🚀 go-pugleaf

Gatsby wrote:
> > 
> Simply put:
> 
>     (a)  What can Stampede do that the other two OS' can't?

Has a company behind it.  Possibility of tech support...Great
future - lots of hype, etc.  Can be hard to work with. 
Immature.  Great multitasker.  Multithreading not there at all. 
TCP/IP weak.  Multimedia, e-mail apps suck.  No DVD, USB, etc. 
Window managers can be slow, buggy, unstable.  A lot of the apps
are the same -- not very good.  Has great momentum.
> 
>     (b)  What can FreeBSD do that the other OS' can't?

Probably better than Linux.  Also very stable.  Hardware/apps
are pretty weak for sure.  Uncertain future on desktop.  More
mature than Linux.  Probably lacks multimedia, DVD, USB, etc. 
Most who have used Linux and BSD prefer BSD.  Has momentum.  
> 
>     (c)  What can BeOS do that the other OS' can't?

Multimedia, ease of use, possibly maturity.  Worse apps,
drivers, etc. than Linux.  May be the most "modern".  Maybe
cheap tech support from Be.  It's "revolutionary".  Possibly
less stable than the other two but still real stable.  Fast as
hell too.  Humungous file sizes.  Less certain future than
Linux.  Supports a lot of hardware like cameras, media players,
sound/video cards.  Does not support all motherboards, SCSI
controllers, etc.  Potential to be awesome gaming box.  Serious
lack of printers.  Has a lot of real fast, quite basic apps. 
Has some powerful momentum. 
> 
> 
> >     However, it may also be
>     an essential quality control, since the kernel's are rarely in
>     need of much revamping.  

This one doesn't.
 
It costs some 60 dollars.  However,
>     I saw a version of it(non-commerial) v. 5.0 that was free and
>     downloadable off http://www.beos.com  BeOS is supposed to
>     be the best system at pre-emptive multi-tasking, and the
>     fastest system, which takes advantage of all of the CPU's
>     power, esp modern CPU's.

It's the "media OS".  Buy the book "Be Bible" if you wanna run
it.  Be is real easy to use.  I mean easy.  I mean your grandma
can use it.  The GUI is really great.  I like it.  Hope you
don't think it is "childish".  The founder left Apple and
admires them greatly.  Be could really take off on the desktop. 
I mean like replace Windows, okay?  Or lose it all...    
> 
> Please tell me if any of what I have is wrong, and please elaborate on all
> of it.  Please add to the qualities of each operating system, as u see fit.
> 
> My main use of my computer if for playing games such as
> TombRaider(I - IV) and Descent(I - III), as well as using the internet for
> web-surfing and such.  

How will you play these games on any of these OS's?

I also will want to be using voice commands via voice
> recognition.  

Forget it.  They don't have it.  OS/2 does, though.  Surprised
you didn't check that out.  OS/2 is absolutely awesome, just
like the others.  Probably has more apps/drivers than any of
them, too.  Has about as many users as Linux.  

 As I'm a
> tech-phile, voice command is pretty important to me, so it'd be very
> preferrable if I could use them.  

None of these OS's has it at all.

Also, I like many of the X-Windows Windows
> managers such as SCWM and KDE.  I would like to be able to use them on
> whatever system I pick. 
 
Doubt if you can use them on Be.
-- 
Bob

"We believe that OS/2 is the platform of the 90's." Bill Gates,
1989 (on videotape).

Remove ".diespammersdie" to reply.

Gatsby(heinrich@rochester.rr.com) be all Stampede, FreeBSD, BeOS

I'm not going to Rant on linux or bsd today, i like them both,
and prefer linux out of the two. Instead, i'll Share what i've
learned of BeOS.

>    BeOS is partially open, though the kernal remains copyrighted.

The kernel allows for addons (much like a linux kernel module) to be
Thrown into the operating system seamlessly. Therefore, you can add
to the Be kernel, you just cannot remove from or change it. All you 
do is copy it into a directory. Very easy. And it works like a charm.

>    So, hacks can modify the OS quite a bit, giving them flexibility,
>    but can not make any essential changes b/c the kernel is not
>    open.  This may slow true evolution.  However, it may also be
>    an essential quality control, since the kernel's are rarely in

They do this because Their Internet Appliances (see Below) use The
Be Kernel, and that's where they plan to make most of their money
in the future.

