OSNews

> So instead, most of the US spends ~$150 on an OS that is guaranteed not to work.

UberBullCrap. It's time you realise that Windows actually works for most people. I don't use it 'cause I don't like it, but really, it works for my dad, my sister, brother and friends. And when I say it works, I mean it.

You enjoy 'alternative' OSes? Good for you. But please get your facts straight. They're called alternative OSes for a reason, and Microsoft's monopoly is not established only by their dark marketting and propaganda. I say it once more... They actually made an OS that JUST WORKS for a huge part of the planet.

Worth 150 bucks? Maybe so...

>> So instead, most of the US spends ~$150 on an OS that is guaranteed not to work.

>UberBullCrap. It's time you realise that Windows actually works for most people...

Not only that windows works for most users, it is for free (or it appears that way to them) since it comes preinstalled on their computer. The average user buys his PC, dose 2 or 3 things with it and when it dies 5, 8 or even 10 years later it was never updated. All this buying a new PC when the new MHz is about 3 times as high as your current PCs and updating to new versions of windows or even installing Linux is out of the ordinary.

The fact is that most PC users are something that most people reading OSNews or Slashdot or anything along the line would absolutely despise, but they are in the majority and they are the average PC user even if they piss you of with “can you fix my computer, I installed something bad” all the time. And they are not searching for SkyOS as their salvation of Windows/Linux/Mac bondage so pleas don’t use that for marketing, is sucks. OK?

Sure, Windows works now, but remember how Me "worked"? There was too much bloat for the system.

And look at Vista coming out. Everyone's worried because its hardware requirements are so high. Even on the basic mode, which basically _is_ WinXP, the suggestion for the current beta is about twice what is found in one of today's typical machines. 512 mb of RAM is needed.

Ask ten random people if they have 512 mb of ram, and I can assure you the response will be somewhere around this:
2 people will say "What does that mean?"
3 people will say "No, my PC only has 128 (or 256)."
2 people will say "I don't have a computer."
That leaves only 3 people to say "Yes, I have 512." If that many.

So how's that for "works for people?"

On another note, how many people do you actually think use most of the bloat in Windows? The accessibility tools--if people need them, they need something more powerful. Even the screenreader says on startup, "You probably need something more powerful if you need this program." How many people do you think have ever used Character Map? Or "system restore"?

How many Linux users use Register Parameters? SELinux? Or the Accessibility tools in KDE/Gnome? Really, I fail to see your point... What has 'Bloat' to do with this? Let's make a deal: let's try to ban the words 'troll' and 'bloat' from any future conversation, they don't make sense anymore. Features I don't use don't bother me, neither on Linux or on Windows. And trust me, I don't even use half of the features of my kernel and desktop environement, by FAR. I guess it's fine if Windows users do the same. Or maybe I misunderstood what you meant?

I meant that while MS puts little things no one uses in, they lack in the real issues...security, process management, etc.

I just happened to be a disabled user who benefits from the fact that Microsoft has not only included little accessibility utilities, but has also included an entire accessibility framework to allow those "more powerful" programs to work with windows. I am a user of one of the more powerful screen readers. If an OS vendor puts in a framework to allow screen readers to accurately tell the user what's going on inside the windows screen/application, I think that is good bloat. If it weren't for this "bloat", I wouldn't even be posting in this forum right now. The framework isn't perfect, but its better than where we are on Linux.

I agree completely with you on that the framework is good bloat--if it's bloat at all. "Bloat" by defn is useless. I agree that the framework is fine. But those little tools are useless. The screen reader is useless, that is the one that comes with Windows.

All bow before the bloat that is charmap.

"So instead, most of the US spends ~$150 on an OS that is guaranteed not to work."

No. most of the US pays a non-negotiable fee of ~$50 for an OEM copy of Windows when they buy their new computer.

Ever heard of bounties? There are, for example, bounties for reduction of memory usage in Gnome sponsored by Novell, RH, Canonical and other companies relying on progress of open source software.

Yeah I forgot about bounties. But the implementation here is slightly different. Here the community decided the bounty size, which is a measure (of sorts) of how popular that feature will be and how badly it is needed right now.

Hmm, since SkyOS is written from scratch, I'd have to disagree with you. You might mean that SkyOS uses lots of Open Source software, which is true, but what is (would be) the problem with that? That is what Open Source software is there for, right? To be used and ported to other platforms/operating systems.

*Open*BFS which is BSD licensed.

