Magnussoft, the company now responsible for development on Zeta, has announced it is accepting pre-orders for Zeta 1.21. This new release will include multi-user support, will be built with GCC4, among other improvements. Bernd Korz‘s weblog contains more information. Korz was (is?) the CEO of YellowTAB, the company that started Zeta. Read on for a short editorial on this announcement.
The news concerning pre-orders was submitted by fudel; this editorial was written by Thom Holwerda.
I am very happy this announcement has finally been made. The future of Zeta had been shrouded in mist for months, and no clear-cut press release was ever published detailing the fact that Zeta will now be developed by Magnussoft. All we find on YellowTAB’s website is a press release stating that Magnussoft will be the worldwide distributor; nothing is said about the company also being responsible for Zeta development:
“A new distribution partner for the alternative operating system ZETA OS has been announced. The worldwide distribution rights for the ambitious Operating system have been granted to Magnussoft Germany.”
After this, silence. All we could rely on, was an article on a German website (I happen to speak German), which claimed that YellowTAB had gone down, and that Magnussoft would take over not only the distribution, but also the development of Zeta. This has indeed happened.
So, the sequence of events is like this:
- YellowTAB develops and sells Zeta;
- YellowTAB gets in financial troubles;
- YellowTAB announces exclusive distribution rights for Zeta to Magnussoft;
- YellowTAB goes bust, broke, bankrupt, whatever term is legally applicable;
- Bernd Korz goes to Magnussoft, probably bringing along developers from YellowTAB, to continue Zeta development;
- Profit (hopefully).
This sequence was known to people, and is anything but new. However, we at OSNews never really detailed it since so much was unclear, and little in the form of official press releases or whatever has been made available; we cannot report that YellowTAB went bust, without anything to back it up. Now, we can:
“I started today to move my domains. The content of Domains like yellowTAB.com, yellowTAB.de… will go down in short. So if you want to download stuff or archive articles you should do that asap.”
Let’s hope that Magnussoft is able to succeed where YellowTAB failed. I am not only saying this as a BeOS user and zealot (I have been accused of being a zealot of just about anything, but the only accurate accusation is that of me being a BeOS zealot), but also as an operating system enthusiast, who simply wants more choices than Windows and the UNIX-flavour-of-the-day.
If you would like to see your thoughts or experiences with technology published, please consider writing an article for OSNews.
Seems every year thigns go worse and worse (as they are wont to do when the original developper goes belly-up).
It’s a shame the OS and its developpers/maintainers are going through so much trouble, and I hope Magnussoft can help it bring it back out there a bit despite the stigma of being a “dead” OS.
Edited 2006-09-10 21:43
This new release will include multi-user support, will be built with GCC4, among other improvements.
From what I understand these are to be features of Zeta 2.0 not 1.21. The 1.21 release will be a small improvement over versions 1.2 and 1.1 released by Yellow Tab.
Edited 2006-09-10 21:44
I believe you are correct there bbjimmy.
GCC2.95 will be used for 1.21 & Bernd mentions in his blog that the next version will hopefully use GCC4.
I think it is a little too early still to be switching to GCC4, but if they can do it now, then why wait any longer.
I don’t believe Multi User is in 1.21, but I would definately think in the next release for sure. Bernd’s log mentions that Multi User is fairly done, but probably wasn’t ready for 1.21.
The next release of Zeta may be version 2.0, if they decide to do GCC4, because they can’t call it 1.x any longer since some applications won’t work with it & this would be a major step forward. (I think they’ll also add Multi User to it).
I use static ips & so have never had an issue with networking, but I believe (DHCP) is fixed up now (I think it wasn’t working in 1.0).
Edited 2006-09-10 23:35
To say “Some” applications wouldn’t work anymore (unless they created a thunking library to convert between 2.9x gcc and 4.x gcc libs, which *could* be done) is correct for a very large number of applications. Any C++ applications (any that called into methods of the OS that weren’t straight C linkage) including those that use the GUI at all would need to be recompiled, and might be source compatible, but they are not binary compatible, because gcc 2.9x and gcc after that (3.x-4.x) use a completely different C++ binary interface. Thus, without some hack thunking libraries, existing application binaries won’t work with a new system built using gcc 4.x as a result.
If there’s a good time to break the classes for size and layout, the transition to gcc 4.x would be the best time, if source compatibility is still desired, but they wanted to change the layout of classes. Better yet (though it is far from likely to happen with Zeta) would be to write the C++ API so it doesn’t have the fragile base class problem (binary layout) but that will be both source and binary incompatible with what’s currently available.
They don’t need a thunking library. They just need to provide a GCC3-compiled version as a “compatibility” library. BeOS uses ELF, so it’ll handle that just fine.
BUUUUUUUUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!
WRONG!
GCC 2.9x and anything above it are different in the binary layout of C++ CLASSES and are *incompatible* regardless of ELF. Clearly you’ve not done your homework, and misunderstood what I was writing, because your ignorance on the topic shows through horribly. Sure, the C linkage stuff is still compatible (I already stated that, if you paid any attention and had the comprehension, but that appears not to be the case) but C++ between 2.9x and anything above the 2.x gcc is NOT compatible, and binaries rely on how things are done in order to work correctly. Running old 2.9x C++ applications on a gcc version that’s 3.x or greater simply will not work, because of how vtables, etc. are handled, and the BeOS C++ API relies on inheritance and the FBC problem is a manifestation of the binary layout of C++ classes as compiled. If BeOS didn’t have C++ in its system libraries (all the various kits) it wouldn’t matter.
