Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SkyOS Development Team Quizzed

Posted by simoniker on from the limit-of-heaven dept.

Hexydes writes "TechIMO recently interviewed the SkyOS Development Team about SkyOS. The developers were asked questions regarding SkyOS 5.0, what a typical development day is like, and why they decided to work on SkyOS, which is 'a free operating system written from scratch for x86 PC's'. Included in the interview are pictures from the most recent beta build of SkyOS 5.0"

83 comments

  1. Wow, 5.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1995 more versions, and they can compete with Windows 2000!

  2. Stay away from this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    SkyOs is just one building block in the construction of SkyNet.

    Once SkyOs merges with .NET, it's Terminator time, baby!

  3. Free eh? by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 5, Informative

    Something that...

    1: Eats at GPL programs and does not follow GPL
    2: Has no source to examine
    3: No "Open Source" type license
    4: Pissy developers when you mention Open Source

    Real free. Want speech with that?

    --
    1. Re:Free eh? by Haeleth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's free as in beer, which is still what the majority of the English-speaking world think of when you talk about "free software". Whether that's good or bad depends on your point of view, but it is a fact.

      As for "something that eats at GPL programs and does not follow GPL" - would you care to back that accusation up, please?

    2. Re:Free eh? by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      The SkyOS team is accused of making the GNU tools for their system WITHOUT providing FSF with patches for compilation.

      Figuring how SkyOS is made for public dissemination (anybody can download/install it), they're breaking the GPL.

      As for references, there's a stir on the SkyOS message boards occaisionally, but the admins delete them. I'm pretty sure they're listed also with the FSF as GPL breakers too....

      --
    3. Re:Free eh? by swdunlop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is free as in the bait laid neatly at the center of the bear trap..

      BeOS was free as in beer for personal use, too -- then, when Be's money dried up, the OS was neatly packed up in Palm's back pocket. Sure, there have been a few runs at trying to keep the OS alive, but they are far too disorganized to be of any worth.

      When SkyOS's development team disintegrates, what will happen to its users, and its source code? Forking is a healthy thing for operating systems, from the point of view of its users, because it means the OS will continue to exist, independant of a few individual developers' whims.

      The only actual reason for keeping the kernel source closed is the ego of the developers. It's a cute OS from the screenshots, but anyone who is really looking for a desktop replacement should think long and hard about what happens when this project folds.

      --
      Weapons of Mass Analysis
    4. Re:Free eh? by Hexydes · · Score: 5, Informative
      You have no idea what you're talking about. Its sad that you would parade around your claims as if they were facts.

      We have talked to the FSF, and they are perfectly fine with our project. We also talked to any developers whose code we used in included applications, and any ones we were able to contact were also fine with the situation.

      In fact, the ONLY people who have had a problem with things regarding the GPL are a few random users on Slashdot. The FSF is fine with us. Developers are fine with us. 99% of users are fine with us. Why do you have such a problem with our project? We aren't breaking any part of the GPL purposely. Robert accidentally does not have the source for the 4.0 applications available any more (as he uses them to develop to the 5.0 applications), and we've already cleared all of that up with the developers and the FSF. When we release 5.0, we will also be releasing the source to GPL applications.

      As far as the kernel and underlying parts of the system go, 95% of that is code that Robert has written, the rest uses BSD.

      I really wish a few people would stop looking for ways to attack our project.

    5. Re:Free eh? by The+Bungi · · Score: 1
      Don't sweat it. I think SkyOS is cool, and it's refreshing to see something more complex than Notepad that doesn't come with a political agenda. The crap you read here is just the Bashdork groupthink in action:

      NOT [L]GPL!!! KILL!! KILL!!!! MY COUSIN VINNY SAID A FRIEND OF A FRIEND OF A FRIEND TOLD HIM THE SKYOS TEAM EAT CHILDREN WITH TABASCO SAUCE!!! OK, MOD ME UP!!!1! NEXT FUD ARTICLE!!! LOOK, SHINY!!! OOOOHHHHH!!!

      Just keep doing what you're doing and ignore the warts - especially here. The warts in the nadir of the internet are about as worthy of attention as... well, you get the idea.

    6. Re:Free eh? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      The SkyOS team is accused of making the GNU tools for their system WITHOUT providing FSF with patches for compilation.

      As far as I understand it, this is perfectly valid under the terms of the GPL. All you need to do is allow any recipient of the derived code to have the source. You don't have any obligation to provide it to the person you got it from.

    7. Re:Free eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if you didn't require absurd things like Vesa 2.0 compatible video card to even BOOT, you wouldn't be treated like such a child.

    8. Re:Free eh? by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      "In fact, the ONLY people who have had a problem with things regarding the GPL are a few random users on Slashdot."

      You're really attempting to whitewash the situation. Nearly every news story I see on the Internet about SkyOS, there are numerous people who express their concern about the use of GPL software. For example, at OSNews, a recently posted story contains such hopes that the situation of GPL use or misuse will become clear.

      My personal recommendation is to either make the entire OS licensed under the GPL, as otherwise it will look like you are hiding something, or stop using GPL software, which exists to eventually overcome proprietary software's damage to society, which unfortunately you are only propagating.

    9. Re:Free eh? by Hexydes · · Score: 1

      The actual OS contains no GPL code, so we are under no obligation to make the code available under the GPL. The only reason a few people are upset is because we included a few applications that are available under the GPL without making the source available (due to a confusion on our part). As of 5.0, the source for those applications will be made available. Apparently you are quite confused about the situation, if you think that we are "hiding" something because we have chosen not to use the GPL for our operating system. We have no more obligation to use the GPL than we do to use, say, the MIT license.

