SkyOS Now Runs Linux Binaries Natively

Gunder123 writes: "A new (open source in the past, but not anymore) operating system, SkyOS, in its latest version can run Linux binaries unmodified, without the need of a recompilation, enriching its own application base this way. Their Linux emulation layer lies inside the SkyOS kernel, I wonder if there are any GPL violations going on here. Their future plans involve also an emulation layer for Windows applications, pretty much what ReactOS tries to do for the last few years for the WindowsNT model."

Comments

Why isn't it open source anymore?

[pgpckt]

Just wondering why this OS isn't open source anymore...

Re:Why isn't it open source anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Open source business plan:

1. Write free software.
2. ???
3. Profit!

Re:Why isn't it open source anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Gather underwear

2. ???

3. Profit!

Re:Why isn't it open source anymore?

[carpe_noctem]

I would suspect that it may have a little something to do with their mention of incorporating Windows emulation in future releases...and Microsoft *does* have a track record of pushing companies around like this, IIRC...

Re:Why isn't it open source anymore?

[albat0r]

Taken from and interview on OSnews ( www.osnews.com ), here's the answer to your question:

Robert Szeleney: Until version 3.0, SkyOS was open source. But now, I don`t want SkyOS to be open source. I put so many work into this project, that I don`t want to give to source away. But I accept project members. If someone want to code for SkyOS he can have source. Also, I accept source codes and bugfixes for SkyOS. I don`t put restrictions for coding style. If someone coded for example a new driver, I will change the code to fit into the whole SkyOS coding style.

For those who doesn't know, Robert Szeleney is the man behind SkyOS.

Re:Why isn't it open source anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

We're all karma whores.

But some of us are more karma whorish than others.

Re:Why isn't it open source anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the interview you'd know

Re:Why isn't it open source anymore?

[geekoid]

So he wants to make money, but he'll kindly let other people do development for him for free!
what a deal.

Re:Why isn't it open source anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pardon my ignorance in regards to foreign languages, but could anyone translate that to english?

Re:Why isn't it open source anymore?

[MaggieL]

Because to get the Holy Scripture wrong makes one a heathen.

Re:Why isn't it open source anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

2. ???

Hey! Whats phase 2?

Phase 3 is profit!

Yeah but what's phase 2?!

Re:Why isn't it open source anymore?

[Trepidity]

AFAIK there's no money being made, and there likely won't be any in the near future.

Re:Why isn't it open source anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Phase 1 - Collect Underpants

Re:Why isn't it open source anymore?

[Spamuel]

Isn't that how Linux works (Red Hat for example)? Isn't there the potential for anyone to make money off an open source project without contributing work? Do you think Linus Torvolds doesn't make money as a direct result of his development of the Linux operating system, and the contributions that others made to it for free. And if he does, what's wrong with that? I mean after all it is his creation.

Re:Why isn't it open source anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

So he wants to make money, but he'll kindly let other people do development for him for free!
what a deal.

No, he'll let his customers have the source to fix things, etc. So what if it isn't called open source. People shared source code long before a phrase was coined or a license was written.

Re:Why isn't it open source anymore?

[Craig Maloney]

Ahh, but what's to say he won't start charging for the priviledge of obtaining the source code in the future? Or maybe he'll tire of having to sendout the source, so he'll just stop one day. The GPL is good in this respect because you don't have to worry about this. It was born in a time when companies who traditionally gave out source code decided it wasn't worth it anymore, or there was extra revenue to be made off of the initial sale. Yes, you can still find companies that will give you source code, but at what cost? The GPL ensures you get everything up front, with irrevocable rights.

More than likely the author of SkyOS doesn't want to become another "open source" OS, and get lost in the shuffle. Too bad for him. The bench of obsolesced and abandoned OSes always has room for one more. Just ask BeOS.

Re:Why isn't it open source anymore?

[AbsoluteRelativity]

Man, not one mention that this is from south park... the underwear gnomes...

Re:Why isn't it open source anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

2. Do whatever your business is.

So, in the case of NASA, it's putting satellites into orbit. In the case of AOL, it's selling internet connectivity and content. In the case of Sun and IBM, it's selling solutions to the business problems of others.

If you're a proprietary software company, you will not make money by selling Free Software. But if you're not (and most businesses aren't), Free Software makes a lot of sense: concentrate on your core business, let everyone work together to improve the tools that help you do it.

not all syscalls implemented

[kbroom]

from the SkyOS website:

>Emulation layers
>
>Linux
> 6% of all linux syscalls implemented
> Support for static linked ELF i386 binaries only

Well I guess any binary using any of the remaining
94% system calls will not work... hmmm....

Re:not all syscalls implemented

[Master Bait]

Thanks. I don't need to read any further. It sounds like the Xanadu project.

Re:not all syscalls implemented

[vlad_petric]

Following linux API's are emulated now:

- exit, read, write, fcntl, getpid, getuid, getgid, getegig, geteuid, brk, mmap, munmap

Where's open?

Re:not all syscalls implemented

[gregorio]

Where's open?

I believe that SkyOS's Linux emulation only allows stdin and stdout file handles, that is why it only runs "hello world".

gotta love hello world!

[soboroff]

"It's already possible to execute linux/i386 compiled programms. Simple linux-native applications like 'Hello World!!!' are running now on SkyOS without compiling!"

I wonder if it's the spiffy GNU hello.c which includes its own email client.

Seriously, they only support a very small subset of calls thus far.

Re:gotta love hello world!

[brer_rabbit]

"It's already possible to execute linux/i386 compiled programms. Simple linux-native applications like 'Hello World!!!' are running now on SkyOS without compiling!"

More importantly, I wonder if they copied a GPL'd version of hello world. hmmmm?

Re:gotta love hello world!

[gregorio]

I wonder if it's the spiffy GNU hello.c which includes its own email client.

Emacs? ;)

Say WHAT?

[supabeast!]

"Their Linux emulation layer lies inside the SkyOS kernel, I wonder if there are any GPL violations going on here."

That has to be one of the rudest things that I have seen on Slashdot in years. To suggest that just because some Linux binaries can run on another OS with no evidence is absolutely disgusting.

Of course, even more disgusting is that Timothy posted it, but I think everyone realizes Slashdot has a pretty fucked up editorial policy so I shall not continue.

Re:Say WHAT?

[Gleep]

it seems like a perfectly reasonable assumption to me... if they can run linux binaries unmodified do to some code in their kernel and the linux kernel source is available to anyone who wants it, then it follows that perhaps they might have borrowed from it!

Re:Say WHAT?

[interiot]

Hear hear. GPL covers the specific code and binaries; it doesn't cover the ideas or the specific interfaces involved.

For example, if I write a GPL'd grep with a spiffy new regular expression syntax, that does not in any way preclude someone else from writing the same utilitiy under a closed-source license.

Re:Say WHAT?

[mubes]

Sorry, but I'm forced to agree with this. As far as I can tell this is totally unfounded speculation and very very inappropriate. I'd like to see a retraction of this comment, but I don't expect to...

Re:Say WHAT?

[supabeast!]

Actually SkyOS intercepts Linux system calls (Of the 6% ot them that it can handle, anyway.) and passes them to its own API. Assuming that stolen code is involved is simply a) Paranoid and B) Rude!

Re:Say WHAT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this the same line of reasoning that the MPAA use? That the RIAA use? That Microsoft use?

[Hint: the answer is "yes"]

Re:Say WHAT?

[justletmeinnow]

Remember the old phraze... "Assumption is the mother of all f**ck ups." You owe them an apology!

Re:Say WHAT?

[ijx]

Exactly. The *BSD's do exactly the same thing with their Linux compatibility layers. All the code behind that is BSD-licensed, not GPL'd.

There's an excellent set of articles at the O'Reilly Network on just how they accomplish this.

Re:Say WHAT?

[Stephen Samuel]

The QUESTION is completely appropriate. He didn't say that there IS a GPL violation. He hust wondered if there is one.

Stealing GPL code is one way to accomplish Linux compatability quickly and painlessly (until you get found out). Hopefully they didn't do it that way, but some businesses have done worse.

Asking the question may push someone to come up with a way to test the emulation code with reasonable certainty (i.e. testing for a couple of unusual quirks in the GPL code). I think that it's far better to know, one way or the other, than to be wilfully blind to the issue.

Re:Say WHAT?

[BasharTeg]

Yeah, and I suppose FreeBSD's Linux emulation is a GPL violation too right ? You've got it backwards kid, the IP theft goes INTO Linux, not out of Linux.

Besides, this is exactly why the GPL is stupid in the first place. It supports Open Source like the holy jihad, but does it support open standards ? Well, if a non-open source OS wants to be Linux compatible, I guess they're theives right ? Nice open standards.

Gee, Linux's TCP/IP stack is based on the BSD TCP/IP stack. I wonder if there's any IP theft going on there. Oh wait, the BSD licence supports sharing rather than screaming violation.

Re:Say WHAT?

[Innominandum]

I second that. Any person who would make an accusation like that has very little experience programming. SkyOS probably catches Linux kernel calls and redirects them to the SkyOS kernel. I think the SkyOS team deserves an apology.

Re:Say WHAT?

[Vagary]

Testing for quirks is testing how thorough the implementation is. If you used the same metric on WINE you'd be convinced that they had stolen Windows code and it just took them years to get it working. :)

Re:Say WHAT?

[bwt]

I wonder if there are any GPL violations going on here.

It seems like a fair question. "I wonder if ..." is a far cry from a "suggest[ion] that...".

To completely implement a system capable of behaving like Linux without violating the licence would take an enormous amount of work. It certainly IS possible and could be done with a determined effort, but if somebody shows up out of the blue claiming they've done it, I think it is a fair question to wonder if they did it fairly, and if so, how.

I didn't interpret his statement as alleging a GPL violation. It just does seem surprising that one could do it without an open source licence as a force multiplier. Sometimes things are surprising because they are really high quality work and sometimes they are surprising because they ripped somebody off. It's healthy skepticism to probe which.

Re:Say WHAT?

[jallen02]

Its a good thing hes only implemented 6% of linux syscalls then

Jeremy

Re:Say WHAT?

[abulafia]

I wonder if BW Taylor beats his/her partner.

After all, "I wonder if" is a far cry from...

Read the other comments. Intercepting system calls is not hard, and others have done it.

This sort of posting betrays more of the ignorance of the poster than anything else.

