Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 17th Jul 2005 18:09 UTC
Zeta I've always been a huge fan of BeOS. However, there was no denying the fact that the BeOS was getting old. As many other BeOS fans, I closely followed two projects: Haiku, and yellowTAB's Zeta. The latter released 1.0 a few weeks ago. Here are the findings of an old BeOS user.
Thread beginning with comment 5571
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

"If you're willing to do a lot of work (i.e. manually syncing everything yourself, effectively meaning "use third-party sync-it programs like Spotlight Importers, but instead of having the system take care of the re-syncing for you, do it yourself"), BFS is extremely cool. But I can testify that as a multi-year user, it's too much work to be worth the effort."

Hrrrmm. I agree with many of your points, and disagree with some, but I don't think Thom was selling it as a Spotlight-buster. And changing and resynching attributes are not really that hard... and how often do they change if they were well thought-out in the first place?

I still have R5.0.3. I am also bucking for Haiku (and have Zeta RC3 as well). BUT! My primary computers are all Macs running OS X 10.4.x. So I understand what you are saying... but to me, BeOS was great and BFS was fantastic and quite useful. I wrote code to use file attributes to map information to my wife's artwork which could be pulled up and used via python on her website... it was fast and worked well and easy to add new images and map new attributes to it (since the data mapping could be done programmatically OR THROUGH the tracker).

What you are missing about BFS is that all attributes are immediately available via the user interface and modifiable as well. This is something Spotlight lacks. It is also faster and was programmatically very [easily] accessible since it is an integral part of the file system - granted having a large index file for spotlight is no slouch and works quickly as well.

Again, I understand what you are saying, since I am a BeOS user as well as a Mac OS X user (and a linux user and a windows user (on a regular basis)), but I think you are unfairly tearing BFS and file attributes down and punditing on your soapbox.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Member since:

I always found it a li dumb not to be able to search other FS eg NTFS partitions in BeOS.

What about Be_indexed? It should do that Apple 'importer' does, tried it? I'm curious.

Also I'd like to search in specific folders only but the search function in BeoS can't even filter that out : (


Reply Parent Score: 0

joe877 Member since:

What about Be_indexed? It should do that Apple 'importer' does, tried it? I'm curious.

Partially, but not exactly. I haven't personally used BeIndexed, but from looking at its description, it looks like it's simply a full-content searching engine. To the extent that Importers also provide the content to Spotlight, they are similar in that way. But really, BeIndexed is more akin to Panther's search engine (i.e. "periodically index the drive") than Spotlight.

Spotlight's Importers also provide the metadata to the Spotlight database. The BeOS equivalent would be an importing engine that set the BFS attributes, so that you could do all the typical fun BFS things, like live queries, etc., which you can do with Spotlight. BeIndexed does not do that; it's completely separate from BFS. And, of course, one of the most important things is that Spotlight is hooked into the kernel, so that the database information is updated when the file is -- it's always up-to-date. BeIndexed provides for no such thing.

So really, BeIndexed is more akin to Sherlock in Mac OS 9 or Panther's full-text searching. It's not really at all to the level of Spotlight, or even really BFS.

Reply Parent Score: 1