The first version of BeFree is released today. It is a GPL/LGPL graphical system that doesn’t rely on X11 and is developed under FreeBSD 5.x (should also work on Linux). It is a BeOS 5 API clone (and not a Be OS clone) but the source compatibility will be probably broken in the future, the developer says. The release notes are here.
BeFree 0.1.0 Released
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
this is pretty interesting….
kind of like GNUstep
Mmmmh…
I don’t know much of GNUstep, but why these two projects are similare?
they are both implementing a complete API.
just this one doesn’t have X ^_^ but GNUstep is independent of X11, still it’s the only thing that supports it.
ok, it didn’t build on gentoo linux. i’ll wait until he gets it a bit more build-like.
Ah OK, I tried only WindowMaker at work (‘caus 7 days of KDE ate my swap), I thought there is a relation between WM and GNUstep.
It is build-like!
)
But needs some love from a full-time Linux user.
1. Why not use X11 and implement the BeAPI on top of that and the POSIX stuff?
2. Why not work with the OpenBeOS folks instead of doing all this on your own? On your FAQ page you wrote:
Being a user of UNIX-like operating systems I need a true command line OS with the powerful vim configuration tool because I’m feel free when I can change everything in my system.
Do you think that OpenBeOS won’t be easily configurable?
So, how far along is BeFree? Is it naive to ask for screenshots?
Hmm… when I click the link to look at the release notes, my browser (mozilla) complains about http://www.berlios.de not being developer.berlios.de and it being a security issue.(?)
thank you, and good night.
Pete…
You wait for ages for Zeta/OpenBeOS/B.E.OS and then 2 different API wrappers announced in a week! 🙂
If doesn’t use xfree then what does it use?
it’s own graphics system. I guess…
Ah OK, I tried only WindowMaker at work (‘caus 7 days of KDE ate my swap), I thought there is a relation between WM and GNUstep.
There really isn’t a relationship between Windowmaker and GNUstep offically. Although, most GNUstep users and developers run GNUstep, as GNUstep is the window manager that closest resembles NeXTSTEP/OpenStep in the way that windows are decorated and managed. However, WM isn’t written in GNUstep or Objective-C. In fact, WindowMaker is written in straight C and even has its own NeXT-look-alike GUI toolkit called WINGs. WINGs is used for dialogs and the preferences app, as well as a couple 3rd party apps like the Aileron email client.
IIRC, the official window manager of GNUstep is/will be Interface WM, which is written in Objective-C using GNUstep:
http://interfacewm.sourceforge.net/
Here is the answer:
1. I really don’t like XFree, but hey X11 is not the same thing.
So I thought it was cool to make a display driver for the app_server that use X11.
It will be the first I’ll write ‘caus XFree supports a lot of graphic cards and it runs on both Linux and FreeBSD.
Other display drivers will be written for DirectFB (I really like it but unfortunately it doesn’t run on my favorite OS), FreeBSD’s libvgl and whatever.
So BeFree will use X11 w/o completely rely on it.
2. It seems that Open BeOS is using some code from *BSD but that is not the point.
I really prefer the Linux/FreeBSD environment instead of the BeOS one because here I have all the programs I need (such as Apache, PHP, Postgres, MySQL, openssh, Perl, Python, gcc 3.x, …).
OK, OpenBeOS with its new net_server will support Postgres and other things but _at this moment_ BeOS is a dead operating system, only Linux and maybe FreeBSD are the main platforms for the tools I need.
I think OpenBeOS will not be a true Unix-like environemnt so I am not interested at this moment.
Anyway good luck OpenBeOS guys!!
For the release notes: you can find them <a href=”http://befree.berlios.de/releases/0.1B.php“>here.
For BerliOS problems: it seems that I reported the right URL so it is a BerliOS problem. They give me a good support with their services but there are some weird problems with https/ssl with Konqueror too.
Thanks for your questions, I’ll use them for the FAQ page.
for those who have been asking about what BeFree uses for its low-level graphics display, but who have been too lazy to read the page, here is a snippit from the BeFree site:
BeFree was born to be X11/XFree indipendent, the first display driver will use Xlib functions because XFree supports a lot of graphic cards, but in the future will be written other drivers for libvgl, DirectFB and whatever. (sic)
In otherwords, it doesn’t have to rely on X11, but unlike what Eugenia and others have said, it does right now. In the future, as the developer says, there will be display drivers to output to non-X11 graphics systems, but X11 is the only way to use BeFree for now.
I am guessing that it uses Xlib just for polling for events and drawing pixels, nothing higher level than that, so that it is easier to port to other gfx layers down the line.
