As I understand it, Yuzu was backed by an actual company that they setup to process their "donations", and by getting donations you could get privileged access to new builds.
So for Yuzu there was an legal entity making money off (Nintendo argued) selling access to playing pirated games.
Dolphin doesn't accept donations, so there's no good way of arguing anyone is making any money off it. Sure, Nintendo could go after individual contributors to Dolphin (if they can find out exactly who they are - presumably many of them are aware of the risks and try to stay anonymous) but it would be costly and it's unlikely to yield any positive results.
I think it's more likely the original BeOS source code contains proprietary code licensed from third-parties, which means someone would have to spend significant effort on figuring out what can and cannot be released.
Much worse, it's likely the BeOS code includes a bunch of unlicensed stuff. Be had been caught more than once "accidentally" including GPL'd code in their proprietary OS back when they existed. I doubt it's just GPL code that "accidentally" gets copy pasted into a codebase like that. If somebody has the code (e.g. from a previous job) it's getting pasted in "Just temporarily" and never being removed because there are always higher priorities.
(though to be honest, Android has a lot of BeOS concepts in it because the same engineers ended up working on it too. It has Binder, and Intents are basically BMessages - there are all the Loopers, Handlers and Receivers too...)
Just another proof that copyright laws must be heavily reformed asap because they continue to harm development also in cases where any reason of protecting some company's IP is long gone.
Is it though? I think there's scope to improve the laws around intellectual property, but I feel like it's a stretch to suggest that the lack of BeOS source code "harms development".
An open source desktop OS that was basically usable for day-to-day stuff and easy to install, released in 2001? I don't think it's hyperbole to say that that would have changed the course of computer history.
Were you there at the time? Because I was a big computer nerd at the time, huffing all the OS/OS fumes I could get my grubby little hands on. Windows 3 had already won the game -- and that was when non-computer-nerds were asking their computer-nerd friends for advice and getting PCs hand-built by the same. When win95 came out, the non-computer-nerds forgot that the command line existed. When win98 came out, even computer-nerds were losing interest in the command line. Win2k was (imho) the best windows operating system ever released. It was extremely stable and usable, supported everything but apple software and a few bits and bobs that nobody but us nerds cared about, and it took serious effort to buy a computer that didn't have it installed by default.
So a year after win2k is released, your selling points are "basically usable" ( vs "highly compatible"), "free/[nerd-shibboleth]" (vs "hidden in the cost of a computer"), and "easy to install" (vs "already installed"). I think it's hyperbole to suggest that BeOS being open source would have dramatically changed the course of computer history. If anything, I think it's worth considering what would have happened to the already-paltry Linux Desktop experience if BeOS absorbed developer attention.
While I agree that Win2k was good, I don't think it was quite that popular; The computers you could normally get were still Win98/Me until WinXP. The only way you'd have gotten Win2k pre-installed was either getting a workstation-class machine or unlicensed machines.
I was kind of there. I ran BeOS for a while for fun some years after it had died, in between moving from Macs (which I grew up on in the 90's) to BSD and then Linux.
My point was basically what you're saying: BeOS was not nearly where Windows was, but it was miles and miles ahead of Linux, and it provided a unified graphical OS instead of the fragmented Linux base with all its duplicated efforts. Now, it's hard to say whether we the cascade of attention-deficit teenagers would have united behind an MIT/GPL BeOS and succeeded in producing something actually usable by people who were interested in doing more with their computers than setting up Conky and Fluxbox to post screenshots online, but I think the landscape might have looked different if it'd been an option. BeOS when I used it in 2005 or so was already curiosity, an antique, but if you take all the people who were working on Haiku (which started as OpenBeOS around the end of Be, Inc.), and throw in a handful of the people who were working on KDE and XFCE, starting from everything BeOS could do in 2001, instead of Linux and raw X, what do you have in 2005-6 when Ubuntu started picking up steam?
The problem with your hypothesis is that in the lead up to 2001 you have Linux as open Source, and Windows (et al) as commercial offerings. And the commercial stuff is waaaay ahead at this point.
The conclusion one draws from this is that "commercial development" (which is centered around intellectual property and copyright) is progressing faster than open source. In other words it's a kinda A/B test and copyrighted software is progressing faster.
From that point of view it's then hard to be convincing that adding another open-source operating system to the mix (one which has by this point failed commercially) would somehow improve development (as a whole).
(I'm referencing the original assertion in this thread;
"Just another proof that copyright laws must be heavily reformed asap because they continue to harm development ")
Now clearly Linux has become a player in the server space. And the BSD's have some small market share. Would the addition of BeOS dilute those already megre resources? Can one, hand on heart, look at open-source development and say it's developing faster than commercial software? Is Firefox leading development in Browsers or is it Chrome? [1] Is Linux (even today) leading desktop development? Or is it Mac and Windows? Generally speaking, if we look at the "big improvements" over the last 20 years, are they happening in the commercial space or the open-source space?
I'm as big a fan of Open Source as the next guy. But I don't think "copyright harms development". I think Open Source is a superb benefit to humanity. But I don't think of Open Source (generally) as a hot-bed of innovation. The tag line of "xxx is an Open Source clone of yyy" seems more common than the reverse.
Do I think intellectual property law needs reformation? yes. There's a lot which could be improved. But claiming that BeOS is "proof" that copyright is holding us back is, in my opinion, a weak argument for said reformation.