  4. They don't get OSS by Khazunga · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Robert: The core OS itself is closed source. This way I can make sure that no forks of SkyOS will be made, and that there is always only a single SkyOS distribution. Furthermore, keeping the core OS closed source makes it possible for me to control and change any kernel function as fast as possible without waiting for other developers to checkout/checkin due to different time zones and other considerations.
    Forking, mystified as the big bad wolf in OSS projects occurs only when the project seems doomed. Furthermore, I have no example of a fork that caused a project to fail. I'd like to know the real reason behind not releasing the OS as open source. Surely, it can't be the huge market out there for Yet Another Operating System.

    And yet, on their main page:

    We are looking for some good software developers to join the SkyOS Software Development team. Their duty will be to port or write some good applications and drivers before our 5.0 release. In order to join the team you must have:

    (...)

    This is not a paid position. There are, however, some benefits that come with it:

    (...blabber about access to dev s/w, duh!...)

    WTF? I didn't know the market was so bad people took s/w positions in exchange for access to toy operating systems. Well it isn't. And you can't get people to work for free while you make all the money. Choose open source or closed source, but play by the rules...
    --
    If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
    1. Re:They don't get OSS by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Forking, mystified as the big bad wolf in OSS projects occurs only when the project seems doomed. Furthermore, I have no example of a fork that caused a project to fail. I'd like to know the real reason behind not releasing the OS as open source. Surely, it can't be the huge market out there for Yet Another Operating System.
      Quite. And another thing that annoyed me about that quote was this:
      Furthermore, keeping the core OS closed source makes it possible for me to control and change any kernel function as fast as possible without waiting for other developers to checkout/checkin due to different time zones and other considerations.
      While this may be true of the "open source methodology" (where many people contribute to a single project which grows in an evolutionary way, The Cathedral and the Bazaar describing this), the opposite of "open source methodology" is not "closed source" it's "not open source methodology". There's nothing stopping someone from letting people obtain their own copy of the source code while keeping control over their particular "official" version.

      That's assuming they consider "waiting for other developers to checkout/checkin" an actual problem. There's nothing stopping him from making changes to a local copy of the code, testing it, and then checking the changes in to a central repository. It's good enough for virtually everyone else...

      I really can't help but feel that he's either not really thought through the issue properly, or that these are surface level excuses for a deeper fear of what opening the code would do.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:They don't get OSS by Compuser · · Score: 1

      No fork has ever caused a project to fail? Define
      fail. In many cases, esp. if they care about GUI
      giving users choice is abject failure. So for
      instance a big failure of Linux is the user having
      a choice between the looks and feels provided by
      different distros as opposed to one look and feel
      for Windows or OSX. This of course refers to
      system defaults since everyone allows you to
      customize.
      Similar fragmentation exists further down, so for
      instance users do not have ONE WAY of laying out
      their directory structure. Nor is there ONE WAY
      to install things. Do I need to mention many ways
      in which you can drag and drop. The latter is so
      bad that there are now two ways that coexist in
      most cases one being internal to X the other being
      provided by a library.
      It may seem counterintuitive but choice is not
      always good. Having one standard is often better.
      That said, it needs to be an open standard, so
      at the very least they should consider a java-like
      license: look but don't change, and if you have
      suggestions on changes send them to us so we can
      decide. And they should consider putting code in
      some sort of escrow so if they get tired of it
      then it becomes GPL or something. Otherwise it is
      unclear what the motivation is for someone to work
      on their system.

    3. Re:They don't get OSS by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hey if that is what he wants then that is fine. Part of me thinks that Linux is too big and heavy weight to be a great desktop OS, yet I look at Windows XP and Mac OS/X and think maybe not.
      All I can say is keep plugging a way at it guys but I do not have the time or any compleing reason to help, I am too busy learning my way around the Linux Kernel.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    4. Re:They don't get OSS by gunga · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It seems to me none of the examples you give were caused by forking a project. It doesn't mean you're wrong about the problems with to many choices for the end-user.

      You said it yourself:
      > Having one standard is often better.

      I'm not sure having projects fork makes standard more difficult to achieve, even if it seems counterintuitive.

    5. Re:They don't get OSS by Quill_28 · · Score: 2, Funny

      >They don't get OSS

      You mean they don't believe the proprietary software is evil?

      I say thank God.

    6. Re:They don't get OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Wow. For you to deduce that from what he said, you must have serious issues.

      Perhaps it's time to get out of the parent's basement, take some fresh air, and look at what's outside.

    7. Re:They don't get OSS by Quill_28 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm very interesting.

      Since, I am happily married with children(3) and get out quite often.

      The first post, jumped all over the guy for not being true OSS. I must admit I assumed he was referring to GNU and the RMS type of thinking.

      1) I get tired of people slamming other folks because it doesn't fit into their ideal of what OSS is or is not.

      2) RMS would say SkyOS is evil, with this I have problems. Yes, I may have jumped the gun.

      I didn't post ac why did you?

    8. Re:They don't get OSS by Smartcowboy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Surely, it can't be the huge market out there for Yet Another Operating System.

      How many DIFFERENT operating systems is out there?

      I count all these unix-like as only one because they are not so different and inovative from each other.

      So there are (in no particular order):

      -Windows
      -UNIX and UNIX-like (Linux, BSD, ect)
      -OSX (UNIX-like but don't use X)

      In the somewhat-usable-for-the-desktop market, i think that's all. There is many other specialised OS but SkyOS want to be a desktop OS. Only three...

      And don't count these os that are no longer maintained or don't have a significative market share:
      -Amiga
      -BeOS
      -OS/2
      -put your favorite unknown desktop os here

    9. Re:They don't get OSS by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

      I'd like to know the real reason behind not releasing the OS as open source.


      Isn't it obvious? (wink) It's because they're afraid they might've misappropriated SCO's "intellectual property." (grin) I can already see it... Daryl ranting about "million and million of lines of code misappropriated by SkyOS" after their suit against the Rest of the Planet (TM) goes to pieces.