Re:Say WHAT?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Gee, Linux's TCP/IP stack is based on the BSD TCP/IP stack. I wonder if there's any IP theft going on there."

In the future, if you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about at all, and just have an ideological axe to grind, please don't waste bandwidth posting.

No released version of the linux kernel have EVER included the BSD TCP/IP stack. This is a stupid myth that makes rabid, irrational BSD advocates such as yourself look stupid.

The PPP compression code is the only BSD code anywhere in the linux networking stack.

It was stupid of the story writeup to just assume that linux compatibility means there is a GPL violation going on, but your answering stupidity with more stupidity isn't really helping the situation.

Re:Say WHAT?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Linux's TCP/IP stack is based on the BSD TCP/IP stack."

Well is that your professional opinion or just something you read in a magazine? From what I've heard, Linux' TCP/IP stack is written from scratch.

Re:Say WHAT?

[stilwebm]

Precisely. It is worth mentioning that it works with other operating systems, including Solaris. While the kernel handles translation of system calls, you still need the binary dynamic loaders (e.g. ld.o) to use most system files.

Re:Say WHAT?

[stilwebm]

Er i meant to to use most binaries, not system files.

That's what I get for talking on the phone while posting.

Re:Say WHAT?

[greysky]

I don't think that you're looking at this from all angles. This method would require distribution of linux _binaries_, not source. Source would in fact be of no use, so the whole purpose of the GPL is bypassed. I wouldn't really call this a GPL violation, but rather a GPL paradox.

Re:Say WHAT?

[Stephen Samuel]

if the quirks aren't there, then there's good reason to believe that the code wasn't stolen. If the quirks are there, then you get to keep looking until you get to the point where you're willing to ask to look at the source code to prove that it isn't stolen.

As it is, they're only claiming to emulate about a dozen system calls, so it should be pretty easy to prove that they're {not,} using stolen code.

Ultimately, it's going to be pretty hard to conclusivly {dis,}prove the use of stolen code without looking at the source code. If you know which compiler they used, you might be able recompile the GPL code with the same compiler and look for comon code sequences, but even that is circumstantial evidence, unless you get an incredible level of similarity.

Re:Say WHAT?

[bwt]

I wonder if BW Taylor beats his/her partner. After all, "I wonder if" is a far cry from...

That's a perfect example to distinguish. You have no reason to wonder about this since it is completely mundane that I don't.

Read the other comments. Intercepting system calls is not hard, and others have done it. This sort of posting betrays more of the ignorance of the poster than anything else.

The answer to a question is irrelevent to assessing the merits of the question. Generally one asks a question precisely because one doesn't know the answer or the reasoning behind it, and pretty much you never learn anything usefull UNLESS you ask questions you don't know the answer to.

If the guy did all the work originally and obeyed the GPL licence, then he should be proud of it and glad to know that some people find that a surprising accomplishment.

Re:Say WHAT?

[Anonymous Coward]

"That has to be one of the rudest things that I have seen on Slashdot in years. "

Hehe, I see rude statements, suggestions of criminal behaviour (like cheering when new ways of trading copyrighted mp3 are posted, it's like saying Hurray! Now robbers can get away from the police, oh joy!) almost everyday here on slashdot.

Re:Say WHAT?

[Anonymous Coward]

And from what I've heard, you've both just cited unverified, unnamed conversations as proof for your opinions. Congratulations, you've just learned the first technique for Senate debates.

Next Monday: Feeding on paranoia

Re:Say WHAT?

[Anonymous Coward]

If that's not flamebait, I don't know what is. Moderators - do your thing.

Re:Say WHAT?

[G-funk]

The QUESTION is completely appropriate. He didn't say that there IS a GPL violation. He hust wondered if there is one.

No, he did not. I am wondering many things right now, like maybe if you're an idiot. But now since I've written it, I'm not only wondering it, but suggesting it in a public forum, two totally different things....

Re:Say WHAT?

[the gnat]

Everyone's TCP/IP stack is based on the BSD stack. All other IP-based stacks died a merciful death long ago. The Berkeley version was written relatively early in the history of the Internet (c. 1980); a more recent version is being used of course, but it isn't lifted from FreeBSD or anything.

It's under the BSD license because it's meant to promote interoperability. The original stack, I believe, was written (by Bill Joy, perhaps?) because the existing ones were so shitty. It was intended as a standard to be used by everyone. If not for this sort of work, we'd be stuck with IPX, AppleTalk, DECnet, etc. At any rate, the frequently-repeated declaration that MS (here, Linux) is using BSD code misses the mark quite a bit. The Internet is essentially built on that code at this point. Try finding a modern OS that doesn't support sockets- that's a Berkeley innovation. FreeBSD and the like are as about far removed from that original code as Linux is.

The difference here is that the TCP/IP stack was intended from the beginning to be incorporated everywhere; it wasn't based on any stupid philosophy about free software. Same idea as X11- they're more interested in promoting an open standard, in this case with large amounts of code (which is ultimately less important than the standard itself- what if "TCP/IP" were GPL'd, or patented?). MS is right that code like that should be under a very unrestrictive license. Other innovations, like scripting languages, daemons, OS kernels, compilers, etc., should be under whatever license the writer feels like. Every license has its place, despite what the fruitcakes here say.

Re:Say WHAT?

[Anonymous Coward]

On the contrary, his stupidity is a helpful reminder that there's plenty to go around. True, it doesn't help his cause, but there's more to any picture than the main subject.

Re:Say WHAT?

[ianezz]

Gee, Linux's TCP/IP stack is based on the BSD TCP/IP stack.

No, it itsn't. Other portions of Linux take code from *BSD, but definitively not the TCP/IP stack.

Proof of this: when you see a security alert on a general issue in the original BSD implementation of TCP/IP, 99% of the times it applies to *BSD, Solaris, HP-UX, and Windows too, but NOT to Linux, because it has its own implementation.

Ask Alan Cox if you are still in doubt.

Re:Say WHAT?

[tshak]

OF COURSE they stole the code - why do you think they "closed the source" :-).

Re:Say WHAT?

[TangoCharlie]

From Timothy's question concerning GPL infringement, it might be construed that he has already assumed that there _is_ GPL infringement... and he's quite possibly right. Unfortunately becasue SkyOS is closed source, we will never know. Wine OTOH is an implementation of the win32 API written without access to microsoft's windows code... and therefore can't be an infringement of the windows copyright. In theory they _might_ be guilty of
reverse engineering microsoft code but that's alot harder to do and probably not the case. Linux has been successful because it has been open sourced. Microsoft has been successful... well not's get into that, but what I was going to say included the word "illegal". SkyOS will most probably go nowhere. ReactOS OTOH has a very good chance of being successful (althought in a much smaller arean than Linux). In the original posters article, the ReactOS link[osnews.com] links to an article in osnews.com where the authour of ReactOS talks about similarities and differences with PetrOS and also about GUI stuff... but presumably, the best GUI for ReactOS would be implemented through wine... Isn't that the only API / GUI (in the windows world API and GUI are confused) that makes sense?

Yeah, like WINE runs all windows binaries...

[rvaniwaa]

From the status page , it says only 6% of all linux syscalls are implemented...

GPL violation

[Stackster]

I wonder how it's possible to write a "Linux Emulation Layer" without using the Linux source in a way that violates the GPL.
It has to have some stuff behave exactly the same, or just wouldn't work. And how do you figure this out without looking at the original source?

Re:GPL violation

[TheMMaster]

one of the freedoms is the "freedom to read/modify and learn" from the source. If he is just learning from the source and reimplementing it, there is no problem.
Is wine in violation with microsoft copyright?

Re:GPL violation

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's not possible to duplicate calls just from the api documentation and running test cases, the software is probably a disaster to begin with. Even Windows has been copied in this fashion.

Re:GPL violation

[benwb]

I wish I had access to the MS source like the WINE guys do.

Re:GPL violation

[dzeuthen]

Well, in fact a number of companies reverse engineered the IBM BIOS in the eighties and thus created the PC clone industry. Reverse engineering on the grounds of interoperability is actually allowed, even though some orgs do not like it.

Re:GPL violation

[shepd]

>I wonder how it's possible to write a "Linux Emulation Layer" without using the Linux source in a way that violates the GPL.

Same way as Compaq did it to "clone" the IBM BIOS. Poke stuff in, see what happens. Read technical manuals deviod of code. Get engineers in that haven't already written GPL code (untainted).

Running (basic) Linux binaries will be easy in comparison to hacking a copy of a BIOS without any idea of what it does -- or so I'm thinking.

Re:GPL violation

[kilgore_47]

Wine was written by people without access to windows source code. SkyOS's linux-emulation layer was written by people with access to linux source code. Therefore, it is far more likely that code was 'borrowed' in writing this emulation layer. Since it's closed source now, and nobody can check for simmilarities, speculation (like "I wonder if..." type statements) about GPL violations is entirely reasonable.

Re:GPL violation

[Anonymous Coward]

(-20, Asinine)

(have you ever coded anything in your life?)

Re:GPL violation

[Anonymous Coward]

Since it's closed source now

Correction: It's "shared source" now.

Re:GPL violation

[darf]

Um, I'm not sure, but I was under the impression that the folks that wrote IBM compatible BIOSes were not supposed to have anything to do with the (one true) IBM BIOS.

I remember something about these folks using the specs for the BIOS (function inputs/outputs) but never, ever viewing a single line of code from IBM. Most of them were supposed to be under clean room contracts saying that they a) had never viewed the code to the BIOS and b) promised to never look at the IBM BIOS while developing their compatible BIOS. This was to protect against any lawsuits.

Now, I'm not saying that reverse engineering didn't happen, but some companies apparently went to a lot of trouble to at least appear as if they developed their BIOS in a clean room with no IBM code.

Re:GPL violation

[harlows_monkeys]

Wine was written by people without access to windows source code. SkyOS's linux-emulation layer was written by people with access to linux source code. Therefore, it is far more likely that code was 'borrowed' in writing this emulation layer

That's completely backwards. When writing an emulation layer (I speak from experience...if you ever ran a System V 286 binary on a System V 386 Unix or an SCO Xenix 286 binary on a Systemv V 386 Unix, you were using the emulation layer Darryl Richman, Carl Hensler, and I wrote when we worked at Interactive), you do not want to use actual code from the OS you are emulating. That code doesn't work like your OS works (if it did...you wouldn't need an emulation layer...you'd just need some argument munging and other trivial stuff).

