Home | Forums | Submit   Haiku Generator | Quotable JLG | The Icon Tarot 

New Linux Based OSBOS System

Filed under the:  department.
Posted by:Ryan on Monday, 04 Aug, 2003 @ 5:21 PM

Ok, so I noticed over on the BeFree site, there is a news item up about this post on the BeFree mailing list. The post is to announce that a new os called Rolling is under development. It is based on the linux system architecture, but will follow the BeUnited RFC’s, and will use BeFree as a gui. According to Simon Gauvin of BeUnitedin a followup list post, “this will generate a LOT of discussion among people” - But I haven’t seen any. So maybe it’s time for the discussion to kick in.

What are your thoughts on this new OSBOS?

21 Responses to “New Linux Based OSBOS System”

  1. Chris Simmons Says:

    These people don’t get it.

    Why create yet ANOTHER splinter in our community?

    I can understand OBOS, Zeta, Cosmoe, and B.E.O.S., but BeFree, and now this?

    It’s time to re-evauluate people! Stick to a project that is already headed somewhere, instead od re-inventing the wheel.

    -Chris Simmons,
    Avid BeOS User.
    The BeOSJournal.

  2. Ryan Says:


    I have to respectfully disagree. I think it is the BeOS community that doesn’t truly “get it.” It seems we still long for the days of Be, Inc. ruling our OS. The open source model is entirely about developers doing whatever it is they want to do… not following some benevolent dictator of the whole thing. In fact, only having one project increases probability of failure, while multiple projects strengthen the goal.

    For example, when Cosmoe first started it got lots of complaints about distracting people from OpenBeOS. But now Cosmoe and OpenBeOS are syncing their code for many components - this is code that OpenBeOS would never have otherwise gotten because Linux users are working on Cosmoe for their chosen OS.

    I find it amusing that you say “stick to a project that is already headed somewhere instead of re-inventing the wheel” - It seems to me that the linux kernel is already heading somewhere, and people are just trying to enhance it. From that perspective OpenBeOS is “re-inventing the wheel” and should stop immediately. And if your response had to do with the monolithic/microkernel differentiation, I would simply point you at the HURD.

    My point is not that OpenBeOS is bad… in fact, I like it best. But it certainly isn’t a reason to tell other people who would prefer to take components of BeOS and build their system a different way that they can’t. I for one think Rolling is a great idea. It may or may not ever produce anything worthwhile, but it gets the BeOS mindset into anyone who touches it, and makes inroads into the area most open source hackers are — linux.

  3. altp Says:

    Why create yet ANOTHER splinter in our community?

    You’re one of those people that complain about too many Linux Distrobutions too, aren’t ya ;-)

    have many distrobutions with a common tool, such as an OS, is not a bad thing. It helps fill many niches that otherwise might be left out.


  4. bat` serjo Says:

    I am just sick of all this shit. Every body is making whatever he want and instead of just unite and simply comunicate a little bit more. That would give the same results but fdaster.

  5. bellhop Says:

    i am all for open source. everyone uses anyone’s open code. and openbeos’ licence encourages that. but, ryan, what did cosmoe contribute to openbeos? do they give anything back? i haven’t seen that but i may be wrong…

    it’s ok. it’s the MIT license. nevertheless i deem it undecent if e.g. zeta keeps saying they’ll use openbeos code without having contributed a single patch.

  6. Ryan Says:


    With the new version 0.7 that cosmoe is working on, Bill Hayden went back and synced all relevant code with the openbeos versions. According to the Cosmoe mailing lists, they often exchange code and patches for various things, especially relating to interface functionality like BMenu, BButtons, etc. Of course, I am not a coder, so it could be related to other parts that just show symptoms related to the interface.

    In either case, if you go back and read the archives of Cosmoe about the time 0.7 previews first started getting released, you will see what I am talking about.

  7. vezhlys Says:

    There two other projects based on Linux kernel. I can’t understand why we need this one? When BeFree started they did gui for FreeBSD and it was something new and mayby interesting, but now they turned to linux too. So we have 3 same projects to make linux distribution compatable with BeOS. Why just doesn’t join to one of older projects (Cosmoe, B.E.OS) and help faster to complete that projects. All OSBOS projects are in early stages and their progress is quite slow, so I think more systems can only to harm to BeOS compatable systems future. I think firstly we need to be as united as possible. Later, of course, you can improve that systems and to create new distributions, because most projects are open source. But in early stages a lot of systems can’t be usefull for BeOS future I think.

  8. clumzykid Says:

    The main fear I believe is that we may end up with clones/replicants of beos not being compatible at all with one another… They say they’ll follow the RFC - to the letter? or almost? (Yes I know they need to follow the RFC or otherwise they’re not part of the BeOS cloning)…

    I just hope these projects pay real close attention to one another… if a few of them become successful and mainstream… for examples sake - Zeta, OpenBeOS and B.E.O.S. - they better make sure that they don’t fall victim to creating compatiblity layers for one another…

    That is what is worrying me the most…

  9. arougthopher Says:

    Why 3 Linux based distros:

    1- B.E.OS is, currently, closed source, and some devs don’t like that. Supposedly that will change, but, some people, i.e. BeFree, did not want to wait.
    2- BeFree - see above - also, they switched from BSD to Linux, because of hardware compatability (I believe) Plus, they plan on expanding the current APIs, while keeping compatability with beunited.org standards (but, I think all OSBOS’s will do that)
    3- Cosmoe - Cosmoe has different goals than the above two. They are trying to combine different APIs into one desktop/os. (Atheos, BeOS, …)
    4- This “new” os, is not yet another OSBOS, but rather, a specific linux distro, that has chosen to use BeFree for their GUI.

