Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 18:21:30 -0700 From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Netscape browser Message-ID: <36F6EC9A.99FCEB7C@softweyr.com> References: <4.1.19990321150512.03f85d40@localhost> <4.2.0.32.19990322132103.03f66150@localhost> <4.2.0.32.19990322154730.00ab0df0@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brett Glass wrote: > > At 03:31 PM 3/22/99 -0700, Wes Peters wrote: > > >> (*) Yes, you know and I know that BeOS uses only the LILO loader and some > > > >No, it doesn't. I used a similar loader on x86 in the early days, called > >BeLO, but that has been gone since R4. Perhaps you should know a *little > >bit* about what you're talking about before spewing misinformation about, > >Brett. > > As I understand it, the loader in R3 (and perhaps in R4 as well) is a > derivative of LILO. > > >> Linux device drivers. But recently, Be has been touting this as a way > > > >Far more of their device drivers came from FreeBSD than Linux. Be cannot > >distribute Linux drivers with the system, because most Linux drivers are > >GPL'd. > > Actually, Wes, they could -- so long as the drivers are compiled as > separate modules that are loaded at runtime. As I understand it, this > is precisely what BeOS does. (They also statically linked some GPLed > code in R3, but pulled it; see the citation below and also the message > I just sent under a new subject.) > > >Other chunks of BSD functionality, primarily FreeBSD, are found > >in BeOS as well -- the system date/time code for instance. > > I'm not the least bit surprised that they've used code from the BSDs > as well! > > >I dare you to find any public utterance or writing by any official, or even > >employee, of Be Inc. trying to claim any degree of compatibility with Linux, > > "Compatibility?" Actually, they do claim some compatibility with Linux No, they don't. > They have published an ext2 file system > driver that lets them mount Linux disk volumes. No, they haven't. One of their contributors has published an ext2 filesystem driver. Others have published ports of many other GPL'd loadable drivers. The drivers that are shipped with BeOS aren't. > But that's not what I was > talking about. What I was saying is that Be included Linux code -- and > GPLed code -- in the package. Some of it was even statically linked into BeOS > R3. They say so themselves, for the world to see, at > > http://www.be.com/aboutbe/benewsletter/volume_II/Issue18.html Of course they did. In what way does this newsletter article claim to make BeOS in any way "compatible" with Linux? > >or in any other way attempting to "leverage Linux's flash-in-the-pan > >popularity." > > Be is definitely trying to do this, though it wouldn't state explicitly > that this was its strategy, of course. See Gassee's essay, "A Crack In The > Wall," at http://www.be.com/aboutbe/benewsletter/volume_III/Issue8.html. He's > hoping that Linux will pave the way for the installation of alternative OSes Funny, it seemed to me that he proposed BeOS pave the way for installation of other operating systems like Linux. His real point was that *any* crack in the wall will cause the dam to burst, it doesn't matter who makes the crack. That's what his challenge to PC manufacturers is all about - to put a crack in the wall. > such as BeOS. Alas, it may also kill Be's market, but that's another issue. If you think that, then you just don't understand either Linux or BeOS very well. Nor do you understand how hard it is to make an operating system, network box, or anything else that will keep up with video streams, regardless of how much CPU horsepower you throw at them. -- Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket? Wes Peters +1.801.915.2061 Softweyr LLC wes@softweyr.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?36F6EC9A.99FCEB7C>