The hard thing about an emulation layer is finding out just what the thing you are emulating does. An emulation layer has to not just follow the written spec (if there is one), but also has to implement the same bugs as the thing you are emulating, and follow the same choices where there was leeway in the spec, or you might break binary compatibility.

When emulating something that is open source, like Linux, you have the documentation you need: the source code. You read it to find out what the real behaviour is, and then implement that in a way that fits in with the way your OS works. It simple is almost never going to be faster to rip the actual code and try to use it.

When emulating a closed source thing like Windows, however, finding out the actual behaviour you need to emulate (remember...gotta match the actual behaviour, not just what the spec says) can take much experimenting and disassembly. It is much more temping (because it can actually save a lot of time), to rip some DLLs from Windows, and cobble together a framework to run them under your system.

So, just from a "what might developer's do" point of view, it is actually more likely a Windows emulation project would use parts of Windows they should not use than a Linux emulation project would use parts of Linux they should not use.

Re:GPL violation

[dzeuthen]

Yup, Phoenix did it on contract for Compaq, and according to the The EmuFAQ the case was tried for copyright infringement and "The courts are unable to find any proprietary IBM microcode within the Phoenix BIOS. Phoenix is cleared of all charges, and the "clean room" reverse engineering technique becomes a legitimate bulletproof means of software developement."

Well, sort of legitimate IMHO ;-)

Re:GPL violation

[Anonymous Coward]

Compaq took it a step further and picked people that
c) Never had even used an IBM or any other microcomputer.
d) Didn't know each other and were prohibited from speaking between teams.

This super clean approach was put in place only so Compaq could play legal CYA (CPQ had previously licenced the IBM BIOS and a read-only printout of the code could be purchased from IBM for $20) -- it's not actually necessary for legal reverse-engineering.

Re:GPL violation

[kilgore_47]

OK, since my post was from a marginally-educated guess standpoint and you sound like you've actually had experience with the topic at hand, I guess I stand corrected.
But just this once!
Don't think I'll back down so easy next time! 8-)

Re:GPL violation

[Arandir]

I wonder how it's possible to write a "Linux Emulation Layer" without using the Linux source in a way that violates the GPL.

The GPL only restricts the distribution of the original and derivative works (albeit with a very liberal interpretation of "derivative"). There is ZERO restriction on looking at the code and seeing how it works. There is ZERO restriction on 'reverse engineering' it. Writing an Linux emulation layer without violating the GPL would be trivial (but tedious) for anyone familiar with kernel programming.

It has to have some stuff behave exactly the same, or just wouldn't work.

Linux is under copyright but it is not under patent. That means that you can legally duplicate how the stuff is done.

Re:GPL violation

[Leimy]

Actually its not a violation to "behave as linux behaves" for syscalls. FreeBSD has linux binary emulation and has had it for a while. RealPlayer 8 for linux runs on FreeBSD via the emulation layer as does hundreds->thousands of other linux apps. Even linux Java development kits run on FreeBSD.

This is a clear benefit to any os to be able to run other OS binaries. There is a series of articles on an OReilly onlamp site that tells how to emulate linux on NetBSD and documents the procedure of implementing said binary compatibility. Its not really that difficult.

Re:GPL violation

[fors]

That is exactly what reverse engineering is. You take the spec and write a new implementation from scratch.

Why SkyOS?

[cDarwin]

I already have an open source OS that runs Linux binaries. I have no interest in another closed source OS that runs windoze binaries. As far as I can tell, the SkyOS web site presents no justification for this OS.

I'm having a hard enough time getting our office staff to switch to KDE. Why would I want to mess about with SkyOS? Does anyone know?

Re:Why SkyOS?

[sporty]

FreeBSD? :) [/joke]

Re:Why SkyOS?

[Innominandum]

I find the attitude of Slashdot readers perplexing, especially their attitudes toward operating systems that are not Linux. Linux fails as an operating system on many levels. It is open source and free, but its implementation and architecture are very mediocre.

As long as there is room for a better operating system, people should be making a better operating system.

Re:Why SkyOS?

[geekd]

I have zero interest in or use for an OS that is not Free as in speech. And I suspect that many /. users feel the same.

It's not "attitudes toward operating systems that are not Linux", it's attitudes toward operating systems that are not Free as in speech.

If you don't like it, don't hang out at a web site that pushes Open Source.

Re:Why SkyOS?

[wholesomegrits]

If you don't like it, don't hang out at a web site that pushes Open Source.


The website itself doesn't *push* open source...nancyboy Linux zealots push the open source. If you don't like divergent opinions, maybe move to Central Afghanistan?

Re:Why SkyOS?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are dumb as in idiot :)

Re:Why SkyOS?

[krogoth]

No one is forcing you to use it. Why do people always complain when someone decides to write their own OS, or even worse say they should contribute to a more popular project? People who can program are allowed to do whatever they want (prior to certain laws) and release it under whatever license they want, so stop complaining!

Re:Why SkyOS?

[Howie]

If you don't like divergent opinions, maybe move to Central Afghanistan?

Right, because that is a country where the citizens are all completely in agreement.

Re:Why SkyOS?

[decade_null]

I have zero interest in or use for an OS that is not Free as in speech. And I suspect that many /. users feel the same.

And I suspect that many /. users couldn't care less about FSF's ideological bullshit.

Re:Why SkyOS?

[King_TJ]

I respect anyone's right to develop whatever they desire. Therefore, perhaps the best answer to "Why SkyOS?" is "Why not, SkyOS?"

That said, it's also a little disappointing sometimes to watch an author pour many, many hours into a project that you can bet won't survive. Hey, I could be wrong - but I think SkyOS may be one of these. If BeOS couldn't really pull it off, why would I believe SkyOS could? Often times, history is the best teacher....

Right now, I think there's room for a new OS. I just feel that it needs to be radically different to catch people's attention. I'm not talking just "eye candy" - but that's a part of the package. It has to solve problems in a new way... offer something you didn't really have before.

BeOS had a few innovative concepts in it. It had appeal to programmers with the modular use of objects and ease of implementation that other OS's lacked. It offered very quick boot time, which isn't commonly found in a full-featured OS. It also had a very "clean" look, which is a big plus to some.

SkyOS seems like it borrows heavily from the Win '9x/NT desktop style, with nods to the typical X environment/desktop look and feel. Now they're putting in mucho effort to make it run Linux apps, which can be run fine in Linux already.

Where's the value?

Re:Why SkyOS?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. >>If you don't like divergent opinions, maybe move to Central Afghanistan?

2. >Right, because that is a country where the citizens are all completely in agreement.

   Certainly not, but there you are not supposed to tolerate them. If you have the power, you are supposed to enforce them to act as you wish, if you don't have it, you are supposed to keep your mouth shut, or suffer the consequences. It is amazing that in an almost ideal democratic environment -internet for short-, people can suggest others that they should either shut up or leave.

Re:Why SkyOS?

[barneyfoo]

What's wrong with being a nancyboy? are you homophobic?

sigh...

Re:Why SkyOS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because it is a little known OS doesn't mean nobody should try it out. Why did people want to try out linux 10 years ago???

Re:Why SkyOS?

[Arandir]

...operating systems that are not Free as in speech.

It's statements like that which make the rest of the world suspect we are a brainwashed cult just waiting for the Koolaid to arrive.

The right to free speech is a right that belongs to the speaker, and not to the listener. Linux is a manifestation of Linus Torvald's free speech. SkyOS is a manifestation of its authors' free speech. Any OS is a product of its authors' free speech. You have your own right of free speech but it is not predicated upon the existance of any operating system.

It would make sense to say that you only want operating systems that are "Free Software", or operating systems that are "Open Source", or operating systems that grant you specific permissions. But to say that you only want operating systems that are "free as in speech" is a non sequitur. It only makes sense if you have undergone the GNU Indoctrination Protocols, as it is not a sensible English phrase.

(considering that most Slashdot readers are openly hostile toward non-Linux Free Software operating systems, like OpenBSD, I think the original supposition was a correct evaluation of the Slashdot attitudes)

Re:Why SkyOS?

[fault0]

he was talking about freebsd, not linux.

Re:Why SkyOS?

[Elwood P Dowd]

Just to nitpick, most Slashdot users:
1) Don't post to forums
2) View Slashdot with Internet Explorer

Re:Why SkyOS?

[Danse]

(considering that most Slashdot readers are openly hostile toward non-Linux Free Software operating systems, like OpenBSD, I think the original supposition was a correct evaluation of the Slashdot attitudes)

Where the heck do you get that from? MOST /. readers? There are probably over half a million /. readers now. do you really think that the majority of them are hostile towards non-Linux OSes? I think there is a rather vocal, but tiny minority that are. I don't think you can find evidence of anything beyond that.

Re:Why SkyOS?

[tcc]

>If you don't like it, don't hang out at a web site that pushes Open Source.

That attitude is more like SHOVING open source.

Re:Why SkyOS?

[morris57]

"Free as in speech" means "allowed to do whatever you want with it". With Linux (and all GNU software), you are allowed to do (almost) whatever you want with it. This includes being able to modify the code AND the right to sell the software and copies of the software. With closed source software, you are generally not allowed such a luxury.

The reason this is important is not so much that you or I will modify the code, but that there are people out there that can (And will) do it, if only given the chance. Open Source and Free Software models allow for a greater chance of that working.

Re:Why SkyOS?

[Jeremi]

As far as something new and different... I think EROS-OS might fit that category. It's certainly not like any OS I've encountered before (although I understand it does derive its design from other "secure" OS's).

Re:Why SkyOS?

[Jeremi]

Why do people always complain when someone decides to write their own OS, or even worse say they should contribute to a more popular project?

Honestly, it's because operating systems are like societies. The more time you spend using or developing for operating system A, the less you'll spend using/developing operating system B. Furthermore, every non-mainstream OS's users want to see it get the "critical mass" of users and developers necessary to push it into the mainstream where they it will enjoy the benefits of additional software and support. When they instead see other OS's being used or promoted, they view them (rightly or wrongly) as competition for their own OS/culture. Hence the criticism; they are trying to protect their own interests by deprecating the "competition".

Re:Why SkyOS?

[Arandir]

"Free as in speech" means "allowed to do whatever you want with it".

Someone should arrest and jail your High School civics teacher for fraud.

