Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 27th Mar 2007 13:00 UTC
Zeta Magnussoft has explained their side of the story concering the recent split between them and Bernd Korz and the Zeta development team. "The archived sales figures of Zeta were far below Magnussoft's expectations. Continuation of financing the project is economically no longer viable. For the time being, Magnussoft discontinued funding of the Zeta development team on March, 16th 2007. The exclusive distribution agreement will remain unaffected. The existing contract is valid until the end of 2007."
Order by: Score:
Act 3 - Scene 2
by oswm on Tue 27th Mar 2007 13:23 UTC
oswm
Member since:
2007-03-24

Cue the AntiZeta-ites!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Act 3 - Scene 2
by ormandj on Tue 27th Mar 2007 17:48 UTC in reply to "Act 3 - Scene 2"
ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

Hi ho! Hi ho!!

To restate:

#1 - Won't come forward with either a "yes" or "no" to questions concerning source access/rights.

#2 - Not a viable mainstream OS at this point.

#3 - Most (sane) people back Haiku, since all source is available.

#4 - Zeta costs far too much.

#5 - Scam(ish) advertisement tactics.

---

That said, some of this people could (potentially) blame Magnussoft for - however, it all went on when Zeta was produced by yT too, so I fault Bernd. Take it as you like.

Now where's my U-Boat....

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Act 3 - Scene 2
by dylansmrjones on Tue 27th Mar 2007 18:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Act 3 - Scene 2"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

#1 - Not true. They have earlier stated clearly that Zeta isn't illegal. They haven't shown any evidence, but they don't have to. They have clearly stated it is legal. And the complete lack of a suit against yT/Bernd/Magnussoft shows it is unlikely to be illegal.

#2 - Edited: Possibly correct, but could be said about Windows XP as well, depending on the definition of "viable".

#3 - Wise choice.

#4 - True for most proprietary software (and some FLOSS software as well).

#5 - It's called "advertising". Advertising usually equals "creative representation of truth".

Edited 2007-03-27 18:56

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Act 3 - Scene 2
by ormandj on Tue 27th Mar 2007 19:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Act 3 - Scene 2"
ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

#1 - Not true. They have earlier stated clearly that Zeta isn't illegal. They haven't shown any evidence, but they don't have to. They have clearly stated it is legal. And the complete lack of a suit against yT/Bernd/Magnussoft shows it is unlikely to be illegal.

Read #1 again. They have NEVER stated anything concerning their source level access, ever. They had ONE vague entry in the FAQ long since removed, stating they do not use illegal software. This can be interpreted in MANY ways, none of which equate to legal access to source code - or at least back this assertion.

#2 - Edited: Possibly correct, but could be said about Windows XP as well, depending on the definition of "viable".

I hate to break it to you, but even Windows Vista is a gazillion times more viable as a mainstream OS than Zeta. It's not even close.

#4 - True for most proprietary software (and some FLOSS software as well).

I would argue you are incorrect here. I paid $999USD for Logic Pro, it's one of the best investments I've ever made. OSX 10.4 was a steal at $129. TextEdit was a great deal at 30 euros or whatever I paid. Etc, etc, etc.

However, Zeta at the enormous amount they charge for a barely usable desktop OS is far overpriced. OSX wasn't much more expensive and works one heck of a lot better, and includes a LOT more functionality.

Here is where Haiku wins, I can use it, improve upon it, etc - without breaking the bank. This gives me incentive to work on it/use it over something like OSX where I have very little control over the path things go.

#5 - It's called "advertising". Advertising usually equals "creative representation of truth".

There is a huge difference between "advertising" and "scamming little old ladies." They were selling Zeta as a complete desktop os on late night shopping channels AFAIK, even back when Zeta was REALLY unstable. I don't know what kind of advertising exists where you live - but the advertising here - while it might distort reality slightly - doesn't go so far as to outright lie to people. In fact, it's illegal for them to do so. Some of the nonsense spewed by the Zeta camp made me choke.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Act 3 - Scene 2
by bornagainenguin on Tue 27th Mar 2007 22:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Act 3 - Scene 2"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

#2 - Edited: Possibly correct, but could be said about Windows XP as well, depending on the definition of "viable".

I hate to break it to you, but even Windows Vista is a gazillion times more viable as a mainstream OS than Zeta. It's not even close.

You're kidding right?

Everyone knows that Windows XP, Windows 2000, hell even Windows ME (and everyone knows how much of a joke that one was) is better and more viable mainstream OS than Vista ever will be!

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Act 3 - Scene 2
by ormandj on Tue 27th Mar 2007 22:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Act 3 - Scene 2"
ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

Nope, not kidding. I do agree XP/2k are better/more viable OSs than Vista at this time (110% agree), but even Vista is more viable than Zeta on the desktop, by far. ;)

That said, Haiku is making quite quick progress, and I don't imagine more than a few years before it catches up/surpasses Vista (and the rest of the Windows tree) - ASSUMING it catches on with the OSS crowd after R1.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Act 3 - Scene 2
by twenex on Tue 27th Mar 2007 23:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Act 3 - Scene 2"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

don't know what kind of advertising exists where you live - but the advertising here - while it might distort reality slightly - doesn't go so far as to outright lie to people. In fact, it's illegal for them to do so.

Where do you live? I want to move there. It must be nice to not have to sit through Microsoft ads, though I wonder what the most common preinstalled OS is in that part of the world...

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Act 3 - Scene 2
by ormandj on Tue 27th Mar 2007 23:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Act 3 - Scene 2"
ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

Hawaii.

#1: This has already been discussed to death. MS, as disgusting as some of their products may be (Vista) - is still heads and shoulders above Zeta. Now, you can (rightfully so) blame this on MS being the "de facto" standard desktop OS, but it's still the case.

#2: We really don't have MS ads on television here. No joke. At least, I've never seen one. That said, we do have advertisements for stupid local plate lunch places with really terrible food, that claim it's great. However, it's true for most of the Hawaiian population, they love that crap. ;)

Reply Score: 5

Sad news, but...
by rhyder on Tue 27th Mar 2007 13:27 UTC
rhyder
Member since:
2005-09-28

As far as I know, they have NEVER unambiguously stated whether or not they have access to the BEOS source. This is significant as it places a limit on how far they are able to develop Zeta.

How can they expect people to devote time and money to Zeta without any clear view of how viable the long term development is?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Sad news, but...
by Invincible Cow on Tue 27th Mar 2007 14:04 UTC in reply to "Sad news, but..."
Invincible Cow Member since:
2006-06-24

According to Wikipedia they made changes to the messaging system, which means they must have access to that parts of the source code.

If you boot zeta you will see the kernel compile time in the About dialog. Unless they changed that with a hex editor they recompiled the kernel themselves.

You can also be sure that magnussoft would not have funded the development if they were not absolutely sure that the developers had legal access to the source code.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Sad news, but...
by A.H. on Tue 27th Mar 2007 14:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Sad news, but..."
A.H. Member since:
2005-11-11

Yes, we've heard all those arguments a thousand times, but still they are no substitute for the Yellowtab just stepping forward and officially saying "Yes, we do have the legal Dano code and that's what Zeta is based on".