Thanks for your post, now I can understand much how GNUstep and WM works!
Yes, exactly!
Probably my english is not very well and people cannot understand what I wrote
There is much code to write and the next version will complete the implementation of the thread, team, area, port and semaphore APIs so we will not see an app_server release soon.
How is this different from what B.E.OS is trying to do?
Which one is closer to usable (to switch my main desktop to 🙂 )?
the non-build compliance seems to be caused by no definition for the sem_info struct -_-
In file included from OS.c:78:
semaphore.c: At top level:
semaphore.c:107: warning: `struct sem_info’ declared inside parameter list
semaphore.c:107: warning: its scope is only this definition or declaration, which is probably not what you want
semaphore.c:114: parse error before “sem_info”
o_O
i have no idea what a sem_info looks like or i’d declare it myself 😉
To add another question (to my previous list): Does OpenTracker compile and run using BeFree?
Compilation Issues:
============
Send me the complete make output as explained in the release notes.
Thanks tv_casualty for the output.
Under FreeBSD the code compiles and runs perfectly (with the 2 test programs).
Tomorrow I’ll try to compile under Linux Mandrake 9.1 on my father’s PC.
BeFree and B.E.OS.
============
It seems that B.E.OS. (at least for the 1.0 version) uses X11 and its license is not clear to me.
I talked with the B.E.OS. author but I never continued because my point of view is totally different.
The code I write is released under GPL/LGPL. No confusion here
From the B.E.OS. site:
“The source code is owned by the BlueEyedOS development team. You are not allowed to reuse or modify it in any way. If you want to improve or modify the source code you must do it as an accepted member of the BlueEyedOS project.”
From the OpenSource.org site:
“The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost-preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.”
B.E.OS. is not Open Source nor Proprietary Software.
So what is it?
My suggest is… to create the news page. 🙂
Anyway, I am going to download it right now and try on the FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT. Maybe, you should create a port of it. 😉
It will
)
Now I am working on semaphores for the next release.
So when I’ll have a stable Kernel Kit I will be able to start writing the App Kit/Server.
But yes, OpenTracker will run under BeFree, with some tweaks if I’ll broke the source compatibility soon.
Anyway it will be the first complete program although I (at the moment) don’t think to “clone” the BeOS GUI.
I wanna extend the GNOME HIG (making it BeFree oriented) and write my own desktop.
Hmm, very nice project. But the project page needs a spell check
…and need some small docs about build and etc too. 🙂
I’ve added a contacts page (with the IRC channel) and the index points now to the berlios news.
For the ports… when I’ll release the 2nd beta I can release also an unofficial port and submit it to the FreeBSD team.
I dunno if they will add my port to their CVS because BeFree is too young and it’s still beta quality.
got same thing.
I know: my english is bad
BTW: Build page added under ::development:: link.
the index points now to the berlios news
Thanks! 🙂
For the ports… when I’ll release the 2nd beta I can release also an unofficial port and submit it to the FreeBSD team.
I dunno if they will add my port to their CVS because BeFree is too young and it’s still beta quality.
They will allow you to submit the PR and add in the ports as long it will compile and function without total broke. The development/alpha/beta/rc versions are fine and ok. There are many CVS/beta and etc in the ports tree as well. You can explain in the pkg-message that it’s still in the development peroid.
>> the index points now to the berlios news
> Thanks! 🙂
You’re welcome!
>> I dunno if they will add my port to their CVS because BeFree is too young and it’s still beta quality.
> They will allow you to submit the PR and add in the ports as long it will compile and function without total broke.
OK thank you!
)
Anyway you dress it up, it’s a waste of time.
Not because it’s beos related.. but because it’s just a waste of time.
that’s all I need to say about it, and enough that needs to be said.
Why is it a waste of time?
You didn’t write your opinion.
What I said in beshare might be better critique:
I don’t doubt their compentency in programming. I doubt they realize that instead of doing an X server based linux distro with B_Message support, instead, we could stand to have a several person X server team for beos. Like BSD and Linux and Windows communities need *ANY* more help. I think we could use the help bulding our community.
I think that would be better.
Don’t take Obelix seriously. People like him are satisfied with what they have and have no desire at all to see any progress happen.
I think it’s progress is the only thing which motivates me.
Don’t pay attention to the man behind the curtian?
LooooooooooooooL
Why would you release it for the GPL license. The BSD license would have made more sense.
At that rate, the BeOS API will have more implementations than POSIX soon 😉
Pier, thank you for using the GPL and LGPL for this project of yours. It always bothered me that B.E.OS mascarades as an open source project, but they won’t let anyone near their sandbox if you don’t play by their rules and become a team member. Proprietary thinking in an open world. I hope your licensing decision breeds good will for you and your project, and bring new programmers if you desire that.
