SkyOS Development Team Quizzed

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"

Comments

They don't get OSS

[Khazunga]

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...

Re:They don't get OSS

[squiggleslash]

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.

Re:They don't get OSS

[LWATCDR]

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.

Re:They don't get OSS

[gunga]

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.

Re:They don't get OSS

[BillyBlaze]

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.

Minimize, Maximize & Close ?

[Hakubi_Washu]

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...

Re:Free eh?

[Haeleth]

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?

Re:Free eh?

[swdunlop]

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.

knee jerk

[bcrowell]

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.