"Free Speech" means speech that is unrestricted. In the context of western civilization is usually refers to the legal right to speak without legal hinderances, particularly with regards to political opinion, though it also covers non-political expressions of a creative, commercial or mundane nature.

"Free Software" may indeed mean "allowed to do (almost) whatever you want with it". But that is NOT what "Free Speech" means.

In regards to software, there are two kinds of "speech" available. The first is the "speech" of actually creating the software. The second is the "speech" of modifying and/or redistributing the first kind. The first kind is a legal and unalienable right. Unfortunately, the second is not an unalienable right, but a granted priviledge. Despite the existance of the first ammendment to the US Constitution, you are not allowed to take the political writings of Richard Stallman and modify them for redistribution. You are not allowed to take the New York Times and republish it as the Yonkers Yodeler.

The right to your own speech is unalienable and protected by law. The right to someone else's speech is not. By equating Free Software with Free Speech, you are asserting that the ability to modify and redistribute someone else's creative works is an unalienable right that should be enforced by law. But that is not how rights work. A right is something that you POSSESS. It is not something that you TAKE from someone else.

Re:Why SkyOS?

[johnathan]

Free as in speech" means "allowed to do whatever you want with it".

Someone should arrest and jail your High School civics teacher for fraud.

[...] "Free Software" may indeed mean "allowed to do (almost) whatever you want with it". But that is NOT what "Free Speech" means.

I don't want to be a hard-on about this, but he's not talking about "Free Speech." He's talking about "free as in speech," as opposed to "free as in beer." These have (for better or worse) become the preferred similes used to distinguish the two different meanings of the word "free." The phrase "free as in speech" simply means something like libre, involving freedom, as opposed to something like gratis, involving lack of monetary cost.

Re:Why SkyOS?

[Rogain]

That's not the question! "Why use it", not "why make it". No one is trying to ban the SkyOS dork from writing code, the question is: Why would I or anyone else care if he is writing code?

From a look around the skyOS site, I didn't see any. If someone else knows, then please enlighten me.

Sounds like you've got an axe to grind about linux not skyOS.

Re:Why SkyOS?

[Arandir]

My dictionary has 17 definitions of "free", one of which corresponds to "free as in beer" and one corresponds to "free as in speech". Most of the other fifteen don't correspond to either (free end of a rope, free electron, free verse, etc.).

Two group them into broad categories, there are three common meanings: free from obligation (free beer); free from external authority (free speech); and unrestricted or unhindered (free use).

Re:Why SkyOS?

[Bandman]

I agree completly...Free as in Speech is confused, and convoluted. We need something that the everyday person will understand. We need to adopt the phrase

Free as in Legos

which, of course, means free to do whatever we want with the building blocks...

btw, I know there's no such word as legos...most people don't know/care, and it makes more sense than free as in speech (only used because people recognise it)

Join me in using Free as in legos!

Re:Why SkyOS?

[morris57]

In regards to software, there are two kinds of "speech" available. The first is the "speech" of actually creating the software. The second is the "speech" of modifying and/or redistributing the first kind. The first kind is a legal and unalienable right. Unfortunately, the second is not an unalienable right, but a granted priviledge. Despite the existance of the first ammendment to the US Constitution, you are not allowed to take the political writings of Richard Stallman and modify them for redistribution. You are not allowed to take the New York Times and republish it as the Yonkers Yodeler.


Actually, I believe you are talking about copyright. Copyright is what keeps me from reprinting the NY Times, and I don't believe the Constitution (or its amendments) says ANYTHING about copyright.

I said allowed to do almost anything with Free Software for a reason. I am not allowed to strip the software of credit from its original creator. There is still a license that one must agree to use with free software... However, I am completely within my right to take any GPL software and charge whatever I want for my service of providing it to you. Try doing THAT with your copy of Windows2000.

Re:Why SkyOS?

[morris57]

Thank you. That is exactly what I was trying to say.

Re:Why SkyOS?

[dvdeug]

> rest of the world suspect we are a brainwashed cult

Every set of radically new ideas makes the rest of the world worry, and every set of radically new ideas comes with its own set of redefinitions of old worlds.

> most Slashdot readers are openly hostile toward non-Linux Free Software operating systems

I haven't seen that on the boards, besides the fact that any means you would have of judging that would be wildly unscientific and inaccurate.

Re:Why SkyOS?

[krogoth]

When they instead see other OS's being used or promoted, they view them (rightly or wrongly) as competition for their own OS/culture.

The last time I saw this was with MenuetOS - an experimental project that the author decided to release. He wasn't even competing with anyone, and people were complaining :(

Re:Why SkyOS?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Someone should arrest and jail your
>High School civics teacher for fraud.

Hmmm... Irony: This would probably be
a violation of that teacher's right to
free speech...

Re:Why SkyOS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously a debian user...I can always spot you NancyAptGetboys on the corners hustling in flesh.

Re:Why SkyOS?

[Anonymous Coward]

regarding your sig: while I am in no way religious, I believe that the quote is ignorant and actually false

Re:Why SkyOS?

[Arandir]

Free as in Legos

which, of course, means free to do whatever we want with the building blocks...

I love it! It gets precisely the right point across.

Re:Why SkyOS?

[Danse]

regarding your sig: while I am in no way religious, I believe that the quote is ignorant and actually false.

You make a powerful argument there. I don't think I can form a response to that.

Re:Why SkyOS?

[QuantumG]

Section 8, clause 8 of the US constitution reads:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

You might wanna read it sometime.

Re:Lucy

[Anonymous Coward]

almost as bad as this damn article! "Hello World" indeed.

How is it different...

[NinjaPablo]

than any other emulation (other than this is integrated in the kernel)? WINE runs Windows apps and I don't hear many complaints about license violations there.

Re:How is it different...

[thefogger]

Because with WINE, its developers just CAN'T have borrowed implementation details, since they're not available. Windows is closed source, remember? So, all they have is the various specifications of the API and implementing the Win32 spec is not illegal.

Re:How is it different...

[bkhl]

That is because in that case, the developers haven't had the chance to even look at Microsofts implenentation.

In the case of Linux, it might be tempting to use what is already there, instead of reverse engineering.

Re:How is it different...

[Gummbah]

Sure there are license isseus where WINE is concerned. You actually need to have a valid and legal Microsoft license for the software you are running in it (i.e. you must have "purchased" the software) If you don't, you are clearly pirating their software.
Not that I care, mind you..

Re:How is it different...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention that sometimes Wine needs to rely on Windows binary DLLs, which a) requires a licence for Windows b) probably violates some licence requirement that the software only be used on Windows (think IE + libs have this clause, for example).

Didn't Corel ship a MS binary with their WordPerfect-on-Wine suite?

Re:How is it different...

[Stephen Samuel]

If people were ripping off MS source code, MS lawyers would be knocking on the door, and the MS PR hacks would be gleefully spouting off about it all over the place... because they (like everyone else) has access to the source code.

It's a little bit harder to prove code-stealing without access to the emulation source code, thus the speculative questions.

If they gave general access to their source code, then it'd be pretty easy to prove the question one way or the other (but then they'd also be halfway to being open-source again, too .. grin).

Re:How is it different...

[hawk]

>WINE runs Windows apps and I don't hear many complaints about
> license violations there.

yeah, but you don't hear many reports about successfully running the programs, either :)

(Yes, I know that many do, and I've used it on a few things that surprised me when they work. It still doesn't seem to fall in the category of "generally usuable in the forseeable future")

hawk

Re:How is it different...

[kiwaiti]

There is, however, something called "third-party software suppliers" that could lead to entirely non-MS software running on WINE. Interestingly, this may not require an MS license.

Kiwaiti

What's the point...

[justletmeinnow]

Why design a new OS if the whole goal is to run another OS's binaries. I hate to say it, but all these little projects like Sky and others will never have enough software developed for them to actually make them profitable. They're wasting their time, make the OS better and make applications for your OS before emulating everyone else's OS.

Re:What's the point...

[ZaneMcAuley]

It represents a migration path from the emulated OS to this OS.

Re:What's the point...

[vinnythenose]

Write great operating system (I don't know, I haven't used or looked at SkyOS). Gosh, you spent all that time on the OS you don't have development tools, graphics programs, games, office suites... hmm, no one will use the OS if you don't have a good base of those.

Where else can you get them from? Emulate until you have had time to build some native ones.

An OS is useless without the tools and it's pointless to make the tools without the OS. The easiest thing to do is make the OS and borrow tools for a short time, get a user base and build your own tools.

Re:What's the point...

[ZaneMcAuley]

Isnt it innovative ideas like Sky that helps bring new ideas into software?

Some people do this to get real world practice of things theyve read in books, and they keep at it and eventually it becomes something useful. Wasnt linux like that?

Re:What's the point...

[jallen02]

Even the author admits there is nothing innovative about the operating system. He also admits he has no goals for the system.. just a project. The features are rather standard as far as OS' go. Nothing too exciting.. just a cool pet project.

Jeremy

Re:What's the point...

[fault0]

Back in 1991:

I hate to say it, but all these little projects like Linux and others will never have enough software developed for them to actually make them profitable.

Back in 1985:

I hate to say it, but all these little projects like Windows and others will never have enough software developed for them to actually make them profitable.

Back in 1983:

I hate to say it, but all these little projects like Macintosh and others will never have enough software developed for them to actually make them profitable.

Re:What's the point...

[bolthole]

I hate to say it, but all these little projects like Linux and others will never have enough software developed for them to actually make them profitable.

You mean that as sarcasm, but it is actually true. No-one is making a profit "from linux". Even the various hardware vendors built "around linux" are going under, if they havent already.

The only company that comes even vaguely close to "making a profit on linux" (in the US, anyway) seems to be RedHat, and I'm not sure exactly how much money they are making from reselling free code (as balanced by the costs of bandwidth leeches grabbing it for free from their site).

They MIGHT be making a little money from support services. But last I heard, most "linux support" companies were going under also.

The greatest financial *BENEFIT* from linux, would seem to be in companies that save themselves money by installing linux, vs something that would cost them money. But note two things here:

1. "saving money" is NOT the same as "making a profit"

2. note that the benefit to them is simply the "free beer" aspect, not the "free speech" aspect. 99 out of 100 companies are not contributing new and important code to linux. They are simply benefiting from the fact that it is free for them to use.

Other Free OS alternatives

[ZaneMcAuley]

Solaris 9 (the beta is out) runs linux binaries.

