Bill Hayden did the obvious: He forked AtheOS (which is technically similar to BeOS) and used its app_server and Interface Kit (without the use of X11) and rest of its kits on top of the 2.4.x Linux kernel. While the AtheOS kernel has some very nice features, by being modular, semi-microkernel, with good preemptive/multithreading support etc., it lacks a solid VM and swap support and of course, it lacks a good driver support, things that the Linux kernel provides. Bill Hayden accounced his fork on the AtheOS mailing list and made known that the “Atheos API has been merged with the BeOS API, there is PowerPC support, gcc 3.0.X compatiblity and OpenTracker/Deskbar as the desktop manager”.Most BeOS programs compile and run with little or no changes and Bill has already ported the BeOS CPU monitor, Pulse, to the system. “Existing Atheos programs will need changes to compile. I haven’t found one that took me longer than a few minutes to ‘convert’. Where Atheos and BeOS use different semantics, I chose the BeOS method”, Bill said. Deskbar and Tracker are reportedly difficult to port as they depend on very BeOS-specific APIs and behaviors, but Bill says that it is getting there, especially because the 2.4.x kernel supports node monitoring.
The AtheOS community took the announcement a bit bitter as they would not like to see a forking of AtheOS, but reportedly, Kurt Skauen (the original author of AtheOS) hasn’t touched the AtheOS source code in five months, as he is taking a break from development for now (which is a usual thing for Kurt, he has done so twice in the past). However the despiration and frustration from AtheOS coders who would like to see more AtheOS development is now at high levels (Kurt does not accept patches or new code for his OS, so everyone is dependant on Kurt when it comes on the AtheOS future).
OSNews featured a review of AtheOS’ latest version some months ago.
Even though you think the BeOS GUI is ugly drawn, it doesn’t mean it’s a bad GUI code-wise – graphically re-design it is a minor.
What is so good with the BeOS GUI is that it’s small, fast, responsive and its parts are working thightly together (also it got threads in kernel space)
The BeOS kernel is another story… Performance wise Linux easily outperforms BeOS on most tasks. So sticking this nice BeOS GUI and, last but not least, the oustanding API on/in (not on top like X) is a damn good idea IMO.
This way you get 1. drivers 2. Nice kernel with ALOT of developers 3. Compatiblity (BeOS, Linux, dunno about AtheOS in the long run – but what AtheOS apps can’t we live without?
)
“”AtheOS is GPLed, OpenBeOS is under the MIT license. Thus, we cannot include code from AtheOS in OBOS.””
“GPL strikes again. Source contamination by the GPL is precisely why I don’t even bother to take a look at such systems despite how good they might look.”
I’d laugh, but I really don’t think this issue is that funny. In fact, I think it’s sad that OpenBeOS has locked itself out of the ability to use GPL’d code by not choosing the GPL as a license. Were there any real advantage to OpenBeOS not using the GPL, it would be a different story. But, IMO, the real reason the GPL is not used for it is a political one, rather than a practical one with regard to the characteristics of the license. Is there any reason that the OpenBeOS code needs to be licensed in a way that allows outside developers to take some or all of that code, close it and charge money for it? From all evidence that I have seen, the BSD-ish licenses are just glorified versions of the public domain. The reason that the GPL was created is that selfish people take advantage of public domain software, because compilation and binary distribution allow them to pull an embrace and extend. The only licenses that prevent that are the GPL-compatible licenses. I think it’s sad that the OpenBeOS developers have chosen to open themselves up to being taken advantage of while simultaneously depriving themselves of the opportunity to save time by reusing code that has been entrusted to the community for that very purpose. But what do I know..
Hear, Hear! I am sick and tired of the anti-GPL whiners, especially on Slashdot, where I am migrating from. In my opinion, the GPL is the ONLY reason Linux (GNU/Linux) is where it is today, ahead of the other open source projects in popularity, use, and mindshare (and obviously ahead of superior closed source projects, such as BeOS and AmigaOS). I like BSD, I think TECHNICALLY it’s better than Linux, but the anarchistic freedom of their licensing prevents me from writing for it, since what I freely give to the community will likely end up in Microsoft’s product, fuelling their monopoly. That’s the reason Microsoft is pro-BSD and anti-Linux; Linux, due to the GPL, can’t be embraced, extended, and extinguished. I agree 100% with you. Good post.
Felonius Hiddenbottom wrote:
>>Why not use Darwin, which is *mostly* a microkernel – or one of the *BSD’s, though not microkernel are much more robust than Linux?<<
Darwin does not have enough pthread support yet to handle the New Atheos codebase. As for BSD, I was originally going to use NetBSD, but the BSD’s don’t do kernel framebuffers, so it would have been a lot more work. Finally, Darwin (especially) and the BSD’s do not have quite the driver support that Linux has.
The decision was not spur-of-the-moment. If I made the decision based on anything other than practical goals, I probably would have used Darwin or one of the BSDs.
Bill Hayden
It may be political, but the contagious nature of the GPL is what worries developers who have to earn a living from their code. That’s why BSDish licenses are much better – use the code, no questions asked. If you’re that worried about you code being ripped off, then you really don’t understand the altruistic basis to open source. While it is fine to wave the GPL flag it ultimately prevents the software being used in ways which could improve its overall quality.
For example, I could download atheos, make a lot of suggestions and patches based on my experience and submit these to make a better OS. I can’t however do so because I am in the process of building an OS of my own, and if I started poking through the code, this would likely violate the clean room principles which I’m trying to adhere to. With a BSD license, I don’t face such a risk.
The GPL suits developers who haven’t got much to start with. It really doesn’t suit skilled developers who have much to risk from code contamination.
Given these arguments, projects under the GPL may be unlikely to attract highly skilled developers, such projects are likely to fall into mediocrity with regard to quality.
I am sure you can blow my argument apart, but could this be one reason why GPL’ed projects take longer to reach the standard that closed or BSDish projects reach?
So I add this… GPL is a selfish license, BSD is a selfless license. Since the founding principle of open source is supposedly sharing source in an unselfish manner, the GPL would then seem to be somewhat of an anomaly, almost hypocritical.
I personally would be much happier to contribute to a BSDish project than a GPLish project for these reasons. Go think about it.
P
Thanks.
I would benture to say that this project is not a mere linux distribution. Just because a product uses the linux kernel does not make it the same as ‘running a BEos like GUI on top of Linux’ or the like. Darwin is the core of OS X, but is OSX simply considered Darwin? Of course not. What makes the linux distros as they are(perhaps better referred to as GNU linux)is the myriad software running on top of the kernel…ie X11, shells, daemons, etc. The kernel itself is a really tiny element of the system and just holds things together. This is not to say that the kernel isn’t a major or important element, but on the contrary it is quite important, and I applaud this project for choosing the Linux kernel as a base because it is getting really solid.
I am very very interested in how the project is coming along. Bill, if you are out there and reading this post, would it be at all possible to feed our curiosity with a screenshot or two? I think a lot of us would really love to see what is going on, even if it isn’t up for release yet.
Pretty please
-drfc
I agree. Waiting with baited breath.