Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Zeta Goes Gold

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the obscurantism dept.

311

*no comment* writes "Be lives! yellowTAB has announced it's 1.0 release of Zeta has gone Gold and has sent it off to production. The word is that in about 2 weeks, you can have your hands on the latest version of this BeOS derivative."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Last I heard (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12809969)

Catherine was a silver type

Requirements? (1)

techfury90 (806273) | more than 9 years ago | (#12809970)

I absolutely love BeOS on my old Dell.. fastest thing for it... I might buy Zeta if its as fast as BeOS MAX on it.

Re:Requirements? (5, Informative)

nocomment (239368) | more than 9 years ago | (#12809991)

Hardware requirements

Minimal Requirements:

Pentium 200MHz (or Cyrix, Athlon, Via...)
32 MB RAM
600 MB Hard Disk Space
8 MB Video Memory
bootable CD-ROM Drive
Mouse, Keyboard, 14" Color Monitor
Recommended Hardware:

Intel Pentium III 1 GHz (Celeron, AMD Athlon Duron/XP)
256 MB RAM
4 GB Hard Disk Space
32 MB Video Memory
Soundcard
CD/DVD Drive
Mouse, Keyboard, 17" Color Monitor

Re:Requirements? (1)

waynelorentz (662271) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810246)

Sounds like I can run it on my Mac in VirtualPC. Maybe this will be the upgrade path I take if the Macintel thing goes down in flames.

Re:Requirements? (4, Funny)

bnitsua (72438) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810274)

whoa. be switched to intel? next you're going to tell me app... *head explodes*

Re:Requirements? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12810334)

switched? I had be running on my intel box before the project disintegrated...

Re:Requirements? (0)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810376)

Sorry, were you trying to be funny? BeOS was ported to the x86 over a decade ago.

first post (-1, Offtopic)

ceCA (675081) | more than 9 years ago | (#12809971)

gee i finally did it

Re:first post (1)

Bloodlent (797259) | more than 9 years ago | (#12809993)

AC beat you.

omfg fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12809973)

omg slashdot sux dik and u do 2

Anywhere? (4, Funny)

SpartanVII (838669) | more than 9 years ago | (#12809976)

ZETA costs Eur 99 and is available from our online shop or any of our approved resellers

So where is the .torrent? ;-)

yep (0)

rebug (520669) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810034)

torrent [demonoid.com]

posted on May 20, so I don't know if it's final or what.

Re:Anywhere? (3, Funny)

Krach42 (227798) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810154)

there was a torrent out there, but it turns out it was just a pic of catherine zeta jones.

Funny thing is the torrent is still going strong.

Do they or do they not have the source legally? (5, Interesting)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#12809987)

I remember hearing that there was some speculation that they did not legally have the BeOS source code. While they would never comment on it, some people suggested that they must have had access to the code in order to perform some of the modifications they have done. Other people have suggested that they have merely patched previous binary releases. Now, my question is: do they or do they not have the source code to BeOS? If so, is it legal or illegal?

Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally? (0, Troll)

ZephyrXero (750822) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810081)

According to Zeta's FAQ "...the core of the OS is based on proprietary code...". So this means they had to licence it from someone. Unfortunately, this means their OS is closed source, and completely useless to anyone interested in retaining the right to freely use their computer.

Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally? (1, Flamebait)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810095)

It doesn't necessarily mean that they _had_ to have licenced it legally from someone. There were reports that the source code to what would have become BeOS 6 was leaked onto the Internet at one time. Not that I'm suggesting that they used such source code, but their lack of a clear statement has lead to much doubt as to the legality of their software (ie. see OSNews for such discussion).

Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally? (5, Interesting)

OSXexpert (859428) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810331)

There is no question about the source leak. If you hung around the BeShare community long enough starting right after PalmOS bought the IP and engineers for 11 million, you could have a copy of the tarball. BTW, it was corrupted, only parts of the tarball came available to the general masses. I know, I downloaded from a BeSharer the tarball, uncompressed it and indeed had the sources. Kernel sources (partials), stuff like malloc and such. Seriously, the BeOS core code was last dated 1992-93, not kidding. A LOT of the core of the BeOS was and such still is in the form of Zeta/Beta, 12-13 years old. Now, that is true with a lot of other OS's, NeXTStep/OSX is a good example (classnames are NSClassName for example, too complex to change for both Apple and old time developers).... However, Zeta is not even available legally in source to anyone. Palm has denied it to Zeta, and to the community at large (in 2001 there was a campaign to get the source opened, PalmOS said forget-about-it with a big FU to boot coming from the 'community' in response).

So you have seen the BeOS source code? (0, Flamebait)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810361)

I know, I downloaded from a BeSharer the tarball, uncompressed it and indeed had the sources. Kernel sources (partials), stuff like malloc and such. Seriously, the BeOS core code was last dated 1992-93, not kidding. A LOT of the core of the BeOS was and such still is in the form of Zeta/Beta, 12-13 years old. - OSXexpert

So you do admit to having seen these illegally redistributed sources, correct? What effect will this have on other software you have written and released? Have you been tainted by viewing such illegitimate source code?

Will they just give a straight answer (1)

aCapitalist (552761) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810110)

"based on proprietary code" tells us nothing. We already know that. Hasn't anyone ever confronted one of these guys into giving a straight answer?

Re:Will they just give a straight answer (0)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810139)

Indeed. That's all I'm asking for: a straight answer. I will not spend money on a product that may be illegal in my jurisdiction.

Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally? (3, Insightful)

pdbaby (609052) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810132)

completely useless to anyone interested in retaining the right to freely use their computer.
Mod me down for going counter to public opinion but you can still freely use your computer without sourcecode. That Apache comes with source means nothing to me: I don't edit it -- I have neither the knowledge of the codebase nor the time to merge my changes into every new version -- so I'm just about as free with Apache as with a closed-source webserver (source-code wise anyway)

Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally? (1)

creysoft (856713) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810199)

Not true. The fact that you, personally, don't view or edit the source code to apache does not make it (or you) less free. The fact is, you could if you wanted to, or if you wanted to hire someone to.

The fact that I don't vote (all the candidates are scum), participate in demonstrations and protests, or write letters to my congress critters does not make me any less free than my fellow citizens who do.

There are a number of reasons why using FLOSS software makes you more free than proprietary alternatives. Your decision not to exercise that freedom merely highlights the point - it was your decision, not someone else's.

Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally? (1)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810229)

Hiring somebody to modify the code can cost far more than the alternative proprietary product.

Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally? (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810437)

There isn't an alternative proprietary product available all the time. Unless, of course, you're the kind of person who judges what they need and want based on what everyone else is doing. In that case there will certainly be a proprietary product available for you to waste your money on. People who pay rent are not free to do renovations on their home, whereas people who own their own home are. Sure, there's probably a better house you could go rent that has all the features you want and you could keep hoping from home to home to get what you want, or you could go and freakin' buy your own home and make it what you want.

Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally? (0, Flamebait)

groman (535485) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810441)

But then again, it's not really free until it's public domain/new BSD. If I buy a copy of Zeta or MS Windows, or something at least I can resell it for a profit or something. With viral GNU crap I can't even resell modifications *I* make under the license without including source. Don't tell me that's freedom. You know nothing of freedom.

Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12810485)

Don't tell me that's freedom. You know nothing of freedom.

You can't handle the truth!

*Music swells, fade to Stars & Striped waving, filling the entire screen*

Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12810215)

Ok. I modded you down. Happy?

Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally? (1, Insightful)

waynelorentz (662271) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810285)

Mod me down for going counter to public opinion but you can still freely use your computer without sourcecode.

You are entirely correct. But the open source zealots who help give open source a bad name and strengthen Microsoft's cause would like you to believe otherwise.

According to them..
Because you don't edit and complile your own source code, you are dependent on "the man" and are not free.
Because you did not build your own computer from scratch you are not free.
Because you did not crack the molecules from crude oil in your mother's basement and fashion the plastic case for your computer on your own, you are not free.
Because you do not generate your own electricity, you are dependent on some utility and are not free.
Because you did not start out with a fist full of raw sand and turn it into a video card you are not free.