Pros: its got good backing (who else puts the DOT in dotGone :) )

Cons: erm.. availability of code

Re:Other Free OS alternatives

[Mr. Piccolo]

Cons: erm.. availability of code

Hello, I guess you haven't looked here lately.

Now, if only someone would write the DRI drivers for Solaris, everything would be cool.

Re:Other Free OS alternatives

[ZaneMcAuley]

Nice *drools, slobbers* :)

Thanks

Re:Other Free OS alternatives

[Vagary]

Sun's license is "look but don't touch", which nullifies most of RMS's reasons for wanting open source...

Re:Other Free OS alternatives

[Anonymous Coward]

Solaris' source code *IS* available from Sun, you just have to pay for it!

Re:Other Free OS alternatives

[spinlocked]

Solaris 9 (the beta is out) runs linux binaries.

And so does Solaris 8, but only on x86 and not very well.

Poor imitation...

[gregwbrooks]

Just what we need: A geekier alternative to Linux.

Future conversation...

Geek acolyte: Whatcha runnin'?

Elder Geek:I've got SkyOS emulating Slackware, with WINE layered over that so I can use all my l00t wArEz.

Acolyte:Cool! How'z Mozilla run on it?

Elder: Still a little buggy -- but imagine a beowulf cluster of these...

gpl violations? how would you know?

[sgtron]

since it's closed source they could be doing anything i guess.. i guess if they get away with it then next thing you know, microsoft will be running linux binaries as well.

Re:gpl violations? how would you know?

[seann]

wow..
Just imagine if the next version of windows could run UNIX binaries?
Linux, FreeBSD, Macintosh (OSX, imagine the law suits), Beos.

Just imagine.

Re:gpl violations? how would you know?

[gewalkeriq]

Actually, adding native linix binary support was something I recommended to Microsoft years ago. Call it Winux. Implementation would be equivalent to the horribly lame OS/2 or POSIX subsytems.

Windows would gain the availability of many programs that do not have equivalents in the windows world (plus for MS users) Downside would be cost to support Winux (not large compared to cost of developing NT, linux is much less complicated then windows APIS). 98% of the Linux API is easily matched to the kernel, the 2% leftover would not be too challenging (e.g. cygwin or VMWare could be bribed into completing the job or licensing the base to MS)

The linux kernel & device drivers would not be supported directly by Winux, but by mapping to windows equivalents. Linux kernels and drivers would not be functional under Winux, but MS could build the most commonly needed drivers and document how to add your own. This would be way better than Interix because of the simple -- just copy the binaries around.

MS would be able to claim you could have you cake & eat it too, reduce the risk run Linux Apps and NT and don't get locked out of the use of Word & Excel. They could even claim the advantage of a O/S .supported by the mighty MS. And finally, they could be sure that the Linux apps would run at a disadvantage because of the extra overhead in the translation layer. They could even charge a few bucks for Winux -- people would be lining up to pay for it. Just consider the success of the MKS toolkit & even Interix

Linux would gain exposure by Windows users. They would see advantages and disadvantages of Linux software firsthand without a major investment of time to install Linux, esp. the headaches of dual-boot setup to try. Many open source projects seem to have a Windows option, save time & stop supporting that since Winux would avoid the need for such. Finally, Linux lovers would still be able to say just how bad, unstable, limited, etc. Winux is and that any right-minded person would just use the real thing. And for the coup-de-grace, Linux viruses, trojans, etc. would then be able to bring down Window too.

True believers of either side could ignore the other side, flame about it, or even cooperate with it as suits them personally.

Consumers could buy MS and have a choice as to what kind of software they use.

This obviously made so much sense that it did not stand a chance.

Re:gpl violations? how would you know?

[SuiteSisterMary]

Windows NT (now known as 2000 or XP) has always had a POSIX subsystem, and only recently lost the OS/2 subsystem. As originally designed, NT was a full microkernal, and was supposed to run EVERYTHING through an abstraction layer; write a "Windows NT" program and it would just run on your MIPS copy, or PowerPC copy, or x86 copy. At the time, computers were too slow to do the translation.

Re:but will it run...

[QuantumG]

...this [goatse.cx]? Guess the joke is over, wow, it only took 6 years for Slashdot to figure out that if you write the hostname after the url you can prevent people from clicking on stuff they dont wanna see.

Ooh... They "wondered".

[Anonymous Coward]

"I wonder". Worst insult I've heard all year. Slashdot should be barred from all mild speculation.

The fatal flaw.

[eclectric]

Who do they possibly hope to attact with this product? There's nothing very useful about buying an OS that can only emulate your preferred platform unless you actually like the OS more. It's like installing win2000 on a box and then running only DOS programs on it. Why not just install a simple dos? In this case, why not simply install one of the many... many forms of linux and run all of these programs directly.

Re:The fatal flaw.

[Anonymous Coward]

All wheels turn, but some are built better than others.

Re:The fatal flaw.

[dayo]

How is this a flaw? They are drawing people to their OS who might see SkyOS as a viable alternative by supporting (in the future, at least) applications that are currently in use. Who would be willing to try an OS if no apps. ran on it? If you can run your favorite editor, web browser, etc. etc. on both SkyOS and Linux then you can really make a comparison between the two and might spend more time getting to know it.
Also, it would be difficult for this small team to make much progress on their OS if they had to create SkyOS compatible versions of EVERY application people might like to try on it. Let them focus on OS development, not on applications. An easy way to do this: run existing Linux apps.

Re:The fatal flaw.

[neurojab]

But what if it's a better DOS than DOS (DESQVIEW)? wait. Bad example

How about a Better windows than windows (OS/2)? strike two.

A Better Linux than Linux? ...

Outa there.

Re:but will it run...

[Anonymous Coward]

wow, it only took you several months to figure out that now adds the hostname to urls

License? What stinkin' license?

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody care to point me to the place at SkyOS that actually talks about licensing? I've been looking for 20 minutes and have found not a single mention of a license agreement. How'd Timothy figure out it wasn't GPL'd?

Re:but will it run...

[Anonymous Coward]

What? You don't view all of your pages in native HTML?

Heh!

[Anonymous Coward]

ReactOS has been trying for the past few years to emulate Windows NT binaries? What's next, a DOS 6.22 emulator?

People are moving *away* from NT, why bother writing an emulator for it??

Probably not a violation

[CmdrTroll]

My friend worked on the Linux binary compatibility for SCO Unixware a little while back. I asked him about the licensing implications of the effort at the time, and he told me that there were a couple of main points that kept them out of trouble:

• Limiting the emulation environment to Linux kernel syscalls was very safe legally and quite trivial. Why? You can't copyright or patent an interface. And the Linux syscall interface, while symantically slightly different from other Unices, does essentially the same thing as other Unices. Support for Linux sysctls and other oddball features was not considered, mostly because the only software that used Linux sysctls and other oddball features were the system startup scripts. For the most part, applications used the standard file, process control (fork, exec, getpid, ctime), and socket syscalls, and making a translation layer for those was cake.
• libc posed a bit of a potential problem because it is GPL. Fortunately, there is nothing keeping SCO or anyone else from bundling GPL software with their product, as long as they ship the source too and don't like closed-source binaries against the GPL libraries. Sun ships 'less' and GNOME with Solaris now, and nobody's talked about suing them for it.
• Statically linked binaries were ideal. They didn't need libc, the Linux loader, or any supporting files at all to run those things. All they needed was kernel support for Linux ELF files (which are a skewed version of standard ELF - check out the specs sometime). No problem there.

In all likelihood, the Linux ABI will become a standard for all non-Microsoft x86 operating systems. It is simple and legal to implement, and very robust and powerful.

-CT

Re:Probably not a violation

[All Dead Homiez]

In all likelihood, the Linux ABI will become a standard for all non-Microsoft x86 operating systems. It is simple and legal to implement, and very robust and powerful.

Things definitely are moving in this direction. I just read on the netbsd-discuss mailing list that those folks are considering abandoning the slow BSD-style stack-based kernel calls, in favor of the quick register-based kernel call syntax favored by Linux and Solaris. If they do that, most syscalls will differ only in call number from the ones in Linux.

-all dead homiez

Re:Probably not a violation

[Anonymous Coward]

When that "robust" API will stop using pointers by
value in ioctl's, for instance? This makes the
use of NVidia binary-only drivers pretty hard on non-Linux platforms. I would certainly hope Linux
will not use it's popularity to push _broken_ API design to become a standard.

Re:Probably not a violation

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a complete lie. I have run Linux 1.2 binaries on my kernel 2.4.5 system before with no ill effects.

Maybe the interfaces for stat64() and the other "new additions" have changed a bit, but for the most part the user/kernel interface has been stable for years.

Re:Probably not a violation

[mandolin]

Of course, The linux ABI changes every 6 months,

As will any other rapidly-evolving OS.

and isn't as well thought out as any other unix,

Examples please! Also "any other unix" is really stretching it; there are plenty of crappy unices out there.

Nice troll!

Pot, meet kettle..

Re:Probably not a violation

[Anonymous Coward]

His conclusion (google cache version) is here [google.com].

How'd you do that redirect? Impressive. SCO_Compat looks perfectly innocuous.

Re:Probably not a violation

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderators! This person pointed out that some part of a BSD derived OS is inferior to Linux! (-1 Troll)!

Re:Probably not a violation

[Anonymous Coward]

The incompatibilities seem to be mainly on the glibc level, not the kernel. Not a problem if you bring over all the Linux libs wholesale.

It would be impossible to standardize the "Linux API' (whatever that is)...

Re:Probably not a violation

[bolthole]

] Of course, The linux ABI changes every 6 months,
]and isn't as well thought out as any other unix,

Examples please!

Gee, I thought he just gave you one. "The ABI changes every 6 months."

Re:Probably not a violation

[Anonymous Coward]

From the SuS (POSIX):
int ioctl(int fildes, int request, ... /* arg */);
...
The type of arg depends upon the particular control request, but it is either an integer or a pointer to a device-specific data structure.

Looks like you need to fix your OS and quit bitching.

Windows emulation is waste of time...

[Masa]

It's interesting to read this kind of announcements... people are talking about ability to run Windows binaries under different operating systems. But the fact is that the most noticable thing for small operating systems is the ability to run Linux binaries. With Linux support the OS has more credibility with smaller effort than with supporting proprietary binaries.

