abstract" for objectivly-descriptive programming. if I'm wrong, tell me, please.