Another FAQ added, about licenses.
I choose GPL/LGPL because with a BSD one the code can be stolen by someone that will not send us his changes back.
OpenTracker is BSD is it not? A license cocktail as most OSS OSes are.
Just remember that which is given away, cannot be stolen. BSD is charity – giving without expection of return. The motive? Kindness.
Ok so I haven’t been paying attention, but it seems there are several efforts to continue the BeOS cause (FreeBe, OpenBeOS, YellowTab (+others?)).
Can someone clarify what the main differences are between them? Are they working together, or dupiclating each others efforts?
thankz
Just curious if there is existing / planned query support. As you mention OpenTracker I guess there at least will be…
Comments?
Just saw the licenses used and suddenly realise what a vague future this project has.
We don’t need any more “hate” proprietary softwares.
This won’t help BeOS community at all to be honest.
> This won’t help BeOS community at all to be honest.
And who says he has any interest in or intention of doing so? Just because someone likes the API doesn’t imply that they have any interest or desire to help the so-called community. So let people do their own thing and stop trying to tell them what to do with their free time.
Seriously, seeing this kind of crap every time someone does something Be-related does more damage to the so-called community than anything else.
Where are the screen shots??
“It seems that B.E.OS. (at least for the 1.0 version) uses X11 and its license is not clear to me.”
It would be interesting to know what is not clear…
“The complete source code will become opensourced as soon as the B.E.OS version 1.0 is released.” What can we say more than that?
My personal feeling about BeFree is that its current state is what B.E.OS was at the beginning of the project.
Yet Another Rebirth Project…
Regards,
Guillaume
MS-DOS v1.0 was written by a programmer in his spare time for a new chip that no one was using… what a waste of time.
Unix was written by AT&T as a research project and was never ment to go mainsteam… what a waste of time.
Linux (the kernel) was written as an attempt to reproduce a Unix kernel as a hobby… what a waste of time.
If a programmer thinks there’s a reason to write some thing and/or he feels that he may learn something, it’s not a waste of time. This project currently has lettle going for it except allowing the programer. If his source compatability doesn’t go to far off course from the BE API, then it might be very good in the future (I like that BE program and would like to run it under *BSD or Linux… Hey, if I use the project 90% of the user interface code is already ported…).
Inovation comes from people wasting their time…
PS: this doesn’t apply to programing only. Look at the Wright brothers who where wasting their time trying to build a flying machine; everyone knows that you can build a flying machine…
Your missing the point, it’s not about the BeOS community, it’s about the license. Projects with GPL licenses are loosing grounds and will continute to do that as knowledge of different licenses grows.
As they have chosen GPL which is not favourable for most serious hobby developers this project sees little to no future. That is what I think is shameful, not that the guy is creative on BSD…
> My personal feeling about BeFree is that its current state is what B.E.OS was at the beginning of the project.
And my personnal feeling is that it is caused by the “closed state” of B.E.OS, apparently it repelled at least one serious developper, to everyone’s loss.
>”The complete source code will become opensourced as soon as the B.E.OS version 1.0 is released.” What can we say more than that?
Maybe you could add which license B.E.OS will use?
If memory serves, you said before that it was going to be BSD, but this would need to be written on the website!
I find it very funny to compare the beginning of Linux’s kernel to B.E.OS: Linus isn’t necessarily the best developper but he managed to use the contribution of very talented developpers (Ted Tso, Alan Cox, …) through carefull management and openess.
B.E.OS “close state to prevents forks” has apparently created other reimplementation..
Guillaume Maillard wrote:
It would be interesting to know what is not clear…
“The complete source code will become opensourced as soon as the B.E.OS version 1.0 is released.” What can we say more than that?
Ha! Guillaume, there are many ways to interpret “opensourced”.
[Shrug,.. ok] XBe wrote:
Your missing the point, it’s not about the BeOS community, it’s about the license. Projects with GPL licenses are loosing grounds and will continute to do that as knowledge of different licenses grows.
Double ha! I think you’ll need to provide some facts to back that one up XBe.
P.F. Fiorini, you chose the correct licenses. The GPL/LGPL stirs something in software developers: to know that the work we intend to be free will stay that way encourages us, as I’m sure you know better than I.
Keep up the good work paisano!