Thus, the only way that 2.9x binaries will run on a system built with gcc 3.x or greater is if there’s something that does a conversion for calls between 2.9x and the new libraries, and keeps local copies in the space of the 2.9x binaries of all the objects, where the thunking would have to be done with libraries built using 2.9x to either send messages via IPC to the new servers or by having everything done in 2.9x C++ call C routines that then called through newer libraries, or some assembly language conversions, but the net result is that you can’t simply build a library using gcc 3.x that doesn’t take that into account and have 2.9x C++ binaries be able to use it.
FYI, here’s a link to Apple that mentions these details: I’d advise you read before you comment further.
http://developer.apple.com/releasenotes/DeveloperTools/GCC3.html
This is not Slashdot. You are allowed to read a comment before you reply to it.
I believe rayiner was mearly suggesting that they can supply both a GCC 2.95 and GCC 4 version of the library, with different major numbers E.g. libfoo.so.1 and libfoo.so.2 Old applications will continue to use the “old” GCC 2.95 version of the library (libfoo.so.1) while any new applications compiled with GCC 4 will use the new GCC 4 version of the library (libfoo.so.2) There is no need to wrap the GCC 4 version of the library, although I agree it would be possible, and possibly even desirable if you wish to reduce redundency.
P.S: The cross-vendor C++ ABI solved the ABI compatability problem many years ago, and has been used by GCC since the release of GCC 3.0.
P.P.S: The fragile base class problem has nothing to do with the version of GCC you’re using.
Rayiner has been treating many people in a very insulting condescending manner, reading every possible negative into answers, real or imagined to past posts, including mine: I am utilizing the golden rule in this case, as that seems to be all he understands when it comes to “being right” since he can’t accept the possibility that someone can have a different interpretation and be right about something, or that someone could actually have replied too quickly for him to realize that’s not entirely what the responder meant. Rayiner has a long history of going out of his way to be abusive and putting people down and lord his would-be expertise over everyone else.
For BeOS, it’d be a rather major hassle to run binaries using both versions of the C++ compiler because of the ABI differences and the fact that BeOS is so heavily C++-based that applications compiled for the 2.9x compiler and libraries won’t interoperate correctly (if at all) with anything using a later version of the C++ compiler. The link I provided explains that the ABI is more complex than merely the class layout (which the fragile base class problem is tied into, and why it wouldn’t be remotely feasible to do what Rayiner was suggesting: if he’s invoking ELF linking things together between 2.x and using a 3.x library to interface with a 4.x system, and there’s been other changes in the C++ compiler between that, indicates that he’s not fully aware or thinking about binary layouts of C++ objects) but also in how C++ exceptions are handled. Thus, a 3.0 C++ application wouldn’t fully work correctly with a 4.x library in many cases, regardless of the name mangling being resolved by the ELF loader. Sure, you can lie to a program loader, but that doesn’t mean you will get what you want.
So in one respect, yes, you’re right: the fragile base class problem doesn’t change the fact one way or the other that you can’t use 4.x or even 3.x binaries directly with a 2.x application, but it definitely doesn’t help. However, there *is* a way to create a C++ API that doesn’t suffer from the fragile base class problem, without using the hack that BeOS used to reserve space, or using the COM method of peeling off interfaces from the base class interface. But if there’s any time to add things to the basic classes of Zeta, they might as well do it when transitioning to the 4.x compiler, so base classes have cleaner interfaces without worrying about the headers being in a weird mess, at least to start. At some point closer to Haiku R1 release date or shortly thereafter, I’ll create a demonstration and proposal of the C++ API that isn’t vulnerable to the fragile base class problem as a proposal for Haiku R2 (no, it doesn’t reserve space, either!).
Does your proposal look anything like the scheme we’re already using in libsyllable, by any chance? It’s worked wonderfully for us.
What scheme is that? Could you please provide a link? I strongly suspect not, since the scheme I have in mind would not be remotely source or binary compatible with the current API by any stretch of the imagination. While it would be wise to include a way to include a version number for applications to query for, it isn’t required. In fact, those overly concerned with C++ purity may be unhappy with what I have in mind, but at least it is viable long-term (as in never having an expansion problem: if the C++ compiler ABI changes, that may affect it, depending on the level of C++ purity)
Because it isn’t exactly as “pure” of C++ by intent, I’m not certain everyone will go for it, but it wouldn’t cause old binaries to break, and wouldn’t need backwards compatible C++ classes in libs and system kits, either. One of the side-effects of building an application or libs this way is that it’s likely to result in simpler and smaller patch files for upgrades, too.
Well now from what you’ve just said, I’m not certain if the scheme you are refering too is even slightly similiar to ours, but anyway.