    So, what we really have are 2 projects to recreate BeOS on linux (BeFree and B.E.OS), but, currently under different licenses. We have Cosmoe, which, will be compatable with BeOS, but not a full recreation. And, we now have a specific linux disto, interested in using BeFree as its default UI.

    I could be wrong on some of the information above, but, this is my understanding of how things are based on information I have read in forums and on the above project’s sites.

    Oh, and I have seen Bill Hayden commit code to openBeOS’s cvs repository.

  10. bellhop Says:

    I stand corrected.
    Still I think these cooperations should be made more public. Otherwise people come to incorrect conclusions like me. OTOH, the fact that there isn’t much reported may indicate that the situation is more like I described it after all… See, I can admit to being wrong and then turn it all around again at the end! :)

  11. Atilla Says:

    Rolling adds the standard GNU/Linux - blabla as statement.
    Meanwhile they tell it’s based upon BeFree.
    when you take a certain look at BeFree you will see that it’s based on FreeBSD 5.x.
    The reasons for this choice are listed as follows:
    - independence to X-Windows (other WM are usable)
    - pThreads
    - new UFS2 with Attribut - Support
    - Better VM - Handling (than Lunix)
    - Better SMP - Support than FreeBSD Releases after 4.7
    To the cacophonic Linux brewmasters out there:
    FreeBSD is - AFAIE - the better Unix Clone. Period.
    And BeFree is NOT based on Lunix…which makes it even more interesting for Be Users…

  12. Ryan Says:

    As a part-time linux user, I feel the need to point out that all of your 5 points are either invalid or 100% subjective. It doesn’t really matter though because although BeFree started out as BSD based, it soon transitioned to Linux based for hardware support, etc. In fact, they have already published patches for the Linux kernel that add symbols for the various BeOS like kernel functions (node monitoring, etc) and they are working to flesh them out.

    In other words, BeFree IS based on Linux, thus it works fine with the Rolling initative, and the Linux vs. BSD holy war has nothing to do with any of this.

  13. Dimeslime Says:

    BeOS = not Linux
    BeOS = Not supposed to be linux…
    BeOS = An awsome OS.
    BeOS = NEW and EASY

    Don’t combine BeOS with the linux kernel.. Linux is linux.. BeOS is not intended for linux. Its intented for Multimedia and such.

    BeOS was supposed to be a new alternative for Linux or Microsoft or MacOS.. Why not just join OpenBeOS and create the power all over again, make it newer, faster, more reliable, easier, more modern etc..? Better yet, support BeOS and buy Zeta when it comes out.. Compete with Linux.. Don’t join it.

  14. Dogbert Says:

    To a degree I’m with Dimeslime on this. Support zeta… Why? because it is likely to be the only thing that will keep enough momentum going in this comunity until these projects come to fruition.

    On the other hand, I think that having a wealth of choices when they do get released as complete packages that this can only be a good thing. Who knows, by the time some of these systems are ready, Linux may have started to shape up as viable alternatives to Windows (Hey, its got to happen sooner or later).

    But to everyone, relax, this is not the end, but simply a new beginning, and everything in its beginnings has a bumpy ride.

  15. BeGonxMe Says:

    I hate to say it, but it’s a waste of time! We don’t need 3 BeOS clones using the same (Linux) kernel! In some ways it’s good to have several projects going that might push a little innovation, but at the end of the day, we still need collaboration and put the resources to proper use and stick with one Be Operating System successor! I think the BeOS community is tired of waiting :-(

  16. Simon Gauvin Says:

    It’s great to see the level of intensity in these comments. It means that people care, and to me that’s more important than having an OS project where people are complacent. With this intensity you will always have people who will want to do things their own way, it’s a fact of life we will have to live with, and one that beunited.org supports with standards. We are choosing to accept this reality of our community and embrace it to make it work *for* us rather than against us.

    As for the discussion about why Linux, vs another kernel… remember that Linux is just that, a kernel. Remember that all the Linux distros pile a ton of software that make the final desktop OS experience, filesystems, window server (X), desktop (KDE/Gnome), and other stuff. If you take all the crap that is piled on top of Linux you realize that the kernel is actually quite good. It is not designed like the BeOS kernel and does not do some things as well (SMP, locking, add-ons). But, it also does some things BeOS can’t (memory limits, thread stack size, etc). What is important is that Linux works today, the source is available, and that technically it can be made to do what BeOS does. That’s why BeFree was created, to basically replace the crud that Linux distros come with replace it with BeOS specific parts (app_server, kernel kit, befs, Tracker…)

    One last issue that I think is important is that Linux has a massive following, lots of press attension, and billions of $ going into market development. Everyone knows that Linux sucks as a desktop OS (compared to BeOS). What would be better than taking all that PR attension and focussing it on a small group of people who actually make Linux usable! All of you. Doing this will make our community noticed, populated with more developers, and a real look by large companies with money.

