I am frustrated. Frustrated because OBOS is not here and now. Frustrated that there are so many splintered (open)BeOS projects. Frustrated because the only versions of certain BeOS software available are the trial versions. Frustrated, that despite having 2 non-M$ platforms from which to choose, I am still "forced" back to Windows for audio and video editing and 3d games. Frustrated that no major hardware manufacturer, let alone software companies seem to have any inclination toward development for the BeOS platform. And perhaps I am frustrated most by the OBOS website and their infrequent updates that seem to suggest all is not well with OBOS development. Perhaps OBOS is dying at the starting gate. It's a shame, really. . .
Actually, the OpenBeOS project is thriving. It's true that the website has not been updated frequently in recent months, but this is due in large part to the fact that it is about to be replaced entirely as soon as the project's non-profit status is established.
If you want a better sense of current activity associated with the project, I would suggest that you subscribe to the following (very active) mailing lists:
OpenBeOS General List
OpenBeOS CVS List
Glass Elevator Project List
You'll find plenty of interest in these places.
Scott, we all share your frustration that OBOS is not here yet.
Patience is the only answer though, I'm afraid. There's a lot of things to do to write a complete, modern, desktop OS from scratch. OpenBeOS is not dying - there were about 18 CVS checkins only yesterday.
Check out the CVS archive here:
I've been talking to Michael Phipps about including a user-oriented CVS update section on the front page, so everyone can see the latest action on the code.
All the projects are splintered because they all have different aims - if OBOS took all the BlueEyed people, more time would be wasted discussing individual differences than would be gained by the extra coders. Michael has mentioned that he thinks the OBOS team is about the optimum size.
At the moment, there is no "BeOS platform" that is commercially viable. Hopefully, a sucessful OBOS R1 will change that.
Time marches on. . .!
I am still frustrated. But then I am a frustrated kinda guy. The development has matured steadily, but much to the chagrin of many, it seems the only modern drivers we are able to scrape together are those that have been reverse engineered. Ask any Linux user that has used the native nVidia drivers for X11 and you'll have your answer as to how well that works. Most of my frustration likened to that of a child who has something pretty dangling in front of him, but just out of reach. As R5 showed, BeOS, though already capable, has an even greater potential. I applaud those who have spent enormous amounts of effort resurrecting this platform. However, unless there is serious effort toward enticing hardware manufacturers to either step up to the plate with suitable drivers, or provide the specifications necessary for OBOS developers to write them, then OBOS will always be a resurrection of the OS that might have been. OBOS should not become the ultimate software for yesterday's box. It deserves much more than that.
I don't quite see what you mean. I'm using Rudolf's nvidia driver here with no problems at all. True, he didn't get specs for it, but it doesn't seem to have affected the success of the driver - it supports full hardware 2D acceleration, and seems really stable, even at version 0.0.8.
The ATi drivers are based on proper specs, and ATi even gave Thomas a Radeon to develop for, free.
Hardware vendor support will be crucial for 3D acceleration, but that requires OS-level support, and so won't be done until way after the release of R1.
I guess the frustration we all suffer is that we know exactly where OBOS is heading, so we wish it was there now. I bet the linux website didn't get over 3 million hits before releasing anything!
This http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=7704 don't work any more. Latest email's are dated for over a month ago.
Sorry, my english is not very god :)
Yes, sf are doing testing of a new system to improve the performance of the archives or something.
For now, you can find the kernel-develop mailing list online here:
The cvs list doesn't seem to be archived anywahere, but look at the "Commit Log" on www.gravity24hr.com/statcvs - it's not always bang up to date, but is usually updated about once a week.
I signed up for the lists yesterday instead of checking the archives - works a lot better too.
The issue with the archiving is a SF wide issue. They know about it. Sorry.