I mean, if that is in fact the case, why not just say so, it would mean a world to the community.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Sad news, but...
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 27th Mar 2007 14:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sad news, but..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I mean, if that is in fact the case, why not just say so, it would mean a world to the community.

I assume it is an NDA issue. They have the access (they built newer kernels, for instance), and of course Bernd knows that just stepping out and saying it is the best thing to do, but probably he is not allowed to under the terms of the contract made with Palm[Source] (now Access).

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Sad news, but...
by A.H. on Tue 27th Mar 2007 15:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sad news, but..."
A.H. Member since:
2005-11-11

While I understand that technically it is possible to draft such contract, it seems like a long stretch. Yellowtab has a lot to lose and Palm Source has nothing to gain from withholding this information.

Edited 2007-03-27 15:07

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Sad news, but...
by Soulbender on Wed 28th Mar 2007 03:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sad news, but..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"I assume it is an NDA issue."

This is argument was bullshit the first time I heard it and it still is.
There are no rational reasons for PalmSource to prevent YT from simply stating that they have permission.
Seriously, name ANY other NDA that prevents you from proving that you have permission to do what you do?

"Here, we give you permission to sell a product based on our source code tbut if any asks you cant tell anyone we did"

Yeah, that's a GREAT deal for all involved....

Edited 2007-03-28 03:36

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Sad news, but...
by memson on Wed 28th Mar 2007 07:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sad news, but..."
memson Member since:
2006-01-01

> "I assume it is an NDA issue."
>
> This is argument was bullshit the first time I heard it
> and it still is.

There's a really simple explanation. They made a really big deal about "how much" the source was worth and "how much" they'd need to sell or license it, when it was effectively worthless without a very, very large investment of time and resources to keep it going. Also, a high cost to maintain. From then to here, I'd say the BeOS source is worth less than a 10th of what it was back then.

For them to admit they licensed it more of less for "free" with nominal royalties, surely you can se how embaressing that would have been?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Sad news, but...
by bornagainenguin on Thu 29th Mar 2007 02:04 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Sad news, but..."
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

That's an argument I could almost accept.

O_O'

And it explains so much as well...

I still don't trust in the legality of Zeta though...

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Sad news, but...
by stew on Tue 27th Mar 2007 17:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sad news, but..."
stew Member since:
2005-07-06

What are you talking about? YellowTab (back when they existed) had the entry in their FAQ stating that they are based on completely legal code.

Reply Score: 1

Magnussoft(r) Zeta?
by serenity on Tue 27th Mar 2007 13:30 UTC
serenity
Member since:
2005-08-19

In their article they write of "magnussoft(r) Zeta? Is there someone grabbing after Zeta? Or is this also part of the agreement between Bernd and Magnussoft?

Bernd, you have to dress warm I suppose. I think this can be said in the name of the whole community: We are standing behind you and not behind Magnussoft!

Reply Score: 1

They might have sold more if...
by Mage66 on Tue 27th Mar 2007 13:42 UTC
Mage66
Member since:
2005-07-11

1. The price was more reasonable. Say half what they were trying to charge.

2. The 1.5 version were available in a stand alone version, besides the upgrade.

You can't blame the software for poor marketing decisions of the distributor.

BeOS failed and it sold for half the price Zeta is attempting to get.

Perhaps they ought to go for quantity instead of trying to make a lot of profit on each copy?

Once you get a large userbase out there, you can continue to develop and enhance the product and charge more for succeeding versions.

That's marketing 101. Which nobody in Zeta realm seems to understand.

Reply Score: 5

RE: They might have sold more if...
by rhyder on Tue 27th Mar 2007 15:11 UTC in reply to "They might have sold more if..."
rhyder Member since:
2005-09-28

Or free with some value added deluxe feature for those who wanted them.

Reply Score: 3

dean_fry Member since:
2005-07-06

AMEN!! Magnussoft with their super duper "update" version just sucked...sorry for the hard words!

Reply Score: 1

difficult to sell and market
by pistooli on Tue 27th Mar 2007 13:51 UTC
pistooli
Member since:
2005-07-09

...an OS which does not have (yet) flash and java support... lacking drivers for many hardware (e.g. modern nvidia and ati video cards - and I am not talking about vesa mode - wifi devices, etc)... and its legality is unclear...

yet, I am also using zeta/beos and happy with it... it is just simply difficult to get new users... especially for a relative high price tag...

Reply Score: 2

So now we know,
by SReilly on Tue 27th Mar 2007 13:52 UTC
SReilly
Member since:
2006-12-28

and I'm not really surprised. I, like many others, have refused to support Zeta because of they're greedy tactics, blatantly false advertising and dubious claims of validity even though I'm a long standing fan of BeOS.

I'd rather put my time, energy and money behind Haiku than give that snake any recognition.

Just my 0.02 ;-)

Reply Score: 5

Can we please drop that
by mmu_man on Tue 27th Mar 2007 14:44 UTC
mmu_man
Member since:
2006-09-30

stupid claim about source code access and legality ?
This has been used and abused, without any proof, to discredit zeta.
Arguing on features or lack of them is one (good) thing.
FUDing on the other hand is nothing to be proud of.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Can we please drop that
by shykid on Tue 27th Mar 2007 15:21 UTC in reply to "Can we please drop that"
shykid Member since:
2007-02-22

Zeta's PR (or lack thereof) is the reason all of this FUD exists. All of this pondering about Zeta's legality would stop if they would just come out and say, "This is legit. We have the BeOS source code and/or legal permission to use it. [insert proof here]"

Considering the circumstances, not doing so does make them look shady. It could be argued that the legality of Zeta shouldn't have to be proven to the public. And I'd agree. But "shouldn't have to" is not the same as "doesn't need to".

Personally, I don't believe the legality of Zeta is all that important pragmatically to the end-user; I think it's highly unlikely that Palm--or whoever has the rights to BeOS now--is going to attempt to stop Zeta simply because they haven't already and it's been years now.

Edited 2007-03-27 15:23

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Can we please drop that
by dylansmrjones on Tue 27th Mar 2007 15:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Can we please drop that"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

All of this pondering about Zeta's legality would stop if they would just come out and say, "This is legit. We have the BeOS source code and/or legal permission to use it. [insert proof here]"

Ever heard of NDA? If Zeta was illegal Bernd would've been sued years ago. Most likely a NDA was signed due to the situation around BeOS a few years ago (bankruptcy and all).

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Can we please drop that
by ormandj on Tue 27th Mar 2007 17:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Can we please drop that"
ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

Who in their right mind would sign an NDA saying you can't admit to the legality of your products (derived works?) I've NEVER heard of such an NDA, that would be insane. Either way, it's stupid.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Can we please drop that
by dylansmrjones on Tue 27th Mar 2007 19:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Can we please drop that"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

yT did actually earlier clearly stated they had legal access. They did so in the FAQ.