I'm waiting that day when people will realize that the point isn't Windows. It's Linux (for example *BSD know this and have binary support for Linux).

My point is that it is waste of resources to even try to create binary compatibility/emulation/support for Windows. Today it's more important to have Linux support because it's more realistic to have someting actually working.

So the path SkyOS is heading to is right, but the final goal is wrong.

Re:Windows emulation is waste of time...

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

I think the reason why there's no Windows emulation is that it's a pain in the ass. There are SO many dependancies, so many undocumented hooks. The GUI layer. Linux is just less complex. Especially if you're on an essentially POSIX complienat system already (I don't know if SkyOS is POSIX compliant). Look at WINE, many man-years and only now are they into soemthing that runs Win32 stuff reaonabl well. A hobbyist just doesn't have that time.

Re:Windows emulation is waste of time...

[Phroggy]

Windows emulation is a waste of whose time? Yours?

Re:Lucy

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad it's the smallest penis on this thread.

Bah, heathen

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Collect underpants.

...

It's a waste of time, but...

[twilight30]

the point is, it's *his* waste of time.

Regardless of the licensing terms, this guy seriously doesn't expect to do anything truly useful with this OS.

Remember that Torvalds initially didn't use the GPL for the kernel.

Also note that Caldera has a 'distribution' that doesn't even use the kernel but rather reimplements a 'personality' -- I mean, even Unisys likes it !(I'm being sarcastic)

Understand, though, I am not criticising his intent -- he has an itch; he wants to scratch. At least he's pursuing his own muse.

Re:It's a waste of time, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Regardless of the licensing terms, this guy seriously doesn't expect to do anything truly useful with this OS.

That's funny, because SkyOS already does lots of useful things.

running linux binaries on non-linux OSs

[soboroff]

btw, if for some odd reason you have want to have a non-Linux OS but want to run Linux binaries on it, FreeBSD does a bang-up job.

Re:running linux binaries on non-linux OSs

[praedor]

Curious...does this include linux games (aka, Loki's, etc)? My initial thought is that *BSD would but I am not certain on this assumption.

Re:running linux binaries on non-linux OSs

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as you have the correct libraries then, yes, games work. I was playing Quake3 Arena test on a NetBSD machine using linux emulation shortly after the Q3Arena test was released. Sometimes there are problems with unimplemented system calls but normally they are fixed pretty quickly.

Re:running linux binaries on non-linux OSs

[Anonymous Coward]

It should, yes. I'm sure other people can explain this much better but it sort of adds a layer over the kernel to make it work with applications that talk to a linux kernel. It can also run linux procfs if you have linux compat installed and you put linprocfs in /etc/fstab exactly the same as fBSD's proc filesystem gets mounted. Needed for some linux apps.

Default linux compat in current freeBSD is modeled after redhat6, hence its referred to as linux6. FreeBSD stable (4.4 is current release) branch already has linux7 in the ports collection, but from what I've read on mailing lists it's not all ready yet (based on redhat7 of course).

I only install from ports (= source tarballs with freeBSD patches) but upto now not a single linux port has failed me. And they say some even run faster on fBSD than on native linux, but I have no proof for that.

Then again I don't do gaming but I think they would run just fine although I'm not sure how much hassle would be involved in patching them, if needed. Many linux apps seem to be running on fBSD without any source modification I believe. It deals with SCO apps the same way.

Timmy

[Anonymous Coward]

is small troll doll that sits on your lap and talks with a lisp (not LISP).

Re:Timmy

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not forget the cleft asshole....

Damn, dude, your post is the funniest ac of the day.

Re:but will it run...

[ralmeida]

If you think that you're really safe, click here. (Better not)

ReactOS not just going for app compatibility

[JasonFilby]

I just want to point out that ReactOS is NOT just aiming for application compatibility (as is suggested by the submitter). We're also looking to support NT/2K/XP drivers and we're modelling the entire kernel and subsystems around the way NT works. Sure we'll do things differently where there won't be a huge compromise in compatibility and we can make something better.

- Jason

And a reason to run this OS is what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking at the screenshots, I'd say this operating system looks more like a lousy combo of sucky Windows GUI and Unix CLI. It's pretty dang ugly. I pronouce it "AssOS"

Re:And a reason to run this OS is what?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not an acceptable name. It sounds to Usama like. Assos is far too Middle Eastern, and therefore manical and savage. How about RecumOS. It sounds more greek. And since the greeks were fond of the wild butt sex, it hold true.

Re:And a reason to run this OS is what?

[Anonymous Coward]

In contrast to popular belief, it is the Turks who are fond of butt sex, not Greeks. The Orthodox church does not allow it, but bi-sexuality and butt sex was pretty popular in the ancient Greece, but not today.
BTW, Assos is also a greek word, but don't ask me what it means 'cause I can't remember. It has something to do with playing cards I think.

Re:And a reason to run this OS is what?

[Anonymous Coward]

However, if you reread my post, you will note that I referred to Wild Butt Sex not just plain jane butt sex.

In other news...

[woggo]

"Linux" now runs Linux binaries natively, without even a recompile! It seems that those wacky "Linux" kernel guys have managed to emulate 100% of Linux system calls. It's really slick -- they just run the user-level code in the binaries natively and then dispatch to the right part of the "Linux" kernel when a trap occurs, via an advanced mechanism called the "system call table" which maps Linux system call numbers to "Linux" system calls. Word on the street is that nerds everywhere are ecstatic at being able to run their Linux binaries on their favorite "Linux" system.

---

I guess that running Linux binaries is a pretty good way to get some applications on your hobbyist operating system, but does this young, closed-source OS have anything to offer us besides the retro Amiga-esque GUI and an emulation layer for 6% of Linux system calls?

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

well, linux distributions (rhat, debian, suse, etc) all do things as differently as possible, so unless you're running static-linked applications, binary compatability is abysmal.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

More news!

Windows are now running windows binaries, without even a recompile!

No need for WINE anymore.

Do what is right!

[kjj]

Fork the code. Reimplement new fetures. That is what should be done. When people asked about Mozilla reay being open source the response was that you are always able to "do what is right, fork the code" This is the best thing anytime someone trys to take source away mid project. It would be one thing if this was closed from the beginning, but making major license changes like this is asking for trouble and upset developers. OpenSSH vs SHH anyone? Yes thats BSD. People say GPL projects can't be forked but they certainly can be and there are some examples of that as well. I believe OpenRacer vs Tux Racer is one. There was another having to do with file systems. Anyone remember what that one was called?

Re:Do what is right!

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone tries to take away code???

He relicesenses HIS OWN DAMN CODE. What he likes to do with his own code is his business, not yours or anyone else.

Punk...

Re:Do what is right!

[sydb]

GFS / OpenGFS

Re:Do what is right!

[Anonymous Coward]

Looter. What have you done for the world lately?

Re:Do what is right!

[Anonymous Coward]

What scares me the most is that some clueless asshole actually has modded this as insightful.

That suggestion is really about forcing your will upon others.

Would you think it's ok if Microsoft took some GPL'd code aswell just because they don't like the license?

Re:Do what is right!

[WNight]

If he ever released it under a redistributable (BSD or GPL) type license in order to solicit people's help, then it's not possible (or morally right) for him to take it away.

While he can stop releasing new versions in such a fashion (in he ever did) he can't revoke the old license.

If (and this is a big if) he closed the source after implying that it would always be open, I think that anyone with the old code is justified in forking it at the last public version. After all, if he was the driving force, the main branch will get better and the forks will die off. If he merely cribbed the work of others, they will become dominant when his stagnates.

Re:Do what is right!

[WNight]

Oh grow up and quit reading Ayn Rand.

If I was involved in a project and it was suddenly closed-sourced around me, after I had contributed with the idea that it would be open, I'd fork it too.

If you want to play "what have you done" it's almost always the person who closes the source who has done the least. They can't make something on their own, but they get greedy later and want to own it, despite being unable to make it without help.

Not that this was done with SkyOS. But if it was, forking the code is a perfectly acceptable thing to do.

Re:Do what is right!

[QuoteMstr]

You also forget the whole Emacs vs. XEmacs split.

Re:Do what is right!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh grow up and quit reading Ayn Rand

just when I start doubting whether /. is worth the time, someone brings me back.

Re:Do what is right!

[Anonymous Coward]

PHPNuke / PostNuke

Re:Do what is right!

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck does Ayn Rand have to do with this topic?

Re:Do what is right!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck ignore the above comment. The Atlas Shrugged reference was moderated down out of my view. Apologies.

Re:Do what is right!

[jrockway]

Yeah, but both were GPL. RMS just didn't like competition :) It's good to have 2 emacses (is that the plural of emacs?), since by competing they both get better faster. Emacs 21 is simply awesome!

Buying an OS?

[albat0r]

I don't know where you've had this information about "buying an OS", but if you're talking about SkyOS (and I think it's the case since you're not "offtopic"), this OS isn't for sell, it's free! Because this OS isn't Open Source anymore, it doesn't means that it isn't free anymore... don't be confused by Open Source and Free , they aren't the same thing : one is about source code and the other is about an economic things that some people call "money"...

Re:Buying an OS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Free Software is about civil liberties and ethics. Open Source is pragmatic about software development. The word for something that merely doesn't cost a lot of money is "cheap".

Re:Buying an OS?

[Anonymous Coward]

people still BUY OSes these days?! How quaint..

GPL Violation???

[LazyDawg]

How is it a violation of the GPL being able to run arbitrary binaries from GPLed OSes? They're not stealing the GCC compiler, they've not stolen the kernel, just its personality, and they probably use different libraries... what is the problem?

Re:GPL Violation???

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is the typical FSF bullshit. If we didn't make it, they can go get fucked, it's shit.

Re:GPL Violation???

[Rogain]

Probably schmobly, exactly what they DO, it is an interesting trivia question, and if they do it by somehow stealing code, then it could be more than trivia. Don't slam people for asking the question.

The same way it's possible to build

[mindstrm]

WINE for christ's sake. But easier, because you don't have to reverse-engineer the APIs.

All they have to do is implement the proper syscalls, which are documented in the linux source code. They don't even need source to do this.

What do you mean 'without looking at the original source'. Anyone is free to look at the linux kernel source, for any reason.
ANd learn what syscalls are...

Re:The same way it's possible to build

[Stephen Samuel]

What do you mean 'without looking at the original source'. Anyone is free to look at the linux kernel source, for any reason. ANd learn what syscalls are...

