## BeOS vs. Linux? No Such Fight

By Scot Hacker
July 20, 1998

My appreciation goes out to Cal Godot and Chris Herborth for their invaluable feedback on this journal entry and its accompanying chart.

People seeking a serious alternative to the Microsoft and Apple juggernauts may become easily overwhelmed by the sheer number of choices they face. The OS Wizard in System Commander lists 31 -- yes, 31! -- different operating systems that run on x86 hardware (though many of these are subtle variations and versions, leaving around 20 truly distinct choices). If you're willing to buy a dedicated Apple machine or wait for MacOS X, you can add MacOS to the list, and there are several barely known alternatives that aren't included in System Commander's Wizard.

Of course, it's craziness to even consider installing that many OSes on a single machine (though System Commander can handle it if you're feeling a little nutty and have gobs of disk space to spare). But most people looking to get OS Religion aren't crazy -- they're casting about for serious alternatives to the status quo for reasons I've discussed at length in previous Journal entries. Of those 20+ operating systems, only a few emerge as real contenders for most users, and from that handful of options, only two emerge as powerhouses in today's computing climate. I'm talking about genuine, realistic alternatives capable of handling a broad array of tasks for a broad array of users with the usual criteria: speed, efficiency, stability, customizability, a good upgrade path toward the future, a wide application base, a good support network, and a substantial array of supported hardware. The two systems I'm referring to are Linux and BeOS. Neither of them fulfill all of these criteria 100%, but they come darn close in various ways, so I want to spend a little time this month exploring their similarities and differences.

Please don't get your underwear in a bunch if I don't consider your favorite OS a serious contender for new users of alternative OSes. I'm talking here about mass-scale, well-rounded, technologically sophisticated systems with a real chance of making a difference in the OS world, and while OS/2 or AmigaOS or Solaris (or whatever) may all be exceptional in their own rights, they don't represent the best possible alternatives for new OS users in 1998.

BeOS and Linux aren't at war. In fact, they complement one another very nicely. These systems have evolved under very different circumstances, to meet very different needs. BeOS and Linux users share a common desire to see healthy alternatives flourish, and to see excellent technologies take root where the mainstream has failed to deliver. At the same time, the cultures surrounding them have fundamental differences. For the new user considering a plunge into alternative operating system space, I've summarized some of the major similarities and differences between BeOS and Linux culture and technology. A BeOS vs. Linux technology comparison chart can be found here.

### Similarities

While both systems include a Unix-based command line shell, Linux users tend to be more avid hackers than BeOS users, while BeOS attracts a greater cross-section of the creativity / multimedia market (though both system attract geekier users than the mainstream OSes). At the same time, both systems are becoming easier to install, use, and configure with every passing release, making them progressively more attractive to mainstream consumers.

Both BeOS and Linux are struggling for the recognition they deserve in what often appears to be a deaf and blind computer industry. Both BeOS and Linux are more efficient than the mainstream offerings, extracting far more performance from far less hardware than do Windows or MacOS. Both systems include technological offerings Windows and MacOS can only dream about, and users of both systems pride themselves on doing things right. Kludges and workarounds to compensate for the burden of the past are not welcome in either camp (though Linux bears more legacy weight than BeOS because of its heritage -- Linux began life as a simple port of an ancient operating system, while BeOS was written from scratch to take advantage of a high-bandwidth multimedia future).

Both systems are POSIX-compliant (POSIX in BeOS is currently incomplete in a few areas and thus does not bear the official POSIX compliance stamp). Both systems enjoy the many fruits of the open software model, although in Linux' case this fact extends to the operating system itself, whereas BeOS is a proprietary system that can easily run recompiled open source software. Unlike on MacOS and Windows, many BeOS and Linux programs are distributed along with source code and an invitation to users to improve and redistribute the software. A compiler and development environment is included with every copy of BeOS, and is considered standard fare in Linux distributions.

### Differences

Linux has been employed in the public sector for quite a few more years than BeOS, and has sheer numbers on its side. Thousands of programmers have contributed to the collective Linux code base, and as a result, Linux has a huge wealth of mature applications and hardware support that BeOS does not yet enjoy. Be is no longer a snot-nosed startup, but neither is it a huge, entrenched, disconnected company like Microsoft, Apple, or IBM. Be currently has around 70 employees, but labored behind locked doors as a much smaller team for half of its life. Both hardware and application support are huge priorities for Be, but these things take time no matter who you are. Still, Be has already managed to build support for an impressive array of the most common PC hardware, and new BeOS applications and utilities emerge daily.

There are advantages and disadvantages to having a parent company running the show (BeOS is created and owned by Be, Inc.; Linux is created by the people, for the people). For one, a parent company guarantees a consistency of interface and API that's difficult if not impossible to match when thousands of people are trying to reach consensus (or worse, all doing things differently), as often happens in the Linux world. And while support has never been a problem in the Linux space, CEOs tend to perceive a problem with Linux support; an illusion with which Be won't have to grapple. Many Linux users appreciate their lack of corporate infrastructure -- they know their system isn't subject to the whims of the market, nor can it be affected by unfortunate managerial decisions. On the other hand, BeOS users have a single, unified point of contact, an official vision from a single entity. The corporate structure puts all the vision under one roof. It may not be democratic, but it's clean and efficient.