An example: http://syllable.cvs.sourceforge.net/syllable/syllable/system/sys/ap…
Every “external” class in the API has an internal private class that holds all of the data members. The only data member in the external class is a pointer to the corresponding private class. The external class then uses the data members of it’s private class, instead of having data members itself. E.g.:
class Foo::Private{
int a;
char z;
float f;
};
class Foo{
public:
Foo();
private:
Private *m;
};
Foo::Foo()
{
m = new Private();
m->a = 42;
m->z = ‘b’;
m->f = 1.0f;
}
We also reserve vtable slots in every “external” class to provide space if we ever wish to add additional virtual methods without increasing the vtable size.
These two things alone largely take care of the FBC problem. This scheme was designeds by Kurt and has been in use since the very first release of AtheOS, if I remember correctly.
Nope, you’ve described it well enough: there’s a name for that pattern, or rather several names, one being the Cheshire Cat pattern, but that’s not that important.
What I have in mind doesn’t have any class declaration order issues at all, but does require a bit of glue that can be done with a little bit of macro magic to make it a non-issue. However, what I have in mind is 100% portable and valid C++. The Syllable solution doesn’t remotely resemble my idea.
Vanders, BeOS doesn’t use versioned Shared Objects for System libs. This then kills your entire point. BeOS != LINUX.
JT is right on this one. Listen to him.
To include the entire API again would needlessly expand the entire install base. If you are breaking binary compatibility, it should be all or nothing IMO. (Isn’t that what Syllable dod to the original libAtheos.so?) You then have issues like linking drivers to the Kernel, input filters to the input server, various bits and pieces to the App server. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.
I’ve looked at writing a thunking layer for BeOS to allow GCC 3.x to be used in plain R5.03. Way, way too much work.
as far as i know from “first hands” for YT 1.2 were plans (and probably working version) to full support of Be API with GCC 4.*, while basically OS itself was built with 2.9*. So they planned to support both ABIs for transitional version but in “opposite” way.
Fair enough. It was my understanding that BeOS/Zeta/Haiku used ELF and GCC as a system compiler. Following a symbolic link at compile time is a job for ld, and I’m going to ass-u-me that BeOS/Zeta/Haiku also use GNU binutils, yes?
Can the BeOS/Zeta/Haiku RTLD seriously not tell the difference between the filenames “libfoo.so.1” and “libfoo.so.2” in the DT_NEEDED section? Does it ignore the second part of the filename?
Even if it can’t do that, it doesn’t really change my point though, just the mechanism. Instead of libfoo.so.1 and libfoo.so.2 you could have libfoo.so and libfoo_2.so if you so wished; they are distinct libraries. Provided you do not try to mix GCC 2.95 and GCC 4 libraries together it should work.
This is exactly how we handle ABI changes in libsyllable. Whenever the ABI changes we increment the DSO version and ship the previous versions for compatability. So an installed system may have libsyllable.so.5, libsyllable.so.6 and libsyllable.so.7 installed. The only time this couldn’t be done sensibly was when we upgraded to Glibc 2.3, which involved much deeper voodoo and it was easier to drop the old libraries.
There’s no need to be an arsehole.
I bought a full copy of Zeta 1.1 and paid for the Zeta 1.2 upgrade. Will the Zeta 1.21 upgrade be free?
——————-
Special Remarks
* The maximum amount you may order is one
* After ordering you have to proof that you are a legal owner of a prior ZETA version by sending us your activated product key inclusive product serial and billing receipt
* You also have to send us your prior version of ZETA per mail
* The Update is being sold exclusively through zeta-os.com
* Postage is not free for the Update
—————-
Are they saying that we should mail them our prior CD of Zeta? Kinda surprising and unnecessary in that no one can activate it anyway….
Also, this webpage http://www.zeta-os.com/cms/custom/shop/update.php is in German. I hope they have an English version too…I cannot understand German and would prefer not to have to translate every little word there.
Edited 2006-09-10 22:25
> Also, this webpage http://www.zeta-os.com/cms/custom
> shop/update.php is in German. I hope they have an
> English version too… I cannot understand German
> and would prefer not to have to translate every
> little word there.
Select your language in the left column.
If someone tested this release could you mention how stable Tracker is and how about networking is it fixed?
I was unhappy with v 1.0 as it felt like a beta.
Did they add multiuser feature to the OS and is it now password protected?
Why would someone pay for a proprietary OS like Zeta, where Windows, Linux and Mac are already way ahead? I’m not familiar with BeOS or Zeta, but from what I read at Wikipedia it’s not much of an OS you can do anything with. Can somebody explain some people’s enthusiasm about this product? Is it actually usefull compared to other (free) products?
Btw. this is not meant as a troll but purley from interest, I just can’t find the answer anywhere else.
Edited 2006-09-10 23:35
Sure,
Zeta (& BeOS) is fast & responsive & multithreaded.
#1 It runs very quick on new or old machines. With fairly low hardware requirements.
#2 It was designed to be a multimedia OS from the ground up with new methods. (you could run a divx movie with a lower hardware configuration compared to Windows without issues – no stuttering).
#3 It handles better 2 or more cpus (makes more effective use of multiprocessor/multicore systems).
#4 No viruses for it yet.
#5 It is fairly posix compliant (can port over software from BSD to it; though uses different Windowing system from X Windows).
#6 It looks good & is easy to use.
#7 It boots up very fast and runs very well.
