Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 28th Mar 2005 08:39 UTC, submitted by J@F
SkyOS From Expert-Zone: "SkyOS Beta 8.4 has been released to the beta team today. Important changes inlcude GI3D, screensaver support, drastically improved Ati Radeon performance, improved networking, a (hopefully) fixed RealTek driver, and much, much more. Beta team members will know where to go."
Order by: Score:
v Re: Point
by Joe on Mon 28th Mar 2005 09:26 UTC
v torrent file?
by Richard S(omething) on Mon 28th Mar 2005 09:50 UTC
...
by Thom Holwerda on Mon 28th Mar 2005 10:09 UTC

I haven't tested the the final release of 8.4 yet (I'm out of CD-Rs, and in my country shops are closed during Easter). However, I did get to test the alpha-version of 8.4, and since the final version is supposed to be better....

The speed improvements are once again amazing, and the minor additions made to Viewer are very welcome as well. In the final release the rtl driver is finally supposed to be fixed, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

SkyOS has a long way to go, but in the end it will get there.

public beta
by deb on Mon 28th Mar 2005 10:59 UTC

Is it far away to a public beta?

RE: public beta
by Thom Holwerda on Mon 28th Mar 2005 11:21 UTC

Well, I don't know. A free live-cd will be available as soon as v5 final gets released. This live-cd will be limited in one way or another, I don't know that either.

Raw predictions of mine: expect v5 final Q4-2005 or Q1-2006.

SkyOS
by Anonymous on Mon 28th Mar 2005 11:39 UTC

Am I the only one amazed by how fast this project is going? With comparison to Linux that is. Sure it's still light years away from Linux but this is just basically one guy programming it. How long did it take for X to have alpha transparency? I'm confident SkyOS will be a serious competitor in years to come if they keep the pace they're at.

Good job!

Re: SkyOS
by Anonymous on Mon 28th Mar 2005 12:49 UTC

They have had some impressive improvements, but this OS will never come close the the level of polish that Linux or FreeBSD enjoy because the authors don't release any ISOs, source (to my knowledge), and charge for betas. I can understand that this helps fund the development of the OS, but hampers the project if they wish it to compete with Mac OS X/Windows/Linux for a desktop or workstation solution.

SkyOS GUI
by Anonymous on Mon 28th Mar 2005 13:46 UTC

One thing that I don't like about SkyOS is the GUI. Window border too large and it just look unfinished.

VERY far from even Gnome 1.x or KDE 1.x

sorry to say this
by jodney rack on Mon 28th Mar 2005 14:35 UTC

I really don't want to start a flamewar, but the speed of improvements in this projects is almost too good to be true. I sometimes wonder, is SkyOS benifitting from code from open source projects? Even if isn't a direct code port, surely they must be getting a huge helping of pointers from source code already out there ...

RE: sorry to say this
by Thom Holwerda on Mon 28th Mar 2005 14:49 UTC

And the point with that is?

The goal of open source software makers is to make code that other can look at, learn from, contribute to. If the SkyOS devs learn from OSS projects... Then that's all good. A decent amount of OSS programs have already been ported, one of the most recent big ones is SAMBA, and SAMBA was very happy with this-- they even announced the SkyOS port on the Samba website:

http://us1.samba.org/samba/news/developers/#skyos_port

That's the difference that you are seeing between most OSS Devs and their users: The Devs are happy that their project runs on yet another platform (open OR closed) and the users always whine about "They r using open-source, they should die!!!11!!" and what not.

RE: sorry to say this
by Mike on Mon 28th Mar 2005 15:14 UTC

>>>>I really don't want to start a flamewar, but the speed of improvements in this projects is almost too good to be true. I sometimes wonder, is SkyOS benefiting from code from open source projects? Even if isn't a direct code port, surely they must be getting a huge helping of pointers from source code already out there ...<<<<<

Some applications have been ported to SkyOS... and I'm sure Robert has at least taken a glance at other OSS code... but that would only help out in technique, not implementation. I'd say that the code is predominantly his.