I’m going to have to agree with Joe P. You can do what you want with your spare time, and it doesn’t make you stupid. These overly judgemental people should take all the time they spend posting discouraging comments and use it to code. It doesn’t help anybody. There are different merits to both the BSD and GPL licenses. I happen to think BSD is better, but that is almost on the level of an opinion it is such a wishy-washy topic. As long as they distribute the source and you can use it and modify it, it is all good.
Guillaume Maillard wrote:
> My personal feeling about BeFree is that its current state is what >B.E.OS was at the beginning of the project.
That is just really really rude. My personal opinion about BeFree is that it is the best development in the whole series of “Lets copy the BeOS” projects that have been started. Not because of any particular quality of the source etc. but because it is both open and starting on a rather large base of code. I’d love to see a minamilstic distribution of Darwin with BeFree as the GUI and all sorts of cruft removed.
Guillaume Maillard wrote:
> My personal feeling about BeFree is that its current state is what >B.E.OS was at the beginning of the project.
The coolest thing in BlueEyeDOS was the demosong written and recorded by the folks at Be.Inc
But it was nice to hear that BlueEyedOS already got a functional MediaKIT, even more cool would be if you played the song using APlayer which is opensourced?
> “It seems that B.E.OS. (at least for the 1.0 version) uses X11 and its license is not clear to me.”
> It would be interesting to know what is not clear…
> “The complete source code will become opensourced as soon as the B.E.OS version 1.0 is released.”
> What can we say more than that?
The license for example? open source is generic.
Example: Bob write a program called FooBar. When FooBar v1.0 is completed, Bob claims that it is open source.
Then he releases the source code and the only license you can find is a web page that says “OK This is our code, you can only read it!”.
FooBar is open source (because the code is open but read only), so Bob is not wrong, but FooBar is not Open Source as http://www.opensource.org says.
I have posted what Open Source is as Raymond and others say and I have posted the part of the B.E.OS. web site that explain the source code politics.
Guillaume, this is only my humble opinion.
“discouraging comments and use it to code.”
By saying that BeFree is at the same level that B.E.OS was at the begining, is not aimed to discourage or discredit the author(s) of the project, but only to point you that it’s maybe not necessary. I don’t see why B.E.OS could not compile under FreeBSD.
“FooBar is open source (because the code is open but read only), so Bob is not wrong, but FooBar is not Open Source as http://www.opensource.org says. ”
Don’t stop your reflection at the licence level, you need to do a step further and ask yourself “why”.
“why do I need a read access to the code?”
“why do I need a write access to the code?”
etc…
What people need IMHO is that :
– the OS can’t disapear
It was mentioned x times that if we stop B.E.OS, the code will be release under the BSD licence (or GPL if we are convinced at this time that it’s better)
– the code can evolve
See “the read only” aspect, we will never rejected evolution or bugfixes. To decision of a particular evolution must be made as B.E.OS member (which is free) with the approval of the team.
– the code is safe (ie to be able to read it and check it)
see ‘read access’, nothing prevent you to play or hack it.
– it works bugless
we accept bugfixes AND control it to avoid surprises (integration of not well tested code)
– the consistency is preserved
we control the UI evolution, the kits, etc… it avoid
duplicate ideas, duplicate code,…
– nothing prevent it distribution
you are granted to disctribute B.E.OS
– nothing can prevent its extension to the business world
GPL do that, not us.
All this points were already written, but it seems that people think BDS or GPL without thinking.
Regards,
Guillaume
Funnily enough, each time you talk about license you are really not clear at all, very imprecise.
It would be much clearer if you simply said: B.E.OS is a closed source project which may at some time become “open-source” (whatever you think it is).
As for who needs the source?
Well apparently, BeFree’s developper would have like to see the source, but as you’re a closed project, he decided to reimplement his own stuff.
BeFree maybe less advanced than B.E.OS but at least he has said exactly what he use for license: GPL for the “core”, LGPL for the interface, which is IMHO a very good compromise: this way he ensure that his work stays open, but at the same time, it make sure that closed-source application can run on top of BeFree without licensing concern..
GM wrote:
– the OS can’t disapear
It was mentioned x times that if we stop B.E.OS, the code will be release under the BSD licence (or GPL if we are convinced at this time that it’s better)
I’m sorry, but talk is cheap. Yes, it *can* disappear — for instance, you could decide sell out at the last minute if some company were to offer to purchase B.E.OS.
Regardless, B.E.OS looks like a interesting project — good luck.
Or reality. From the moment I read the BeFree motto I knew it was another nerd-project going nowhere:
<<BeFree – As powerful as BeOS, as stable as *NIX>>
It also contains the *NIX myth of *NIX great great great stability. Yes, very very stable and Desktop-useless within the command line I suppose (stable -Modern- GUIs in *NIX are sacrilege, that’s why they simply don’t exist), in some arcane well tested Debian-like version years behind the rest of the Desktop computing world; which is neither a rare anachronism in the latest *NIX. Have fun and enjoy. BeOS lovers calmly living outside the *NIX brotherhood, ignore, it’s just another lame motto for week-end hackers.