However, they probably cannot publish any evidence as a part of the deal. I'd be pleasantly surprised if the deal allowed for such publishing of details. It's completely
unheard of.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Can we please drop that
by ormandj on Tue 27th Mar 2007 19:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Can we please drop that"
ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

The FAQ entry was completely void of any useful information. It amounted to: "We don't use warez." This doesn't clarify anything. It didn't say they have source level access/legal rights to said source.

What's worse, no such FAQ even exists anymore. You're referencing a historical document that was pulled long ago. Who knows, maybe somebody caught wind of it and made them yank it? Maybe it's related to yT's absolute and utter failure?

Either way, stop making the same argument to all my posts, it's invalid.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Can we please drop that
by Invincible Cow on Tue 27th Mar 2007 15:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Can we please drop that"
Invincible Cow Member since:
2006-06-24

The front page of www.yellowtab.com linked directory to a FAQ entry that said that ZETA used no illegal or leaked code. How much clear could they say it?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Can we please drop that
by dylansmrjones on Tue 27th Mar 2007 16:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Can we please drop that"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

People don't want facts. People want conspiracy theories and black helicopters. Any fact going against the theories are fake facts and proof of the theories *sigh*

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Can we please drop that
by helf on Tue 27th Mar 2007 16:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Can we please drop that"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

Which is cooler? Black helicopters and secret plots or "yes, we have legal access to the source code".

The first one is much more entertaining ^_^

Edited 2007-03-27 17:10

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Can we please drop that
by sogabe on Tue 27th Mar 2007 16:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Can we please drop that"
sogabe Member since:
2006-04-27

> The front page of www.yellowtab.com linked...

Not anymore. You are now "magically" forwarded to a historical computers foundation (StiHiCom), probably Bernd's new venture to stay afloat. I have to admit that the guy is very creative. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Can we please drop that
by Kancept on Tue 27th Mar 2007 18:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Can we please drop that"
Kancept Member since:
2006-01-09

It is. On his blog he talks about aquiring all these older machines from his childhood.

Reply Score: 1

Surprised?
by dhardison on Tue 27th Mar 2007 15:45 UTC
dhardison
Member since:
2005-07-06

Is anyone really surprised?
Zeta's been kind of, how you say, "shady" since day one.

It all comes out in the wash.

Reply Score: 4

Keep your eye on the eagle...
by Luposian on Tue 27th Mar 2007 15:48 UTC
Luposian
Member since:
2005-07-27

The eagle that is... Haiku OS.

Pay no attention to that dead pigeon on the ground below... the dead pigeon that is... Zeta.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Keep your eye on the eagle...
by Tuishimi on Tue 27th Mar 2007 16:19 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes... but I DO hope they (Haiku team) can come out with a solid alpha or early beta by the end of this year. Mac OS X keeps getting better and better and I am afraid with Leopard and some of the new features that are supposed to make it more functional and easier and to use... well, I won't have the desire to build a new PC to run Haiku on.

Nah. I love tinkering so I likely will anyway. ;) But every year we speculate that "next Spring, yeah next Spring the Haiku team will release v1!" ;)

That being said I am still impressed with all they (team) has accomplished and continue to accomplish, and I do support them. I'm just impatient (and I shouldn't be, since I don't contribute code-wise).

Reply Score: 4

bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

Hmm...features are fine, but the traditional mach base of BSD is frankly, junk. It's technology is older than the linux kernel in its entirety. At the time it was a good idea but it's really a bloated early implementation of micro kernel theory.

To some degree the slowness of portions of OSX is the baggage they're carrying around from this.

I'm not an OS research guy, but I'm guessing we'll need some more hardware innovation to support OS innovation and get that performance bump.

Ugh to entrenched forces, especially Microsoft for lowering incentive to innovate in this area.

Reply Score: 2

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

but the traditional mach base of BSD is frankly, junk. It's technology is older than the linux kernel in its entirety. At the time it was a good idea but it's really a bloated early implementation of micro kernel theory.

IMO there's no point in doing what Apple did, which is basically to put a traditional monolithic kernel "on top of" a microkernel (they did the same with MkLinux); OTOH there's nothing "traditional" to BSD about the Mach kernel - rather the reverse. The original CSRG BSD and all the *BSD's use a monolithic kernel. In fact you have it the wrong way round - the BSD was ported to Mach to give academics something immediately useful.

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

While I love OS X and I am typing from it right now, there is clearly a difference between Haiku and OS X: Haiku should work on most beige hardware (when it is released), OS X shouldn't, at least not legally and not easily.

Reply Score: 2

RE:
by Yomama on Tue 27th Mar 2007 16:33 UTC
Yomama
Member since:
2005-07-21

It has not been a year yet since Magnussoft took over YellowTab. I don't know what Mr. Korz position was at Magnussoft other then taken money from an investor again without showing significant progress.

If a company pulls out of a deal so soon, I believe it shows that they don't have confidence in the product as well as in the leadership.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Keep your eye on the eagle...
by Tuishimi on Tue 27th Mar 2007 16:55 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh, I am not arguing on the "cleanliness" of the OS... just that Mac OS X has become very useful to me. It has features that I have come to "need" and BeOS doesn't, ... but hopefully Haiku will.

But for some things I will probably never be able to use Haiku (for instance the VPN our company uses) which is too bad. Using BeOS was the most enjoyable period of desktop computing I had. Clean, simple, fun, clever... and of course the UI was fast. I didn't mind the slower user-space networking... that was fine.

Who knows... I might keep an interim box around just for the VPN and switch to Haiku, but at this point I have invested in tons of software products on OS X which might relegate Haiku to a secondary role.

Reply Score: 4

Luposian Member since:
2005-07-27

There is a "feature" that I have been wanting (and harping about) ever since I noticed the lack of this "feature" causes the entirety of Haiku to go straight to KDL (Kernel Debugging Land; i.e. OS crash).

I started a log (in BeOS, mind you) concerning Haiku's progress. I started it in Sept. of 2006. It is now March of 2007. It's been 6 months and this "feature" has YET to be implemented!

Mind you, this one "feature" is a critical element to *ALL* OS's. In fact it's so basic and critical, you can't function without it in MacOS X! Yet, for some odd reason, it gets put off endlessly in Haiku! While this and that developer adds new filesystems, or fixes something inside an app, or changes documentation, or adds a new device driver, etc.

Mind you, this one solitary feature is ALL that keeps me from using Haiku on a regular basis! I could be USING it, instead of talking ABOUT it.

If I focus on this one "missing feature", it will ruin my appreciation for the potential this OS has. But "potential" is intangible. Potential must be REALIZED for it to have any meaning.

And Haiku's potential is, thus far, still just... potential. It has yet to be realized.

Edited 2007-03-27 17:57

Reply Score: 1

deb2006 Member since:
2006-06-26

Well, uhm, what is this "feature" then?
* shrug * have I missed something??

