Peter Tattam Of The PetrOS Project Talks To OSNews

Eugenia writes: "Trumpet Software is mostly known for their Internet communications software package, Trumpet Winsock, which has been adopted by the Internet world back in 1995, at the times where Windows 3.1 and Win95 did not come as standard with full internet connetion capabilities. But the main product these days for Trumpet Software is PetrOS, a 32-bit Operating System, which has the goal to be compatible by all means (binary and API compatible) with Microsoft Windows. OSNews is interviewing the main architect behind the project, Peter Tattam, who talks in depth about PetrOS, and also there is shown an early screenshot of the PetrOS GUI, which is still under heavy development." And it's been (not surprizingly) under heavy development for a while. Building a Windows-compatible OS from scratch surely isn't easy, but from this interview (including screenshots) they're having quite a go of it.

Comments

Guess the dotcom crash didn't deliver a cluetrain.

[FFFish]

I can't imagine why anyone would try to base a company on cloning Windows. So I read the interview.

A) Cheap alternative for desktop users -- users say "they wished they had something better without having to pay big big bucks." Win2k is, what, perhaps $200. PetrOS will have to sell for $50 or less, then.

And it'll be obsolete the moment MS changes an API. Or the moment MS makes MSIE crash when it detects PetrOS.

B) Embedded market -- er, no. The embedded market wants Linux, QNX, EPOC and other OSes. They're either free, hard realtime, or extremely small.

C) Servers -- er, no. If you want cheap, then you choose a BSD or Linux. If you want to be able to blame someone, you choose MS. You don't go out and buy some $50 clone of MS.

D) Clustering -- er, no. Not unless you're just goofing around. Kind of money invested in building a cluster, you don't go pick up a $50 clone of Windows to run it!

While this is a pretty cool project, I simply can't see that it's a profitable one...

Trumpet was nice.

[Neck_of_the_Woods]

You know back in the day....well not that far back Trumpet was the best connect software rolling around. What did you have maybe 2 or 3 that did anything worth talking about, that you configure and get working with any consistancy? Cammilion and Trumpet where the best, please correct me if I am wrong, and Cam was sad.

Interesting enough with the os that would be compat with winOS that is free. It would seem that the linux community would have done this years ago if for nothing else to put a funnel on the venture capital. If Linux had become 100% comp with windows software, via a deamon or what have you....things could and would be very different in many ways. Then again part of problem with windows is the software, so Linux would end up bringing bugs in...it is kind of catch 22 sale to the devil....

Dead on arrival

[Phaid]

I can't decide if this is the work of a sincere person who is sadly deluded, or a marketing ploy to flog a few more dollars out of investors. It's hard enough getting your foot in the door with a pure desktop operating system that is better than Windows (BeOS, OS/2), much less one whose entire goal is to play catch-up to Windows itself. There is nothing here to appeal to people who already know and like Windows, and it's certainly not going to appeal to people who don't like windows either.

Beyond that, the technical feasibility of it is questionable. Microsoft is well known for making its Win32 API, filesystems, etc, moving targets. It's taken the Wine and NTFS teams a long time to get where they have, and even then they're pretty far from complete compatibility. What makes these guys think they're going to get any closer?

Oh well. I guess it goes to show you, there's always someone trying to ice skate uphill.

Re:Dead on arrival

[cavemanf16]

Are you kidding? I'm not saying that they don't have one huge hill to climb here, but here's my take on the whole OS market right now:

1. I am thinking of starting a custom computer building shop, partly just so I can have my own company, partly to help make some close friends make the right decisions when purchasing new PC hardware and software. After looking online, it is quite apparent that after a monitor, the Windows OS would be the next most expensive component of a custom built computer (not one built by Dell, Gateway or any Windows reseller, mind you).
2. I could put Linux or any other free OS on the system, but most everyone I know with money to drop on a custom built system by yours truly, also doesn't want a new OS to try and learn. They want good old Windows familiarity, and the ability to play games and media software that works on their current system.
3. An alternative Windows OS that may not have all the media bells and whistles of Win2k or WinXP would be great! Not only could I make sure to only install the freeware and OSS apps that my friend's would need (stuff like WinAmp, free email clients, ZoneAlarm, etc), but I also wouldn't have to charge them $200+ for the OS just because I was a small time computer builder.

So yes, I think this OS has promise, just make sure it's fully compatible with today's media that's built for MS Windows.

Re:If you want to run Windows binaries...