With GPL code, you're only free to look at the code if the derivative source is going to be publicly available. You could, however, look at the linux documentation to figure out how stuff works, ad then do your own implementation (but someone else should be doing the docs for you, then).

You could also look at BSD licensed code that calls the GPL routine to see how it's used. That's legal because you're free to do whatever you want with GPL code. You might, however, run into a technical glitch if it turns out that the BSD code was 'tainted' with GPL code. (this would have the BSD code in probable violation of the GPL license, too - but with less liklihood of a screaming meanie fit on the part of the GPL programmer)

Windows Unix Emulation by MS

[Scoria]

Enough said.

Re:Windows Unix Emulation by MS

[athakur999]

From that web page:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) In 1998 the Internal Revenue Service began replacing their aging UNIX systems with lower cost Microsoft Windows NT-based systems. A major challenge they faced was how to migrate critical applications from UNIX to Windows NT.

Oh, so THAT'S why they're so confused.

There is money in Open sauce.

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for a very rich family, and am paid very well for my 'open sauce' efforts. OPening ketchup bottles is a real career option.

Re:There is money in Open sauce.

[Rogain]

Clearly you have not seen the many other sauce products from rival groups like Mustard, and the new mexican import "Salsa". Wake up! your Ketchup vs Catsup wars are now truely irrelavent. Age old rivals like Horseradish are making a comeback. Even niche condiments like Worrstershire Sauce are increasing their installed base at your red, watery expense.

From the horses mouth...

[gosand]

From the author himself, in an interview:

5. Do you accept help and source code or bug fixes from third parties? Do you put restrictions to third parties regarding coding style etc?

Robert Szeleney: Until version 3.0, SkyOS was open source. But now, I don`t want SkyOS to be open source. I put so many work into this project, that I don`t want to give to source away. But I accept project members. If someone want to code for SkyOS he can have source. Also, I accept source codes and bugfixes for SkyOS. I don`t put restrictions for coding style. If someone coded for example a new driver, I will change the code to fit into the whole SkyOS coding style.

gosand (bracing for the "all your base" comments)

Fucking Retards

[mosch]

That's not only wrong and potentially actionable to suggest that SkyOS is a GPL violator, it's fucking stupid.

Think about how that kind of emulation works, you just do system call translation. What on earth code would you steal? This is code that, by design, HAS to be original.

Slashdot's editors truly need to be more careful, and they need to issue an apology to SkyOS for making such an irrational accusation.

Re:Fucking Retards

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they need to be more vigilant at anything which might dethrone linux from it's crown in the desktop and server arenas.

Oops, I forgot Microsoft, BSD, Sun, Apple. Well, they don't count, so DOWN WITH THE SKY.

Just think about

[Anonymous Coward]

what you could do with a beowulf cluster of these!

Reading Slashdot articles 101

[gblues]

Even though editors approve stories, people seem to forget that the part in italics is the words of the submission, not the editor. Yes, the suggestion was rude, but the suggestion came from a slashdot reader, not from the editor(s)!

Nathan

You're right.

[eAndroid]

But just like most of life's injustices it isn't likely to get better any time soon.

opensource = substandard

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if you like substandard operating systems, go hard. Linux couldn't hold a candle to BeOS or QNX (Neutrino) and they have been in development for a fraction of the time.

Re:opensource = substandard

[Anonymous Coward]

Umh, Be started in 1990, and QNX have been coding their rt operating systems since 1980.

Re:Reading Slashdot comments 101

[_Bean_]

At least to me it reads like he's upset with the submitter for writing it and with Tim for posting it.

Re:Lucy

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad watermelons are out of season.

Re:but will it run...

[hoggoth]

MOD THAT DOWN! It HURTS my eyes!

(oh, and mod THIS down too while you're at it.)

For lack of a better title...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you come with the operating system?

Oh you, huhuhu...
</simpsons>

One Word

[maloi]

Choice.

Obligatory "New OS" Slashdot Reaction

[John_Booty]

Let me just sum up 95% of the posts on this topic, in case anyone doesn't have time to read them. Everytime a new OS is announced, posts follow this distribution!

• 25% will be licensing arguments
• 40% of posts will ask, "why do we need another OS?"
• 10% of posts will say, "why not?"
• 10% of posts will say, "it doesn't matter, because making your own OS is cool and if you were a true hacker you'd understand"
• 5% will say, "because Linux is too bloated now"
• 5% will say, "I hope it has [insert cool feature here] like [AmigaOS, BeOS, AtheOS or some other OS the poster is name-dropping to sound 31337]

Re:Obligatory "New OS" Slashdot Reaction

[wholesomegrits]

Let me sum up the comments, since apparently you have not read them:

50% will be "first dead penis bird post"
30% will be "What the fuck is Timothy thinking...he owes them an apology."
10% will be "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these"
and 10% will be "here's a direct cut and paste of what's in the link, please mod this up as I am a karma whore."

Re:Obligatory "New OS" Slashdot Reaction

[John_Booty]

• The remaining 5% will be karma whores linking to Google's cache of the poor guy's Slashdotted website

Why it is a problem.

[fmaxwell]

I have nothing against open or closed source projects. What bothers me is when open source projects become closed source without the approval of 100% of those who contributed to the development.

If a developer gives his time because he believes in the principles behind open source, he should not see someone else declare that the project on which he worked is now closed source.

I do not know if this is the case with SkyOS and do not mean to imply that it is.

The BSDs already do this and better

[Anonymous Coward]

Big deal, I run Linux binaries on my NetBSD box all the time. Nothing new, nothing exciting. Move on.

I won't even elaborate on your GPL remark other than you need to lay off the crack pipe before you post.

Perplexing

[Flammon]

Well, I find the people who find the people on Slashdot perplexing, perplexing.

Re:Perplexing

[jellybear]

I find people who find people who find people on Slashdot perplexing perplexing perplexing

Nope

[isolation]

people are moving away from 9x based software not the NT model. 2k/XP is still NT with a new GUI and refined driver model.

ReactOS aims to recreate both the application and driver support.

Check out the ReactOS app and driver compat database at http://65.8.134.110

Timothy....

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gives a flying fuck if the (largely) invalid GPL is being violated? Shame on you for posting this shit.

and for that matter

[hawk]

If one is going to jump immediately to conclusions, the *more reasonable* question is whether they used BSD code, which would be legal--because that would be a more reasonable way to handle the emulation.

Compare the immediate reaction of "did they violate GPL" with a absolutely no basis, in the face of the fact that it would be *more* difficult to get appropriate code from linux than from bsd, to the "wait and ask why" reaction to theft of bsd code by linux a couple of weeks ago.

Then let's all head down to the High Church of Emacs and sing the hymn, "GPL, GPL, uber alles" . . .

hawk

MACH - Re:not all syscalls implemented

[Anonymous Coward]

I seem to remeber that the NEXT machine ran
a version of MACH which handled almost all Unix
system calls and had great software compability.

..on another note..

[greysky]

Microsoft announced today that they have successfully emulated 55% of Windows system calls in their WindowsXP product, and have deemed it ready for release.

Convergence to common binary format : good or not?

[chrysalis]

Nowadays :

• Linux runs Linux binaries (wow)
• SCO runs Linux binaries
• AIX runs Linux binaries
• Solaris runs Linux binaries
• OpenBSD runs Linux binaries
• NetBSD runs Linux binaries
• FreeBSD runs Linux binaries
• Windows runs Linux binaries (LIME project)
• SkyOS runs Linux binaries

And all these emulations are very fast, because they are hooks to native OS functions. They aren't 100% emulation, like VMWare. I use Linux binaries daily on OpenBSD and FreeBSD, and I can hardly find any significant slowdown between a native BSD application, and the same application compiled for Linux, and run with emulation.
So can we imagine that Linux binaries could become a de facto standard for executables?
We would get something similar to Java, but yet more powerful (no tie to a specific language nor a specific API) . Ok, x86 binaries would only run on x86, but the same binary could run on 95% of the computers, regardless of their operating system. Any sort of application, low-level or high-level. GUI or daemon. And always fast, wrapping native system calls.
The nasty drawback is that people would release more closed-source software.
But OTOH, if you can take all your current applications and easily migrate to any operating system by just copying everything, including binaries, you can save a lot of time. You can also develop applications for customers even if you don't run a similar OS.
Would it be a dream, or a hell?

Hey, are you suggesting that ...

[2Bits]

SkyOS is like Win2K and Linux is like DOS?
Don't let me see you, I'm a Linux fundamentalist.

Critical question

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's the cutie?

Re:Critical question

[gabba_gabba_hey]

I dunno, but you might wanna ask her about that rash on her head before you get too involved :-P

Noo way

[gregorio]

People are moving *away* from NT, why bother writing an emulator for it??

For the first time EVER, Microsoft is using the "New Technology" on home-user Windows versions and you say that people are moving away from NT?
If you plan to use Windows XP in the future, believe-me, you'll have a VERY NT-based future.

Your posting is mediocre

[Bruce Perens]

I don't have the slightest idea why you got a +5 "insightful" for this very mediocre posting.

Your posting is mediocre because you provide no justification whatsoever for your claims. For example, you could have said that the Linux SCSI implementation is very poor, or that it's based on the 30-year-old Unix paradigm. And in the case of SCSI, you would have been right, in the case of Unix, you would have had to demonstrate how something else works better, which would not have been easy, and too many people who try only show their lack of grounding in operating systems design. But you didn't even try.

Bruce

Re:Your posting is mediocre

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent flamebait!!

Re:Your posting is mediocre

[Anonymous Coward]

This is from the guy with the undisputed Slashdot record for undeserved "Score 5 Insightful" posts.

Re:Your posting is mediocre

[Anonymous Coward]

Your reply is poor because you totally missed the point.

Re:Your posting is mediocre

[Anonymous Coward]

What I find truely interesting is that your post Bruce appears to have begun at score +4. Notice the lack of "insightful", "interesting", etc. that would normally appear for such a post. I find this truely interesting.

Re:Your posting is mediocre

[Malcontent]

He got a +5 because this is slashdot. Any post critisizing linux will get a +5. Same as any post praising windows 2000 or XP. Try it sometime (not that you need any more karma).

Re:Your posting is mediocre

[QuantumG]

Moderation Totals: Underrated=2, Total=2

Where did you hear that?