      --
      ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    10. Re:They don't get OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The first post, jumped all over the guy for not being true OSS. I must admit I assumed he was referring to GNU and the RMS type of thinking.
      1. No, he didn't. He jumped over the guy for making some bizarre descriptions of OSS. Nobody has ever claimed SkyOS is OSS, so to have said it wasn't "true OSS" would have been stating the obvious. What he actually said was this:
      Forking, mystified as the big bad wolf in OSS projects occurs only when the project seems doomed. Furthermore, I have no example of a fork that caused a project to fail. I'd like to know the real reason behind not releasing the OS as open source. Surely, it can't be the huge market out there for Yet Another Operating System.
      which as you can see is a perfectly legitimate non-ideological response to a statement crediting a war against forking for not releasing SkyOS open source. The reasons for closing SkyOS may be anything the authors want, but if they make them public and they're silly, you can't expect people to not comment, regardless of whether they want SkyOS open or closed.

      2. GNU and RMS have nothing to do with OSS. OSS is the ESR/Perens crowd, the gun-toting libertarians.

      I get tired of people slamming other folks because it doesn't fit into their ideal of what OSS is or is not.
      Really? Then why did you slam this guy, given it wasn't an example of "people slamming other folks because it doesn't fit into their ideal" of anything?
      RMS would say SkyOS is evil, with this I have problems. Yes, I may have jumped the gun.
      RMS would object to the SkyOS project's treatment of end-users. He wouldn't describe an operating system as "evil".
      I didn't post ac why did you?
      Because this is off-topic.
    11. Re:They don't get OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Because this is off-topic

      Karma whore.

    12. Re:They don't get OSS by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      And don't count these os that are no longer maintained or don't have a significative market share: -Amiga
      -BeOS
      -OS/2
      Well, SkyOS doesn't have significant market share either but I digress:

      AmigaOS in a free and open form is available in the form of AROS. While I'm not overly happy about the license (MPL based), it is unquestionally open source and free software.

      BeOS has a number of free and open clones in development at different stages of being.

      OS/2 is still being maintained and is available commercially.

      Additionally, other free operating systems do exist, such as Syllable/AtheOS)

      So the poster's original point about SkyOS has some merit. It's not Free as in Nelson Mandela, it lacks commercial support, it certainly isn't (to use your criteria) starting with some significant market share, and given it appears to have few advantages over the others and an inability to grow organically (as an open source project might), it seems unlikely to pick up any advantages, and finally nobody who likes it can have confidence in there being future support. AtheOS would have died years ago after its lead developer stopped work on it if it hadn't been for the fact it was GPL'd.

      I'm delighted someone isn't looking at what's out there and saying "Hey, I don't need to write another OS", but an OS without marketshare and commercial support needs to show its still capable of being supportable. SkyOS doesn't have that, and anyone who installed it on their own machine and tried to make it their main platform would be taking an enormous risk as a result. You'd actually be better off installing a more recent version of BeOS - there is, after all, a large enough base of people out there that third party support for BeOS is a reality.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    13. Re:They don't get OSS by Quill_28 · · Score: 1

      Forking as nothing to do with OSS. It has everything to do with software devlopment.

      He slammed the guy saying he doesn't get OSS.

      I said I thank God. Why? because I have alot of problems with GNU/RMS type of thinking and some of the OSS type of thinking.

      This is what RMS says of non-"FREE" software:

      "Proprietary software is antisocial, so developing it is wrong."

      Evil may be a strong word, but so are RMS statements about non-"FREE" software.

      > 2. GNU and RMS have nothing to do with OSS. OSS is the ESR/Perens crowd

      I said I may have jumped the gun, too many definitions of software sometimes.

      OK I'm tired already.

    14. Re:They don't get OSS by Compuser · · Score: 1

      You could regard the entire distro war in Lunix as
      a bunch of forks in the sense that they take same
      code and package it to their liking. Sometimes
      even their Linux trees are a bit different. So
      I'd call that situation a fork.

    15. Re:They don't get OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      2. GNU and RMS have nothing to do with OSS. OSS is the ESR/Perens crowd, the gun-toting libertarians.

      That's so funny. When RMS does something stupid (which tends to be all the time), everyone dissasociates themselves from him. RMS is not representative/involved/married to/whatever with this very specific thing we're talking about, neener, neener. When it's the 20th anniversary of GNU/FSF/emacs/whatever, everyone is full of slobby praise and insightful eulogies about the man. Open source would not exist without him, I love him! I gave him my firstborn!! | Free software would not exist without him, I love him! I gave him my firstborn!! Why? Because most of you can't tell the difference if your life depended on it anyway!

      Same for ESR, same for Perens and everyone else.

      Here's a hint: Outside of your circle of "friends", nobody can tell - or gives a fuck about - the differences and nitpicking. Nobody gives a fuck about the "critical" difference between free-as-in-beer and free-as-in-shit-i'm-just-cheap. "Free software" and "open source" are exactly the same thing. Nobody could care less about the "fundamental" differences between RMS and ESR's slightly derived "join us or die" philosphy. You're all just a big black uniform blob of unwashed sheep and when RMS whines about "GNU/Linux" or Torvalds is quoted with "they're on crack" on national media, you all take a hit.

      You people really amuse me, if nothing else.

    16. Re:They don't get OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That's so funny. When RMS does something stupid (which tends to be all the time), everyone dissasociates themselves from him.
      RMS has nothing whatsoever to do with Open Source. If you had a clue, you'd know that. RMS considers Open Source to be a different movement, and has made many speeches to that effect.

      And it's not nit-picking. Open Source is a movement to help businesses. Free Software is a movement to help users and programmers and protect the free flow of information. Their fundamental principles are entirely different.

    17. Re:They don't get OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If you had a clue

      Like I said, nobody gives a flying fuck.

    18. Re:They don't get OSS by Hexydes · · Score: 1
      "RMS would object to the SkyOS project's treatment of end-users. He wouldn't describe an operating system as "evil"."

