Brazillian BeOS User Group, BUG-BR, interviews Guillaume Maillard from the BlueEyedOS project.
Interview with Guillaume Maillard from BlueEyedOS (B.E.OS)
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I like this guy. He’s perfectly okay with proven technologies when possible (e.g. using XFS instead of implementing/posrting OpenBFS).
Without having read the interview, I’ll have to comment anyway: XFS was considered pretty unstable when I last looked (i.e. last week), and BFS has already been ported to Linux (which I mean to remember those guys use). Going to read now 🙂
What kinda FUD is that? Mod him down.
Either that or provide some proof.
XFS is miles ahead BFS these days and support almost everything than BFS does, and even more.
As for BFS, it is unstable too. There are many cases that the Be team didn’t want to touch while they knew about some issues (I heard about an engineer who had a PC who could destroy the filesystem after a few days of usage).
These days, personally, I favor XFS over any other filesystem today (NTFS 5 is not bad either).
I wish all these beos clone style projects would get together and work as one team. I know they have some different goals but…seems like too many different projects trying to re-invent the wheel.
beats sitting on the couch playing x-box though i guess…
I’m pretty satisfied with ReiserFS these days.
I wish all these beos clone style projects would get together and work as one team. I know they have some different goals but…seems like too many different projects trying to re-invent the wheel.
Come on. They have different ideas, they want to do different things, no one is really relying on them, it’s open source, it’s non-commercial work. Let them do that they want, that’s the spirit.
Wasn’t BFS more or less a clone of XFS anyway? Well, maybe not a clone, but definately heavily inspired by. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with using XFS over BFS at all – not only does it make data exchange with Linux systems a lot easier, it’ll also get you an army of developers working on “your” filesystem for free! Why all the extra work of reimplementing BFS when there is no real advantage in it?
Last time I checked XFS didn’t do indexable attributes yet, which is quite important in BeOS. Has this changed ?
After googling a bit I learned that neither Reiser FS nor XFS support live queries which BFS does. Probably something people can live without.
See http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=69
OSNews: “One of the qualities found on BeOS’s BFS is “live queries”. Live Queries is a query that sends (automatically) deltas when the result changes. They stay “open” after the first returned result row. Is there a plan for such a support on ReiserFS?”
Hans Reiser: Someday we should implement it, but it will be post version 4.
[…]
Nathan Scott: No, XFS does not support anything like this, and I’m not aware of any plans to implement such a feature.
Dude! Calm down!
I’m pretty sure (correct me if i’m wrong) that XFS came after BFS. I know the Linux version of XFS is pretty new, but I don’t know how new the IRIX version of XFS is.
The first XFS was around 1994 I think, and it kept evolving. BFS was created around 1998.
and supports live queries.
Is porting the BeOs API to another OS the same as recreating
the BeOS?
Sorry I didn’t have the time to help out with the cool paint program you were working on. This is even more ambitious and appreciated! ; )
BeOS, Amiga, Linux. My head is swimming. So why am I primarily using Windows 2000?
Last time I checked XFS didn’t do indexable attributes yet, which is quite important in BeOS. Has this changed ?
So? It’s still going to be much less work to add indexable attributes to XFS than rewriting the whole BFS from the scratch, I guess.
Uhm, BFS has ALREADY been ported to linux, so…
It’s perhabs not bug-free, but it’s done;
… completely (re)written (from scratch) and already features everything that the original BFS does!
look at openbeos.org
As far as I know the Kernel just lacks now the correct VFS Layer.
-A
to sort some things…
bfs?bootable filesystem
bEfs= beos filesystem
that is the analogy of the names when looking in the kernel config to add either of them…
What are “indexable” attributes?
XFS supports one type of attrbiutes and those are key/value pairs of arbitrary size.
when i was installing a disto here about a month a go i saw a mkfs.bfs in the /sbin dir and ran a man mkfs.bfs on it and found out its NOT BeOS file system. Its somthing from SCO unix.
just to let you know