I'd like to know if the GP has the source code to his computer's BIOS, or the schematics to his motherboard or his processor. Because without them, he is not free.

Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally? (2, Insightful)

koreaman (835838) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810366)

Amen! I'm glad that you are among the bastion of non-zealotry still left on slashdot.

Welcome to my friends list.

Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally? (0, Offtopic)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810382)

Any time. It's good to know there are people like you around here, too.

Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally? (3, Insightful)

Shanep (68243) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810403)

Unfortunately, this means their OS is closed source, and completely useless to anyone interested in retaining the right to freely use their computer.

Huh? A person who DECIDES to use this operating system and who can BACK OUT by using some other operating system, is somehow deprived of the free use of their computer?

The decision to use this OS falls under a users freedom to use what they want on their computer. Ever thought that not everyone wants what you want and for some people the use of this OS might actually fit within the freedoms which they wish to exercise?

You sound like a broken record.

I'm a BSD user BTW. I also like and use OS X. I have the freedom to remove OS X from my Macs and install OpenBSD if I want. My free choice at the moment has me using OS X on my Macs and OpenBSD on my i386's and sparc64's. Mac OS X is not removing my freedom to not use it.

Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally? (4, Informative)

Hektor_Troy (262592) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810360)

While they would never comment on it
Not sure where you got that idea. I haven't been paying much attention to yellowTAB, but from what I've heard, including here on Slashdot, they bought a licence to BeOS just before Be was sold off to whatever company it was.

As for their never commenting on it ... I suppose it'd be too much trouble to actually check their website [yellowtab.com] .

Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally? (3, Interesting)

smallstepforman (121366) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810446)

yellowTab were under NDA with Palm in regards to the source code - at one stage they were unable to modify any of the 5.1d generation code, but lately it seems that the restrictions have been lifted, since they've hired kernel engineers to address bugs in the original BeOS. They have fixed the memory limit issues (32Mb addon, 1Gb memory limit, few other issues), and they've added processor specific optimisations (memcpy, memset etc), so that it works on newer CPU's (like the AMD x86-64 in 32 bit mode, the hyperthreaded P4's and such).

They've obviously got the licence, since it would be suicide to have coorporate offices, 35 employees etc for a non-legal product. yellowTab are legit, they just were not able to publicly speak about the nature of the licence when they first announced Zeta. Now that the restrictions have expired, it would be foolish for them to say anything else (since it would cast doubt on a previous era).

Hardware Support Lacking (4, Informative)

Vobbo (891923) | more than 9 years ago | (#12809988)

The supported hardware list [yellowtab.com] seems to indicate that at least one common laptop maker [dell.com] may not be supported very well (supported inspiron 3200, partially supported LS L400, no other details). Hopefully as they get bigger, they'll be able to devote time and resources needed to get running on some of the newer laptops coming out ...

Who are the people in that picture? (1)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810008)

Who are the people in the picture at the top of the supported hardware list page? I sure hope those people are not the developers or tech support agents. That one boy whose face is visible looks to be about 14! I just hope that's a stock picture that was altered to add BeOS/Zeta to the two depicted computers.

Re:Who are the people in that picture? (2, Interesting)

scdeimos (632778) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810356)

If this thing is actually based on BeOS then by looking at the support for Xircom PCMCIA cards I'd say it was an early version 5.0 source:

PCMCIA Communication Cards [yellowtab.com]

Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see a single 32-bit CardBus adapater in there.

Re:Hardware Support Lacking (1)

smallstepforman (121366) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810458)

Mainstream hardware is supported, while exotic cards are probably not. The situation is probably similar to Linux. They have NDIS for network drivers, CUPS for printers, they have active nVidia and ATI video drivers (hardware OpenGL only available on earlier nVidia cards, but that will probably change). All in all, it is no worse than what BeInc faced in 1999. I'd probably state that yellowTab has even better driver support than what BeOS R5 did back in its day mainly thanks to the work from the Haiku developers.