#8 The average user can fully use Zeta for their computing as it has all the major applications for using it (WEB Browser, Email Client, Office Suite, etc).
#9 Haiku (http://www.haiku-os.org) is the open source (free) equivalent of BeOS (which Zeta & Haiku are based off of). Once Haiku is ready, around Oct 2007, then it will attract more developers & get more programs onto Zeta & Haiku.
#10 New programs are being developed or ported to Zeta here & there & can be found on http://www.bebits.com or http://www.zeta-os.com/cms/download.php
#11 When Haiku is ready, it will give greater exposure to Zeta also (Zeta will be ahead of Haiku when it is released to the public, but both Zeta & Haiku will give a greater presence to BeOS based OSes).
#12 It feels like Unix (shell commands) & workspaces combined with Windows (GUI).
#13 Pretty good hardware support.
The downside is,
#1 Not as much software available compared to Linux, Mac OS X or Windows. (This will slowly change once Haiku is out).
#2 Not as many games as Windows, though it has a fair amount compared to Linux.
#3 No Hardware OpenGL yet (slowly in the works)
#4 No Java (slowly in the works) & no Flash.
I believe Zeta runs better/faster (as a workstation OS) than the other 3 OSes, but still requires more programs and games. I wouldn’t recommend it for power users at this point, more for the average computer user.
I run Windows XP mostly, but I enjoy using Zeta as a secondary OS (& if it had access to the same programs I use on Windows, I would definately use Zeta as my primary OS).
Edited 2006-09-11 00:08
Thank you very much for your answers tonestone! It’s more clear for me now!
I forgot to mention & what about Linux?
How popular was Linux in the beginning? It began in 1991, but kernel version 1.0 wasn’t released until 1994. So, we’ll start from 1994 then.
I don’t recall Linux being very popular in the 90s. Only the last few years has Linux become a threat to Windows & attracted many users.
It was the big companies that brought over users like Red Hat, Mandrake, etc. & now Ubuntu, etc.
Also, how good were the early versions of Linux? Not too good.
It took time, & now finally Linux is very complete and has gained a large user base.
The same can happen for Haiku (it’ll be a little tougher for Zeta to do this, because they need to convince people it is worth buying). But any progress in Haiku OS will also benefit Zeta.
Once Haiku is done & attracts more developers, then in 4 to 6 years time (from now) it will be fairly complete too & will attract many more users.
BeOS was fun to use & ran just great (if you had supported hardware). Zeta continues on with this & Haiku will do the same, once they catch up to the other OSes (in a couple of years) then they’ll be a real threat and I’m sure will have a very good sized userbase too.
Edited 2006-09-11 01:03
Repeating Linux success story will be pretty difficult.
1)Linux was/is free and open source; this means that users will happily downoad it and give it a try. Developers have been attracted by the thousands.
2) The hardware situation has changed in recent years. Even Linux is struggling to keep up with the very fast pace. Apple has given up althogeter and will support only a limited set of hardware.
3)Software. People have been spoiled with thousands of applications, often of very high quality. Only Microsoft has managed to fully satisfy its customers by attracting plenty of developers/software companies.
Linux and Apple have plenty of apps, and yet people keep complaining, because they miss their Microsoft-only favorites.
4)Attracting enough developers will be extremely difficult. I used to believe it would be more difficult for closed source projects like SkyOS or Zeta, but it seems that Haiku or Syllable aren’t doing a lot better from that point of view. Why? Who knows, maybe far too many OSS projects, and small operating systems might not be among the most attractive.
I think I disagree a bit on the hardware front – honestly, I remember far more issues with, say Mandrake 7 than I ever anticipate with PCLOS/Mandriva/Buntu/Fedora.
Remember winmodems? Awkward X configs? Hell, nowadays you can be pretty sure your hardware will just work, configure itself, and make life easier.
While yes, some pace has accelerated, I think hardware is much more consolidated nowadays.
Oh, and as for apple…didn’t they always just support a limited set of hardware?
I dunno. I agree with most of what you said
Indeed, it used to be worse. What I really mean is that in the past I don’t remember so much hardware being released and upgraded so often. So how could small operating systems keep up? And indeed when I try them I prefer VMware.
As to Apple yes, they have always supported their own hardware. What I mean is that they have called themselves out of “the hardware competition”, something that small operating system couldn’t do, because I very much doubt people would buy a SkyOS PC, or a Zeta, Haiku or Syllable one.
Edited 2006-09-11 04:20
Linux success story will be difficult for Zeta (agree), but Haiku will be able to attract developers. How many? I can’t say for certain, but hopefully enough.
#1 Haiku OS is free & open source. Users can download & try it out. It will also attract developers.
#2 Any open source Linux drivers can be used to an extent to help create Haiku drivers.
#3 Open source Linux applications will also be portable to Haiku.
Many companies make programs for Microsoft because of:
1. Microsoft’s OSes are used by the majority of computer users.
2. Companies charge & make profits with software made for WINDOWS (I’m not sure if any companies make applications for Linux, because they would have to compete with the free versions out there).