[1] Yeah, I know Chrome is "open source" - but it's resourced by a very commercial company for very commercial reasons.
[2] It's also worth noting that _abandoning_ things like copyright law would affect GPL code as much as commercial code. Making everything into effectively "public domain" allows for GPL code to be shipped in binary form _without_ supplying source code.
I'm talking specifically about a graphical operating system for desktop purposes, something that people coming from Mac OS 9 or Windows 98/ME might have moved to. I think BeOS was far closer to providing that than Linux was in 2001, and that that might have mattered if it'd had been picked up and developed further as opposed to dying on the vine. I think there were a lot of people who looked into desktop Linux at that time but didn't take to it. A freed BeOS would have had a much better day-to-day alternative than Linux was, and running on cheap hardware unlike Mac OS X.
I don't really think your idea of A/B testing commercial vs. open source holds water. Look at what happened to OS X vs. Windows during the 00's, there's no comparison. There are so many other things at play.
This looks great! As an engineer who has used Mixpanel at multiple companies it has always annoyed me that what you get for what you pay seems quite poor, so I'm very happy to see some alternatives.
I'm also happy to note that you are from (the wrong part of ;)) Sweden.
I have an XPS 13 (the current Intel version, not the ARM version obviously) and they definitely have not. In fact, I've had the touchbar replaced 3 times and the whole computer replaced once because when the touchbar gets too hot, it starts "phantom pressing" the keys on it.
The replacement machine still has the issue, but it has a newer generation CPU which generally runs a bit less hot, so it's not as big an issue as it was on the previous machine.
It might not be a problem for DOS 4, but often the source code of software that was only ever meant to be published as closed source contains source code that was licensed from 3rd parties. This license may not allow publishing the source code.
Doing an investigation of what licensed software was used and possibly trying to get permission from the relevant rights holders (if you can even figure out who owns the rights so many years later) can be a big and expensive task, unfortunately. I understand why companies might not want to take that on (even though it sucks).
For DOS, I believe the core was only ever Microsoft or IBM. Some DOS versions bundled add-ons by third parties, but they are hardly essential for operation - e.g. MS-DOS 6 included DEFRAG and MSBACKUP (both licensed from Symantec) and MSAV (licensed from Central Point Software)
Similarly, with Windows, the third-party components are generally inessentials such as certain device drivers, games, some optional system components like the ZIP file support in Windows Explorer-you would still have a usable OS with these bits ripped out. Parts of NTVDM are third-party licensed, although I believe that’s mainly the software CPU emulator used on RISC platforms, I think x86 was mostly Microsoft’s own code
From MS-DOS 6, remove the defrag, backup and antivirus programs, and DoubleSpace/DriveSpace, and that should I think cover all external code.
If I remember correctly, it didn't include CD-ROM drivers, just MSCDEX to run on top of one... and the network stack was an optional extra. I'm not even 100% sure it includes a mouse driver as standard.
IBM PC DOS 6.3, 7.0 and 7.1 include some additional IBM code: Rexx in place of QBASIC, the IBM E editor, but not much else.
Isn't the zip support in explorer the stuff written by Dave Plummer? I would imagine MS has the rights to that already, and if they don't, I'd imagine Dave would, and I'm sure he'd be fine with it being released.
He has lots of YouTube videos about the zip stuff.
DOS is relatively speaking tiny and actually pretty modular. You can delete a handful of files, mostly binaries and some help files, and that's it, code gone.
From the source it's a little different but there's little integration between the bits.
That's my point. Just ban tiktok because it's Chinese government spyware already. All this think about the children stuff is just beating around the bush.
AFAIK there's no "certifying body" that would be able to provide an external "certification".
In any case Filip Skokan has essentially made a career out of building open source OAuth stuff, so even if it's a bit humorous that he certifies his own stuff, it's likely that this implementation is one of the most compliant out there.
Their about page (https://rolldown.rs/about) describes why they want to do this, but after reading it I'm still unsure why they can't accomplish their goals by adding features to esbuild? Maybe the project goals are too different?
esbuild is and has always been governed strongly by Evan Wallace. I can't vouch for whether or not the Evans (both Wallace and You) talked to each other about it, but I'm almost 100% certain Wallaces' vision for the esbuild project is different than what rolldown is ultimately trying to achieve.
In some respects, rolldown is also the next generation of Rollup (potentially) and is a direct answer to rspack[0], which is a webpack compatible rust based toolchain from ByteDance
One of the interesting things about rollup is how it compiles code. Instead of building each module as a closure, separating the scopes, it compiles everything as one big closure. This is actually faster to parse and run, and allows you to do much better tree shaking and other optimizations.
If you're doing all that, you could probably support rollup plugins as well, which it sounds like they want to do.
I'm not sure if you are joking or not, but in case you aren't, your iPhone won't let you directly address subpixels, so no.
There's a whole subcategory of beautiful bugs caused by recursive algorithms going way farther than their authors intended - it probably doesn't apply here.
So for Yuzu there was an legal entity making money off (Nintendo argued) selling access to playing pirated games.
Dolphin doesn't accept donations, so there's no good way of arguing anyone is making any money off it. Sure, Nintendo could go after individual contributors to Dolphin (if they can find out exactly who they are - presumably many of them are aware of the risks and try to stay anonymous) but it would be costly and it's unlikely to yield any positive results.