Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 9th Jan 2013 10:33 UTC, submitted by Straylight
BeOS & Derivatives Ars 'reviews' Haiku, and concludes that "at the end of the day, Haiku may not be much more than an interesting diversion, something to play with on a spare bit of hardware on a rainy afternoon just for a bit of fun. But even if it amounts to no more than that, Haiku is still worth checking out." The article is a bit scant on content, but it does give me the opportunity to link to my review of Haiku alpha 1 from 3 years ago. I try Haiku every now and then to see if that review needs an update, but it always amounts to 'it got a bit more stable' - which is fantastic, but not a reason to redo it.
Thread beginning with comment 547973
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
MYOB
Member since:
2005-06-29

A number of network drivers, PCMCIA support (likely not around at the time of the Apple possible purchase though) and similar were either lifted wholesale from Linux with some vague code releases that didn't always compile and rarely gave compatible binaries; or licenced from their original copyright holders for the Linux version.

There was also Intel licenced code in the USB stack (again, later than the Apple era), Metrowerks licenced IDE, licenced MIDI stack, the 3D rendered, some other drivers were written and bought in from external sources.

What Be could have sold was about 80% of an OS with a lot of licencing issues to sort out.

Reply Parent Score: 3

phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

"licenced MIDI stack"

Uh?
By stack, you mean software MIDI synth here, right?

The MIDI *stack* as you called it, actually called Midi Kit 2, was fully designed by Be Inc.
The fact that the out-of-box software MIDI synth was using licensed technology never tainted the MIDI *stack*, as that synth was just a plain application intercommunicating with the MIDI kit, like any other MIDI applications.

"the 3D rendered"

Yeah, right, like NeXTStep wasn't using OpenGL licensed code too.

There is many reasons for the NeXT vs Be choice made by Apple at this time, but licencing issue was never a major one.

Except if you've considered Steve Jobs a "technology licence"...

Reply Parent Score: 3

henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Have you actually *seen* the source code?

The entire font rendering subsystem was also another part that was licensed. I believe the Dano version might have moved to Freetype, or maybe that was just Yellowtab, but the original code was licensed.

The difference with Next and Openstep was that Jobs had a lot more clout than Gasse. Next also produced hardware for a longer period with actual user take-up, where as Be never really got past "developers and extreme geeks" before cancelling the BeBox. Next's OS was ported to SPARC, HP RISC, X86 and obviously ran on 68000 - plus was also running internally on PowerPC in some shape (as the next slew of Next workstations were to be PowerPC based.) There was also the Openstep standard (rather than OS), which cemented the API as being a "standard" amongst a number of vendors. I know we all love to believe Be Inc was robbed, and BeOS should have been the basis of MacOS X, but that is utter bunkum. It was miles behind Openstep (both in maturity and coverage of software) and Gasse severely overplayed his cards.

Reply Parent Score: 3