"Nuff said."

Hmm, since SkyOS is written from scratch, I'd have to disagree with you.

Sorry, but SkyOS *is most certainly not* written from scartch. At least the 4.x publicly released series was not. That I know for 100% certainty.

This is interesting. Can you back that statement up?

This is interesting. Can you back that statement up?

Yes, I can. I kept all the email correspondonce from two other people that I confirmed my findings with. And additionally, as you can see here Andrew Youll posted that they used BSD licensed code. Though he assumes it has been rewritten recently, and I assume is totally possible. As I stated originally, I could only state that it wasn't written from scratch for the publicly available 4.x series, since the public doesn't have access to 5.x...

If the SkyOS project doesn't claim written from scratch then I have no problems. I was just pointing out that a statement someone else made was wrong, and Andrew Youll of OSNews posted the same. Thanks Andrew!

Have you tried posting on the SkyOS forums asking for Robert to contact you? What if he doesn't read OSNews? You'll surely have a better probability of success there.

If (after giving him that fair opportunity to respond) he doesn't reply then I think you'd be justified in publishing whatever evidence you'd have so that the rest of the world can see what's up.

Any reason not to do this?

Have you tried posting on the SkyOS forums asking for Robert to contact you?

It's sad when a project isn't open about contact enough to provide a direct way to obtain contact, and instead they have to post on a forum to try to get the attention of a developer :|

If you'd have looked at the website for less than 4 seconds before posting that, you'd have seen that Robert's email address is all over the place, same goes for his ICQ number.

Your comment was *way* off base.

Yes, I can. I kept all the email correspondonce from two other people that I confirmed my findings with.

I'd be the last to start defending the SkyOS team (yeah, things have changed in recent months), but this statement of yours is utter bullshit, no other words for it. If you make a claim, you gotta cough up the evience to back it up, sonny. No evidence = false statement. Innocent until proven otherwise. It's the way justice works, it's the way press works, it's the way personal matters work.

You cannot make a claim "The moon is made of cheese" with the only evidence to back that up "Yeah, talked to two guys via email", and then expect us to believe you.

If you want, you can explain the situation to me in more detail, in confidentiality of course. Check at the bottom of this ( http://thom.expert-zone.com ) page for contact details.

I'd be the last to start defending the SkyOS team (yeah, things have changed in recent months), but this statement of yours is utter bullshit, no other words for it.

You say that he lie, but you say innocent until prove otherwise for sky, but you not aply that to binary. Double standard.

You say that he lie, but you say innocent until prove otherwise for sky, but you not aply that to binary. Double standard.

He is the one making the claim, isn't he? He's got something to prove, not me.

[i]If you want, you can explain the situation to me in more detail, in confidentiality of course. Check at the bottom of this ( http://thom.expert-zone.com ) page for contact details.</i.

Great, thanks for the information. I will contact you shortly, and hopefully we can put this whole nasty thing to rest. Thanks again!

First, the OpenBeFS uses the MIT license. This license does not require us to ever make the changes we make available, should we decide not to.

Second, the forums at skyos.org are a great way to contact Robert, as he reads them daily. You can additionally find an e-mail address to contact him at there. You're more than welcome to send any issues via the e-mail address or post them on the forums.

Okay, if you don't like SkyOS, fine. Don't use, don't pay for it and don't make unfounded allegations. Really, don't get bent out of shape, just don't be a troll.

I'm not trolling. I can verify it, and am willing to discuss it with a SkyOS developer. Moderating down people's comments just because you don't agree with them is wrong. Did I not qualify my statement by saying that I could only say that SkyOS 4.x series was not written from scratch? Look, I'm sorry you don't believe me, but this is an issue I will only discuss with SkyOS team memebers.

I could have gone off ranting and raving about SkyOS this or that, I never said I hated it or disliked it or wished it ill. I merely corrected some incorrect information posted by a person here. You accuse me of trolling yet I made no inflammatory or otherwise incorrect comments. Don't assume a statement is incorrect based on your beliefs or assumptions. In this particular case, my statement that SkyOS 4.x was not written from scratch is 100% *correct*.

Since I do not have access to SkyOS 5.x I cannot say the same for it. Again, I am willing to privately discuss the matter with the *lead* SkyOS developer and no one else. I refuse to start a flamewar, unlike what you're doing now.

To whomever keeps moderating down my completely valid and legitimate comments: shame on you!

