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"

6 of 83 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

  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: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

  4. 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? :)

  5. 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.