TV Capture built in? (3, Interesting)

ruiner13 (527499) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810011)

"ZETA comes with everything you need to enjoy your audio and video collection. Watch DVDs, listen to Mp3's or internet radio. If you've got a TV card you can even watch and record television with ZETA."

Nice. I wonder how well it would perform as a HTPC. The site doesn't seem too detailed or give screen caps that I could find, but not bad. Might have to try it on my old Dell P2 400. Anyone have a beta cope that can speak for how well this feature works?

Something seems to be wrong... (-1, Troll)

Scorillo47 (752445) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810030)

>>> ZETA is a very fast operating system written from the ground up to get more out of your hardware than any other. With a true micro kernel is of only 640 KB and a 64-bit journalling filesystem to make things fly.

640kb? Who cares?

Memory is _STILL_ a scarce resource! (3, Interesting)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810044)

Even in the days of low-end desktops with 512MB of RAM, memory is still a relatively scare resource. As such, good software takes care not to waste memory. Indeed, it is therefore quite responsible of them to make note of the fact that their microkernel consumes very little RAM for what it offers (very much, in fact!).

Re:Something seems to be wrong... (1)

Compact Dick (518888) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810489)

640kb? Who cares?

Someone in Redmond?

|Poor Be. (5, Informative)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810041)

Man I wish Be hadn't died. Now THAT was a hell of a desktop OS. Dead simple install, simple UI with a lot unixy power under the hood. Booted super fast. Did things on 1995 hardware that other OS's couldn't do as well until 1999-2000 hardware came around.

The only downside was app support. If they were still around and had anywhere near the support that Linux does, I'd be back with them in a heartbeat.

Sad. :(

What app support is missing? (2, Insightful)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810077)

What specific app support is missing? There are ports of most of the Linux-centric desktop apps such as Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice, AbiWord, etc.

Re: What linux alternatives (1)

johansalk (818687) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810336)

What linux distributions would be a good alternative to Be?

Zeta Beta (5, Interesting)

debilo (612116) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810043)

They've been selling beta versions of Zeta on German television for months touting it as virus and trojan free, and claiming it was actually "faster than Linux", whatever that's supposed to mean, showing it to run on a (supposedly) P1 with 128 MB while playing 6 video files simultaneously. I always got a good laugh out of that, but I'll probably try it out soon nonetheless. Can anyone comment on the quality of the beta version?

Beta reviews at OSNews.com (2, Informative)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810106)

Check OSNews.com. There were many reviews of the betas posted there. Some were positive, but some were also quite negative.

me on support team (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12810046)

go zeta!

me work good! [yellowtab.com]

The kernel source? (2, Insightful)

aCapitalist (552761) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810050)

So did they ever confirm one way or another if they have the kernel source code?

I'd feel kind of silly spending 99 euros for an operating system in which these guys don't even have the source - or even legally for that matter.

Screenshots? (1)

pmazer (813537) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810072)

Seems sort of weird that there's no screenshots on the page..

Re:Screenshots? (2)

nocomment (239368) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810124)

They used to have a screenshots page. It seems to have been pulled or I would have included it. IIRC osdir.com has screenshots of a beta release (RC3?).

Re:Screenshots? (4, Informative)

nocomment (239368) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810143)

linky to screenshots [osdir.com] .

Resolved: NeXTStep was More Advanced than BeOS... (4, Insightful)

Nova Express (100383) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810099)

...when Apple made the decision to buy NeXT instead of BeOS. Discuss. Please provide sources and examples for all points, This will count 10% of your grade.

(My take: It doesn't matter. The NeXT purchase brought back Steve Jobs, who has been worth, at the very least, as much to Shareholders as OS X (I can't believe Jean Louise-Gasse (sp?) would have been nearly as influential, nor would he (or whoever followed Gil Amelio) would come up with the iPod or iMac). A very conservative estimate would be that the presence of Jobs added $2 billion to Apple stockholder value.)

Re:Resolved: NeXTStep was More Advanced than BeOS. (4, Insightful)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810157)

NeXTSTEP was indeed far more advanced where it came to networking and enterprise-related functionality. But BeOS was the supreme leader when it came to multimedia applications on the PC. While NeXTSTEP provided an excellent platform for Apple to build multimedia capabilities onto, BeOS already had them working and optimized.