Just because SkyOS is your favourite, you have to go on a vigilante rampage and moderate down any comments you perceive as negative. Half the comments in this thread that weren't trolls, flames, or otherwise but could be possibly viewed as being negative towards SkyOS have been moderated down. It's shameful, absolutely shameful.

OSNews should promote discussion about topics, whether it's negative or positive discussion. As long as it's reasonable it should be respected.

Agreed. I see this way too often around here, and I'm very unhappy about it. What's more, people throw around the word "troll" so much that it's practically lost all meaning.

-bytecoder

This isn't what I would call a discussion, and as far as I can tell you have little interest in having a 'discussion' where 'discussion' in this case means saying more than "I know SkyOS wasn't written from scratch and here's a bunch of repetitions about how I know this is a fact but can't be bothered to tell people, so now they're all in a tizzy about how scandalous that is." That's fine and I don't think your comments necessarily warrant being moderated down, but making implications that you refuse to give exposition on, in a public forum, isn't anymore appropriate than giving specific details. It certainly doesn't encourage 'discussion.' It encourages people flaming you for refusing to substantiate your "claims" to them and rambling about libel.

So verify it. Or don't. But please stop posting that you have definitive evidence that GPL/LGPL code is being used in a way that violates those respective licenses. Unless you are willing to present your evidence, that is libel.

Please be so kind to point out where in this discussion that this person has made any claims about the GPL or the LGPL with respect to SkyOS.

I think that every one of these topics has been discussed at length numerous times. Actually, yes, they are discussed each and everytime anything about SkyOS appears on OSNews. Those discussions never go anywhere, yet they always seems to pop back up regardless of the actual news at hand.

Maybe the SkyOS team should start listening to these comments. If people keep saying them, then obviously your team has not done enough to address the real issues behind them.

Additionally, you assume just because you've seen a question before that it's the same people. Is it not probable that new people finding out about SkyOS for the first time aren't aware of the answers to these things discussed in the past?

Regardless of whether or not you view them as legitimate does not mean they should be moderated down.

Now, may we please have comments related to the Code Ransom instead of a pointless discussion about licensing, or opening the source or whatnot?

Some things are random pointless discussions, many things that were moderated down were not pointless or random.

Again, I would really like to discuss the "not written from scratch" issue with the SkyOS lead developer. It is true, and I can verify it with him, at least in the context of 4.x

The problem is I've never believed it's been worth bringing up because until now I've never seen that claimed, and to be honest, every time I've seen any negative comments about SkyOS, I seem them get moderated down or ignored outright. If the SkyOS lead is willing to actually discuss this topic with me reasonably then, I will contact him. Just tell me he will listen and not ignore me. Which is why I haven't bothered.

I would suggest that you make a post on the forums with your questions (accusations), I'd be as interested in a response as you.

I would suggest that you make a post on the forums with your questions (accusations), I'd be as interested in a response as you.

I assure you they are not accusations, and I will not discuss them in a forum. Again, you imply that I am lying or spreading mistruth. I am not. I have verified this with two other individuals. If the lead SkyOS developer isn't willing to discuss them with me and address the issue, then that's your problem, not mine.

Your response is exactly the closed minded one I would expect. In the meantime, the fact remains that you should not make *false* statements that SkyOS is written from scratch at least in regards to 4.x as they are provably false.

The consensus has always been that SkyOS is written from scratch. That's what the website says, that's what Robert says. I have no idea with whom you "verified" these "facts" since the entire OS has been written by a single person, further, you've apparently verified them with multiple people. I would like to understand how that works.

You don't want to discuss it in a forum...ok, that's odd. I see no reason why you choose to make comments like that. You for some reason think that the developer (Robert) is unwilling to address you? Wha...? I bet he hasn't even seen this thread. Maybe you should take my advice and post on the forums. Hmm, strange idea, who'd have thought that you would post on the forums of the OS in question to get an answer about that OS.. strange idea indeed.

My response of "I would suggest that you make a post on the forums with your questions (accusations), I'd be as interested in a response as you. " is closeminded? How so? I said I was as interested in a response as you. Your comment there seems to me like you could think of absolutely nothing else to say so you decided on that sentence in the hopes that it would baffle everyone to the point where they would be t0o confused to respond.

If my statement is certainly false, which you are obviously certain that it is, why will you not share how you seem to know this? It would almost lead one to believe that you are actually making this up as you go along.