      Are you an end user? On what would you or RMS base your objection to how we treat our end users? We don't really have any end users at this point, the only thing that comes close really is our beta testing team. We have had no complaints from any of them about our "treatment" towards them. In fact, we make a point to look at the feedback from them numerous times a day and try to help them with issues. We've also worked personally with each and every person to make sure they've all received everything that they have paid for and to make sure they are satisfied with everything.

      If that is poor treatment of end users, then I suppose I just don't know what good treatment is.

    19. Re:They don't get OSS by BillyBlaze · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Watch your spelling.

      I wouldn't consider different distros using different patchsets to Linux forks. The kernels used by most distros swarm around vanilla - they get upgraded at the same time and have mostly the same code. Often the only difference is which features are applied. A fork would involve having two vanilla Linuxes, each evolving in a different direction, and some core developers going to Fredix while some stay with Linux.

      That's the kernel. Certainly many distros fork, for example Mandrake was once RedHat optimized for i586. But consider why a fork happens: somebody thinks, "I could do this better myself." This is more likely to happen with a closed or inflexible project than with an open, flexible one.

      If SkyOS gets popular, then becomes open, a fork would be likely. But if it opens while it's still small, developers won't think they can "go it alone." A lot also depends on how the project is managed.

    20. Re:They don't get OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If that is poor treatment of end users, then I suppose I just don't know what good treatment is.
      Obviously not. You basically assume that because people are used to being abused and because you throw a few carrots in their direction that you're somehow great people.

      No, I'm not one of your end users. I don't want to commit myself to something that might be unsupported and unsupportable within a year, a month, or even an hour. I don't want to have restrictions on my ability to share knowledge. I don't want to force myself into a position of trusting someone I have no good reason to trust.

      And sure, if you want, use the "Hey, they choose to use our crap". I choose not to. I see it as abusive. I'd see someone offering me a bar of chocolate in return for the right to kick me in the nuts as an abusive offer, and I think it's reasonable for someone as concerned about the right to speak, think, and create as Richard Stallman has the right to consider an offer of a device that has utility but restricts the rights of end users abusive.

    21. Re:They don't get OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      RMS does to begin with. So it's not "nobody".

      But, hey, you Republicans are all the same, a bunch of racists who want the rich to be richer and the poor poorer, right?

    22. Re:They don't get OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Wait, let me get this straight, Republicans are racist? Why don't you tell me what party wrote the Emancipation Proclamation and freed the slaves. Why don't you tell me what party had a bigger majority voting FOR the Civil Rights act of 1964.

      Don't pull this revisionist history bullshit. People aren't stupid. Republicans aren't racist, and history backs that fact up. Its so sad that Democrats have to paint Republicans as evil racists in order to get votes.

      By the way, the answer to both of the above questions is the Republicans. Abraham Lincoln(R) from Illinois and then President of the United State wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. It was the Republicans that freed the slaves, not the Democrats. And in 1964, more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights act than did the Democrats. Without Republicans that Act would have failed, because Southern Democrats like Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr. voted against it.

      Get your fucking facts straight. You don't know shit, don't be afraid to admit it. How sad that you either know so little about the history of the United States, or that you would choose to revise that history in order to make your political affiliation look better.

    23. Re:They don't get OSS by Hexydes · · Score: 1

      It appears you simply have deep ideological differences in how you think software development and distribution should work. I respect that, its your right to feel that way. However, you really should check the amount of animosity you have towards those who feel differently than you. You can believe that all software should be OSS, and you can say that you feel we should open source, but for you to say that we "abuse" our users is way out of line.

    24. Re:They don't get OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's unfortunate there isn't a "-1, IQ Equal To Age" moderation.

      You just brought RMS into it again and validated my point, and I'm not republican. Actually I fail to see how my political affiliation would be relevant, though I suppose that goes with the low IQ bit.

      Please kill yourself. Slowly.

    25. Re:They don't get OSS by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      Sounds to me like you just WANT the source code for free, and are cry baby because you dont get your way.

      Fact of the matter is, a LOT of people/companies (including me) make closed source free software, but if you want the code, you pay me a licensing fee.

      Don't like it? Write your own damn code.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    26. Re:They don't get OSS by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      If it sounds like that, then it may be time for you to go back to school (assuming you've left) and do a little English comprehension, fuckwit.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    27. Re:They don't get OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But seriously though, it did sound like that's what you meant, that you wanted the source, and because its not GPL, you're getting all misty about it.

    28. Re:They don't get OSS by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      No, it sounds like I'm seeing bizarre reasoning used for not going OSS, and suggesting that the reasoning is bizarre.

      I don't want the source. I don't use SkyOS. I don't have any interest in it. I do know I will not consider using SkyOS unless it either has substantial commercial backing, or becomes free (as in Nelson Mandela, not just as in T-shirts) software, but that's for the same reasons as I wouldn't put my private parts in the hands of a maniac with an axe. Would you be willing to use an operating system - to tie up all your work into an environment - that relies upon the goodwill and work of one person, who may possibly be the nicest, most hardworking, guy in the world but counts for nothing if he falls under a bus tomorrow?

      None of which (your comments or mine) are relevent to what I wrote, which was challenging bizarre assertions about what going open source would imply. As you'd have known if you read it, instead of letting your blinkered zealotry get the better of you.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    29. Re:They don't get OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "No, it sounds like I'm seeing bizarre reasoning used for not going OSS, and suggesting that the reasoning is bizarre."

      Who cares what the reason is, its their decision to make. Who the hell are you to tell them what to do. You feel OSS is the way to go. Good for you. They disagree. Good for them. Why are they wrong? They could just as easily say that you are wrong. That's the problem with OSS zealots, if you don't agree with them, you're instantly wrong, and inherently evil.

      "I don't want the source. I don't use SkyOS. I don't have any interest in it. I do know I will not consider using SkyOS unless it either has substantial commercial backing, or becomes free (as in Nelson Mandela, not just as in T-shirts) software, but that's for the same reasons as I wouldn't put my private parts in the hands of a maniac with an axe."

