Very Computer

It is arguable that Be isn't much more than a rehashed cross between
UNIX and MacOS.

It adds in message queues as a basic OS facility, and adds some
filesystem functionality (e.g. - multiple streams, "file as
namespace."), but isn't particularly novel in most respects, and borrows
heavily from technologies you'd likely consider "outdated."

That's not intended to indicate that Be is "bad;" on the contrary, if it
has "stolen" good ideas from good systems, and integrates them together
coherently, that can make for a very nice resulting system.

Indeed, that is *precisely* where UNIX came from, as a sort of "cut
down" version of Multics.  UNIX's success may be attributed, in part, to
a design based on distilling features from some of the better OSes of
the '60s and '70s.

Windows' lack of attractiveness comes (at least in part) from a design
that grabbed things in in a vastly *less* organized way, and took
critical design features from systems that were desparately
*under*designed.  (e.g. - MS-DOS, the underlying layer, represents
little more than a clone of CP/M, both of which are "merely" simple
program loaders)

--
VERITAS AETERNA -- DON'T SETQ T.

It is arguable that Be isn't much more than a rehashed cross between
UNIX and MacOS.

It adds in message queues as a basic OS facility, and adds some
filesystem functionality (e.g. - multiple streams, "file as
namespace."), but isn't particularly novel in most respects, and borrows
heavily from technologies you'd likely consider "outdated."

That's not intended to indicate that Be is "bad;" on the contrary, if it
has "stolen" good ideas from good systems, and integrates them together
coherently, that can make for a very nice resulting system.

Indeed, that is *precisely* where UNIX came from, as a sort of "cut
down" version of Multics.  UNIX's success may be attributed, in part, to
a design based on distilling features from some of the better OSes of
the '60s and '70s.

Windows' lack of attractiveness comes (at least in part) from a design
that grabbed things in in a vastly *less* organized way, and took
critical design features from systems that were desparately
*under*designed.  (e.g. - MS-DOS, the underlying layer, represents
little more than a clone of CP/M, both of which are "merely" simple
program loaders)

--
VERITAS AETERNA -- DON'T SETQ T.

Quote:> You can't have it both ways.  You *have* to pick one of:
> a) Outdated technology, or
> b) Outdated hardware.

Quote:> It is arguable that Be isn't much more than a rehashed cross between
> UNIX and MacOS.

I'm convinced that multimedia will be crucial in the future of computing.
So, I hope that BeOS (or a similar OS) will become a serious contender.

Quote:> It adds in message queues as a basic OS facility, and adds some
> filesystem functionality (e.g. - multiple streams, "file as
> namespace."), but isn't particularly novel in most respects, and borrows
> heavily from technologies you'd likely consider "outdated."
> That's not intended to indicate that Be is "bad;" on the contrary, if it
> has "stolen" good ideas from good systems, and integrates them together
> coherently, that can make for a very nice resulting system.
> Indeed, that is *precisely* where UNIX came from, as a sort of "cut
> down" version of Multics.  UNIX's success may be attributed, in part, to
> a design based on distilling features from some of the better OSes of
> the '60s and '70s.

Francis.