Reply Score: 4

Luposian Member since:
2005-07-27

This "feature" is commonly known as the ability to copy files. You know, that thing you do in BeOS, Zeta, MacOS X, Minix, TOS/GEM (Atari ST), Amiga OS (every version since the Amiga 1000), and even DOS. Not to mention, probably every other OS and OS derivative you can possibly imagine!

Oh, sure, you can copy files, but you'll eat up all your RAM (and likely KDL Haiku in the process), in doing so.

Here's how to test Haiku's "feature" (this example assumes you have 512Mb of RAM; the more RAM you have the less this will affect you):

1) Take haiku.image (100Mb file) and duplicate it. Put them into a folder. I call mine "XferTest". This is now a 200Mb folder. Once you have an install of Haiku on a partition, copy the folder from BeOS into the Haiku partition from within BeOS. Attempting to copy this folder from BeOS to Haiku, from within Haiku, will KDL Haiku almost immediately.

2) Boot into Haiku.

3) Copy (not move) that folder from it's current directory to another directory (I use /home). And watch as your memory allocation (shown in the Deskbar via ProcessController (or whatever it's called)) slowly climb. If you have 512Mb of RAM, it will eat up all of it. And you CAN'T recover it! Well, you can recover HALF of it, if you throw away the folder you just copied and empty the trash, but that's the best you'll get. The other 50% of your RAM is still holding it's copy of your 200MB folder. How do you purge that? I dunno. But why copy the folder in the first place, if the only way to reclaim, even 50% of your memory, is to delete the file you just copied?

If try to copy another file, of almost any size (once you've eaten up all your RAM), you will *instantly* KDL Haiku. Or, if you try to copy a 250Mb file/folder, it will KDL Haiku before the copy is even finished..

What is happening: Haiku is loading the file/folder into RAM and then DUPLICATING ("copying") that file in RAM. In other words, a 200Mb file takes up 400Mb of RAM! The file looks like it's on the drive, elsewhere (wherever you've supposedly copied it to), but it isn't. If you KDL Haiku and type reboot and go back to Haiku and look, you'll see the file isn't where you supposedly copied it to... because it was only in RAM the whole time! Only if you shutdown or reboot while Haiku is still functional, will it ACTUALLY copy the file to the hard drive where it needs to be.

Try it. And see how long you can imagine having to live with this "missing feature" in an OS you really enjoy (or at least WANT to enjoy) using otherwise...

I've said this before and I'll say it again... this "feature" should have been implemented a long time ago, back when the Terminal/Tracker were first functional. And yet, how many years has it been since then? And, more importantly, how much *longer* will it be before it's implemented?

The closer we get to the capability to actually COPY large files (USB and Networking support), the more urgently this "feature" is going to be needed.

People can shout "It's pre-Alpha!" til the earth ends, but it does not change the simple fact that this is something Haiku NEEDS implemented NOW, not later!

Reply Score: 0

umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Would you get off it already!

I'm sure you'll be the FIRST to get an email when this problem is resolved in the VMM.

In the meantime, just run sync to flush the cache to disk and stop complaining.

Reply Score: 5

umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Please explain how (and/or where) I go to "sync"? Is it a Terminal command? An application?

http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/html_node/coreutils_87...

Really, it's not worth helping you attempt to use a pre-alpha, incomplete, buggy OS as you're obviously not the type of person that should.

As the memory manager in Haiku is just plain unfinished, I'm not sure how you can expect it work.

Also, it really seems like you only complain about it on OSNews... I'm not sure I've ever seen you post on the Haiku mailing list, in the Haiku Trac bug tracking system, or even in #haiku on IRC to discuss your problems and inability to test Haiku...

The fact that you intend to use it in its current state as your "daily OS" boggles my mind, but some people are simply masochistic I suppose.

CLUE: Haiku's kernel isn't ready! Until the kernel is ready, stop expecting everything else to work. The reason everything else exists is because it was already done. OpenTracker for Haiku is the same OpenTracker running on BeOS. Most of the apps and services were built on BeOS R5 - because they could be. Just because they exist doesn't mean the underlying infrastructure was finished.

Haiku development is just like BeOS - multithreaded. If everyone waited for the kernel to be finished before working on anything else, then nothing else would be done yet. Not every Haiku developer can hack kernel code. Those other devs went about their time working on other pieces that had to be done anyway, and that is why *YOU* think Haiku is almost ready. That doesn't mean *THEY* think it is.

Edit: fixed typos

Edited 2007-03-27 23:25

Reply Score: 5

Luposian Member since:
2005-07-27

I thank you for what little help you've offered. I will contact the people best suited for explaining the further details I need, since you seem unwilling (or unable) to help me further.

Reply Score: 0

plfiorini Member since:
2005-06-30

Oh my god.
Please stop with this!
Haiku is still in development:
1. even if this "features" is implemented you won't have a fully functiona OS (Haiku R1 will still be BeOS R5 with some more drivers, nothing like Windows + Microsoft Office and other applications or let's say Ubuntu or Mac OS X).
2. there are many bugs left and the developers are working hard on it, so don't worry, take some months a year, study C/C++ programming and help Haiku developers instead of waste your time writing the same things all the time.

Reply Score: 2

CUT THE "DO THEY HAVE THE CODE" BULLSHIT!
by stew on Tue 27th Mar 2007 17:28 UTC
stew
Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, I am aware that I'm yelling. Because I'm pissed at how stubborn people are. yT has had a public statement about the legality of Zeta.

From the archive.org version of yellowtab.com:

I heard that ZETA is using some illegal code. Is this true?

No. yellowTAB does not use illegal or leaked software.


Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20051020080818/www.yellowtab.com/support...

Any questions?

Reply Score: 3

ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

That doesn't clarify anything. It states nothing about their licensing of the BeOS source. For all people know, Bernd has a his-use-only license to the code, or a license to only one tiny bit of the code, or any number of different permutations.

All that statement basically says is: "We aren't using warez." Look at the wording in the response, it doesn't even hint at source code level access. Maybe they only have binaries? We will never know, Bernd seems to intend to never come clean. It doesn't matter, Haiku is steaming a long and Zeta is going to be left far behind.

Reply Score: 5

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Why should they have to publish anything about the license? This would probably be in violation of the deal with PalmSource. You don't publish such deals in details. It would be completely stupid.

Admit it. You don't want to be confused by facts.

Reply Score: 3

ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

Nobody is asking for details about the license, just that they have legal rights to the source. They have *never* stated they do, only that they don't use warez. This is in response to your other post commenting the FAQ used to cover it. It didn't, the FAQ just vague wording to avoid answering the question.

I don't know where you come from, but where I live - it isn't unreasonable to expect a company to tell you in concise wording that they are operating as they have suggested they are.

yT/Bernd/whomever has been very careful to attempt to give off the impression they have a license to the source code and legal rights to modify the code and redistribute the resulting binaries. However, they have NOT stated they they can. For all we know, they have binaries only.