The consensus has always been that SkyOS is written from scratch. That's what the website says, that's what Robert says. I have no idea with whom you "verified" these "facts" since the entire OS has been written by a single person, further, you've apparently verified them with multiple people. I would like to understand how that works.

No, SkyOS has not been written by a single person. Even the SkyOS website lists more than one SkyOS developer. They are a team...

I in no way am implying that Robert (the leader) is responsible in any shape or fashion for this particular instance that I know of. In fact, I imagine it's a mistake made by another team member, or perhaps something wrongly done by a past SkyOS team member. Everything that I've seen by Robert so far implies that he's a completely trustworthy, very capable, and honest person, along with being a great coder. As I said, I have nothing against the SkyOS project, I think what they've accomplished is great. This whole thread was merely started as a result of a correction to an incorrect statement.

You don't want to discuss it in a forum...ok, that's odd. I see no reason why you choose to make comments like that. You for some reason think that the developer (Robert) is unwilling to address you? Wha...? I bet he hasn't even seen this thread. Maybe you should take my advice and post on the forums. Hmm, strange idea, who'd have thought that you would post on the forums of the OS in question to get an answer about that OS.. strange idea indeed.

I don't want to discuss it in a forum, because I don't believe it's appropriate to do so. Since I know certain details about where the code came from, I dont' want headlines like "SkyOS uses stolen code from X project" or for people from that other community to flame the SkyOS community.

The contact page lists names, but no actual way to contact people. If someone would please tell me how I can contact Robert, I would be more than willing to discuss this particular issue with him.

My response of "I would suggest that you make a post on the forums with your questions (accusations), I'd be as interested in a response as you. " is closeminded? How so?

It was your snide remark in parentheses that somehow what I was saying were "accusation", implying that they were false. Instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt, or even remotely assuming for a moment that it was possible that what I said was correct, you started up your unfounded criticism again.

If my statement is certainly false, which you are obviously certain that it is, why will you not share how you seem to know this? It would almost lead one to believe that you are actually making this up as you go along.

As I said, I cannot discuss details. For now, just be a polite person and stop assuming I'm a troll. I feel that I have made completely reasonable and fair statements.

Oh, what an intelligent, convincing, detailed comment yours is...

With all of this insider information, why don't you know that most of people listed on the website as 'team' members are concentrating on software FOR the OS... not working on the OS itself. Only one person is primarily responsible for the OS and that's Robert, who has been working on this project for nearly 9 years now. I would certainly take his word over yours for an interpretation of the facts.

Also, you shouldn't act so innocent, as your comments are not without attitude, binarycrusader. You seem to think you are above the responses that take a tone similar to your postings, and dictating how people should respond to you... well, what can I say? Pick the term you like, but there's more than one person that feels your postings are more like accusations, insinuations or unsubstantiated rumor.

Unless you post factual information to enlighten the rest of the readers here, your thoughts will continue to be fodder for skepticism, so you should expect people to respond to you in kind.

Maybe binarycrusader trying to be nice to Robert and inform him privately without going the publicity route and posting where all the code (that maybe he wrote, we don't know) is, and making for an embarrassing and possibly unnecessary scene. I don't think he's come out as saying that he hates SkyOS; just that he doesn't think they're telling the truth when they say it's entirely made from scratch.

That said, there are probably better ways to try to privately contact Robert than posting extraordinary claims.

"Why SHOULD everything be either Windows NT or a UNIX (Linux, BSD, Mac OS X)? Who's to say that the Linux kernel really is the best there could be and we should kill off the others?"

Nobody says any of that. But fact is that the times of DOS have long gone. Operating systems nowadays are extremely complex: you need zillions of drivers, tons of apps...In order to achieve that you need the support of a very large team of developers, from the hardware manifacturers, you need interest from the corporate word...
So the OSes you mention (SkyOS, Syllable, MenuetOS, Visopsys, Haiku...), however dear to a geek's heart they can be, don't stand a chance of becoming anything more than hobby OSes. And please remember that most geeks prefer some kind of open source license: a geek is a tinkerer. How can you tinker if you can't read the source?

It is more like osx.

No.


It has a BSD type kernel and they have created a proprietary user interface layer that runs regular X Window applications.

Uhm, no. Talk to anyone that has ported or developed an application for SkyOS to clear that one up. Or look at the development information available on the website.


I also noticed that most of their icons came from the GPL'd cyrstal theme used in KDE.

Yes, with the permission of the author of said theme. We make no claim to have created the icons that we use (aside from some specific ones that did not come from the Crystal theme).