Do you know OS X?
I could be a lame week-end hacker that waste his free time, but what code do you write (in your free time) to shoot these sentences?
As for who needs the source?
Well apparently, BeFree’s developper would have like to see the source, but as you’re a closed project, he decided to reimplement his own stuff.
Surprising conclusion! Does it means that BeFree’s developpers only want an opensourced B.E.OS version.
Today, B.E.OS is not opensource but will when version 1.0 will be released. So it will become exactly what BeFree is/want to be.
Yes, it *can* disappear — for instance, you could decide sell out at the last minute if some company were to offer to purchase B.E.OS.
Are you paranoid? It’s clear from the beginning that the B.E.OS source code will never be sold.
What’s more, what is the company which could buy that it? BeOS was ‘for sale’, you know the end of the story…
Regards,
Guillaume
>”Licenses kill brains” [TM]
A lame subject if you ask me, maybe it is what you thinks but as for your clarity about the license subject, as your French like me: “Ce qui se conçoit bien s’énonce clairement et les mots pour le dire viennent aisément”.
Apparently you cannot explain easily your position on the license and I’m not the only one who thinks that B.E.OS status is unclear, so…
Anyway
> Today, B.E.OS is not opensource but will when version 1.0 will be released.
>So it will become exactly what BeFree is/want to be.
In the meantime, B.E.OS lost a serious developper..
Maybe B.E.OS has some many developpers that you don’t care about attracting developpers?
“Ce qui se conçoit bien s’énonce clairement et les mots pour le dire viennent aisément”.
“La simplicité peut etre difficile a comprendre, alors pourquoi faire compliqué quand on peut faire simple?”
Apparently you cannot explain easily your position on the license and I’m not the only one who thinks that B.E.OS status is unclear, so…
Maybe could it be better to highlight us the unclear points by precise questions which can be answered by Yes or No.
We have nothing to hide or somthing like that. B.E.OS is animated by a BeOS spirit not by the dark side.
In the meantime, B.E.OS lost a serious developper..
Maybe B.E.OS has some many developpers that you don’t care about attracting developpers?
Can we lost someone we never had in the team?
Seriously, the doors are still open.
Regards,
Guillaume
Speaking of clarity, renox you could stay quiet (your first sentence is …dramatic !)
My point is, I don’t care to know now if B.E.OS will be BSD, GPL, or XYZ license. I will when it will be useful. You seem to defend a principle that it’s good only if it’s released under such or such license. But opensource has changed a lot, and so the companies dealing with open source. If B.E.OS team take that into account to release in an intelligent way that keep the source available, but free, and safe, I am for it, whatever the name of the license will be.
On the other hand BeFree’s author did it from scratch, good for him. He did not want to join B.E.OS project, so be it. I don’t see the drama here….
>>In the meantime, B.E.OS lost a serious developper..
>>Maybe B.E.OS has some many developpers that you don’t care about attracting developpers?
>Can we lost someone we never had in the team?
>Seriously, the doors are still open.
Psschhaw, you call this open? Join and you will see the source?
Well apparently, some people want to see the code before choosing to make (or not) a contribution..
hmm, or you could simply port the SciTech SNAP PM shell layer to BeFree and be done with it;)
From the website: I am a GNU/Linux and FreeBSD user but I really loved the BeOS operating system.
I had installed BeOS 5 Personal when it was released but I never bought the Profetional version because I had no credit card and I didn’t find BeOS in any computer shop.
I uninstalled BeOS 5 Personal because of the lack of applications.
If there were no applications using this API, why port it? So that he could have the experience of uninstalling it from FreeBSD?
When I installed BeOS Max there were more applications but I had some hardware problems.
As operating system I still prefer GNU/Linux or FreeBSD but when I choose an API I’d prefer the BeOS one.
I started this project for fun, I like write code and I want to write something I like.
If there are no applications to port I’ll write what I need and if I can’t I’ll use what I can find in my ports collection (OpenOffice.org for example).
If BeFree will have a future there will be developers that start writing their own (Free, Open Source or proprietary) software, if it will not have a future I’ll continue write the code for fun.
I have learned, at lest, how to write such piece of software.
Do you want or not want join us?
Are you with us or contrary to us?
????
Michael Vinícius de Oliveira
~ BlueEyedOS.com Webmaster ~