Klint Finley writes: “I have a question for the OS news community: There’s been a lot of talk about “BeOS refugees” and analysis of various alternatives but one that I haven’t read much discussion of is Nemesis. There was some brief commentary when OSNews ran a story on it, but that’s about it. Nemesis already has Java and GTK support [ed: without the use of X], which means it should be capable of running a lot of programs. Seems like the GIMP and Kino should run on it. And it has an Amiga/BeOS-ish UI and a slim microkernal. So why isn’t anyone developing this? It needs more hardware support and stuff, but it’s already much further along than BlueOS and OpenBeOS.“
Ask OSNews: What About Nemesis?
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Yeah! Looking at the screenshots this OS look like we should pay some attention, but the development stoped a couple years ago… Why bother? …If your idea behind Nemesis is find a refuge to BEOS, well I guess people should take time to consider QNX, Linux, FreeBSD or even AtheOS before NEMESIS while OpenBEOS is being developed.
it looks ok….it’s got a Java VM…nice…but how do i install it to a hard drive?
what partition type should i use?
it’s very well have these OSes out there that look good and can do this and that but if there’s no installation instructions apart from creating a boot floppy then how are the so called “newbies” supposed to try things like this?
i’ll be very happily wrong if someone can point me to an installation URL, but i went through their manual and it only mentions the floppy….
cheers
pete
Bah! No thanks. My first computer was an APPLE ][. Then I moved to an Atari 800XL. Then an Atari ST. Then IBM OS/2. Experimented with various Windows and Linux for a while but wasn’t quite content, they wern’t as good as OS/2 but I used win95 and Slackware anyways cuase what little OS/2 stuff I could get was too expensive and hard to find, I didn’t use OS/2 for very long and I used Windows from about 96ish-98ish when I went pretty much full time Linux due to Windows instability. Then BeOS R4. And after BeOS 4.5, Linux got regulated to my secondary OS. I ain’t refugeing my butt nowhere. OpenBeOS is showing good progress. Yellow Tab has an updated R5 in the wings. And of course the unnoficial DANO “release” has provided with some updates while I wait. I use BeOS now, and as far as I can tell I’ll be using for some time. I’m OS’d out and if BeOS’s third party support drops of the planet I’ll use my current PC without updating any hardware for as LONG as freaking possable before I use another OS.
There’s a readme in the distribution that sounds like it has instructions. I didn’t read that much of it, though, and I doubt I’ll install it.
Allow me to clarify that the reason I’m not going to to install it is more to do with disc space than anything else. I wasn’t attacking the OS.
“The most recent frame buffer supported is the Matrox Millennium II.”
So…no OpenGL I assume, and multi-channel audio is also out of reach? It’s a nice academic system, but not a MediaOS.
I don’t know why you would want to propose bringing back a dead OS when there are plenty of live operating systems around, most of which are better and in some cases free. It would make more sense to take some of the more original code and ideas from Nemesis (depending on what your interests are) and insert them into an existing project. The Nemesis project died for a reason; why revive it when the original developers aren’t even interested in it?
I can see reasons why this project would be better suited than Linux or BSD or most other already existing OS for that matter. Nemesis allows QoS throughout the entire operating system, starting from the networking to the file system, video and everything else.
Sure it isn’t an operating system that we could use now and install now, but would you install OpenBeOS at the moment? I don’t think so. Nemesis got a good source base that is clean and mostly well commented. While installation instruction and such are not presently available, what could prevent us from taking over the operating system and writing them? can’t take very long to pick it up.
As far as the partition id for booting, I’m pretty sure you use the standard file system type, 83 if you use Ext2 for example.
I tried to contact the original author a couple of times, but I never got any answer. To me this seems the biggest problem. There seems to have been some activity on it up to around May 2001, too sad I didn’t pick it up then. The main reason for this OS to die is that nobody was aware of it, or very few, it was kept in shadows, under a facade of old university project who forgot to update their own websites for months.
When a project is developed in dark alleys under the 4 or 5 other supposedly different OS projects, it can’t gain that much interest. Bring in the OS back in the light, talk about it, start documenting what’s done and what’s not and pretty sure the OS would be alive and well.
Take a look at the GUI..it’s clunky, a far cry from the simple elegance of BeOS or QNX. I dual boot BeOS and QNX so I don’t need this turkey.