Nobody is asking them to post the license agreement, of course that would be silly. People just want to know they have the source and legally can not only work on it, but redistribute the resultant binaries as an OS. If they have a contract that prohibits them from saying so, then they shot their own feet off - NOBODY should ever sign such a restrictive licensing agreement when they are going head to head with an OSS project. That's just insanity (and bad business sense.)

Either way, Zeta is a loss. It's far to late for Bernd to come clean as it is - and he never will.

Reply Score: 5

stew Member since:
2005-07-06

Of course they have the source. How else do you create software if not compiling source code? Zeta 1.5 is too far from Dano than it could be a collection of binary hacks and patches.

Reply Score: 1

ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

There could be re-implementations of the various parts. Look at Haiku for a demonstration of such efforts. The rest can easily be binary hacks or reverse engineering results.

There really isn't that much different in terms of the actual Dano base and what Zeta is now, just additional drivers, minor tweaks to some underlying functionality, and new "stuff" that's been taken from BeBits/Haiku + their modifications. Not really that much to the actual Dano base itself, just stuff on top of it.

Reply Score: 2

stew Member since:
2005-07-06

Right...and the 1GB RAM barrier just disappeared in a big poof?

Reply Score: 1

Vibe Member since:
2007-03-12

Right...and the 1GB RAM barrier just disappeared in a big poof?

Things usually do disappear into poofs, darling. Not saying Zeta is gay...

Sorry, couldn't resist it.

Reply Score: 0

ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

http://www.bebits.com/app/3851

Don't speak about what you don't know. ;)

Be sure to read the text and the comment(s)!

Reply Score: 3

memson Member since:
2006-01-01

> Don't speak about what you don't know. ;)

Yeah, *you* should take heed of your own words. Zeta 1.2 will run with (and use) over 1GB of RAM. That bootloader hack simply allows the OS to *boot* with more that 1GB RAM. BIG, BIG difference.

Reply Score: 1

bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

Nice attempt at rewriting history there guy! Too bad there isn't an option to rate your posts down under: wrong information or inaccurate in the OSNews.com rating system.

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 2

oswm Member since:
2007-03-24

Could you explain what you think is wrong or inaccurate about his post?

Thanks.

Reply Score: 1

Earl Colby pottinger Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, what about the statement from YellowTab says they have the original commentted source code?

If they clean-room reverse engineered the code by running the binaries thru a disassembler they could still make the above statement, but it will be a hundred times harder to make any large scale changes to the OS.

Over time I expect them to replace each library with their own in-house written version, but that takes time and can leave out a feature that was in the original library that everyone missed.

Reply Score: 2

memson Member since:
2006-01-01

> Yes, what about the statement from YellowTab says
> they have the original commentted source code?

Heh, heh, you made a funny ;-) Assuming the BeOS source was commented is a streach. Well commented, even more ;-)

They have the code, it's licensed to Bernd as an individual, the license is time limited and Bernd is not allowed to publicly discuss the terms. That is the truth.

Reply Score: 2

bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

They have the code, it's licensed to Bernd as an individual, the license is time limited and Bernd is not allowed to publicly discuss the terms. That is the truth.


Okay everybody, the debate is over! memson has spoken and he knows all!

--bornagainpenguin

PS: Umm....memson, ex cathedra and all but do you think you could tell us what really killed the dinosaurs and how to solve global warming while we've got your god-like attention? Thanks man!

Reply Score: 1

Invincible Cow Member since:
2006-06-24

> Yes, what about the statement from YellowTab says they have the original commentted source code?

Just read the third paragraph. http://www.berndsworld.com/?p=26

Reply Score: 1

memson Member since:
2006-01-01

And now we can all remember that moving to GCC4 would stop any and all GCC2.95 code that uses C++ from linking running. Once all the libs are in GCC4, no legacy BeOS code will run anymore.

I can't believe they are dropping libs though. This is going back to the monolithical days of the Developer's releases. I wonder if Bernd realises *why* the libs were split apart? Because keeping the ABI compatible was far, far simpler. Does GCC4 fix the issues with ABI backwards compatibility or are they really being as dumb as that article implies?

Reply Score: 1

Invincible Cow Member since:
2006-06-24

They have wrapper libs so that legacy BeOS code will still run. Since the new lib is called libzeta they don't run into problem with names of the new gcc 4.x libs and the old ones (which will have the same names as before). They'd have to rename the new ones anyways (or break ABI compatibility).

Edited 2007-03-28 18:05

Reply Score: 1

memson Member since:
2006-01-01

Ick, hacky backwards compatibility is almost as bad as monolithic libzeta's.

Reply Score: 1

Well duh!
by DFergATL on Tue 27th Mar 2007 17:54 UTC
DFergATL
Member since:
2006-02-09

It simply isn't worth what they are asking for it. I was a customer and I kept on purching the updates hoping it would finally be something I could use. It never did, so I stoped paying for. I wish them the best but at this point I think this horse is dead. Time to burry it.

Reply Score: 3

My opinion on Zeta
by Clinton on Tue 27th Mar 2007 18:00 UTC
Clinton
Member since:
2005-07-05

BeOS was a great hobby OS in the 90s. Unfortunately, the current BeOS wannabe project suffer because 90s OSs are no longer what people want.

I personally think BeOS has gone the way of OS/2 (which was also a great OS in its day, but stagnated and will always be a niche OS and pet project like Amiga). If it is to survive at all, I think it will be in the form of an open source project, and even then, it will probably just end up being cannibalized for use in other OSS projects.

From the inception, I never thought Zeta had any kind of chance for success. I liked BeOS, but its time is long past.

Reply Score: 2

RE: My opinion on Zeta
by SReilly on Tue 27th Mar 2007 19:35 UTC in reply to "My opinion on Zeta"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

BeOS was a great hobby OS in the 90s.


I disagree totally. BeOS was not a hobby OS at all. It was a fully featured, incredible fast, stable, well supported, commercial OS which in certain areas wiped the floor with everything else out there.

Multimedia on the BeOS rocked! There was no other OS at the time that could, without significant slowdown, play multiple audio and/or video tracks simultaneously. This, like the Amiga before, invariably made it a prime candidate for artists and editors.

It was used buy many developers, especially web developers, as they're primary coding platform because it could boot in under 10 seconds, used exclusively standard formates and was designed to not only deal with threads but could handle multiple open windows without needing to shuffle said windows around every 15 minutes.

Even today, with the popularity of duel core systems, no other OS can beat the BeOS in multiprocessing as it was designed from the ground up to fully implement threading. That's something not even Linux (as much as I love Linux) can do to anywhere near the same extent.

So I don't think your epitaph to the BeOS is accurate. The only things BeOS really needs today to make it a valid platform are drivers and an updated GUI. Both these issues are being address buy Haiku. As for application, they are already being ported without too many issues.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: My opinion on Zeta
by Clinton on Tue 27th Mar 2007 22:56 UTC in reply to "RE: My opinion on Zeta"
Clinton Member since:
2005-07-05

You are correct in your assessment of BeOS's qualities. It was amazing under the hood. The UI was ugly and boring (and still is) but other than that...