If you consider that the project was started in 1996, the progress made has been great... but it's certainly not unreasonable or unattainable. The Linux/BSD comparison may not be all that valid either, as there are some pitfalls in having hundreds of collaborators.

Group dynamics suggest that the more people involved in a project, the less productive they will be from the sum of their individual capacities. One highly skilled programmer could output more than a handful of moderately-skilled/part-time coders.

Then you've got bureaucratic lag in decision-making. Someone comes up w/ an idea in the Linux/BSD world, and it usually results in about a thousand communiqués flying back and forth for a few months, some roof-of-concept/preliminary coding proposals, and *MAYBE* the feature finds its way into the project.

Robert, on the other hand, can do whatever he wants on a whim when it comes to SkyOS. No diplomatic/bureaucratic justifications are needed. He is the god of his own creation.

Don't see the point
by ecko on Mon 28th Mar 2005 15:36 UTC

It's been brought up before but I do not see the point of this OS. It brings absolutely nothing to the table. Academically it's useless and it's nearly functionally useless. Sure you can run a few apps on it but that's it. Really what do you get from this OS? The operating system concept...it's not new. These concepts have been around for almost 40 years. This guy also seems to borrow heavily from open source. I mean what he does is legally ok but he is exploiting the community. OSS is about making it so the community at large benefits from work. Taking work and locking it away in a proprietary product may be legal but it's sure as hell not going to get a positive response from me or anyone else who gives a damn. This guy just seems to be charging a fee so you get the privledge of watching his progress while he hacks away.

speed
by vaguely on Mon 28th Mar 2005 15:40 UTC

also look how fast atheos progresed with only 1 programmer.

@ecko aka flamebait
by vaguely on Mon 28th Mar 2005 15:55 UTC

Oh, we have Gnu/Linux, what is the point of all the other operating systems floating around (such as Syllable, BeOS and its derivatives, Unix, OSX, Windows). Why not just have one *perfect* operating system.

Maybe the niche for this operating system is for users who just want a light system that runs a few apps. Sure you could do that with Gnu/Linux, but I would rather see a bit of competition.

Competition is always a good thing, but you seem to think because it has no accademic purpose or no real mainstream purpose there is no point having a niche player. Why bother having that niche car maker porsche when Ford builds Mustangs. Porsche will never sell as many cars as Ford, there is no point having them.
Not that I am saying SkyOS is the quality of Porsche, I'm just saying fringe players are a good thing.

But maybe this is just a secondary arguement to what is really pissing you off.
You dont like SkyOS because it is proprietry. Not only that but it uses F/OSS.
Oh no, whatever will we do.

Samba didnt seem to mind SkyOS using their software, but I am sure you have a problem with it.
Take your ideological bullshit to another thread. If you dont want proprietry OS's to use F/OSS dont make the source open. But that wouldnt work, now, would it?

Sky No Longer Relevant
by Mike on Mon 28th Mar 2005 16:04 UTC

I used to watch Sky daily for updates. I couldn't wait for this promising OS to be released to the public. When they started showing compositing effects and drop shadows, i couldn't believe robert could do it so fast.

That was before Xorg, and before Freedesktop really ramped up. And before Novell bough Ximian and SuSE. Before Beagle, Before Dashboard, Before Cairo, Before Glitz, Before Xgl.

SkyOS is no longer an interesting project to me. My focus is back on Liunx. I've been saying for a long time that Sky needs to make a public release before linux starts getting its act together.

Well linux has its act together and Sky is no longer interesting to me.

