Why the OpenBeOS Project is Important... IMHO

2003-09-03
2003-10-13
  • Mark Bishop

    Mark Bishop - 2003-09-03

    The time has come for Homo Sapiens to have his own advanced Operating System rather than having to make do with the inefficient and restrictive products of capitalist organisations that just want his money. Mr Sapiens needs to have an OS that he can use freely and which really helps him perform his computing needs in such a way that he feels at ease and best of all, he knows that it was developed by professional software engineers devoted to creating a tool which will help him evolve to Homo Extra Sapiens, gracefully.

    I have been observing this project from the day I got utterly frustrated by the falsity of the windows operating system, submitted a search for "new operating system" and got what was back then the Be Inc. website.

    Help support this projects for the benefit of mankind.

     
    • Darren Greer

      Darren Greer - 2003-09-06

      The problem is this.  It has taken two years to get to the point where the project is now, and it there are only three pieces of the project past pre-alpha into alpha.  I would love for this to come to truition, but at this rate, I wouldn't forsee a release for quite some time. 

      If I remember correctly, the first release will be 5.0 compatible only, and by that time, 5.0 will be years old.  This has nothing against the developers.... as duplicated an OS without access to the code has got to be difficult.  I just think it will lose it's edge by the time it is released.

      Again, nothing against the developers, and I hope all goes well... If I could code, I'd be glad to help speed it up..

       
      • Anonymous - 2003-09-06

        Well, if BeOS is "only" a Y2K OS, then I'd have to say that the Windows NT variants would be an early 1990s OS and Linux would probably be a 1970s or 1960s OS, wouldn't it?

        The topic starter may have been laying it on a bit thick, but I agree with him: A well designed, cleanly structured alternative to Microsoft's OS is sorely missing.

        I've given up hope that Linux will *ever* get to where BeOS was in 2000. It is and will always be a unfriendly convoluted mess that doesn't make sense to me.

        With the BeOS heritage, OBOS (or whatever its name will be in the future) could have the drive behind it, that is needed to take off.

         
    • Mark Bishop

      Mark Bishop - 2003-09-07

      I agree that progress is slow and that the first release seems light years away, but after suffering from MS Windows' monoply for so long, I can wait a few more years for the wind of change. I tend to disagree with the rationale that OBOS would by then lose it's edge, contrarily, I feel it will make its debut as a solid state alternative.

      Up untill mid 2000, Windows 95 was still my preferred version of MS Windows, even being so old and obsolete. The reasons are fundamental, when compared to the later win 9x versions, it is faster, simpler and more stable (as stable as a win9x can be). However, MS dropped support for it and new hardware wasn't supported, new apps were boycotting it and so on but it still remains Windows, with the same interface and functionality as all other MS Windows variants.

      The bottom line of it all is simple, OBOS developers should keep hardware advances and new requirements in mind and prepare the OBOS for any enhancements that it will need after the first release.

      I also agree that Linux is far behind BeOS. It has a lot of annoyances like countless package dependencies, technology mix and match, lack of a consolidated user interface and worst of all, the painfully slow application startups. All areas in which OBOS has either prevailed or as I trust, it will.

       
    • MichaelPhipps

      MichaelPhipps - 2003-09-19

      I think that one important point to consider is that we are doing every kit in parallel. While only a few are "done" or nearly so, every kit has significant progress and most are nearly done. Unlike most OSS projects that start by building a kernel and developing from a single point, we are developing from multiple points simultaneously. While this does mean that we are longer before we have something that boots and has a nice GUI, when we get there, we will have everything in place. I know that seems frustrating, right now.

      The good side of it is that we can use every developer, no matter  what skills they have. Projects that grow from the kernel can not do that - you have to start with kernel devs. In OBOS, any dev can work on something, from the easier (preferences) to the most advanced (kernel).

       
    • Mark Bishop

      Mark Bishop - 2003-10-02

      The utmost important feature in any piece of software is plain and simple size.

      Why send an army of 1,000,000 soldiers to fight a battle of 100 ? Overkill !

      Why ingest 750 grams of paracetamol to relieve 10 million brain cells in distress when just a quarter of a gram can do the job? Overkill !

      Why load 28.4 million bytes of data in memory to read an email when just a few hundred thousand bytes are needed ? Overkill !

      Why pump 3 billion instructions per second to a processor just for digital audio playback when only a few hundred thousand are enough? Overkill !

      Inefficiently bloated software seems to be the cancer of personal computing. As time goes by more and more code becomes stale and starts to multiply, leaving the original source inflated with deadly code. This renders the software incapable of performing it's tasks within a rational amount of time.

      When I first installed BeOS R5 Personal Edition, which was just about 45 Megabytes, I was amazed to learn that apart from installing an operating system, 45 Megabytes could also deliver numerous other applications along with it. I was particularily interested in the OpenGL 3D Teapot rendering application, where I was sure it would have costed my computer 45 Megabytes of code by itself had it been developed by Microsoft.

      Small and efficient software helps leave more resources free to the user. Why upgrade a computer just to accomodate inefficiently coded software ?

       
    • Anonymous - 2003-10-13

      The time for OBOS is now.  I just read about a recent survey where only 28% responded that they were satisfied with MS Windows (I haven't been satisfied with anything from Redmond since DOS 5.0!) The common reason given for using Windows is, "There just isn't anything else, ... yet."

      They're right, because OBOS isn't ready, ... yet.

      Many people are waiting for Linux to become a better desktop OS, and easier to use.  But Linux was never meant to be a desktop OS, and you can only do so much to make it easier to use. These people are hungry for OBOS and don't even realize it!

      Now is the time to put together a pre-release OBOS "distro" with some apps and games, and park it on a server that can handle a good slashdotting! This will serve many good needs: Give the anti-Microsoft crowd some hope; and get some needed publicity out about OBOS to attract more developers and users (er, I meant testers).

      OBOS is what the desktop Linux crew is working toward, while trying to maintain compatibility with Linux apps. A quick distro release will possibly show that it could be easier and quicker to adapt needed apps to OBOS than to make Linux work and look like OBOS.

      I would try to put a distro together myself, but I'm not a programmer, just an electronics tech, and I already have several projects, a full-time job, and a family. I just don't have the time to collect the skills to do the job!

      rallen19

       

Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.

Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:





No, thanks