[mindstrm]

Where does it say you cannot LOOK at code and learn from it? Derivative does not mean 'inspired by' or 'made with knowledge gained from'.. it means you took significant enough portions of the original code and added to it.
But you can LOOK at it to see how the API works all you want.

I think you are a bit confused.

If he's doing his own OS, it's not beneficial to use the linux source *anyway*. All he's doing is implementing syscalls.. which simply means making the functionst in his own OS take the same args as the linux ones, in laymans terms. Ripping the guts out of the kernel routines in linux would be almost useless.

Re:Where did you hear that?

[Stephen Samuel]

One of the things it take to prove copyright violaiton is to prove that the person you're accusing probably had access to the original. If a defendant can show that they took precautions to avoid contact with the older code, it becomes harder for the plaintif to prove a violation.

This is part of what occurred in the IBM/Phoenix trial (as I understand it). Phoenix's ability to prove that they'd taken strong measures to avoid contamination raised the bar for IBM and IBM wasn't able to get over it.

If you look at the code, you weaken your defences in the case of a (threatened) lawsuit.

The Good,Bad and the Ugly

[redzebra]

The Good : a new os project is still alive and kicking

The Bad : it emulates binaries, which ain't new and is just important for closed source stuff

The ugly : timotroll making lame remarks concerning licence violations without having a clue At least kudoz to the guy(s) building SkyOS. Even if this OS doesn't suite your needs, they're not the ones doing nothing and complaining: -- red.

Re:The Good,Bad and the Ugly

[TeknoHog]

The Bad : it emulates binaries, which ain't new and is just important for closed source stuff

Why is this so Bad? It's probably easier for many people (esp. end users) than recompiling, which would probably involve some level of porting of the program. And there are lots of Linux binaries available already.

There's nothing bad about increasing the potential user base of an open source program. For many people it makes no difference if it's beer not speech free. And after they have it running, we can hint at the fact that it would run better and faster on linux ... :-)

Pedantic mode on

[mandolin]

Windows runs Linux binaries (LIME project)

That's LINE, http://line.sourceforge.net/

(Pedantic mode off)

Re:Pedantic mode on

[QuantumG]

and VMWare virtualizes hardware, it doesn't emulate anything.

Hopefully no GPL violations...

[coupland]

While I agree that it would be bad if this OS violates the GPL in any way I've gotta say that I sure hope not! In fact, I think the community should be darned excited about this announcement. One of the founding principles of Linux is *choice* -- including the choice to not run Linux at all. I think it's a credit to the sharing spirit of the community that a company is capable of accomplishing this...

Excellent stuff

[TeknoHog]

Sounds like a dream. If this really works. I'm seeing slight problems, especially with non-unix systems: for example the fact that Windows is still kind of case-insensitive in filenames. And multi-user management, etc. But these are quite minor issues. For something requiring high security you would probably want to choose a native app.

The nasty drawback is that people would release more closed-source software.

Not necessarily. Those who write open software would have very little reasons to change their philosophy. There would still be the chance to compile (if possible) to get the best performance.

The really interesting thing is, if we stress the fact that those apps will run better and faster on Linux. Sadly, I think that's just the reason companie$ will keep this from happening. Platform locking is done even when it's not technically required.

Re:Excellent stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

The really interesting thing is, if we stress the fact that those apps will run better and faster on Linux.

The funny thing is, most Linux binaries don't run faster on Linux. All Linux apps I run under FreeBSD run at least 10% faster on FreeBSD than Linux.

Re:Excellent stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who has tried it myself, as opposed to just reading about it on freebsd-advocacy, bullshit.

This is up there with the "Linux stole the BSD TCP/IP stack" myth. And to think people claim Linux zealots are religious to the point of stupidity.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

News Flash

[Rogain]

The GNU/Linux Operating system now encludes full linux support.

Stupid is as stupid reads

[Anonymous Coward]

They're just catering to the mental level of their audience. Were you expecting enlightenment from the slashdolts? Sorry, ain't here, nobody but us tards. The smart people fled long ago.

Mobos and Quake3 and Unreal are the most complex things these people understand.

That post is rude and unnecessary

[the Analogue Kid]

I don't see why an outright flame should get commented up like that.

Re:That post is rude and unnecessary

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at his user id #. He's from back in the day when CmdrTaco was give free handjobs to anyone who would join slashdot.

Re:That post is rude and unnecessary

[Erasmus Darwin]

"I don't see why an outright flame should get commented up like that."

You are quite correct in that such a flame should never have gotten moderated up like it did. The reason, however, is that the story at the top level of Slashdot should've never been posted in the first place with thinly-veiled, unsubstantiated implied allegations of potential theft.

Stealing

[SilentChris]

"I wonder if there are any GPL violations going on here."

Why not? They've already stole the Windows 95 icons.

Re:Stealing

[nvainio]

They didn't. The icons are quite similar, though. Perhaps "My Computer" icon seems the same, but if you compare it with the Windows icon, you'll see the difference.

What does it have to offer?

[dayo]

How about a fully premptable kernel without having to apply a patch.

another BoundToDieOS

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, that does quiet an amazing amount of unix-like OS projects, that are bound to die as soon as possible, like 90% of all opensource projects.
I can allready picture the website of this OS getting less and less updates, and becoming like forgotten geocities homepage in a couple of months. It's very informative to build an OS from scratch, and I really see it as a very nice way to learn system programming. But let's face, if 1 of these projects gets one 1000th of the success of linux, we'll be very happy.
Anyway I cant resist to think about the waste of talent and energy that's spent in these projects instead of joining the forces of development of allready present freenixes.

Re: skynet

[Anonymous Coward]

SkyNet is due to run linux
binaries natively by 2010.
And I understand Colossus is based
on AIX.

tool

[Anonymous Coward]

well, as long as we're talking about OS's, check out what this tool wrote at my campus newspaper:
here

GPL violations

[kz45]

I wonder if there are any GPL violations going on here.

ever heard of wine? Why aren't people asking: I wonder if there are any microsoft EULA violations going on.

answer: Hypocrisy.

Your logic is flawed

[Dwonis]

in the case of Unix, you would have had to demonstrate how something else works better,

If Windows was the only operating system in existence today, by your logic, it would be unjustified to say that "Windows fails as an operating system on many levels". The fact that there is nothing that currently works better simply means that new ideas need to be explored. It does NOT mean that the current system is the best possible system.

Yes, the parent poster's comment was lacking in quality, but that doesn't make the statement incorrect.

nice...I usually try to

[Anonymous Koward]

disagree with you..heck, I may even look for reasons if I can, but you have presented a solid argument. Nice, too bad that it's on /. and will be modded down below the radar where most won't see it anyway. Again, good job...solid...which is more than most ramblings on this site.

MODERATORS

[Anonymous Coward]

What moderiot modded the above troll as INSIGHTFUL?!?!?

Astroturfing...

[Anonymous Coward]

...looks as if some astroturfers on MS payroll got mod points. Disgusting. Metamoderators, do your thing!

Source for version 2.0 is available

[nvainio]

There's an older homepage (version 2.1) still in the web. The source is there, but I couldn't unzip it. Can somebody else? Also, what is the licence? On the site I cannot find any information about that.

And, in the interview, the developer mentioned you can ask for the source code. Concerned about GPL violations? Ask for the code and check it.

Re:Source for version 2.0 is available

[nvainio]

The source is there, but I couldn't unzip it.

Ok, forget it.

It turned out that I actually couldn't even download it. The file I had downloaded with "Save Link As" (in Konqueror) seems to be just a HTML file. No wonder I couldn't unzip.

The site just gives a download page with link to the file, but clicking that does practically nothing. After some tries I finally got a page telling that file does not exist.

Re:Convergence to common binary format : good or n

[kptBlaha]

There is a LINUX kernel module for IBCS (Intel Binary Compatibility Services). I use the module to run SCO binaries on Linux. Works like a miracle. Unfortunately, strange processors (RISCs, Aplhas ...) still exist with issues like big/little endianness.

Exactly!

[jawtheshark]

Hehe, I exactly wondered the same thing on seeing the screenshots. At first I thought it would be the developers girlfriend, but that seems quite improbable, I mean, would *you* code a new OS if you had a girlfriend, I sure woudn't :-)

On the other hand I had the reflex to click on "members" and you'll see someone called "Indra Gunawan" which is the webmaster and debugged the bootcode. Last time I checked "Indra" is a female name, so I'd bet that it's her...displaying her pic Hitchcock-style on her webpage.
No, I'm not sure...but I'd be very glad to meet a geetekke like her :-)

Likely to be Linux' most important contribution

[hawk]

>So can we imagine that Linux binaries could become a de facto standard
>for executables?

This is likely to be the most important contribution linux makes, though perhaps not at the binary level.

Unix is defragmenting at the moment, even the versions not using linux binaries. What has been missing is a feasible reference point. With competing Unices, all with pointless differences, no vender could "concede" my moving to a competitor's standard. Linux removes that problems (and in many cases, makes sense to adopt). Still, the benefit of Linux's *existence* gives a common "standard" which the rest can move to while having political cover/saving face . . .

hawk

SkyOS No More !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to follow their web site, and downloaded a couple of versions' binaries and source. The main reason was that it was open source. Now they say that they are going closed source. And the reasons mentioned are not valid. I would advice them to follow the line of Theo de Raadt, or many other open source advocates. They starve, but do not stray...

(BTW: the reason for the existence of SkyOS is not so important for me, it might as well be for fun only...)

And the mood of many other commenters I have read here is similar. I think they will lose a lot of supporters.

And I wonder what sourceforge is going to do about it...

I personally do not care about SkyOS project no more.

Definatly GPL violation, I personally can't...

[Anonymous Coward]

Definatly GPL violation, I personally can't say anymore than this, nor how I know but someone should definatly do something about this.
Just like companies that wanna make a new product, yet not release the source code should NOT choose GPL in those cases. BSD license is the way to go for that, GPL is you want it re-released under the same restrictive license and to remain open-source regardless of it's author(s) - being owned not even by the author him/herself, but to that of the GP!

check out the girl in the screenshots!!!!

[ColtCougar]

www.skyos.org

SkyOS sucks my dick like a hoover

[Anonymous Coward]

SkyOS is so gay that it sucks with pouty pouty lips like a fag sailor in a bus station restroom kneeling in urine puddles as he felates random strangers.