Sorry guys.

i just want the v5 final i paid for...
by Ophidian on Mon 28th Mar 2005 16:13 UTC

which is now 6-9 months overdue depending on how you look at it

...
by helf on Mon 28th Mar 2005 16:21 UTC

you people are unbelievable. If you dont see the "point" in this OS or what not.. then why bother posting comments about it? just ignor eit. It's no loss to them. just less whiny, annoying posts cluttering up the comments section..

back on topic.. I cant wait to try out skyos v5. I'm going to try to get the money together to get the beta. It's really starting to look good.

download
by someone on Mon 28th Mar 2005 16:30 UTC

can't download it.
suppose the registration serial changes every beta.

oh well... crap

What's SkyOS
by Mike on Mon 28th Mar 2005 17:54 UTC

Sure, I've heard of it. It's an OS. But what defines this particular OS? Does it have certain obvious weaknesses and does it have certain obvious strengths? Is it comparable to Linux, or to Windows?

And by the way, making an OS by yourself... pretty impressive! I wouldn't know where to start.

v What's SkyOS
by Joe on Mon 28th Mar 2005 18:12 UTC
whining
by Kenny on Mon 28th Mar 2005 18:30 UTC

ecko (IP: ---.cspi.com) - Posted on 2005-03-28 15:36:28
It's been brought up before but I do not see the point of this OS. It brings absolutely nothing to the table...Taking work and locking it away in a proprietary product may be legal but it's sure as hell not going to get a positive response from me or anyone else who gives a damn.


Two questions for those who whine about this effort

1 > For those who say 'What's the point' - If you are not interested in marginal OS efforts, why are you reading this site?
2 > Just what have you contributed recently to 'the open-source community' which you so fervently defend?

just for fun
by Josh on Mon 28th Mar 2005 18:46 UTC

Yeah, I don't know about the people who think it's pointless, but designing an OS sounds like fun, I think. I don't remember anyone ever saying that SkyOS is trying to compete with Linux, etc. And not a good academic system? What, exactly, do you think kids do on computers in school? Let's see... type papers, research, and... hmmm, type papers. Oh, presentations. So, besides not having presentation software, how is it not good? This year alone, we have been able to use the computers maybe half the year. Why? Viruses. So, there we have it, an OS that would actually work the whole year round.

Here's the virus thing too. "It's not a popular OS, so people don't make viruses for it." Ok, true, but is that a bad thing?!

And once again, anyone who posts negative critiques, I want you to go out and design and program an OS. Once you have it at the same "low, won't go anywhere" level, then you have the right to come back and tell people that SkyOS is crap, "stolen from OSS."

WHAT?
by jofas on Mon 28th Mar 2005 20:41 UTC

First, don't get me wrong. It is extremely commendable to do what the author of SkyOS did. However, consider the following quote:

"They keep inventing new ways to celebrate mediocrity."
- Mister Incredible

This applies here.

Pro: Yes, it's cool that a single guy can write an OS.
Con: OSS is giving him an inch, he's taking a mile. That's not the spirit of OSS. In order to harness the power of Open Source, you have to give what you.
Pro: It looks fairly cool, and is finally getting polished.
Con: There are boatloads of other OSes that do also. And their themes are prettier, more flexible and far more numerous.
Pro: The development is still steady and progressing.
Con: In the world of deploying OSes onto hundreds/thousands of machines, the kind of development time involved here is outrageous. In the time this OS has taken to get where it is, others have started up and surpassed it...by far.

I'm being nice here. There aren't very many pros to this OS at all, really. This is what elicits the "what's the point?" from people.

Point really is, even a hobby OS needs some claim to fame, something that stands out and says:"Well, no, I can't be setup as a cluster node, but I can do (insert cool thing here)!" SkyOS is unfocused, it lacks vision, every single thing it does can be done better and faster on other platforms.

I put forth the following challenge: What is the one selling point of SkyOS?
I can't find it.

I Disagree
by Smartpatrol on Mon 28th Mar 2005 21:42 UTC

SkyOS fills a niche as long as it provides a better computing platform then whats currently out there. Who knows the end result may be a better or easier to develop for gaming platform(games being the only reason i have a windows Based computer) Its not Unix based, or a clone there of which i see as an advantage since most Unix like or Unix clones perform and behave just like Unix what fun is that? Its a relativly new operating system again a significant advantage consider most OS's nowadays have decades old code bases(Lots of old crud intertwined and people to lazy to go sift through it)... a lot has changed in the last 20 years compiler wise. My personal purchasing interest in Skyos won't materialize until A.) there is a final release and B.) there is a server version to play with.