[Sir Mix A Lot]

Not everyone who wants a cheaper (free?) Windows compatible OS has the option of running a pirated copy of Windows. This would be good for large companies who shell out untold millions on Windows licenses to be "compatible" with everyone else. Switching to something like this could save them alot of money, which would clearly go to Trumpet. Seems good to me.

Re:What language is PETROS� written in?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the article, you would notice that they're using Borland's Object Pascal. Go ahead, everyone, read the Brian Kernighan article. Then go and look at the Object Pascal language reference. Go ahead...I'll wait.

Notice anything? Like how almost EVERY SINGLE objection he raised is NOT APPLICABLE to Object Pascal?

Object Pascal should be called "Sensible Pascal". It allows you to break all of the rules, just as C does. It just makes you jump through a few hoops to do it. That way you generally know what you're doing isn't such a great idea.

Pointer arithmetic? OP allows it. It's dangerous though...inexperienced programmers can blow themselves up pretty easily doing it. So...they make you do some castings to get around it. Good idea? Bad idea? Depends on what you're trying to accomplish.

I'm sure all the hard-core hackers here will laugh and snort and generally dismiss anything I say about OP, but those people aren't who OP is aimed it.

OP is aimed at programmers who WANT strong type checking and WANT the safety net the Pascal language provides and WANT a language that allows rapid object-oriented development in a language that is easy to read and understand.

C lends itself to fast, loose code, but is hard to learn and tends to be rather terse to read. It's definately not for learnin'!

OP allows the newbie to step in and test the waters with simple language specific things. However, as you become more comfortable with the language, you can EASILY do just about everything C allows you to do.

The learning curve is a gentle slope, and doesn't have any unexpected drop-offs where the language fails you.

Anyone that dismisses OP out of hand hasn't used it. Anyone that has used a recent OP doesn't use C anymore if they can help it.

Re:But it's a moving target!

[bloggins02]

This may be true to an extent, but if it were always true, then everytime there was a new version of Windows, notepad.exe would have to be recompiled!

If they stick with providing compatibility for the core Win32API they have a good chance of being able to run most of the programs that are written to run on multiple MS OSes in the first place. Examples are IE, Office, and most of the Windows Accessories and Games that MS doesn't recompile to use new features everytime the API changes.

I question their decision to leave out driver compatibility. In my opinion, that is key to gaining acceptance of a clone OS.

Glad Linus didn't listen to all these naysayers

[Junks Jerzey]

The two primary objections I see here could both have been raised when Linus decided to write a UNIX clone in 1991:

1. "Nobody could possibly write his own UNIX kernel! It's too huge of a system!"

2. "UNIX has been dying since the mid 1980s. Who would want to start writing a system that will be dead on arrival?"

Negative Feedback

[atathert]

Perhaps it is more a case of the following. The best way to motivate a great many geeks is to say that something cannot be done. There are so many negative comments here saying it is impossible, making it all the more fun (challenging) to work on. How many times has it been said that it is impossible to build a tranistor smaller than "X", only to have it happen a short time later.

It definitely will be difficult, but there's nothing wrong with "fighting the good fight"

Re:But it's a moving target!

[kilgore_47]

...they have a good chance of being able to run most of the programs that are written to run on multiple MS OSes in the first place. Examples are IE, Office, and most of the Windows Accessories and Games that MS doesn't recompile to use new features everytime the API changes.

OK, so I'm a manager at company X. Do I want to deploy Windows, with corporate support from the well-known M$? Or do I want to use a look-alike OS, WindowsLight if you will, written by some has-been's of the internet revolution who say their project will run "most" windows apps?

Linux offers a lot that windows can't. What does PetrOS offer? A fast startup time and low memory usage aren't enough for most people to buy a new OS.

And why the fsck are they using Pascal?!!! Would it have been that hard to port the old winsock code over to cpp?
And source will be open to "select partners" only? Sorry, peter, but fuck shared source.

I'm not trying to troll here; I read the interview and a bit from the PetrOS official site and I just can't take this too seriously.

Re:But it's a moving target!

[kilgore_47]

Linus could have said the same thing to himself in 1991. UNIX at the time, as most people seem to forget these days, was in a downward slide that started in the mid 1980s.

Linus made a difference by making his OS open source.

To quote the PetrOS FAQ:
We are open to selected developers or OEMs having access to source code under suitable licensing conditions. Some selected parts of the user layers will be open sourced.

This is not an open source operating system.
This is a tiny windows compatibility layer on top of a small kernel written in Object Pascal.