Hmm. Maybe made from scratch means something else now...

No, it means quite what we intended it to mean; SkyOS, the operating system, was written from scratch. There are also a number of other applications written from scratch, as well as a number that have been ported over to the SkyOS platform.

"What I also realize is that most Linux/FOSS users use it just because it is free in the sence of free beer."

Nonsense. The "true" FLOSS users like the "free as in freedom" part of it. Then how would you define people who use "free" software because it is pirated? (they are many more than you can ever imagine)

"Those folks seem not to see that any kind of software development costs a lot of money"

Not necessarily if it is done by developers in their free time. In the beginning of the computers era software was almost always free in both meanings of the word.


"Linux has the privileg to be supportet by companies and governments"

Obviously because it is worth something.

"the money for this "free" software comes from customers or simply from taxes."

From taxes? What a pityful excuse: by using linux governments actually *save money*
From customers? Sometimes, from corporate customers, who also save money by using OSS. Distros for home users are free in 95% of the cases.

6. Does SkyOS use GPL'd code?
No. SkyOS uses no GPL'd code in the kernel/system.

I don't see where binary said they use GPL code. It nice you try to be a help, but none the FAQ posted except for one mean something to this conversation.

It does not mean that the code used is not under another licence (like the bsd one) wich don't prevent that kind of use... (MacOS use BSD code. Who care? Apple can do it, everyone can do it. Kudo to the BSD licence )

/me agrees 110%

With you there!

I think Pay Betas where you get the full product at a discount (or free) are a *fantastic* idea. The dev team gets some extra funds and the people who use the beta go into it *with their eyes open*. They're choosing to pay money for beta software - and good for them!

I won't use SkyOS as my main OS because I'm happy with Linux, I probably won't even get a copy. But if they want to charge for it then that's fine. Likewise, if they want to port GPL'd apps to it that's fine too - the people who wrote those apps made it possible.

SkyOS looks like a cool OS, it hasn't taken anything from me and it helps introduce more competition into the OS. Go SkyOS!

I find it interesting that no one has responded to the quote from Robert himself.

> it has a bash shell and runs a lot of open source
> programs designed for unix

Just because it runs programs that have been ported from Unix doesn't mean the underlying OS is Unix. Windows also has a bash shell and runs a lot of Open Source programs designed for Unix:
http://www.cygwin.com/

> Uh-huh. Now these guys want to pay people to port
> the rest of the apps

What's wrong with that? Porting apps is a time consuming business if you're not familiar with the codebase. Surely it's better to pay people who know about the apps and have time to make the port - the core developers can concentrate on what they do best.

> Then they have the audacity to charge for a beta?

I'm sorry but I don't understand what the problem is with this business model. It gives the developers "completion funding" to help them do the final stabilisation and it gives users a "sneak preview" of the OS. The beta testers *choose* to pay their money and in any case get a full license for free when the software is released. The only people this policy hurts are those who want something for nothing.

"The only people this policy hurts are those who want something for nothing."

Try to convince Richard Stallman

"And just because Richard Stallman says something doesn't make it gospel truth. He's a human being just like the rest of us: entitled to his opinion, and certainly not infallible."

Obviously you didn't notice the smile, which of course meant that I wasn't very serious about it.

Look, Richard Stallman is not my role model (in case I needed one), because he is too much of an extremist: I use Linux with all the commercial plugins and some commercial apps as well.

However RSM has changed the course of History countless times more than a tiny, hobby project like SkyOS is ever likely to do.
In fact the only place where we read about it is OSNews.

However RSM has changed the course of History countless times more than a tiny, hobby project like SkyOS is ever likely to do.

If he's not your role model, then you're definitely a fan boy. Let's face facts. There was a lot of free source code out there before GNU was a twinkle in Stallman's eye, and if he had never existed there would still be a lot, under a different name.

There's nothing magic about GNU software, and to say he's "changed the course of history countless times" is beyond fanboyish.

It's beyond me why people get so emotional over "free software".

"There was a lot of free source code out there before GNU was a twinkle in Stallman's eye, and if he had never existed there would still be a lot, under a different name."

Oh great, as if I didn't say in this very thread that in the beginning of the computers era most software was free. However things were (and still are for the great part) going in the opposite direction. And what if Mr Gates had never existed? Maybe it could even have been a bad thing, who knows? You can't rewrite History with "ifs and buts"

"There's nothing magic about GNU software"

Oh, and why is M$ so worried about it, to the point of calling it "viral" ? (the license of course)

"and to say he's "changed the course of history countless times" is beyond fanboyish."

