Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 26th Mar 2002 20:24 UTC, submitted by Jean-Baptiste Queru
Syllable, AtheOS Bill Hayden did the obvious: He forked AtheOS (which is technically similar to BeOS) and used its app_server and Interface Kit (without the use of X11) and rest of its kits on top of the 2.4.x Linux kernel. While the AtheOS kernel has some very nice features, by being modular, semi-microkernel, with good preemptive/multithreading support etc., it lacks a solid VM and swap support and of course, it lacks a good driver support, things that the Linux kernel provides. Bill Hayden accounced his fork on the AtheOS mailing list and made known that the "Atheos API has been merged with the BeOS API, there is PowerPC support, gcc 3.0.X compatiblity and OpenTracker/Deskbar as the desktop manager".
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Great discussion here
by Howie S on Thu 28th Mar 2002 17:19 UTC

I've been spending the past hour reading this thread on OSNews. After all that listening I feel the need to respond with my 2cents. Waiver: I am not a 'real' geek, merely a hobbyist with some experience coding in Perl and now Ruby.

Overall I think the fork/linux merge is an excellent and realistic choice. As I see it the two main obstacles for a new OS are not technologically-related, but rather human-related:

1) Will enough people get to play with it?

and 2) Will enough people develop for it?

The answer to the first question ties closely with the issue of device drivers. Reading this discussion thread it appears the current state of having software relate to all the diverging types of hardware is a real mess to say the least.
If Mr.Hayden (aka Bill) feels the best way around this hurdle at this point is to go with Linux, then I say "great!" I do hope, however, that this gives us serious pause for dreaming up new models whereby hardware and software interact that is somewhat more elegant than the current state of affairs.

The answer to the second question, I feel, ties closely with the issue of a standardized API. It appears that Bill has chosen to go with the BeOS API which I feel is an excellent choice as well. I admit I don't know how much this means software developers can sit back and say 'OK, we have a standard API, so regardless of the underlying kernel, file system, etc, we can happily develop apps.' I'm hoping it means at least there will be only minimal changes to apps to get them working properly.

All in all, in the short term we at least have a linux distro (in the works) that's finally free of X (yeeee haaaaaa!) In the slightly longer term, I hope the open source community will take another serious look at the above 2 human-related points that bear addressing.