I purchased every release of BeOS and even some of the 3rd party software like BeProductive. I was also a registered developer, but, 3rd party software vendors just didn't support it enough for it to have ever been a viable option.

The problem is that even back in the day, you couldn't really call BeOS anything more than a hobby OS because you couldn't really do anything with it. If I remember correctly, it did amazing things like play two songs off the same CD at the same time without pauses or skipping. That was cool. But, when the OS doesn't have any industrial grade apps for doing say, recording production or video production, then all that awesome multimedia ability is just wasted.

BeOS deserved a better chance at success than it got; to be sure. However, an ugly UI with some usability issues, poor driver support, and some lame marketing killed it before it ever got off the ground, I think.

Now, I could be wrong, but Zeta doesn't seem to be going anywhere anytime soon and you can't honestly install Haiku and be productive. My prediction is that BeOS and its posterity will forever be in the same realm as OS/2 and Amiga; OSs that were great in their day, largely ignored for whatever reason, and forgotten by all but a few die-hard fans.

I hope for the sake of the Haiku developers that I am wrong, but as you said, BeOS was the most amazing thing on the market at the time, but...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: My opinion on Zeta
by Mage66 on Wed 28th Mar 2007 13:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: My opinion on Zeta"
Mage66 Member since:
2005-07-11

>> The problem is that even back in the day, you couldn't really call BeOS anything more than a hobby OS because you couldn't really do anything with it. <<

Huh?

I...

1. Read my email and sent my email
2. Used Opera to surf the web.
3. Played games
4. Used GoBe Productive and Abiword to do word processing and spreadsheets.
5. Ran Macintosh Emulation on Basilisk II.

I did LOTS with my BeOS Box.

That I didn't do as much as other folks did or wanted to, doesn't mean it didn't do anything...

You have way too narrow expectations of an OS.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: My opinion on Zeta
by deb2006 on Wed 28th Mar 2007 20:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: My opinion on Zeta"
deb2006 Member since:
2006-06-26

"BeOS deserved a better chance at success than it got; to be sure. However, an ugly UI with some usability issues, poor driver support, and some lame marketing killed it before it ever got off the ground, I think."

The GUI was ugly? Gee, I think it had the most elegant GUI I can think of. It was very clean, it was lean, it had many fine ideas, it was neatly woven together, its parts worked together like a charm, and - last but not least - it had a good set of beautiful icons.

Reply Score: 2

are there any business-men at Magnus..?
by Googol on Tue 27th Mar 2007 18:03 UTC
Googol
Member since:
2006-11-24

I am asking because Zeta certainly sold EXACTLY to my expectations, and anybody I know of. That's not meant in a good or bad way, that's just the way it is. Everybody knew, only Magnus didn't.

What were they thinking..?! - Probably the same as I was when I bought BeOS shares back in the day ;) bless'em.

Reply Score: 1

It's too bad
by JPisini on Tue 27th Mar 2007 18:27 UTC
JPisini
Member since:
2006-01-24

I personaly have been waiting on upgrading because it is so darn complicated. My wife bought the 1.2 version for me and she can't find the reciept so I would need to jump through hoops or buy a full version of 1.21 and then an upgrade to 1.5 and I just don't have that kind of extra cash around at the moment. If they had just made it easy for people to upgrade they may have made more money.

Reply Score: 3

Bobthearch
Member since:
2006-01-27

Considering the price, lack of marketing, and the money-grubbing practice of charging for bug-fix releases, there is no sales figure that would be below my expections.

And what's the deal with Mangussoft waiting until now to finally put together a hardware list? BTW, my scanner, DSL modem, printer, motherboard, camera, USB card, and RAID controller aren't on the list.
A graphic card similar to mine is on the list as "Partially supported" but the comments are written in German only. Sound card is supported with help of Haiku drivers - doesn't say if those drivers are included with Zeta package.
The whole thing is put together like a low-budget hobby-OS, not a high-dollar professional product.

-Bob

Reply Score: 5

re: 1GB RAM and "Poof"
by Bobthearch on Tue 27th Mar 2007 20:20 UTC
Bobthearch
Member since:
2006-01-27

Can Zeta actually utilize more than 1GB, or is it a patch that limits the amount of RAM that Zeta sees?

Just curious,
-Bob

Reply Score: 1

RE: re: 1GB RAM and "Poof"
by nelvana2005 on Tue 27th Mar 2007 21:21 UTC in reply to "re: 1GB RAM and "Poof""
nelvana2005 Member since:
2005-07-29

Zeta can utilize more than 1GB RAM.
I am currently working with Zeta on a 1GB RAM machine.
If there is any doubt that Zeta utilizes all of the 1GB RAM, there could be or must be something like a proof for this somewhere.
Please, tell me about it and I will post the needed data here in this forum.
I am very interested in such "proofs", very, very interested.

Reply Score: 1

Where's Zeta Max?
by Vibe on Tue 27th Mar 2007 20:39 UTC
Vibe
Member since:
2007-03-12

Hang on, here's a question... If OS News is happy with BeOS being pirated as BeOS Max, doesn't the demise of Yellowtab make Zeta "abandonware"? It would be interesting to see if Thom and Vasper are brave enough to take that challenge on by revising their views on copyright or delivering on their bold statements.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Where's Zeta Max?
by dylansmrjones on Tue 27th Mar 2007 21:04 UTC in reply to "Where's Zeta Max?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

BeOS MAX is not pirated and is not illegal. It is merely BeOS 5 PE with some extras. Not illegal.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Where's Zeta Max?
by memson on Tue 27th Mar 2007 21:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Where's Zeta Max?"
memson Member since:
2006-01-01

> BeOS MAX is not pirated and is not illegal. It is
> merely BeOS 5 PE with some extras. Not illegal.

BeOS MAX is in a bigger grey area than anything Yellowtab ever produced. The whole point of R5 PE was that you were meant to run it from the virtual partition. Installing it on a hard disk was actually not part of the official plan. In all the PE FAQ's, the "how do I install BeOS to a real partition?" type questions, Be Inc's official line was "Buy R5 Pro." MAX is therefore not a shiny white legal OS, it's at best grey area, bordering on illegal (breaking the PE license) depending on how liberal you are at interpreting the license. It is, and always has been, of dubious legality.

Edited 2007-03-27 21:47

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Where's Zeta Max?
by nelvana2005 on Tue 27th Mar 2007 21:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Where's Zeta Max?"
nelvana2005 Member since:
2005-07-29

"In all the PE FAQ's, the 'how do I install BeOS to a real partition?' type questions, Be Inc's official line was 'Buy R5 Pro.""
Yes, that is true.
But the BeOS community said: "Use the installer program for this purpose, it is incorporated into BeOS5 PE and, therefore, it is legal."
What is wrong about this?
Nothing, absolutely nothing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Where's Zeta Max?
by Vibe on Tue 27th Mar 2007 22:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Where's Zeta Max?"
Vibe Member since:
2007-03-12

"In all the PE FAQ's, the 'how do I install BeOS to a real partition?' type questions, Be Inc's official line was 'Buy R5 Pro.""
Yes, that is true.
But the BeOS community said: "Use the installer program for this purpose, it is incorporated into BeOS5 PE and, therefore, it is legal."
What is wrong about this?
Nothing, absolutely nothing.