Re:Resolved: NeXTStep was More Advanced than BeOS. (1)

Krach42 (227798) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810189)

Yeah, Steve Jobs definitely brought a lot back to the company.

It was definitely a good move. Of course, I like the CARS article when Al Gore was brought onto the board. Suggesting some sort of recount.

Which was funny, because Al Gore had just lost, and had demanded a recount in Florida, but that fell through. And they're parallizing... ...

fine, don't laugh at my stupid joke.

Re:Resolved: NeXTStep was More Advanced than BeOS. (1)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810203)

LOL, that's a funny joke!

Re:Resolved: NeXTStep was More Advanced than BeOS. (1)

Krach42 (227798) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810235)

stop ruining my gag by actually laughing. ... ...

you insensitive clod.

Re:Resolved: NeXTStep was More Advanced than BeOS. (1)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810243)

No, I'm serious. Your joke was a riot. It captured the irony and the infallibility of the situation all at the same time. I'm not kidding; I laughed. Literally.

Re:Resolved: NeXTStep was More Advanced than BeOS. (3, Interesting)

solios (53048) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810302)

BeOS was also (iirc, I'm not a coder so these things slip) a monolithic API, which has proven difficult to reverse engineer. NeXT rode the UNIX virus, got a candy-coating and MacOS compatability layer in the modern era and is still running loose... and heading back to Intel like a pack of X-wings for the Death Star.

BeOS was founded by Jean-Louis Gasse, an ex Apple employee (who had something to do with marketing in Europe, iirc - someone please correct me if I'm wrong).

NeXT, well. Yeah. We know what's up with NeXT. Founded by Jobs, financed by Ross Perot, and it GAVE BIRTH TO THE WORLD WIDE WEB!!!!!!! *squirt*.

What Killer App rode BeOS to fame? Anything? Last I checked, it kind of floundered about due to a lack thereof.

Not to sound like one of the other kool-aid drinkers, but Steve's an Innovator and Gasse's a suit. An innovator wouldn't have bitched, pissed and moaned about how it was Apple keeping them from running on the PPC 750 - it didn't stop linux!

Ab-so-fuckin-lutely (5, Informative)

Udo Schmitz (738216) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810431)

Check this out:

http://www.openstep.se/jobs/ [openstep.se]

It is a NeXTSTEP 3.0 demo Steve Jobs gave 1992 (previously covered on /.). It looks almost like my Panther version of Mac OS X in 2005! When I first saw it I was even more pissed of at Bill Gates who I see responsible for depriving us of OS advancement through MSs monopoly actions :(

1992! Argh (faints ...)

So there are... (2, Interesting)

hoka (880785) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810118)

No screenshots. No comparisons. The forums lack any real information except "Does this work" and "It's broken". I'm particularly not impressed. I don't want to toy with anything, let alone pay for it, without being able to see what it is.

Re:So there are... (1)

OSXexpert (859428) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810316)

There are a *LOT* of things broken in BeOS R5.1 + bone7a + personalities (aka, Zeta Beta/Gold). It has been a running joke that ever single release past the last BeOS R5.1 that Be Inc set on the world before shuttering its doors and windows has been more and more buggy. This is true, Bernd has done about the worst possible job getting people to build software for Zeta. The other running joke is Amiga folks and BeOS folks should join together and save the world on their flying carpets and spinning teapots.

Dear Timothy (0, Flamebait)

tehdely (690619) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810135)

Possessive its has no apostrophe, you fucking retard. How many visitors a day again and you idiots still can't hire an editor?

Re:Dear Timothy (1)

bladx (816461) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810144)

You could always start your own site if you wanted the grammar to be perfect for everything...

Re:Dear Timothy (1)

parasonic (699907) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810179)

It's mechanics, not grammar.

Re:Dear Timothy (2, Funny)

Im Rick James Bitch! (891447) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810460)

You could always start your own site if you don't want people to bitch about the poor editing. So here, take this nice cup of shut the fuck up and chug it.