Last updated in 1997???
but consider this: everyone moving to the same one or two projects, might eliminate one monopoly (not mentioning naMe$), and simply create another, and still have the market dominated by an imperfect OS. I fear that if Linux dominated the market the same way, we might be worse off. You can get support for MS products that are more involved and up to date than a newsgroup thread from 1997 pasted into a readme.
Its really a shame that OSX doesnt run on PC, and because of the hardware differences, its just as well. The Mac multimedia capabilities with a UNIX shell (and presumably security structure) really cant be touched. Too bad it wont run Halflife.
i find this really amazing. if so many supposedly great developrs are working on linux, can’t they see that it is missing any sign of elegance or the presence of a single modern feature. for god sakes, a single person can come up with something so much more neat!!!!
people should just stop bashing MS, they people woring there arevery intellegent and it shows in the products. period!
fuck linux GUIs, look at LiteStep!! it shows that LiteStep programmers are much smarter and ages ahead of linux morans. the good thhing about Linux is that it provides a giant toilet for all stupid programmers to shit in!
so all linux developers: please stick to linux!!! you shit is highly welcomed there.
thank you.
I use linux regularly, as well as windows (2k/98se). I have also experimented with several others (yes, Beos lovers, I’ve tried Beos too, and I wish it was still supported, I’d consider migrating). But for the things I do (coding and graphics) I generally stick to linux.
I wonder why people like “the jimbo” bother opening their mouths, don’t they realize that they are making asses of themselves?
Linux is very high quality software, the kernel is rock solid, and the gui is as configurable as it can get. Is it something primarily built for the desktop? no. It requires quite a bit of configuring to get it to the usability of some of its alternatives, however, the customizabilty of it more than makes up for the learning curve.
As I said, I use linux on a near constant basis, and when the desktop is set up properly, it can’t be beat for productivity.
Windows has one of the most counter-intuitive interfaces I’ve ever seen. Once I’ve gotten used to a few common things on a properly set up *ix system (multiple workspaces, window shading, etc) I find it nearly impossible to do any real work on a windows box.
As far as LiteStep goes, I think the developers are doing a great job, however they are trying to make a wagon into a car. It just doesn’t work, either some windows applications misbehave because they don’t understand a non-standard gui, or they just plain break. (Good example, run flash* on litestep, notice the panels flickering on and off at random as it “thinks” it has focus). Windows just WASN’T made to work like that, and being developed in a closed environment it never will be.
My complaint with windows first and foremost, is that I don’t want to work like MS wants me to work. I want to do things an easier more intuitive way.
So next time you want to rant about something being “shit”, try to understand that just because you have bought into the MS paradigm of how you should do things, that doesn’t necesarily mean that we can all be bought like that.
Thank you for your time.
-dag([email protected])
Don’t feed the trolls dag.
Quote:
Too bad it wont run Halflife.
You’d stay away from a Mac because it doesn’t run a game? Sheesh…put down your joystick and see what a Mac can do before passing judgement.
Halflife is old hat anyway
1) Nemesis is open source. I was asking why nobody picks up the development. Sure there’s some problems with it (GUI still on the clunky side, and the installation process is difficult), but these could be worked out. The reason the original developers quit the project is because the Cambridge stopped funding it.
2) AtheOS and GNUStep still don’t run very many apps, and OpenBeOS and BlueOS aren’t ready yet. Nemesis is ready to install and has JVM and GTK.
1) Nemesis is open source. I was asking why nobody picks up the development.
Take a look on sf and all the unfinished projects full of potental. Why work on this one, when there is x y and z?
2) AtheOS and GNUStep still don’t run very many apps
Why not port Java to AtheOS (GNUStep is a open source implementation of an API, not an OS, also it should run any NextSTEP app, and most MacOSX apps, so not really all that lacking in the app department!)
and OpenBeOS and BlueOS aren’t ready yet. Nemesis is ready to install and has JVM and GTK.
For <u><font color=”red”>B</font><font color=”blue”>e</font></u>OS users, helping with the <u><font color=”blue”>O</FONT><font color=”red”>B</font></u>OS project (of BlueOS, depending on prefence) would be much better, why divide the BeOS community even more??
Mlk