#4 Developers care to be part of a bigger OS, like Linux or Windows (or maybe Mac OS X) because these are mainstream. Linux probably didn’t have many developers in the beginning either, until they released their 1st version. Haiku will have to come out with 1.0 before it starts getting attention and it may be with a later version before developers jump on board, but now Haiku will have to compete with Linux/BSD too (plus Windows & Mac OS X).
#5 Haiku & Zeta together is the answer for getting more people interested in BeOS once again. Especially if they market themselves well & make news stories.
Why would someone pay for a proprietary OS like Zeta, where Windows, Linux and Mac are already way ahead?
Because Zeta is still ahead of them?
I’ll just link to the last time I listed Zeta’s advantages:
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=14451&comment_id=118804
If yellowTAB, the company that had the license agreement with the holders of the BeOS IP (on which ZETA is based on) has gone under, how can Magnussoft legally sell (and develop?) ZETA?
I mean, if the company Magnussoft signed the distribution agreement with is gone, does this not void their agreement? Unless yellowTAB somehow managed to transfer the license agreement they had with Be/Palm/Access to someone else before going bankrupt.
According to Mr. Korz’s blog, there is now a 15 people ZETA team that works fulltime on the product.
http://berndsworld.blogspot.com/2006/09/who-is-team.html
Are these Magnussoft employees? Or is this another company? Or maybe Mr. Korz now runs another company that holds the license agreement that allows Magnussoft to sell ZETA legally?
I was just wondering how all this is possible…
You didn’t read the story, did you?
5. Bernd Korz goes to Magnussoft, probably bringing along developers from YellowTAB, to continue Zeta development;
Bernd, CEO of Yellowtab, has gone to work for Magnussoft.
Magnussoft is now the new developer of Zeta.
http://www.zeta-os.com/
Bernd, aka Zeman, responds to posts in the forums at ZETA OS site. Though I’ve obtained more info from his blog than anywhere else.
I didn’t even know he had a blog.
> You didn’t read the story, did you?
Yes, I did read the story, but it does not answer my doubts.
You see: besides that fact that “Bernd Korz goes to Magnussoft” could mean many things, and not necessarily that he is working for the company, even if Mr. Korz were a Magnussoft employee (something that is not confirmed), it does not explain the status of the license agreement that would allows Magnussoft to develop and sell ZETA.
> Magnussoft is now the new developer of Zeta.
Really? This seems to contradict what Mr. Weinert, PR Manager from Magnussoft, said in an interview with Power Dreams, where he states that his company will focus on selling the product, and that the development team will be a separate entity from Magnussoft.
IsComputerOn.com
http://joomla.iscomputeron.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=vi…
Original in German
http://www.power-dreams.com/xoops/modules/beosnews/article.php?stor…
Maybe they had a change of plans. Or maybe it is Mr. Korz regrouping with different people after the demise of his company.
Either way, it does not answer the question of who has the license agreement with the IP owners of BeOS (Be/Palm/Access) that would allow ZETA be developed and sold, now that yellowTAB does not exist anymore, does it? Is it Magnussoft? Is it the “separate entity” that Mr. Weinert talked about in his interview? If the latter, who are they?
Not everything may be as it looks on the surface. 🙂
Off the Magnussoft Zeta site:
http://www.zeta-os.com/cms/plugins/content/content.php?content.10
It basically hints that Magnussoft is taking over the development of Zeta.
Also, Zeta is no longer known as Yellowtab Zeta, but rather Magnussoft Zeta from version 1.21 (this is for a reason). And you won’t see a Yellowtab Zeta 1.21.
Bernd is still involved with Zeta. But now he works and gets paid from Magnussoft. Yellowtab is no longer (Bernd’s blog mentions him taking down the Yellowtab domain soon).
Yes I agree with you, it is hard to know “exactly” what is going on. They make hints towards this & that without giving really solid answers. Everything has to be pieced together.
(It is hard to say how the arrangement was done, but I can only say for sure that Magnussoft is now the developer of Zeta – they pay for the development of the Zeta OS).
Edited 2006-09-11 03:51
How can you make categoric assertions such as “Bernd now works and get paid by Magnussoft” simply because he wrote that the yT domain is being taken down? You do understand the difference between “hinting” at something and confirming it, don’t you?
You either have access to information that the rest of us don’t have, or you are just making wild speculations.
Ok Sogabe, I’ll tell you why he works for Magnussoft.
1. Zeman in Zeta-OS (Magnussoft site) forums is Bernd. It used to show his information under profile, but now the name is hidden.
2. Yellowtab site has not had any news since Magnussoft became the new distributor & no announcement of a new Zeta version.
3. Yellowtab site will go down soon (as said in Bernd’s blog).
4. The only company to release a new Zeta version is Magnussoft (& offer it to other distributors too). http://www.zeta-os.com/cms/index.php
5. Bernd is involved in making the next Zeta Version 1.21 (if you read his blog).
6. Bernd mentions the following in his blog (under Status@Zeta):
“Last night i made the last CD Image for ZETA. The compilation worked out really well. I will do a final installtion today to check if there is more bugs i can fix in a short term. But in generell i can say that 1.21 is done.
I will give the final image tomorrow to Magnussoft so they can now produce it.
You might wonder what is new in ZETA. Well, me too 😉 Since yellowTAB went down i got the chance to use the team and myself and some former yellowTAB developers and friends to make nice new things available in the next ZETA version.”