Re:Dear Timothy (1)

repetty (260322) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810190)

>> Possessive its has no apostrophe, you fucking retard. How many visitors a day again and you idiots still can't hire an editor?

Yeah, its aggravating when 'tards can't even catch simple errors like that!

Re:Dear Timothy (1)

Im Rick James Bitch! (891447) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810436)

I say we create a new title for guys like Timothy: editard

Re:Dear Timothy (1, Insightful)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810402)

Possessive its has no apostrophe, you f***ing r****d. How many visitors a day again and you idiots still can't hire an editor?

Just reposting this as the parent has been modded flamebait. Any modders with itchy fingers, note I've removed the naughty words. The sentiment though I endorse. My seven-year-old daughter knows that "it's" = "it is".

So.... (2, Funny)

Bloodlent (797259) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810136)

Zeta is out of Beta?

Bugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12810146)

Let's hope the software has less errors than the english copy on the web site.

That's "fewer." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12810433)

Fewer errors.

Icon (4, Funny)

vinn (4370) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810166)

I'm less amazed that Be's still alive than I am that you have a graphic for it.

The BIG question (1)

Neo-Rio-101 (700494) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810194)

Why should we care about this OS?
(Ok, apart from the fact it's fast on old hardware and can't get any virus or trojan known to man, yet)

(Serious question. Not trolling.)

Reasons why you should care: (4, Informative)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810217)

1. It's an alternative to Windows. 2. It brings extreme multimedia capabilities to the x86-based PC. 3. It features a heavily multithreaded microkernel and GUI that will inherently benefit from multicore and hyperthreading CPUs. 4. It provides a POSIX layer that allows UNIX, Linux and *BSD applications to be ported with ease. And that's just a small sampling of the many reasons why you should care.

Re:Reasons why you should care: (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12810259)

It's an alternative to Windows

No it isn't. It doesn't run any of my Windows applications, doesn't run any games, doesn't run Word. It also doesn't work with all the hardware that Windows works with.

So - tell me: Why do you think that it's an "alternative to Windows" when it clearly isn't? If you ask me, I'd say that it's a less popular alternative to MacOS X that happens to run on x86.

Re:Reasons why you should care: (2, Insightful)

Pinefresh (866806) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810281)

can you choose to run it instead of windows? yes. so it's an alternative. and you're a troll

Re:Reasons why you should care: (1)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810291)

Well, cheeko, let's see how it's an alternative to Windows:

1. It is a desktop operating system.
2. It runs on x86-based PCs.
3. It offers web browsers, email clients, news clients, games, office suites, and numerous other software associated with desktop operating systems.
4. It has very rich multimedia capabilites.

And that's just a small sampling of how it is an alternative to Windows.

Re:Reasons why you should care: (0, Troll)

mojowantshappy (605815) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810473)

Reasons why you shouldn't care: 1. Because no one else does.

Another Intel switcher (1)

moz25 (262020) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810236)

As I recall, back in the day BeOS was designed to run on a system with 4 or 8 PowerPC processors. At some point, they made the same switch that Apple is now doing... perhaps it is an inevitable thing?

Re:Another Intel switcher (1)

OSXexpert (859428) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810304)

Be Inc made the easy decision to head to x86 for a number of reasons. First off the Hobbit turned PPC dual systems they were selling didn't do well in volume (sold about 1800 units, 2 of which I own). Then helping to address this problem, they got out of the hardware business (much like NeXT did 3+ years earlier), and headed to what was then a promising PPC/Mac clone market. Steve Jobs was paid 430+ million to come in and fix Apple, part of which was to rescind the licenses for cloning, in the process they closed up the new mobo architecture. Be had no options but to port to x86. It was a good decision, it was the only decision, that or go under (which as you know they did when they switched yet once again the market focus to the promised bubble.com NetAppliance/Handhelds). We know where Palm is these days. Anyone got a phone with a camera, dayminder with Stinger on it? :) I didn't think so. (Stinger was BeOS-Lite-Appliance version of the Be Inc. OS)

I don't get it! Who's going to buy it? (5, Insightful)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810240)

Who is going to spend time and money on this thing?
  • It's almost as expensive as XP Home edition and half a dozen different Linux distros can be had for free.
  • Who's going to pay 99 Euros for a squeaky new OS?
  • Are there even any applications for it?

