SkyOS Development Team Quizzed

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SkyOS Development Team Quizzed

Posted by simoniker on Monday February 9, 2004 @07:10AM 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"

17 of 83 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Stay away from this! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-09 07:13 · Score: 5, Funny

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

Once SkyOs merges with .NET, it's Terminator time, baby!
Free eh? by Creepy+Crawler · 2004-02-09 07:13 · 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?
--
- Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thurs, Nov 31, @13:37
1. Re:Free eh? by Haeleth · 2004-02-09 09:27 · 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 swdunlop · 2004-02-09 11:24 · 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
3. Re:Free eh? by Hexydes · 2004-02-09 12:49 · 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.
They don't get OSS by Khazunga · 2004-02-09 07:16 · 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 · 2004-02-09 07:32 · 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 LWATCDR · 2004-02-09 08:09 · 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.
3. Re:They don't get OSS by gunga · 2004-02-09 08:35 · 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.
4. Re:They don't get OSS by Quill_28 · 2004-02-09 08:37 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  >They don't get OSS
  
  You mean they don't believe the proprietary software is evil?
  
  I say thank God.
5. Re:They don't get OSS by Smartcowboy · 2004-02-09 09:01 · 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
6. Re:They don't get OSS by BillyBlaze · 2004-02-09 15:22 · 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.
Minimize, Maximize & Close ? by Hakubi_Washu · 2004-02-09 07:33 · 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 Hexydes · 2004-02-09 07:43 · 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.
2. Re:Minimize, Maximize & Close ? by sglane81 · 2004-02-09 10:26 · 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
knee jerk by bcrowell · 2004-02-09 12:46 · 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 True+Grit · 2004-02-11 04:02 · 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? :)