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: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.