Learn to read before you write nonsense:

Quoting myself:

"However RSM has changed the course of History countless times more than a tiny, hobby project like SkyOS is ever likely to do."

Or do you seriously believe that SkyOS will stay in the history books for the next 10,000 years?

Please present your evidence that would prove it to be otherwise written from how it is described in the FAQ webpage.

It may seem like a *nix kernel, but it's not because he says so. Too funny.

And it is a Unix kernel because someone else who has never used (programmed for) SkyOS says so?

Think, then speak.

uhm.. SkyOS has a high level of POSIX Compliance, in the vast majority of peoples eyes that makes it a UNIX-Like OS

But being Unix-compatible in some respects doesn't mean it is based on Unix code, or even Unix-like under the hood. Windows NT had a Posix compatibility layer (!) although I'm not sure many people used it...

Windows NT had a Posix compatibility layer (!) although I'm not sure many people used it...

MS brought it back as "Services For UNIX" recently if I'm not mistaken, and it appears to be quite popular for some companies these days as a way to port older command-line apps from UNIX systems to Windows.

And it is a Unix kernel because someone else who has never used (programmed for) SkyOS says so?

Think, then speak


You guys really crack me up. It seems that very few SkyOS supporters actually know what goes into an operating system. I've already mentioned many times that freeBSD has 1.2 million lines of code, but that seems to have no effect.

Here's how we can settle this:
Have the miracle worker release the tcp/ip stack. It won't make a difference to the future of SkyOS, and we can see his miraculous coding abilities. Or more likely we can see something that looks just like the BSD stack.

> You guys really crack me up. It seems that very few
> SkyOS supporters actually know what goes into an
> operating system. I've already mentioned many times
> that freeBSD has 1.2 million lines of code, but that
> seems to have no effect.

Oh OK, what's your kernel development experience?

Consider for a moment:
* How much of FBSD's codebase is drivers rather than core code?
* How much of it is support for non-x86 architectures?
* How much of it is support for non-PCI/AGP buses?
* How much of it is support for non TCP/IP network protocols?
* How much of it is support for GEOM?
* How much is workarounds to enable it to boot on buggy hardware?
* How much of it is extra enhancements that improve the system but aren't necessary to run on the hardware?

I think you'll find if you eliminate those your 1.2 million line estimate goes down quite a lot. No, Robert probably couldn't have coded a 1.2 million line kernel with equivalent performance and functionality to FBSD / Linux - *but he didn't have to*.

"LOL, Robert disappears into the dungeon and magically produces the kernel by himself. It may seem like a *nix kernel, but it's not because he says so. Too funny."

Well, "Ipse Dixit", you know...
If the *Master* says so it *must* be true, ROTFLMAO

LOL, Robert disappears into the dungeon and magically produces the kernel by himself.

Yes, and he did so for 8 years.

It seems like the extent of your evidence consists of the fact that this would be impossible simply because it seems hard to you. Would that be an accurate statement?

Yes, and he did so for 8 years.

It seems like the extent of your evidence consists of the fact that this would be impossible simply because it seems hard to you. Would that be an accurate statement?


Does it seem hard to me? Hmmmmm let's see here.....

The bsd kernel is 1.2 million lines of code.

The linux 2.6 kernel is 5.6 million lines of code.

Do I think it would be difficult for a single person to create from scratch a kernel with similar functionality? Yes, yes I do.

I think the fact that your miracle worker is paying people to port software for his os should tell you something. Porting software should be easy for someone who wrote the entire kernel.

Look you're in over your head, and so is your almighty leader. He's a liar, and a lousy one at that. I hope at least that you're getting a percentage of those $30 beta fees.

I think the fact that your miracle worker is paying people to port software for his os should tell you something. Porting software should be easy for someone who wrote the entire kernel.

It is easy for him, hence the GTK, Abiword, GIMP ports released within 2 weeks. but it has nothing to do with h ow easy it is, he isn't doing them because he has more important things to work on, bug fixes, new features in SkyOS itself, etc etc.

Is this that hard to grasp?

> LOL, Robert disappears into the dungeon and
> magically produces the kernel by himself.

Anyone can code a kernel given enough time; SkyOS has been in development for *years*. If you're a gifted programmer then you can produce quite impressive results. So, yes, I imagine he does disappear into the dungeon and produce kernel code.

> It may seem like a *nix kernel

I'm curious - how can you tell what the kernel looks like? The screenshots on the website? The fact that it runs bash doesn't mean anything - I've had bash running cheerfully on Windows 98.

Ahh, c'mon now. Quit this crap, *please*. The source isn't going to be opened, so freaking stop it already.

"The source isn't going to be opened"

Who spoke about "source" ?

The only sorcery here is trying to fool and brainwash people, mostly quite young.

"They must believe that Linus is one of the anointed few who are smart enough to write a kernel."

Except that when Linus first wrote the kernel it was hardly useful for anything.
It is because it is open source and because so many people have worked on it that the Linux Kernel is the masterpiece we know today.

The SkyOS kernel doesn't have to be as good as the Linux kernel in order to be adequate for a desktop OS: we have no evidence of it's kernel's performance, hardware support, protocol support... If it's just a basic kernel for a desktop OS then a one-man project is feasible.

I think it's been said somewhere else in this thread that while the OS and kernel and underlying critical system functions (and graphical system?) were written by one guy, the programs sitting on top of it weren't. Heck, they've got Firefox, Everaldo's Krystal Icon set and BASH... but those are programs running ON an operating system.

Maybe he didn't write his own console shell because
1.) it wasn't important to him to have his own
2.) BASH was available and easy to port
3.) He wanted a familiar interface to make it easier for people to try the system?

That said, it does seem like he's an amazing programmer to have written the kernel and graphics API and so on by himself, albeit over 8 years...

I don't know what he has written by himself and what he hasn't, but you are right on the main point:
IT.IS.IMPOSSIBLE.FOR.ONE.MAN.TO.WRITE.A.MODERN.OS.ON.HIS.OWN.

Unless of course it is a toy OS, which seems to be the case with SkyOS.

Heck, not even the mighty M$ is able to write a decent OS, with their billions and thousands of developers.
And before somebody else says it, no, GNU/Linux isn't perfect either.

Why didn't he create a unique console? I think it's very telling that it runs bash...

He did. SkyOS did not receive the Bash console until....I think beta 8.2 or 8.3. Up until that point, SkyOS had its own basic console. It was only after a number of people requested that Bash be ported that Robert finally decided to go ahead and do it.

It wasn't actually based on MINIX, which did not come under a Free license. It was written from scratch.

"Ah yes, the familiar Linux fanboy belief that a project can only be succesfully completed by many open source programmers."

You are just a plain idiot if you can't take a fact for what it is. Or do you believe that one man, even in a lifetime, could write something as the Linux Kernel on his own?
Then you surely believe that the Windows Kernel could have been written by just one man.
And that is why you believe that your demigod can write a modern OS on his own.

If you are the person who implied that SkyOS has to be stolen unix code because it can run Bash, then yes you are an idiot. Bash is software. Software can be ported to other platforms, for example Windows. You can't point to the existence of Bash on a platform as proof that the platform is really stolen unix code.


Way to completely ignore my reply and latch onto my comment out of context. Here's my reply again:

I think it's very telling that it runs bash, has a unix style filesystem, and every program shown in the screen shots has a linux equivalent. The system diagnostics program doesn't look a little familiar to you? Stacked graphs with green lines? Playing quake 2? What about the "SkyOS mp3 player"? You're telling me that's not a hack of mplayer? Or was this all the work of the leader?

I'm quite aware that bash is software, but it's not just any software. It is software that is used for unix based systems 99% of the time. If you see an operating system that has a bash icon, screenshots of programs that look like linux programs, and a file system similar to unix, it's most likely that it's unix based, not a completely original system created by a miraculous leader. That was my point, I never claimed that bash itself was evidence enough.

You are aware that there is a difference between applications that run on an operating system, and the operating system itself, right?

I don't think we claim anywhere that every application that is available for SkyOS was written from scratch; indeed, things like Firefox, Thunderbird, Gaim, Quake II, and a number of other *applications* were ported to SkyOS from their original code. Again, I don't think we claim anywhere that we wrote those applications from scratch. If we do, please point it out and I will fix it.

Aside from the filesystem, which is based on the OpenBFS (licensed under the MIT license, which allows us to rename it to "SkyFS", which we also discussed with the (then) OpenBeOS team), the operating system itself has been written from scratch.