The only legal distribution of BeOS is the package Be Inc made available. Any modified, repackaged, or added to distribution is a new work, and cannot be distributed by a third party. Just because a company has ceased trading doesn't mean those rights can be trampled on. They're owned by somebody, which makes so-called abandonware illegal. Also, mass distribution raises it from a civil offence to a criminal offence, which can and is prosecuted by state authorities.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Where's Zeta Max?
by nelvana2005 on Tue 27th Mar 2007 22:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Where's Zeta Max?"
nelvana2005 Member since:
2005-07-29

Using the installer inside a BeOS PE installation to install it on another partition of the same computer is no "modification". In my opinion the BeOS 5 PE licence allows this.
Whether this is the case with BeOS Max or not, is not of any interest in this connection.
You can install BeOS PE within Windows or Linux, update it with "modern" drivers on your own and install it on a real partition. As I said, the installer is part of the BeOS 5 PE edition.
If I am wrong, please tell me why.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Where's Zeta Max?
by Luposian on Tue 27th Mar 2007 22:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Where's Zeta Max?"
Luposian Member since:
2005-07-27

One question...

Where is Be, Inc. today?

DEAD! Dissolved. Gone. Hasta la Vista, Baby! POOF!

There is no one at the above (now dead) company to challenge what people do with BeOS R5 PE. And, given that it is the FREE version of BeOS and not the Pro version, people are maniupulating, there is little reason to get your knickers in a twist over it.

As well, where do you go to get a boxed copy of BeOS R5 Pro nowadays? The best I've seen is Purplus. And all they sell you is the CD. I'm sorry, but if I'm buying BeOS R5 Pro, I'm getting it with a box and manual! JUst the way I am about commercial OS's, in general.

You CAN'T really GET get BeOS R5 Pro anymore. It's like finding a needle in a haystack. So, given that we need a Haiku development platform... where do we turn? BeOS R5 PE! Toss in some mods and fixes and we're ready to go! not exactly like we plan to use it as our "main OS" nowadays, anyways.

Though, I applaud those who can (and DO) use BeOS R5 as their main OS. You're more tenacious than me... but I suppose it all boils down to what exactly you use BeOS R5 for. You could still use an Atari 8-bit, if all you used it for were the same things you used it for back in the early 80's. If your needs never increase, the OS is forever usable!

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Where's Zeta Max?
by umccullough on Tue 27th Mar 2007 23:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Where's Zeta Max?"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

You CAN'T really GET get BeOS R5 Pro anymore. It's like finding a needle in a haystack.

how hard did you try? -- most people who care know that you can get a pro cd from purplus:

http://store.purplus.net/beospro503cd.html

Also, look there for other beos-related software (Gobe productive, even Zeta)...

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Where's Zeta Max?
by bornagainenguin on Tue 27th Mar 2007 23:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Where's Zeta Max?"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

I imagine if worse comes to worse and Vaspar is ever contacted by someone with legal rights to BeOS he can just create a 'service pack' type deal which the user can use to download all the bits that make BeOS Max what it is and patch it into becoming BeOS Max. This way the legal liability would be on the users, not him.

The only problem is that for most people without the BeOS Max edition they can't even boot the thing...

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Where's Zeta Max?
by Luposian on Tue 27th Mar 2007 23:10 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Where's Zeta Max?"
Luposian Member since:
2005-07-27

I'm still waiting for BeOS/Haiku to run on my RX480 Neo2-F motherboard with Athlon X2 4800+ processor.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Where's Zeta Max?
by Vibe on Tue 27th Mar 2007 21:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Where's Zeta Max?"
Vibe Member since:
2007-03-12

BeOS MAX is not pirated and is not illegal. It is merely BeOS 5 PE with some extras. Not illegal.

BeOS Max is a derived work. It's illegal. Period.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Where's Zeta Max?
by dylansmrjones on Tue 27th Mar 2007 22:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Where's Zeta Max?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

BeOS Max is a derived work. It's illegal. Period.

No. You are wrong. Copyright law is not that simple. Not in Denmark, definitely not in USA (which in cases like this one is more liberal than the danish copyright law) and actually it's not that simple anywhere.

It _can_ be grey zone, but that's a different issue. Even distributing Windows Vista via Bittorrent isn't necessarily illegal (it is legal if substantial legal use can be made of the distributed version - whatever "substantial legal use" means).

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Where's Zeta Max?
by vasper on Tue 27th Mar 2007 22:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Where's Zeta Max?"
vasper Member since:
2005-07-22

Actually vibe is half right. BeOS Max is illegal in some countries. Just not mine. However, if you own BeOS 5, like I do then making your own custom CD of PE, or using MAX, isn't legal either under copyright law of most countries. The only place this is illegal all together must be the USA...

On the issue of Ram, Zeta can use up to 2GB. This is proof that they have compiled the Kernel. The 2GB limit is because Zeta kernel uses a signed Integer to keep the amount of "visible" ram. Big mistake in kernels. Kernels for 32bit systems should use unsigned Integer that has a limit of 4GB. Why aren't they changing it? Because it would break every other program that is depending in this kernel...

Edited 2007-03-27 22:16

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Where's Zeta Max?
by tonestone57 on Tue 27th Mar 2007 22:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Where's Zeta Max?"
tonestone57 Member since:
2005-12-31

The illegal part would be the distribution of BeOS Max to other people.

Customizing or changing it for your own use would not be illegal. Sharing it with others could create a legal issue.

I don't think you have anything to worry about because it is very unlikely Palm or Access would go after you, Vasper. Palm or Acces are not working on their own BeOS to sell to the public.

Zeta has a 2GB ram limit. I read this on YellowTab(?) site awhile back ago. So, most likely have the source code & modified it.

Bernd has never been too clear about being legally entitled to make Zeta. This is why it raises concern among people. He has skated around the issue.

All I know for sure is that Bernd worked out some kind of deal with CEO of Be Inc right when they were being sold to Palm, the terms of the deal are unknown, but it gave him (Bernd) the right to produce and distribute a BeOS clone (Zeta) to the public. And he received the source code to Dano to work with.

The public didn't care about the terms of the deal. All they wanted to hear was: "We (YellowTab) have made a deal with Be Inc, that Palm agrees to abide by, which gives us legal entitlement to make use of BeOS source code to create Zeta. Also, as part of the deal, we received access to BeOS source code named Dano."

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Where's Zeta Max?
by Soulbender on Wed 28th Mar 2007 04:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Where's Zeta Max?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"BeOS MAX is not pirated and is not illegal."