Conclusion, Bernd is still involved with Zeta & basically works for Magnussoft now (Yellowtab exists no more – other than the website).
For and at are very different things.
All this suggestions, rumours and deductive conclusions still do not provide any real, legal information.
Maybe Bernd has just some contract with Magnussoft in personal form and pays developers from his own pocket, while other person from list (sales, support) are Magnussoft workers?
Who has rights to use source code? Kortz family? Some “virtual” company/entity which bought OEM rights from German company distributed R5 in past?
I have nothing against any method to development and keeping alive BeOS successor, but still should notice that most (if not 100%) of legal question raised in YT times are yet answered
> Ok Sogabe, I’ll tell you why he works for Magnussoft.
I don’t think you understand, but that’s ok. 🙂
It is obvious that Mr. Korz is involved with ZETA, but that does not explain much.
Mr. Weinert said in his interview that Bernd Korz was acting as a consultant, so it may just be as fyysik said, that he is paying developers to deliver ZETA to Magnussoft; this may be the “separate entity” that Mr. Weinert talked about in the interview.
If that is the case, and I am talking hypothetically here, it may look as if ZETA has changed hands, but in reality not much has changed for ZETA: it is still a product driven by the same individual, the CEO of a company that went bust but somehow managed to regroup with a different group of people, and a distribution partner (which he secured when he knew his company was going down?).
I fail to see how this will ensure a viable future for ZETA, and at the same I wonder how those who were affected by yellowTAB’s demise (employees, suppliers, contractors, etc.) may be feeling about this.
It’s all hypothetical, of course. 🙂
According to Mr. Korz’s blog, there is now a 15 people ZETA team that works fulltime on the product.
But only six(!) developers. I hate to be negative, but that is not going to do this. Some operating system projects have hundreds of developers, and need to work very hard to keep up with hardware support and build new features. Six developers is not going to cut it, sixteen neither.
If there is some future in BeOS, it is probably Haiku.
99 Euros (~$125) is too expensive for an OS with less functionability than the competition. Especially since I could buy Windows XP Pro and Mac OS X for less on Price Grabber and Amazon. This is not to mention what we get from Linux for free. Hehe. ;^)
I agree that they could have better (lower) pricing.
Lower pricing would definately help get more users onboard with Zeta.
The higher price will scare off new users.
At least Haiku will be free, but you have to wait 1 year for release & another year (or less) after that for an improved version.
Sounds like Closed-Source BeOS has Amiga syndrome.
Personally, I’m putting my BeOS eggs in Haiku’s basket.
Tonestone: Your view of Linux is rather inaccurate, as shown below:
Linux was started because Linus Torvalds hated the limitations of Minix and started to make what he hoped would become “a better Minix than Minix”. At the time, he didn’t know about BSD, which was embroiled in legal hassles. Refugees from Minix, and presumably some who had been/would have been attracted to BSD in the absence of said legal problems started hacking on Linux; it was thus popular *in the hacker community* from day one. (I use the word “hacker” here in its proper sense and not that of “computer criminal”). That very popularity is what drew the attention of Red Hat, SuSE et al.
“How good were early versions of Linux? Not too good.”
On the contrary, considering that Linux was written fro the ground up (rather than being a port of an earlier system, as with the BSDs) they were very good, if you were a UNIX person – and thus more interested in stability, security and flexibility (SS&F), than ease of use (EOU).
This is why there is such a divide between Windows and Linux users – Linux users care about SS&F, and Windows users care about EOU. Only recently has each group come to care about the things the other group cares about – and arguably, a smaller percentage of the Windows user group cares about SS&F, than the percentage of Linux users who care about ease-of-use. (Indeed it may be the case that the BSD’s are slowly assimilating the Linux users who don’t care about EOU at all.)
The difference between BeOS and Linux, on the other hand, is that BeOS was written specifically with multimedia and EOU in mind. I haven’t tried Zeta, but (especially considering they supposedly have access to the “real” BeOS source code), if it’s not as good as Haiku, I’d consider that pretty poor progress.
When I said early Linux version weren’t that good.
I meant in terms of the number of applications available, the not so great installers and small amount of drivers. These were limited or not very good in the early years.
For this reason, not that many people used Linux in the beginning. It took a couple of years (over 4 or 5) for improvements, before Linux started catching on & attracting both developers and users.
You are right about Linux SS&F, *but* I’ve also had SS&F with Windows XP (no viruses & I don’t use virus checkers, except those for online checks, my system never crashes & applications never or rarely ever hang on me, etc.). I’m pretty happy with SS&F and Windows XP.
There are ways to eliminate (or minimize) ever getting viruses and as for hackers, well Microsoft is being more vigilant with releasing security fixes now (to improve their reputation). And using a router helps too.
Zeta uses Haiku source, plus BeOS code, Yellowtab code & now Magnussoft code (& maybe other too). Haiku is way behind Zeta, though they could catch up if more devlopers get onboard. Time will tell.
Why did Linux get to where it is now? Because it was free, open source and an alternative to Windows. Haiku will do well also, once they have released version 1.0, because they are also free, open source & an alternative to Windows, though they need to do some catching up to Linux. Haiku has the advantage of Linux programs being open sourced, so they can be ported over to Haiku also.
