Subject: [linux-audio-dev] Re: AES, Linux and BeOS
From: Paul Barton-Davis (pbd_AT_Op.Net)
Date: su syys 26 1999 - 16:41:27 EDT
>I do, however have a couple of questions to ask, as I know you are very
>much involved in the development side of things. I have been wondering
>how Linux and BeOS compare to each other in terms of capacities apart
>from the fact that of course BeOS remains a privately held OS. In the
>University here I plan to set up a small effort to write shareware for
>audio applications, but I'm concerned about choosing the right OS to
>work with. I must say Linux does seem like the right choice, but at the
>present moment BeOS seems much more mature, and of course the fact that
>it's a private company has helped to put it more into the minds of
>commercial developers than Linux.
I don't think that BeOS is more mature. I think it is more focused. It
also has the benefit of being an identifiable corporation, which as
you say, tends to focus the minds of those who write software to make
a profit.
I don't know of any particular benefits that BeOS would have over
Linux 2.2.10-N6. Linux has better support for leading-edge audio
applications that integrate networking and database engines. It has
more users. Its been debugged more. I think it supports SMP better. It
supports more hardware. You can read the source to learn how things
are done and not done.
BeOS doesn't come with the same range of choices, which can often be a
good thing. No trying to decide between OSS or ALSA. No trying to
decide between GNOME or KDE. You use the MediaKit and/or the MidiKit,
and thats that. Sometimes no choice is the best choice of all.
BeOS asked me a while back to port Quasimodo. A month ago, I was
planning to do this. Now I am not. Thats my take on the two of them.
--p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : pe maalis 10 2000 - 07:27:12 EST