      Once again, "Either you agree with me or you're wrong." You know, some people don't like the GPL. That doesn't make them wrong, that gives them a different opinion than you. It looks as though the SkyOS Team is working towards making SkyOS a professional alternative, rather than just a hobby. To that end, they probably are trying to find commercial backing. If that is the case, then why would they want to make their code open? Then anyone could pick up right where they are and they'd be S.O.L. as far as starting a company.

      "Would you be willing to use an operating system - to tie up all your work into an environment - that relies upon the goodwill and work of one person, who may possibly be the nicest, most hardworking, guy in the world but counts for nothing if he falls under a bus tomorrow?

      I have to imagine that they have sufficient guidelines set up so that if something did happen to the main coder, that the source would still be available for the dev team to access.

      "None of which (your comments or mine) are relevent to what I wrote, which was challenging bizarre assertions about what going open source would imply. As you'd have known if you read it, instead of letting your blinkered zealotry get the better of you.

      Pot. Kettle. Black.

    30. Re:They don't get OSS by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      Who cares what the reason is, its their decision to make. Who the hell are you to tell them what to do. You feel OSS is the way to go. Good for you. They disagree. Good for them. Why are they wrong? They could just as easily say that you are wrong. That's the problem with OSS zealots, if you don't agree with them, you're instantly wrong, and inherently evil.
      Tell you what, as there isn't a single sentence above that has anything to do with the message you're responding to, I'll let you try a second time at a reply.
      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    31. Re:They don't get OSS by Tukla · · Score: 1

      How can an AC be a karma whore?

    32. Re:They don't get OSS by Tukla · · Score: 1

      I go by what the parties are doing today, not by what (almost) entirely different people who used the same label were doing 40 or 100 years ago. For example, according to your post, Republicans have overwhelmingly reversed their stand on civil rights since 1964.

    33. Re:They don't get OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're fucking retarded. Grow a brain, Republicans aren't racist, the problem is, you have an extra chromosome.

    34. Re:They don't get OSS by Tukla · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the Republicans aren't pushing hard to amend the fucking Constitution to prevent homosexual marriages. They're big civil rights advocates.

    35. Re:They don't get OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm, explain to me how that makes them racists...

    36. Re:They don't get OSS by Tukla · · Score: 1

      I never mentioned racism. I said "civil rights", which includes, but isn't limited to, racism.

    37. Re:They don't get OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Good for you. The parent did. I quote:

      "But, hey, you Republicans are all the same, a bunch of racists who want the rich to be richer and the poor poorer, right?"

      If you believe the above, then you are nothing but a political whore.

  5. Minimize, Maximize & Close ? by Hakubi_Washu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hm, I haven't tried it yet, and probably never will, but judging from the screen shot with the applications open there are three coloured buttons on the upper right edge of a window. What the heck are these supposed to represent? They sure as hell do not represent my idea of "easy to use graphical interface", as they do in no way represent their functionality... (At least I wouldn't connect any color with "minimize", while a small line on a button can easily be a graphic representation of "moved to taskbar"...) Just a personal opinion...

    1. Re:Minimize, Maximize & Close ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'm just curious to know why the storage place for MPEGs is the /boot area.

    2. Re:Minimize, Maximize & Close ? by Hexydes · · Score: 2, Informative

      When you move your mouse cursor over the icons, a picture appears inside of the icon that is more representative of its function.

    3. Re:Minimize, Maximize & Close ? by Hakubi_Washu · · Score: 1

      Hm, sounds a bit better, but I still don't see a good reason... I've read a little bit on the SkyOS-Forums now and they say that it will be themeable, so I could get a more intuitive interface later...

    4. Re:Minimize, Maximize & Close ? by sglane81 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have actually downloaded it and installed it. It was really just a waste of my time. I downloaded it because all the screenshots they showed were nice and I had a spare box to play with before I put woody (Debian 3.0r2) on it.

      My findings are that the GUI is very basic and not very intuitive. I understand that a lot of work has been put into the project, but it hasn't come very far in a couple years. IIRC, most of the actions were buried in places I wouldn't think to look. I seriously doubt this OS will succeed because of the combination of the following:

      1. Closed Source
      2. Small Dev team
      3. Developers' poor attitudes

      This OS has been developed for a few years now and there isn't hardly anything to show for it. This will be YAHOS (Yet Another Hobby OS).

      --
      This is the Internet. You can say "fuck" here. - AC
    5. Re:Minimize, Maximize & Close ? by caseih · · Score: 1

      Having to wave a mouse cursor all over the screen to find out what things do is a bad UI decision in my opinion. OS X does the same thing for their window decorations, which I think is a bad idea, but they do use red,yellow, and green, which sort of helps you figure out what they might do.

      UI elements should immediately convey their intended purpose and function (in most cases) rather than force the user to hilight them before telling exactly what it does. Purists would say right-clicking is bad for just that very reason. OS X has a happy medium here by showing a "gear" icon that you can always click on to get options for the current selected object, or you can right click if you know how.

      Michael

    6. Re:Minimize, Maximize & Close ? by Hexydes · · Score: 1
      First of all, if you downloaded SkyOS, unless you are a beta tester, you are using one of the old version of SkyOS (4.0 or earlier). So much has been done since that release, its literally the difference between Windows 3.0 and Windows XP (new file system, new interface, more stable, etc.). So you really gave yourself a poor representation of what SkyOS currently is (or will be at the next public release).

      Second, I really take offense to you saying that we (the developers) have poor attitudes. We have tried so hard to work with our community, take feedback, help people, and listen to suggestions. To then hear someone say that we have a "poor attitude" is really disheartening. Luckily, I can take solace in the fact that you probably aren't of the SkyOS community, so you really have no clout to say that we have "poor attitudes".