>    need of much revamping.  It costs some 60 dollars.  However,
>    I saw a version of it(non-commerial) v. 5.0 that was free and

Yes, This comes out on Tuesday the 28th, Available for free download.
Be, Inc. is moving their primary agenda to Internet Appliances, which
use a modified BeOS they call Spider(?). The $60 version you mentioned
is the older Be v4.5, which i used for quite some time, and will no 
longer be developed. Be 5's EXACT details and specs havent' been 
released. That's sort of a tuesday surprise for us faithful Be users..

>    downloadable off http://www.beos.com  BeOS is supposed to
>    be the best system at pre-emptive multi-tasking, and the
>    fastest system, which takes advantage of all of the CPU's
>    power, esp modern CPU's.

It's absolutely Fabulous here. If you choose to play with the BeOS,
definitely grab ProcessController off bebits.com... It's one of the 
nicest tools i've seen for managing processes.

>
>Please tell me if any of what I have is wrong, and please elaborate on all
>of it.  Please add to the qualities of each operating system, as u see fit.
>

There's only 3 Problems i have with the Be Operating system. Those are:
A. It's single-user. 
   There is no root, and there is only one other user. This also has the 
   side-effect of having my computer think that every file is owned by a 
   user named 'baron'.

B. Interface Configuration.
   BeOS was made originally as an Alternative to the MacOS, and inherited 
   this from Mac. Very few colors can be changed, your mouse pointer is
   always the same, and it has kind of a bright-colored feel to it. It's
   nowhere near as bad as the Mac, and if you use the Living Dangerously
   Application, it's possible to change the Tab (be term for titlebar)
   color, which was the most annoying part, to me.
   
C. Licensing!!! (gasp)
   Very Few Be Developers or Programmers use the GPL. All i can Say about
   That is that it's a dead-end road, And it needs to change for them.

>I am not interested in using my computer as a server.  I am also not highly
>concerned with security -- in other word, I don't need fort knox on my
>computer, but I do need a secure computer, which all of these seem to
>provide.  My main use of my computer if for playing games such as
>TombRaider(I - IV) and Descent(I - III), as well as using the internet for

Buy a Playstation for Gaming. ;)

>web-surfing and such.  I also will want to be using voice commands via voice
>recognition.  Basically, I want the OS that can do all of those the best, or
>the combination that would be able to do all of them best.  As I'm a
>tech-phile, voice command is pretty important to me, so it'd be very

As was mentioned before, OS/2 can handle Voice Control, and is a Nice OS,
but IBM no longer works on it. OS/2 is more or less dead for PC's, altho
High-End IBM Servers still run OS/2.

>preferrable if I could use them.  Also, I like many of the X-Windows Windows
>managers such as SCWM and KDE.  I would like to be able to use them on

In order to use these on the BeOS you'd need to install their version of the
X-Windows system. This is, however, not TOO productive, as X runs as a Be App, 
and your Be programs don't run inside of it. Meaning, no Window Manager for 
native Be Apps.

>whatever system I pick.  Also, I don't want anything resembling Mac's OS;
>or, I want something that can be configured so it bears no resemblance to
>the Mac OS what-so-ever -- I hate those cute, child-computers.

I hate The Mac OS with a passion, But i love Be. Be's interface isn't
close enough to The Mac OS to make it nautious, and Be's done a nicer
job of point/click. It works almost Seamlessly with everything in the OS,
or any programs you might Add.

>
>

--Rando Christensen
eyez@xanthor.net

"Gatsby" <heinrich@rochester.rr.com> writes:

>    FreeBSD is also open source, but any updates to it must pass     a
>'qaulity test'.  This prevents inept patches from getting thru,
>    but may also prevent rigorous development.  It is v. stable,

I'd say it encourages rigorous development, but maybe makes vigorous
development more chalenging?

	David.