    In my view, there’s a tremendous opportunity there, and one that we can all work on to help make BeOS more wide-spread.

    Remember, in the end it’s more important for the OS to look, smell, act, and feel like BeOS than to actually be BeOS. If it passes the Turing test and you can’t tell the difference than it is BeOS… that’s what beuntied.org wants to help people do, and it’s good for all of us.


  17. Atilla Says:

    Would be good for the OSBOS - Corner…..

    On the one side, Simon’s thoughts are good, most of them simply true.
    De Facto there is no ‘easy to configure’ Linux - especially if you start it to compare with M$ Windows NT Server and follow - ups.
    The kernel itself brings a ton of drivers - this correct. But opposite to BSD, sometimes it doesn’t do exactly what you tell it to do. Besides I still prefer the cleaner architecture of FreeBSD. Its smaller footprint let it fluently work on a 300 MHz machine with 64 MB (try that on SuSE & Co..) - but anyway. Choice was made.
    If the Lunix Based OSBOS Community start up a nice and touting propaganda in the Linux scenes (which they don’t do ATM (shame on you ;-) ), that its nicer to code on OSBOS type Linux - based OS’ses than on other Linux Distro - you will be the winner - doubtless.
    On the end, all these projects will merge to 1 or 2 max. Linux based OSBOS projects. Which is good.
    However, it won’t be a BeOS replacement (doesn’t need to be however).
    On the Desktop side & professional Desktop work I think Zeta is the future now.
    A slow integration of OBOS R2 developments into Zeta will keep the Desktop OS Line of OSBOS up to date, including the professional support & further developments which are needed.
    If the Linux based OSBOS guys create a Easier - to - use/configure Server solution, it will be a true Linux Server contender.
    So I’m looking forward to use webmin finally on B.E.O.S ;-)

  18. XBe Says:

    I can’t stand the talk of all these OSBOS, I’m sorry but I really can’t.

    The only interesting project out there is really OBOS. They’re doing something amazing…

    For all the *Nix clones… why bother something meant for server to be adapted to desktop. All Nixes are Server OS’es… rather build server side applications there which can be used in conjunction with client side BeOS.

    One size doesn’t fit all, especially not Penguin stuff..

  19. rallen Says:

    XBe has a point. You can drape apps on top of the kernels so that they can do each others jobs, act as a server and as a client.

    But they won’t do as good a job as the OS designed from the ground up for that job. You can plow a field with a Ferrari and race with a tractor, but not very well.

  20. rallen Says:

    Xbe has a point.
    Linux can be shoehorned to work as a desktop system, but why? It would be like trying to plow a field with a Ferrari or go racing with a tractor. By the time it’s adapted to do the job well it doesn’t resemble what you started with at all, and it still won’t work as well as one designed from scratch to do that particular job.

    But I think he may be missing the point about the multiple Nix based projects.

    They are grabbing the headlines, the attention, the PROGRAMERS IMAGINATIONS. Everyone is trying to make the first successful Linux desktop, but the Linux/X11 modular architecture is against them. That also means that the two most popular WM’s KDE and Gnome, are just window-dressing on an ill-built house.

    When (IF) BeFree starts getting media recognition for a killer Linux desktop distro, that will lead more people into the BeOS camp where they will hopefully see a REAL desktop OS.

    I’m leaning toward OBOS myself, but anything based on BeOS has got to be better than what’s available now.

  21. beosfrance Says:

    Having lots of distribution of BeOS, why ?
    Because only one distrib of one OS can’t be able to make happy webserver-administrators, network-adminitrators, webdesigners, webmasters, webanimators, videos-editors and creators, developers, sound-designers, musicians, secretaries, studients, grand ma and even her little stupid dog and released in 2 years.

    It has to grow up and getting popular, and mostly, it has to be supported by all hardwares, sofwares and games factories !!!!
    Being included with computers like Dell makes with Linux can help too.

    We are far far far from it ! Zeta is to me the only futur for BeOS cause a Free OS hasen’t a commercial support and have to wait at least 10 years to be noticed by others.

    Last, i’m not agree that a Be OS has to be a Be only. Ok, if it’s possible, it better, i’m agree on this. But if we can use some features that already exists, why not take it as it is and spend our time on other things ?

    A lot of distibution is also a way not to work with an OS that can be use for webserver, video editing and videogames if your daily use is typing word document. Differents just have to be clearly explain to the public (who doesn’t speak PHP, C++, SQL, …)

[powered by WordPress.]

Random Haiku:


Since 1998 - Until the Last User Leaves...
BeGroovy, established 1998

search BeGroovy:

BeGroovy Archives:

May 2021
« Sep    


22 queries. 0.061 seconds

[powered by WordPress.]