    7. Re:Minimize, Maximize & Close ? by sglane81 · · Score: 1

      I do believe it was the 4.0 version now that you mention it. This was a while back, but I attempted to contact someone in the development team to assist in the devlopment since I am a developer myself. To my chagrin, the response was along the lines of "we don't need any help, thank you." Short and sweet, but at the same time somewhat rude. At the time, I was extremely interested in developing for the project for personal gain of experience and for the benefit of the project itself. My intentions were quite benevolent: I was not/am not looking for notoriety, money, or to expose the source.

      As to the project's future, I still believe it would enjoy much more success if it had a larger developer team. Having more developers means faster development and possibly better code (not saying the current developers are bad). I am not as concerned about the licensing not being GPL/Open Source as a lot of other developers.

      I appreciate your civility and look forward to your response.

      --
      This is the Internet. You can say "fuck" here. - AC
    8. Re:Minimize, Maximize & Close ? by sglane81 · · Score: 1

      You obviously haven't used OS X or even seen someone use it. I think it is a great idea because once you get used to which color has which function, it becomes very intuitive. A person can associate a color (opposed to text or icons) to an actions is much faster. It's also easier to tell someone without pointing. Imagine:

      Tech Support A: Click the yellow button.

      vs

      Tech Support B: Click the button that looks like 2 squares overlapping.

      Granted, most "close window" icons are the X but what about the minimize and fullscreen/restore buttons? And this is just for 3 buttons, so you're not having to remember 100 colors' different actions.

      --
      This is the Internet. You can say "fuck" here. - AC
    9. Re:Minimize, Maximize & Close ? by Hexydes · · Score: 1
      If it was 4.0, just know that you've basically used a totally different operating system. SkyOS 5.0 is nothing like SkyOS 3.0 or 4.0.

      I can't really say much as far your conversation with whoever you talked to, because I wasn't a part of it. If it was Robert, you would have to remember 1) he is very limited on time and doesn't generally have a whole lot of time for chit-chat (he gets many, many e-mails every day, and tons of suggestions and offers for help), and 2) his first language is not English, so he may have left one or two punctual adjectives out. :)

      We are working on expanding the dev team. This time last year, the team consisted of Robert. Now, we have myself (Lead Graphics Designer), Nathan (Lead Software Designer), 3-4 software designers, 1-2 graphics designers, community contributors, and of course, the main man, Robert. We are still looking for people who are interested in joining the software development team, so if you have a lot of experience with the C language, and are a hard worker, then we would be glad to have you on our team. Visit skyos.org for more information.

    10. Re:Minimize, Maximize & Close ? by sglane81 · · Score: 1

      You will hear from me shortly in an email. However, one BIG complaint I have from the site is the tiny font display in Gecko (and other?) browsers. 9px and font size=1? The developers for the site must be on a resolution of 640x480.

      --
      This is the Internet. You can say "fuck" here. - AC
    11. Re:Minimize, Maximize & Close ? by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      When you move your mouse cursor over the icons, a picture appears inside of the icon that is more representative of its function.

      Sounds like it was brought to us by the same committee that decided to not "clutter up" the display with underscores letting you know which Alt+letter keys did what; instead, the underscores don't appear until you hit Alt (and how would you know that hitting Alt would have any effect without the underscores to guide you?).

      I'm all for advanced interface development but I don't see any reason not to put that picture inside the icon by default. If it absolutely must change when you mouse-over it, give it a different outline or something instead of hiding functionality. Makes it too much like an old Sierra game; as another responder said, having to mouse all over everything on the screen is counter-productive.

      I'm not bashing -- this is (hopefully) constructive criticism. I think the idea of a new OS is great and I wish them success in their development.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    12. Re:Minimize, Maximize & Close ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think it is a great idea because once you get used to which color has which function, it becomes very intuitive.

      I suggest you look up the definition of "intuitive" before you misuse it again in public.

    13. Re:Minimize, Maximize & Close ? by Tukla · · Score: 1
      the tiny font display in Gecko (and other?) browsers

      FWIW, the text is tiny in IE6, as well.

  6. Team? by saden1 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Development Team? I thought it was a one man show!

    --

    -----
    One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
  7. So much for intuitive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So much for intuitive. Heaven forbid that they replace the picture with a meaningful word or two so you have some idea of what the icon does without decoding two obtuse pictographs.

    Easy to use: a button with the word FILE on it for the file folder.

    Hard to use: a button with yellowish square with a bumping coming out of the side of it.

    Easy to use: a button with the word SAVE on it (to save file)

    Hard to use: a button with a floppy disk on it (a bizarre Windows standard). Load? Save? Access a hidden 5.25" diskette you did not even know your knew Dell had in it? Who knows?

    There are some ways that GUI's have gone backwards as far as ease of use goes.

  8. knee jerk by bcrowell · · Score: 3, Insightful
    My knee-jerk reaction to this was, "Aw, gimmee a break, it's closed source? They can't be serious!"

    But it might not be as crazy as it sounds. Reading between the lines, it sounds like they're trying to take this closed-source hobby OS and turn it into a closed-source commercial OS. Slashdotters might have a hard time believing it, but many people are both (a) disgusted with Windows, and (b) scared to attempt Linux. Even if they succeed in capturing only 2% of the x86 market, that's still more CPUs than Apple has! Heck, with 0.2% of the x86 market they could still be quite a big, profitable company.

    The Apple analogy is also interesting, because Apple has already shown how easy it is to write a proprietary OS while taking advantage of open-source tools. This could be digital miscegenation in the eyes of the Stallmanites, but it seems to have worked pretty well.

    Of course, their market would always be limited. Like MacOS X, it's never gonna run the games you see on the shelf at a retail store. But plenty of people have old x86 machines running Windows 3.1 or Windows 95 that they only use for web surfing and e-mail. Those people might balk at the price of upgrading Windows, or the price of buying a Mac, but an OS that Just Works, priced at $60 or something, might be very appealing to them.