Free I could understand, we hobbiests are crazy, but 99 Euros? WTF?

It isn't a new OS. (1)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810409)

It really isn't a new OS. It is based on the decade-plus old BeOS.

And yes, there are applications for it. See bebits.com for applications.

Re:I don't get it! Who's going to buy it? (1)

bshellenberg (779684) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810468)

For whatever reason, people will, just as there are people shelling out for skyos with nothing more than a few pictures as an indicator of what it is. Maybe its just the "be different" factor.

Re:I don't get it! Who's going to buy it? (4, Interesting)

smallstepforman (121366) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810491)

Some people like to support the underdog. I have purchased the Release Candidate of Zeta, knowing more than likely that I'd be throwing money away. I think of it more like a donation, to ensure that an alternative to Windows and Linux continues surviving. Bernd seems to be managing the company quite well, so it looks like yellowTab just might make it. Once they have the 70 employees Bernd has been talking about, expect a full on revival of BeOS (awaken from the dead :-).

Plus, Haiku is getting closer, so by supporting the successor to BeOS, I am indirectly supporting Haiku. By showing that there is money to be made with BeOS, developers are more than likely to start offering software for another viable OS.

ps3 port please, its just begging for BeOS (1)

zenst (558964) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810263)

a PS3 port of this would IMHO go realy well and be so suited to a medium powerhouse thats PS3. Heck a PS/2 port would be nice but they certainly have more leaway with a PS3 port given what its got under the hood.

Long time BeOS expert... (0, Troll)

OSXexpert (859428) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810279)

To summarize, BeOS/Zeta is old stuff. Bernd/YT don't have rights to the source, they have hacked binaries to make it look as if they have done compiles, they have delays in the years, they are understaffed, over promising, and likely are breaking the law. Zeta is a HUGE disappointment. No tools like PB or IB exist for BeOS (or ever will, many tried in the 97-2000 era and failed), no modern compiler (GCC is OLD OLD, and the binaries for the new GCC are not compatible with the old BeOS libs), and the list goes on. Don't bother, the likes of all top talent that existed for BeOS do it *ONLY* as a hobby, and the rest got smart and moved to OSX or even linux/windows. Its sad, BeOS was fun and hot 7-8 years ago. Today, it is a forgotten afterthought. Most of the IP of BeOS has made its way into OSX or Linux via folks contributions or jobs. Spotlight is basically BFS graphed into the HFS. The benefits of Zeta/BeOS are found elsewhere, and for a LOT cheaper costs if you consider anquish and frustrations. BeOS, long live the memory, you are stillborn in the form of Zeta.

Re:Long time BeOS expert... (1)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810332)

"... Bernd/YT don't have rights to the source, they have hacked binaries to make it look as if they have done compiles, ..."

Do you have any substancial proof to back up these claims?

Re:Long time BeOS expert... (1)

OSXexpert (859428) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810353)

Yes, PalmOS has officially stated they do not and will not let the source out in any form, licensing or not. Also, the source was leaked and what has changed in Zeta/Beta from R5.1 + bone7a and beyond (basically R6) is only done in what was leaked to the net. Bottomline, Bernd has no source license, it doesn't exist. Talk to anyone and everyone in the know, he won't address the topic/issue, and basically is ripping people off by selling a 5.5+ year old OS with some graphical additions to personalize the BeOS R5+. If you have been around long enough, you would know this to be the truth, the whole truth, so help your God. :) BTW, another substantial proof is the binary hacked version numbers in the kernel, the attempt that is. It was caught within hours of the first Zeta Beta and subsequent releases.

Could we have some links? (1)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810368)

That is very interesting, indeed! Could you please provide us to links of some such discussion from people in the know? You have seriously put the legitimacy of this product into question.