On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 01:25:46 GMT "Gatsby" awoke from a deep unsettled sleep and 
said......
> Well, thank you all for your excellent responses to my questions on FreeBSD
> & Linux.  However, now I am need additional (opinions) information.  I just
> read about BeOS and it also seems like a high-quality surperior OS which may
> be suitable for me.  My next system is going to be a pentium 1000MHz
> computer, with no operating system pre-installed(I don't want any MS
> programs).  I am basically trying to figure out which OS I want to get for
> it.  If I can't draw any clear distinction/surperiority between these three,
> I may simply get all three, or a combination of them.  I got reduced to
> these three choices b/c they seem to be the best alternate OS':  Stampede
> b/c it is a Linux sys created from scratch; FreeBSD b/c of it's
> extra-ordinary stability and slightly better performance; and BeOS b/c of
> it's stablity and exceptional persformance w/ multimedia, multi-tasking, and
> all that high-powered stuff.  Basically, I'd like information on the Pro's
> and Con's of each one.(I already asked v. specific questions about
> BSD&Linux.
> 
> Simply put:
> 
>     (a)  What can Stampede do that the other two OS' can't?
> 
>     (b)  What can FreeBSD do that the other OS' can't?
> 
>     (c)  What can BeOS do that the other OS' can't?
> 
> So far, I've managed to figure out this much:
> 
>     Linux(Stampede) is the most open and free system, with little
>     regulation on patches/developments, thus it can develop/
>     evolve v. fastly, but perhaps chaotically.  Also, it is free.
> 
>     FreeBSD is also open source, but any updates to it must pass     a
> 'qaulity test'.  This prevents inept patches from getting thru,
>     but may also prevent rigorous development.  It is v. stable,
>     and is said to be somewhat faster than Linux-family OS'.  Also
>     free.
> 
>     BeOS is partially open, though the kernal remains copyrighted.
>     So, hacks can modify the OS quite a bit, giving them flexibility,
>     but can not make any essential changes b/c the kernel is not
>     open.  This may slow true evolution.  However, it may also be
>     an essential quality control, since the kernel's are rarely in
>     need of much revamping.  It costs some 60 dollars.  However,
>     I saw a version of it(non-commerial) v. 5.0 that was free and
>     downloadable off http://www.beos.com  BeOS is supposed to
>     be the best system at pre-emptive multi-tasking, and the
>     fastest system, which takes advantage of all of the CPU's
>     power, esp modern CPU's.
> 
> Please tell me if any of what I have is wrong, and please elaborate on all
> of it.  Please add to the qualities of each operating system, as u see fit.
> 
> I am not interested in using my computer as a server.  I am also not highly
> concerned with security -- in other word, I don't need fort knox on my
> computer, but I do need a secure computer, which all of these seem to
> provide.  My main use of my computer if for playing games such as
> TombRaider(I - IV) and Descent(I - III), as well as using the internet for
> web-surfing and such.  I also will want to be using voice commands via voice
> recognition.  Basically, I want the OS that can do all of those the best, or
> the combination that would be able to do all of them best.  As I'm a
> tech-phile, voice command is pretty important to me, so it'd be very
> preferrable if I could use them.  Also, I like many of the X-Windows Windows
> managers such as SCWM and KDE.  I would like to be able to use them on
> whatever system I pick.  Also, I don't want anything resembling Mac's OS;
> or, I want something that can be configured so it bears no resemblance to
> the Mac OS what-so-ever -- I hate those cute, child-computers.
> 
> 
I realise I'm going to get shot down in flames for saying this, but here goes:
I'm not a techie, but from what little I know, your comparison of the 3 differen
t OSs makes a lot of sense, as do the comments in the follow-up messages you've 
had so far. The problem really starts with the second part of your posting: You 
say that you are building a new pooter in order to play games such as TombRaider
 and Descent and that voice recognition is really important. Also that you don't
 want an OS that "resembles the Mac OS what-so-ever". I hate to say it but there
 is really only one logical choice you can make based on this : Microsoft Window
s 2000.

malcolm johnson	
BeOS user
Shetland Isles

>
> Simply put:
>
> (a) What can Stampede do that the other two OS' can't?
>
> (b) What can FreeBSD do that the other OS' can't?
>
> (c) What can BeOS do that the other OS' can't?

BeOS doesnt really do stuff that you absolutely CANT do in other OS'es,
but, it does stuff better, faster, cheaper, and more stable. Media is
what they are shooting for, and they need dev's.


>
> BeOS is partially open, though the kernal remains copyrighted.
> So, hacks can modify the OS quite a bit, giving them flexibility,
> but can not make any essential changes b/c the kernel is not
> open. This may slow true evolution. However, it may also be
> an essential quality control, since the kernel's are rarely in
> need of much revamping. It costs some 60 dollars. However,
> I saw a version of it(non-commerial) v. 5.0 that was free and
> downloadable off http://www.beos.com BeOS is supposed to
> be the best system at pre-emptive multi-tasking, and the
> fastest system, which takes advantage of all of the CPU's
> power, esp modern CPU's.
>

Yes, BeOS is really cool.