    <flamebait> Maybe we should admit that no system based on shared libraries and X11 is ever going to be really easy for a naive user to install and use. </flamebait>

    And let's not forget that we can't fight the Windows monoculture by poo-poohing people who want to create or use an alternative OS.

    --
    Find free books.
    1. Re:knee jerk by sglane81 · · Score: 1

      it's never gonna run the games you see on the shelf at a retail store

      I disagree. Most games on Windows are developed on DirectX, OpenGL, or SDL. The last two will become more popular in the future due to the extreme portability of the libraries. OpenGL and SDL can interact directly with the framebuffer bypassing the OS layer for graphics meaning more portability. The only real obstacle is the OS reading the binary formats or the developers writing it with portability in mind. It is not that hard to get a nice big game (with a high frame rate) to run on multiple platforms if you are using OpenGL (the industry standard BTW) or SDL with portability in mind. For reference, take a look at the number of high quality games from Loki (http://www.lokigames.com/products/). I know for a fact Loki uses SDL for a good bit of their games (if not all).

      --
      This is the Internet. You can say "fuck" here. - AC
    2. Re:knee jerk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Mac OS (9 & X) have an installed base of somewhere around 11%, meaning about 11% of the computers in use today are Macs.

      So I doubt that 2% of 88% of desktop computers > 11% of desktop computers.

    3. Re:knee jerk by sashang · · Score: 1

      OpenGL and SDL can interact directly with the framebuffer bypassing the OS layer for graphics meaning more portability.
      SDL intereacts with DirectX or the Win32 API if DX isn't available.
      see here
      If it could bypass the OS it would have to have a driver level component. Something that runs in ring 0 (i.e. at the kernel level).

    4. Re:knee jerk by bcrowell · · Score: 1
      it's never gonna run the games you see on the shelf at a retail store

      I disagree. Most games on Windows are developed on DirectX, OpenGL, or SDL.

      Maybe you're right, although the game developers would, e.g., have to decide it was worth their while to print "Sky OS" on the box as a system it runs on, and to offer support. (If they can't be bothered to support Mac Classic or MacOS X, I have a hard time believing they'd support SkyOS.)

      But in a broader sense, what you're saying is an example of a valid response to people who say "we have to keep on using Linux and X forever, because how else are we going to replace the base of applications?" It's not necessary to port every single application. It's only necessary to port a certain number of toolkits (GTK, Qt, wxWindows, Tk, ...) For example, you can run Qt apps on MacOS X.

      --
      Find free books.
    5. Re:knee jerk by notamac · · Score: 1

      Hmm... seems to me that more development is done with DirectX nowadays, since it seems to track what each round of graphics cards can do without having to resort to a billion different extensions. Regardless, there are a ton of little issues that crop up every time you try to make something like this portable, and without a decent market share, the $ burned just might not justify the karma earned. Also... please remember that Loki went bust.

    6. Re:knee jerk by True+Grit · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't have a problem with someone working on an alternative OS, but I still have to agree with the earlier poster that I seriously doubt this OS will get anywhere as long as its closed source. They can do whatever they want, my only "problem", is just why does this OS get more coverage than Syllable? :)

      Its the open and decentralized nature of Linux that allows it to succeed so well. Linux's success so far relies on one thing really, *drivers*. Linux supports a lot of hardware because hundreds of people volunteer their time to write drivers for their hardware, and that is only possible because the source for the OS is available, *and* because these people feel they are getting something back by contributing, and because some/many of them feel their code won't be "stolen" and made closed-source again by some commercial interest.

      I know the SkyOS people are talented, but I'm simply saying that for a modern OS to succeed today, it has to support a lot of hardware, and no small group working by themselves can write all the drivers that are needed. No matter how many people they bring in to the development team, they will never match the ability of the open source community to get an OS working on a wide range of hardware (including non-x86). Outside of multi-billion dollar corporations, only the open-source effort behind Linux (and to a lesser extent, the BSDs) has succeeded in that goal.

      I don't see any closed-source alternative succeeding in gaining marketshare on MS's turf. IBM with its hundreds of developers and millions of dollars couldn't do it with OS/2. BeOS lives on only as a dream in the mind of some diehard open-source hackers (who I truly hope succeed), and both of those OSes were arguably superior to Windows. No, the only way an OS can emerge and actually take marketshare away from MS's monopoly, is for that OS not only to be free-as-in-beer, but free-as-in-freedom as well.

      So until they open-source their project, I can't see SkyOS as ever being relevent or interesting, because as long as they remain closed-source they will *never* attract enough developers to make it a viable OS. Sorry, but thats really the bottom line for me and thousands of others, never mind that, after Windows, and the subsequent enlightenment by Linux, I and many others won't spend even 5 minutes on another closed-source OS.

      The truth is, I'd rather read about an update on Syllable. I almost downloaded that some months ago but chickened out when I realized how big the download would be. What are the odds of CheapBytes or someone similar putting Syllable on a CD? Does CheapBytes take requests? :)

    7. Re:knee jerk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      >>>"So until they open-source their project, I can't see SkyOS as ever being relevent or interesting, because as long as they remain closed-source they will *never* attract enough developers to make it a viable OS. Sorry, but thats really the bottom line for me and thousands of others, never mind that, after Windows, and the subsequent enlightenment by Linux, I and many others won't spend even 5 minutes on another closed-source OS.

      That's because you're short-sighted. Who says that the SkyOS team has to write drivers for their OS? Of course they have to to get the ball rolling, but eventually, hardware manufacturers could choose to develop a SkyOS driver for their hardware alongside Windows. Windows doesn't have its huge driver support because they have billions of dollars, they have it because they have enough customers that hardware manufacturers find it beneficial to provide drivers so that people will use their hardware under Windows.

      >>>The truth is, I'd rather read about an update on Syllable.

      Yes, but in order to read an update about Syllable, they would have to do something newsworthy. All they have done is take AtheOS and add a few odds and ends. The development pace of SkyOS when compared to Syllable (or pretty much any project for that matter) is astronomical.