Just how more dead Zeta could Be? (pun intended). The situation somehow reminds me of an old Monty Python skit about a parrot…
– they do the most stupid marketing I have ever seen
– they don’t even provide free (and usable!) demos to their non-existing user base (how hard could it be to burn 100 CDs and freely distribute them?)
– they want to gain money without seriously attracting users
I still couldn’t test Zeta because it’s obviously a pain in the *** to get a free test version running. They also did never respond to my request to be a beta tester (btw, was this a fake marketing gag which was posted on OSNews in order to get some attention?)
Without a user base ANY OS is dead. Zeta has no user base. Zeta is not free and, therefore, will never attract new users.
I seriously hope that Haiku will attract developers and users. Although Haiku still seems to be in the early stages of being usable, it’s at least free.
They also did never respond to my request to be a beta tester (btw, was this a fake marketing gag which was posted on OSNews in order to get some attention?)
That did not come from YellowTAB, but from Magnunssoft.
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=15038
Other than that, a free test version of Zeta does exist.
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=12057
No idea if it’s still there though.
Why the optimism? Well, because I’ve used Zeta 1.2 and know how good it is & many other users can tell you the same thing.
There is going to be a Zeta LiveCD 1.21 available.
They’ll probably offer a download of it also, so you’ll get a chance to test & see the newer version which supports SATA.
Beta Tester program was real, but they had lots of reponses, they went through & chose those they wanted (these were the only people to get an email). They didn’t want to email the rest of those who applied, to not waste time, writing & sending emails (makes sense to me). *BUT* they should have posted a news story on the Zeta-OS site, that choosing of beta testers had been completed (to at least let us know what was going on instead of being left in the dark wondering & waiting). Sometimes I think, they like leaving users uninformed about what is going on (maybe to busy to write a short post & put it on the site?).
Zeta has a user base and is mostly compromised of people living in Germany. Just because you need to buy it, doesn’t mean some people won’t. Zeta is a good or very good OS (shaping up well – I wasn’t too impressed with 1.0, thought it was OK, & 1.1 was better but still not there, 1.2 though is good). You get users by making a good product & then marketing it and from word of mouth (of current users).
Pricing is on the high side, so it may be somewhat difficult attracting new users, but that is Magnussoft’s choice.
Haiku will definately attract users & developers, though it seems like forever before they get R1.0 out (already Haiku is 5 years old) and the disappointing thing is that Haiku OS R1.0 will be like BeOS R5, (which is outdated) so users may not get to really see how good it is until R2.0. Though Haiku will use new icons & themes, so it may look nicer than BeOS.
Edited 2006-09-11 13:43
The post in bernd korz blog is ridiculous. Is YellowTab a kind of subdivision of the CIA,MI5 or MiB?
A bad thing about Zeta: NO trial version exist..
I once found a “live zeta” cd,it worked ok on my work’s pc (P4, IDE) but not on my home pc (Sempron64 3100+, SATA).I did send an email to Zeta but nobody answer if they are planing extended compatibility
Also, there was BeWine.. I think is dead/stopped now, tto bad it could boost the usability of any existing/future “BeOS”.
Anyway, I am wondering if Zeta (or even Haiku) can run existing BeOS software (for example what exist on bebits.com) without any conversion or recompilation needed?
As a multi OS user I can say this for Zeta. It is the fastest little operating system you have ever seen. On hardware it supports (quite enough these days) it boots in under 10 seconds to fully operational (try doing that without booting from a flash disk…. with any other OS).
I have been using it almost as much as Windows and Linux (even more these past few months) and I can tell you, that only a few things are missing for it to be my full time OS. To name them: Open document support (probably coming soon with a 3rd party office), 3D acceleration on all Nvidia and ATI VGA cards, some more IDE/SATA support (about 90% of all IDE and SATA is supported now), GCC4, MySQL (although postgres 7 works), Java and Flash.
Everything else “missing”, is either proprietary Windows stuff I never use or third party applications that aren’t that important, but can be ported once the above are there.
“As a multi OS user I can say this for Zeta. It is the fastest little operating system you have ever seen.”
Well, one of the fastest at least. I’d still like to see a performance comparision to MorphOS. I guess both are quite close together performancewise.
Booting under 10s from hd? No prob with MorphOS. Anyway, I guess we alternative OS users are hard to understand for other folks. We have our reasons. Every OS has its advantages and disadvantages (which both I do not wanna list, thread would become too long). While I do not know BeOS (or its successors) good enough to judge about it, I am sure it will have its unique features which make it worthwile.
There are other advantages and features existing beside the newest games or highest compatibility with the industry standards. It is about freedom of choice.
/user of MorphOS, Win, AOS, OS X & QNX (in that order)
Besides the fact that next versions of Zeta-OS will be based on gcc4 and will include multiuser support it is also based on the unreleased BeOS R5.1 aka. “Dano” codebase.
Between R5 and Dano were some internal changes in network stack and some system libraries, that results in incompatibilities between BeOS R5/haiku and Zeta-OS. I guess it will be difficult to oracle the future of haiku and/or Zeta. But the progress what Bernd and his team does and what he wrote in his blog seems to be very interesting to me.