> I am not interested in using my computer as a server. I am also not
highly
> concerned with security -- in other word, I don't need fort knox on my
> computer, but I do need a secure computer, which all of these seem to
> provide. My main use of my computer if for playing games such as
> TombRaider(I - IV) and Descent(I - III), as well as using the internet
for
> web-surfing and such. I also will want to be using voice commands via
voice
> recognition. Basically, I want the OS that can do all of those the
best, or
> the combination that would be able to do all of them best. As I'm a
> tech-phile, voice command is pretty important to me, so it'd be very
> preferrable if I could use them. Also, I like many of the X-Windows
Windows
> managers such as SCWM and KDE. I would like to be able to use them on
> whatever system I pick. Also, I don't want anything resembling Mac's
OS;
> or, I want something that can be configured so it bears no resemblance
to
> the Mac OS what-so-ever -- I hate those cute, child-computers.
>


BeOS is easier to use than linux and freeBsd but it is not a child like
MAc.
It has a version of Descent, but im unsure aobut TombRaider. I dont
think you will find anything you can do that is for Linux and BSD and
not BeOS.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

In article <uuzC4.3491$mV5.50976@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com>,
Gatsby <heinrich@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
(munch) bits about stampede linux, FreeBSD and BeOS
>
>I am not interested in using my computer as a server.  I am also not highly
>concerned with security -- in other word, I don't need fort knox on my
>computer, but I do need a secure computer, which all of these seem to
>provide.  My main use of my computer if for playing games such as
>TombRaider(I - IV) and Descent(I - III), as well as using the internet for
>web-surfing and such.  I also will want to be using voice commands via voice
>recognition.  Basically, I want the OS that can do all of those the best, or
>the combination that would be able to do all of them best.  As I'm a
>tech-phile, voice command is pretty important to me, so it'd be very
>preferrable if I could use them.  Also, I like many of the X-Windows Windows
>managers such as SCWM and KDE.  I would like to be able to use them on
>whatever system I pick.  Also, I don't want anything resembling Mac's OS;
>or, I want something that can be configured so it bears no resemblance to
>the Mac OS what-so-ever -- I hate those cute, child-computers.

Based on your requirements I think you are needlessly limiting
yourself by your outdated aversion to Macintosh.  Why outdated?
Because the next release of Mac OS is based on a Mach+FreeBSD core.
Your requirements are largely centered on gaming, web surfing, and
sound processing.  All of these would be better suited by a commercial
release of Mac OS X than any of the other releases you discussed.

The stability, security, and compatibility with freeware distributions
are answered by the Darwin Core of OS X.  The availability of a
wider range of games and more mature voice technology would be
better suited by the commercial offerings in the top layers of OS X.

I fully admit that Mac OS had a well deserved reputation as a toy
compared to other OSes in the past.  I had a strong aversion to
Macs for most of the past 15 years.  I've used every major Unix or
Unix-like platform since v7 in the early 80s.  I've also had access
to the Rhapsody, and OS X server releases for several years.  I
assure you that this point of view is now outdated.  Earlier versions
of Mac OS may have deserved the label "cute, child-computers".  OS
X has considerable substance and should not be dismissed on those
grounds.


-- 
  ___ ___ | James E. Quick                  jq@quick.com 
   / /  / | Quick & Associates              NeXTMail O.K.
\_/ (_\/  | If only the HMO would cover my allergy to gravity.
       )  | 

"James E. Quick" schreef:

> Based on your requirements I think you are needlessly limiting
> yourself by your outdated aversion to Macintosh.  Why outdated?
> ...
> The stability, security, and compatibility with freeware distributions
> are answered by the Darwin Core of OS X.  The availability of a
> wider range of games and more mature voice technology would be
> better suited by the commercial offerings in the top layers of OS X.
> ...
> I fully admit that Mac OS had a well deserved reputation as a toy
> compared to other OSes in the past.  I had a strong aversion to
> Macs for most of the past 15 years. I assure you that this point of view is now
> outdated.  Earlier versions of Mac OS may have deserved the label "cute,
> child-computers".  OS X has considerable substance and should not be dismissed
> on those grounds.

I haven't tried it yet, but it looks pretty mature
Anybody can take a look for themselves at: http://www.apple.com/macosx/

greetz Jeroen

"James E. Quick" schreef:
> outdated.  Earlier versions of Mac OS may have deserved the label "cute,
> child-computers".  OS X has considerable substance and should not be dismissed
> on those grounds.

However, MacOS X Server was realeased in a hurry, before They could get it
stable, Or teach their techs anything about it. From a conversation i've
had on icq with someone who had to use it at work, The Support for it is
TERRIBLE, The person i spoke with had a problem for which the techs on
their support line said "reinstall from the cd."... And when they had
actually SHOWN the problem to a mac Tech who was there, he scratched his
head and said "that's odd" as he walked away.

Hopefully For OS X Regular thingy, when it comes out, will shine for us,
huh?

-- 
Rando Christensen
eyez@xanthor.net
<perception is reality>