      >>>"So until they open-source their project, I can't see SkyOS as ever being relevent or interesting, because as long as they remain closed-source they will *never* attract enough developers to make it a viable OS. Sorry, but thats really the bottom line for me and thousands of others, never mind that, after Windows, and the subsequent enlightenment by Linux, I and many others won't spend even 5 minutes on another closed-source OS."

      Wow, I didn't know you had taken a poll of thousands of people to get their opinion on this subject. Aren't you a busy beaver! SkyOS is already relevant. Just look at how many times it has appeared on Slashdot. The two TechIMO articles that have come up have gotten tens of thousands of hits. Apparently the SkyOS team sold so many spots on the beta team that they had to close the signups list (a little too late for me *weep*). If you look on their webpage, they are about to pass 2,000,000 hits. They've also had numerous requests to buy the source from them (which they have turned down), and hardware companies send hardware to them all the time to get it running on their OS. Does that sound like an OS that isn't relevant or interesting? Are they as big as Windows? Of course not, but you have to start somewhere.

      >>>"I don't see any closed-source alternative succeeding in gaining marketshare on MS's turf. IBM with its hundreds of developers and millions of dollars couldn't do it with OS/2. BeOS lives on only as a dream in the mind of some diehard open-source hackers (who I truly hope succeed), and both of those OSes were arguably superior to Windows.

      OS/2 died because IBM didn't have any idea what to do with it. They thought that Microsoft was going to make them an OS, and then they didn't deliver. It spent the rest of its years as a small side project, not ever getting advertised. The reason BeOS died is two-fold. First, Be became more interested in their stupid portable environment BeIA, and basically put BeOS in the background. Second, Microsoft made getting BeOS pre-installed on computers and impossibility (for which they were sued for $20 million later).

      Take off your OSS sunglasses and look at the world through your own eyes. OSS does work for some things. It doesn't mean that it is the only solution that works.

    8. Re:knee jerk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They've also had numerous requests to buy the source from them (which they have turned down), and hardware companies send hardware to them all the time to get it running on their OS.
      Substantiate please.
    9. Re:knee jerk by True+Grit · · Score: 1
      1. That's because you're short-sighted.

      You know, most people at least manage to say a few on-topic things before they get to the business of personal insults, yet this is your very first sentence. So, you were just tired and wanted to cut to the chase? :)

      1. Who says that the SkyOS team has to write drivers for their OS? Of course they have to to get the ball rolling,

      I believe the second sentence answers the question of the first sentence in the affirmative. Indeed, "of course". :)

      1. Wow, I didn't know you had taken a poll of thousands of people to get their opinion on this subject. Aren't you a busy beaver!

      Does anyone really *need* a poll to tell them this? The existence of Linux and the absence of any serious closed-source alternative to Windows with a comparable user and developer base similar to Linux is the proof. Secondly, I don't need a poll to tell me that 99.9% of the OS developers IN THE WORLD won't work for a corporation without compensation. You have 3 choices: pay them for their work, go the open-source route and pay them "in-kind", by letting them use your code in exchange for you using theirs, or the SkyOS Way(TM), by convincing developers whose free time is precious to work for possibly a future proprietary company without compensation and even no guaranttee that they will receive any "in-kind" compensation in the future. We know the first 2 work, Windows being an example of the former, and Linux the poster child of the second example. The third? Please.

      1. SkyOS is already relevant.

      Not one single example you give actually shows SkyOS's relevence *compared* to Linux or the BSDs or even Syllable or the projects working on an open BeOS. SkyOS offers nothing new, nothing to make it more interesting or more valuable than the others, and even has some disadvantages the others I mentioned don't have (closed-source, x86-only). I explain my reasoning for considering closed-source a disadvantage below.

      1. Articles on Slashdot?

      Anything on /. is automatically relevent? LOL!

      1. Apparently the SkyOS team sold so many spots on the beta team that they had to close the signups list

      With Linux/BSD, no one can close the list on you.

      1. If you look on their webpage, they are about to pass 2,000,000 hits

      ROFL! Well no wonder, since you keep submitting stories on them which gets them /.'ed at least twice a month!

      1. They've also had numerous requests to buy the source from them (which they have turned down)

      Everyone has a price, they just didn't offer enough money apparently. Now with Linux, I know I don't have to worry about someone selling it to the highest bidder and taking it from me.

      1. and hardware companies send hardware to them all the time to get it running on their OS

      You become relevent when the hardware companies write the drivers for their hardware for your OS *themselves*. When NVIDIA ports their Geforce driver to SkyOS, get back to me.

      1. "Does that sound like an OS that isn't relevant or interesting?"

      You want me to be honest? :)

      1. but you have to start somewhere.

      Starting isn't the problem, getting somewhere after that, is.

      1. OS/2 died because ... The reason BeOS died ...

      If they had been open-source, they would be alive and well today. Which was my point. Its easy for closed-source software to fail, its parent company to go bankrupt, or be bought out and then discarded, but with OSS, once its out, you can't get it back in the bottle.

      1. OSS does work for some thin
    10. Re:knee jerk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "IMO, of course"

      ^^ The only accurate part of your post.

  9. Accelerated 3d graphics by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    Apparently the OS has accelerated openGl support. What cards does it support?

  10. Re:SkyOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not too impressed by any OS who's web page renders in rediculously small fonts. I can't even read it unless I blow it up with text zoom. (with mozilla 1.5/linux 100% zoom is about 6-8px (2-3 mm high) on my 1600x1200 24" screen ) Then we could mention validation... 100+ html errors if you feed it to the w3c validator... Cute graphics, crappy page.

  11. Re:SkyOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Or wait, maybe its because you're viewing the page on a 24" monitor in 1600 x 1200 resolution. What a retard. And the word is "whose" (posessive form of "who"), not "who's" (a contraction of "who is").

    It looks fine on my 19" in 1600 x 1200 resolution. Nice work guys!