Oh yes, it is very illegal. It is spelled out clearly in the r5 license that you are NOT allowed to distribute copies of it unless you have a written permission from Be Inc. (or whoever is the copyright holder).
Now, it seems that PalmSource (or whoever has the copyright this week) doesn't care but that doesn't make it any less illegal.

Edited 2007-03-28 04:04

Reply Score: 3

Think about it!!!
by nelvana2005 on Tue 27th Mar 2007 20:51 UTC
nelvana2005
Member since:
2005-07-29

Who did publish the news about the end of the cooperation at first?
Moreover, who "fires" a developer team on the 16th of March?
No one was fired, the Zeta developers and Bernd Korz terminated this cooperation.
And why?
If you would "go" into the "Zeta chats", you would hear the other side of the story. Chat with the Zeta developers, you will be surprised.

Reply Score: 1

re: install BeOS PE
by Bobthearch on Tue 27th Mar 2007 22:14 UTC
Bobthearch
Member since:
2006-01-27

"The whole point of R5 PE was that you were meant to run it from the virtual partition. Installing it on a hard disk was actually not part of the official plan."

Since hard drive installation took about one minute with the included Installer program, I have to assume that Be Inc. didn't really mind if people permanently installed their program. Nor did they ever take legal action against end-users who installed the program.

"BeOS Max is a derived work. It's illegal. Period."

In that case, since the owners of the BeOS patents/copyrights haven't aggressively defended their IP, I wonder if the the IP is even still protected by law?

Really, I doubt PalmSource gives a darn about a few hobbiests using/distributing BeOS, particularly if it's not being sold.

-Bob

Reply Score: 5

RE: re: install BeOS PE
by Soulbender on Wed 28th Mar 2007 04:08 UTC in reply to "re: install BeOS PE"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"In that case, since the owners of the BeOS patents/copyrights haven't aggressively defended their IP, I wonder if the the IP is even still protected by law?"

You are confusing trademarks with copyrights. You need to defend a trademark but not a copyright.

Reply Score: 2

The legal issue
by tonestone57 on Tue 27th Mar 2007 22:59 UTC
tonestone57
Member since:
2005-12-31

This will never be satisfied without proof.

Either you have to take Bernd at his word & believe that Zeta is legal as he says OR otherwise you do not believe this and think Zeta is illegal.

Either way, Bernd is not going to produce any physical proof that a deal is made with Be Inc that extends to Palm. And even if he says that Zeta is a legal BeOS clone, will you believe him? Some will, & others will not.

So, if you think it is illegal, then maybe it is.

Or, if you think it is legal, then maybe it is.

It is hard to know for sure without having seen some physical proof. So, for now all we can do is speculate/guess on the issue and go with our gut feeling.

If you feel it is illegal, & don't like this or feel uncomfortable because you feel Zeta is illegal, then don't support Zeta. Enough said.

There is no way to know for certain and probably never will be without tangible, physical proof.

Edited 2007-03-27 23:06

Reply Score: 1

Zeta Sale Figures
by tonestone57 on Tue 27th Mar 2007 23:25 UTC
tonestone57
Member since:
2005-12-31

Ok, this one is on topic for a change :-)

Mind you, I think Bernd has done a few mistakes with Zeta, but overall is doing a good job.

Here are what I see the problems:
1) Cost too much to get people into the OS.
2) Very little, new 3rd party applications/programs.

In detail, who will buy Zeta when Linux is given for free with all the applications you ever need? Especially when the price is somewhat on the high side. Isn't it better to have started on a more reasonable price to get more people into the OS - increase the user base & then when going to Zeta 2.0 boost up the price. The goal should have been to get lots of users onto Zeta and not try to make lots of money in the beginning. I think the price kept many potential users away. (Linux has Flash, Java, hardware OpenGL, OpenOffice, etc.) I really don't need the previous items, except for Flash, because lots of websites are using Flash more and more.

Secondly, there are almost next to no developers creating software for Zeta. (Most of these developers are busy working on Haiku). This is a big concern, because Zeta though very useable is lacking newer or updated programs. Haiku is updating drivers used by Zeta - so no issue there. People want the latest & greatest applications and very good hardware support (ie: Sata still is missing).

Bernd convinced Magnussoft that Zeta was a sure thing to make profits. Must have told them that they had a large customer base and expected most users to upgrade (but if you bought 1.2 would you have upgraded to 1.21 & paid the extra cost? I don't think many did this). Well, to cut it short. YellowTab went out of business because it wasn't making enough profit. Same thing happened here, Magnussoft paid for the *development* of Zeta and did not make enough money back (either loss or small profit). This is why they decided to get out of paying for the development of Zeta & instead stick with distribution - because they can make money on selling Zeta, but not on paying for its development.

Edited 2007-03-27 23:31

Reply Score: 2

Bad marketing kills Zeta
by mikhailt1 on Wed 28th Mar 2007 07:50 UTC
mikhailt1
Member since:
2007-03-28

Zeta - is a good product and can have success. But bad marketing kills it.
I see at least to obvious factors:

1. Totally absence of advertising. Even worse: totally absence of any information. Nobody knows about Zeta.

2. the price is definitely too high for a hobby-os

Magnussoft's expectations about sales, after less then one year on the market, are just stupid.
What they expect without user-base, without advertising, without seminars, without developers community??
I am working in a big software developers company, speak to around thirty of my colleagues, NOBODY EVEN HEARD ABOUT ZETA!!!
How Magnussoft wants to sell a software product, the general-purpose-OS, if nobody knows about it beyond the old BeOS-community??

Reply Score: 4

predictable failure
by yahya on Thu 29th Mar 2007 13:24 UTC
yahya
Member since:
2007-03-29

What surprises me most is, how stubbornly Bernd Korz pursued this project, despite the predictability of its apparent failure. Tragically, while doing so, he managed to alienate many of the traditional BeOS user base. I once received a threatening e-mail from his lawyer for a, I would say, quite harmless remark in a public web forum. I have better things to do than entering into lawsuits with a company that I don't have any business with, so I eventually removed the comment and there were no further reaction.

However, I was completely taken by surprise by the fact that Bernd, rather than responding to public criticism, would send his lawyer to do the dirty work. This along with the secretiveness and the inability to live up to ones own promises and announcements has always deterred me from buying anything from this company.

I would have assumed that, if you have a very small userbase, on which you depend for your economic survival, the first rule would be: Don't annoy them.

The rest of the story seems to be, that Bernd Korz tried to mount a task which was simply too much for him: I think everyone agrees that Be, Inc. was a place of utmost technical excellence. If they failed to survive, how could someone have succeeded with not nearly the same level of technical excellence and economic resources available? Bernd Korz was/is a dwarf of the shoulder of giants. The only way, Zeta could have survived would be with really strong corporate backing, including a long-term commitment without an expectation of instant profit, or a really strong user base, combined with an open source development model.

Reply Score: 3