@Jofas
by Kelly on Mon 28th Mar 2005 21:54 UTC

"Well, no, I can't be setup as a cluster node, but I can do (insert cool thing here)!"

http://www.skyos.org

SkyOS is interesting
by AdrianRyan on Mon 28th Mar 2005 22:22 UTC

I don't know about all the complainers, but it seems to me that SkyOS is, if nothing else, interesting. He isn't trying to compete with Linux or Windows or Apple, he is simply trying to design a NEW OS. When was the last time a truly new OS hit the market? OS X is Unix-based. All the Linux distros share a large amount of code (especially the free GNU/Linux distros). This is simply a personal progect to provide a stable and easy to use OS from completely new code. Even if he uses help from OSS, he has to modify it a lot to fit his own code. That is pretty impressive. If he weren't using OSS code, then he'd never get anywhere, and everyone would be complaining about how it can't do anything Linux can do. The point is, he is going to develope a NEW, FREE OS. Not GNU/Linux based, not Unix based, not Windows based, but completely new. And know what? I think that's pretty damn cool.

And, as far as the OS features are concerned, I think the GUI looks much nicer than Gnome or KDE. Also, he has some pretty cool features comming out that are similar to the iTunes and iPhoto search function, but for the file viewer itself. I personally think that this OS will be, if nothing else, damn fun to play arround with.

One more thing
by AdrianRyan on Mon 28th Mar 2005 22:27 UTC

PS, what a perfect OS to install on your grandmother's computer so that she can check email, listen to music, watch movies, whatever else, without having to worry about maintenance etc. involved with most GNU/Linux distros. I just hope eventually OO.o is ported. Then it would be the perfect simple-user OS.

RE: AdrianRyan
by Mike on Mon 28th Mar 2005 23:14 UTC

I can think of a couple others: MacOS, Windows.

@ jofas
by helf on Mon 28th Mar 2005 23:56 UTC

no, it doesnt have to have a claim to fame. people use what they want and like. if they like skyos than so be it. it doesnt matter if theres better OSes.

@kenny and Josh
by ecko on Tue 29th Mar 2005 17:57 UTC

What, exactly, do you think kids do on computers in school? Let's see... type papers, research, and... hmmm, type papers.


I wasn't talking about use in public schools, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, I'm a computer science student. When I mean academic uses I mean to teach an operating systems class or some other form of computing. Apps are not part of the operating system there's nothing stopping someone from writing a fantastic word processor from SkyOS. There is however no way to learn from SkyOS. That was my main problem.



Two questions for those who whine about this effort

1 > For those who say 'What's the point' - If you are not interested in marginal OS efforts, why are you reading this site?
2 > Just what have you contributed recently to 'the open-source community' which you so fervently defend?


1) I'm interested in OS development in general. I don't have a problem with closed source development. When you have a phenominally revolutionary product it's understandable (notice I didn't say I preferred this). This is mediocre at best. This guy is arrogant to think he's got anything to hide in there. He's basically written yet another OS. For someone this smart he's not furthered the field one iota.

2) I work on embedded linux here at work, I've made a few small contributions to the linuxppc kernel tree. Nothing really notable but it is something.

RE:Mike
by AdrianRyan on Tue 29th Mar 2005 19:08 UTC

First off, you can't install OS X, you have to spend at least $500 (more if you need a monitor and keyboard, which is a probability) on a new computer. Secondly, Windows is hard to navigate for the older amoung us (I know, I've had to help my grandmother) because it is hard to see (all the blues run into eachother on XP), and also it gets viruses/spyware/adware like no other (especially when inexperienced users are checking email and spam) because people write most virii for it. SkyOS could get no virii, looks very easy on the eyes, and it is installable on that old Compaq you have lying about somewhere from 1997 so only costs $30. That, to me, is much better than Windows or OS X.