RE: RE: Is it possible?
But only six(!) developers. I hate to be negative, but that is not going to do this. Some operating system projects have hundreds of developers, and need to work very hard to keep up with hardware support and build new features. Six developers is not going to cut it, sixteen neither.
How many developers does MS have and how log did they work on Vista? Compare it with Apple and you will see quantity is not equal to quality.
But I agree there are to few developers to include new drivers and apps (wasn’t an OpenOffice port planned for one of the next yT Zeta releases?). But i think stability and bughunting should be priority #1.
imo the next steps should be what the team around Bernd startet multiuser support incl. access controls.
and back to haiku, i am not sure what recent plans are but when openbeos (the first project name) startet their target was to re-develop r5 and not the dano-tree.
I think we will have two OS’s based on the ideas of beos when haiku r1 will be released.
Up until now, the Yellowtab/ZETA thing never felt right with me. Yellowtab never portayed a solid image to the outside. Never did they answer all these questions that potential users had about Zeta and yellowtab. Whether they had access to the source code for example.
And they just keep on doing their business in this manner. Like this bankruptcy stuff and Bernd working for Magnasoft now. If there’s one thing they should have learned by now it’s that users want to deal with an honest and open company!
On top of that, the product they deliver feels like a buggy beta version of what the next BeOS might have turned out to be. Yet they have the balls to ask a crazy amount of money for it and not even release a free demo!
Well, as you can see I lost my faith in Zeta completely. This is absolutely not meant as a trolling post, just an honest opinion from an old BeOS fan
and not even release a free demo!
For the ten millionth time:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=12057
The only problem with that is that the Live CD can *ONLY* be burned with Nero since the .cue file is borked and doesnt work with *ANY* other burner software (at least not any I tried).
The only problem with that is that the Live CD can *ONLY* be burned with Nero since the .cue file is borked and doesnt work with *ANY* other burner software (at least not any I tried).
Burning bootable BeFS CDs has aways been hell, and it will probably stay this way forever. This is hardly BeOS’ fault though; it’s not its fault it has such an advanced filesystem
.
I wasnt really minding the .cue file per se but the fact that it’s borked rendering it only usable if you have Nero.
Other than that, a free test version of Zeta does exist.
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=12057
No idea if it’s still there though.
Yes, Thom, I know. I did already complain about problems while burning this image in another thread… Somebody mentioned that there’s a technical reason that the demo CD can’t be burned without hazzle (no ISO format for BeOS…).
However this is no excuse in my opinion. It doesn’t suffice to dubiously present an operating system on a home-shopping TV channel and hope that people will buy their stuff without ever testing it! Somehow I can’t get rid of the impression that these guys simply want my money without providing quality and support in return (in germany, it’s called “Nepper-Schlepper-Bauernfänger”).
There’s no easy approach to test a current version of this operating system for free. For example, I’m sure they could pretty easily distribute a free demo CD of Zeta inside a printed computer magazine.
The truth is that even if they would distribute Zeta for free, I’m not so sure if many people would eventually switch to Zeta. This is why I think it’s dead. No trolling intended — just a matter of fact.
I would order this update but at this point it seems that those of us who bought 1.21 will need to pay full price for this. Something I won’t do do. They require the serial number and activation code in order to get it as an update. Which 1.21 users didn’t need or get. I hope they correct this or they are likly to end up losing users who won’t pay full price again for this OS.
I really don’t understand the pricing. I’m not a marking guru, but here is how I would play it…
Sell 1.x for $30 bucks. Seriously, they need the publicity, I would pay $30 to check it out. And sell it on Ebay.
Sell 2.0 for $60 bucks. Each upgrade downloadable for $30 bucks.
Sell 2.5 for $60, upgrade $30. etc…etc.. until they have enough users to charge $90 for a major release.
They really need people to at least install it on their computer. Who wouldn’t pay $30 to check it out?
You need a userbase before you are successful. Getting people using it is the goal.
Edited 2006-09-11 14:11
Since people praise how to runs well on older hardware, I’m curious:
1- What are the minimum specs to run it?
2- Would it run good enough on a P100 with 192MB of RAM?
I remember reading a review here in OS News stating that it flew on a PII 400 with 192 MB RAM.
Can anyone confirm what are the minimum specs to still make it usable?
From http://www.yellowtab.com/products/hardware:
Minimal Requirements:
Pentium 200MHz (or Cyrix, Athlon, Via…)
64 MB RAM
600 MB Hard Disk Space
8 MB Video Memory
bootable CD-ROM Drive
Mouse, Keyboard, 14″ Color Monitor
Even though it says Pentium 200Mhz, you probably could use a P1 100 (I don’t think it checks processor speed). But why run it on such a slow machine?
I’m not sure how well it’ll run on such an old system. Most applications need RAM rather than CPU speed which you are OK for, so could be OK, but it is like taking today’s Linux with X Windows & getting it to run on very old hardware (it may work, but not that well).
Try out BeOS Max to get a feel for BeOS (though Zeta is more polished look & feel, with improvements):
http://www.bebits.com/app/3148
You’ll also want to find & install Bone 7a (new networking stack for BeOS).
Applications can be found at http://www.bebits.com