In terms of audience, Be decisively targets the media creator and consumer (an increasingly large and important part of daily computing life), while Linux largely inherits Unix' role as a high-powered programming, data-crunching, and serving platform. Many Linux users thrive on the chaotic nature of their platform, and the Linux culture in general often bristles with revolutionary fervor (though there are office secretaries out there using Linux too!). Many BeOS users are adamantly anti-Microsoft, but far fewer are anti-corporation. Most are simply excited by BeOS' amazing technology. While many Linux users want to destroy Redmond, Be's strategy is one of peaceful coexistence; Be knows that users have a need for multiple operating systems on their hard drives, and have no interest in "mooning the ogre," as Jean-Louis puts it.

Speaking of technology, BeOS and Linux are fundamentally different in inception and execution. Linux boots to the command line, and the optional GUI is bolted on top, while BeOS can only be booted into the GUI -- its bash command line is run from the integrated Terminal application. BeOS is known for incredibly fast boot and application launch speeds: the machine I'm writing on boots BeOS in eight seconds, Linux in 70 seconds. Similarly, no BeOS application takes longer than two seconds to launch on this machine; not so for Linux. On the other hand, the fact that Linux can be hacked and modified to suit the needs of a particular situation is one of the reasons why ISPs choose Linux more than any other single OS. Linux is a fine-tuned network serving system, while BeOS is a fine-tuned desktop and workstation OS. Technologically and operationally, BeOS and Linux are different enough to make comparisons almost pointless.

In the realm of hard-core networking, Linux wins hands-down and probably will continue to do so for some time to come -- the finely tuned Apache Web Server still powers the majority of the world's Web sites. On the other hand, setting up and working with BeOS networking is leagues more intuitive than it is under Linux. BeOS includes a bundled personal Web server (called PoorMan) capable of dishing up low-to-medium traffic sites, while RedHat Linux comes with the industrial-strength Apache. Be will continue to advance its networking capabilities, but they won't prioritize it as Linux devotees have. Instead of trying to fight well-established markets, Be puts their energies where they can win -- on high-demand multimedia and radical multitasking. By doing so, Be has created a system that stays responsive under multitasking loads that would crumble other OSes. Under no other operating system can you launch eight QuickTime movies simultaneously, then going to read your e-mail, format a floppy, and decompress a zipped backup all at once and have the system still respond to your next mouse click with little delay.

Installation and configuration is another arena of difference. It's not uncommon for people to start with a Windows-only system, repartition their hard disk, install BeOS, and be using it for the first time in 15 minutes flat. Linux installation has made great leaps recently, but even RedHat 5 (widely considered the easiest Linux installation available) took me far longer than that to get up and running, and required more consultation of documentation. 99% of BeOS behaviors and preferences are tweaked via user-friendly GUI applets, while Linux still requires many behaviors to be configured via hand-edited text files.

The most important difference, though, is the potential that BeOS has to offer as a result of its "fresh start" approach. Linux is awesome in many ways, but no matter how you slice it, it's still basically an evolved port of a 20+ year-old operating system, and with that age comes a certain amount of baggage. Linux may be far more efficient than Windows, but it still carries the past on its shoulders, and (more importantly) lacks many of the futuristic technologies built into BeOS from the start. For example, the ease and elegance of data-sharing between BeOS applications via BMessages, the built-in scriptability of all BeOS applications, the ability of the system to take maximum advantage of any number of CPUs without developers having to specifically code in multi-proc support, the extensibility of the entire operating system via plug-ins ("known as Add-Ons")... I could go on, but you should read Be's whitepaper, The MediaOS to learn more. All of BeOS's amazing technology comes at a price though -- Be has to cut a swath through the jungle of an entrenched industry, develop an installed base of users, support the hardware out there, and make it as easy and fruitful as possible for developers to make a living writing BeOS software -- all things that Linux already has under its belt.

### Common Ground

If the point isn't clear as glass by now, I'll say it outright: BeOS and Linux complement one another, and make for great kissin' cousins on any hard drive. Both seem to pick up nicely where the other leaves off. The days of thinking "one computer, one operating system" are over, and ecosystems thrive best under biologically diverse conditions. Linux is more mature, has more applications (right now), and supports more hardware. BeOS is lighter on its feet, has way more exciting technology, offers a far more pleasant "out of box" experience, and is supported by a company with an infrastructure as logical and lightweight as the operating system they build.

You want my honest personal opinion? (As if you didn't already know). I enjoy using BeOS a lot more than Linux, even though there's still wet cement in some places. At the same time, I'd run my Web sites from a Linux server before I'd run them from a BeOS machine at this point in the game. Linux is a Land Rover and BeOS is a Maserati. The cool thing is, with Linux being free (though installation CDs and manuals with enhanced distributions run around $30) and BeOS still $69, just about anyone can afford to run both for about the same cost as a single Windows 98 upgrade (while NT Workstation runs around $319).

Want to compare these cousins at a glance? I've constructed a BeOS / Linux technology comparison chart for quick reference.

### Random Notes

- Version 3.1 of BeOS was released last month and provides broader hardware support, the first appearance of a serial port preferences application, and an experimental graphics acceleration tool for Pentium Pro and Pentium II machines. See PC Magazine's review.

- A benefactor has emerged from the shadows to assist BeOS developers in bringing their applications to maturity with a BeOS venture capital fund. See the BeFund's first newsletter.

- Two of the best BeOS news sites have merged into a single powerhouse -- BeOS Central and Believe are now one entity, called BeOS Central. BeLeadingEdge and BeForever continue to thrive.

- BeTrieve now provides an alternate download source for BeOS applications and software.

- Software, software, software. See Be's BeWare section to browse the collection of available applications.