Re:Long time BeOS expert... (1)

aCapitalist (552761) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810333)

Yeah, i'm not sure I know what the point is.

At one time, there was a project called BlueEyed OS which was basically the linux kernel and X and everything else new with the BeOS apis. I think it's died or on life support, but my point is they could have stlll had a proprietary user space with all the drivers that linux offers, the 3d hardware acceleration that linux/X has for ATI/Nviidia.

And of course Haiku development seems to be moving at decent clip. But hey, if it's all legal and they end up making money who am I to judge.

Hey Timmy! (-1, Offtopic)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810310)

Have you fucked Roland of late?

What's the compelling reason to switch? (2, Interesting)

waynelorentz (662271) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810341)

So, I've looked at all the screenshots and read much of what's available, and I'm still not sure why someone would want to run Zeta on a modern machine. I can see it for an older piece of hardware you have laying around that might not have the oomph to push Windows or a robust Linux. But will anyone make this their primary OS?

I'm all in favor of choice (Hell, I use a Mac so I'm automatically a minority), and it's great to see another alternative to Windows, but it looks like a Playskool version of OS/2. Will the average Joe take this seriously?

It appears to be very geek-friendly, but I don't see grandma wanting to know about mount points and such. Further, to use a 1990's phrase, what's the "killer app?" What can Zeta do on the average 2005 desktop machine that Windows or Linux can't? Everything I've seen in terms of software offerings (CD player, CD burner, video editor, AIM client, e-mail, Firefox, etc...) are things that already exist in Windows and Linux. What's the compelling reason to switch?

Re:What's the compelling reason to switch? (3, Interesting)

smallstepforman (121366) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810478)

What can Zeta do on the average 2005 desktop machine that Windows or Linux can't? Everything I've seen in terms of software offerings (CD player, CD burner, video editor, AIM client, e-mail, Firefox, etc...) are things that already exist in Windows and Linux. What's the compelling reason to switch?


BeOS / Zeta has a certain feel which cannot be benchmarked or reviewed, it can only be experienced. It's one of those mythical quantaties which stirs a type of passion which is missing in both Windows and Linux. It's weird, kind of like falling in love - for everyone else, the lady in question is but another female, yet once you've tasted the forbidden fruit, you love every aspect of her - her smell, her smile, her hair, her skin...


BeOS feels smoother and more responsive than any other system we've tried (and we've tried a lot of systems). It's like a sports car which handles curves very well. It's useless for family people since the sports car has no back seat for the kids, its useless for the tradesmen since it has no space in the trunk, but man, for us sports car geeks, it gets the heart pumping...

Self-defeatist? (1)

narnian (9597) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810371)

From their "Company" page
yellowTAB doesn't intend to compete with Microsoft but offers an alternative for those wanting to run a second operating system.
It sounds to me they admit defeat before they have started. I think any Linux/Mac user would want to eventually only have to run one OS - running Windows as well is a necessary evil for some of us.

yellowTab (3, Interesting)

smallstepforman (121366) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810380)

I've been following the progress yellowTab have been making, ever since they licenced the rights to distribute BeOS R5PE and Pro (when they acquired the rights from Koch Media). yellowTab have some small mistakes as they were trying to learn how to stand on their own two feet, but lo-and-behold, they are now a company with 35 employees (and rising). Unlike BeInc, yellowTab know a thing or two about marketing, and are slowly generating enough revenue to employ 70 employees. They have a few of the old BeInc engineers who originally worked on the BeOS, and they have managed to hire / contract some of the Haiku (former OpenBeOS) developers to work on some of the Zeta components.

If yellowTab play their cards right, they will have enough finances to employ the targetted 70 engineers, and work on Zeta R2, which for all intentional purposes can be regarded as BeOS R7.

The more the merrier, I say, and I wish them luck.

The OS for Homeshoppers (3, Informative)

tmk (712144) | more than 9 years ago | (#12810448)

In Germany you can buy Zeta for several years in homeshopping channels as "alternative for windows". They sold even the Betas without mentioning the beta status. The price: 100 Euro.

Look for details here [rtlshop.de] .
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?