[openbeos] Re: Updating OSes bit by bit

  • From: Michael Phipps <mphipps1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 18:15:10 -0400

On 2004-05-24 at 17:21:12 [-0400], Plüss Roland wrote:

> Seems like others here are a bit afraid of this. no offense but what gave 
> linux the chance to stand up against windows in the first place was the 
> reason that many people could work on it. not everybody knows the same amount 
> about networking, multimedia, kernelling and perhaps some other hardcore 
> stuff. the idea there is that the people who are proficient with a certain 
> topic take on the driver (or Server in BeOS terms) and put it to perfection 
> (as far as possible). i do not see a problem in this way of thinnking. the 
> only problem with linux is that (and BeOS shares somewhat the same problem) 
> it is based on c++ (or c) which is the source of many, many problems with 
> improper programming. writing a program in c++ is one thing, making it stable 
> another but making it really good is a masterpiece.
> anyways. i see that i'm producing a war in here because of this simple 
> statement i throw into it. don't be offended. open source has the idea of 
> allowing all to participate. it just does not define in what sense.

I don't grasp how language choice has anything to do with method of 

> i refered in this one more about the driver load and compatibility load. what 
> makes windows a pain in the ass to use and makes linux sometimes a pain to 
> config is the attempt to satisfy a large amount of devices out there. i mean 
> i still cannot use my networking card i especially bought once to work under 
> linux, windows and beos. somehow the driver doesn't recognize the card 
> although the chip should match the drivers. and without network connection an 
> os in todays world is doomed. keep it small and sleek. the rest will 
> (hopefully) come once the time is right.

So what you are saying, I think, is that the larger number of drivers makes 
Windows unweildy and unstable?
> c++ is the source of evil... procedural programming in this special case. 
> most of those bugs are buffer overflows or underflows which result in a wrong 
> usage of memory. as long as you rely on c++ as your main os language you will 
> always confront those problems. a good framework can reduce the problem but 
> not extinct it.
> i'm eager to see your good work though... but i'm more eager to fully compile 
> BeOS from scratch... BFS: BeOS From Scratch ^_^

Human beings are the source of bugs. :-) Regardless of language. I can't say 
that C++ doesn't have issues. Certainly I won't. But it is a moot point. Not 
only because every OS of any import is written in it, but because OBOS is 
written in it. Could/would we have fewer bugs in Pascal/Lisp/ADA/Asm? Maybe. 
But it is about 3 million lines of source code too late to debate it. :-D

Other related posts: