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

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?

[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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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.

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!

[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: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.

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: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.

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.

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).

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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.