Again, applications are applications and the operating system is the operating system. They are two different things. What we have written from scratch is the operating system. If you can not distinguish between these two things, I will assume that you either do not have enough knowledge software development to present a valid argument, or that you are simply trying to initiate a heated discussion, based on faulty logic.

"Your problem is that because Linux has taken hundreds of developers years to get to its current state, you mistakenly believe that any other OS ever developed must also require the same resources. SkyOS, from what I have seen of it, has limited driver support and limited functionality compared to Linux. I am not, like you, delusional enough to think that only a large group of open source developers could create something on the level of SkyOS."

And your point is? You keep contradicting yourself and you don't seem to know what you want to prove (maybe you need some sleep)
I'll help you clarify your own ideas:
If you want to make a toy, one man is enough. But if you want to make an OPERATING SYSTEM you need "hundreds of developers years"
Or do you believe that M$ Windows has been created by Bill Gates in his spare time???

Nice try, but no dice:)

I'd like to point out that is *not* the official SkyOS Software store, but rather a list of all the software available for the system, created by a user. Perhaps you should research a bit more, I mean, seriously!

If you feel like viewing an odd page, visit the *real* software store:
http://www.skyos.org/softwarestore/

You see, their Software Store is OpenSource

Your post has been modded up by me, would you believe it? I found what you say pretty sensible.
Look, I have nothing really against SkyOS or Robert per se. I am only saying that one man/a small team can only create a hobby OS. And that is only logical, how can a small team write the zillion drivers needed by modern hardware? Of course if they could convince people to buy a PC preloaded with SkyOS, things would become *a lot* easier. But I remember there was a poll on their front page for a long time, asking if people would buy a dedicated computer: by far the vast majority said "no"

So why do I come across as so much against SkyOS?
There are mainly two reason:
1)I haven't still forgotten the attitude of SkyOS fanboys in the past here at OSNews, kind of: "Linux is shit, SkyOS is the next MS Windows"
2)I find it really a pity that SkyOS source is closed, also considering that it used to be open and that it uses so much open source software.
We open source people are very often called "zealots", but our reason are hardly ever understood: we want to tinker, we want to cooperate, we want to help, we believe that opening the source brings true freedom to everybody (including the project mantainer)

2)I find it really a pity that SkyOS source is closed, also considering that it used to be open and that it uses so much open source software.

We open source people are very often called "zealots", but our reason are hardly ever understood: we want to tinker, we want to cooperate, we want to help, we believe that opening the source brings true freedom to everybody (including the project mantainer)

That's fine, and it is your right to prescribe to the open source model; neither myself nor Robert would fault you for that. Open source is certainly one way out of about 1,000 to get a project done. It simply is not the way we choose to operate. Why is it that we can understand your wishes, and yet you criticize us for ours? If you were developing a project, I would never think to tell you to license it a certain way, and criticize you if you did not, and yet you are doing that very thing to us.

We use open source software because we can, because it is good, and because it is there. In almost every case where we have ported an application to SkyOS, we have talked with the developers of the project, and they are very supportive, glad to see that their software is available on yet another platform. If they are happy to see their software being used, why do you get so upset about it?

We choose not to use the open source development model, but have no problem with others that do choose to use it. Why can't you grant us that same freedom, and criticize us for our choice, a choice that was ours to make?

Obviously you're simply ignoring what I am saying. If you're not even going to address my comments with logic, and are simply going to use them as a platform to push your agenda, I'd rather not even waste my time responding to your comments anymore.

It is mutual, Kelly. I feel exactly the same about you: "non canimus surdis"

"Amazing, being hated for having the audacity to decide to develop some code under something other than the GPL. How tolerant of you. GPL bigotry at its best."

As usual you only manage to talk utter nonsense.

*I* am not the open source community, I am only one member, and a tolerant one at that. I can even have a constructive dialogue with Microsoft (who by the way show much more common sense than you)

As to the petty "arguments", none of them came from me.

"Bigotry really does bring out irrational behavior, in any form it seems."

Ipse Dixit! Were you looking at yourself in the mirror when you said that?

Because you and other GPL fanboys disagree on the license used, you'll attack it with petty arguments, such as:

There's a lot of misquoting going on here, not one person has said that SkyOS MUST be stolen unix code because of those reasons. It isn't open source, so we can't check it, but in all likelihood there is at least some BSD code in there. I also don't know why you are assuming that the people questioning SkyOS are "GPL fanboys." I simply don't believe that the operating system was built from scratch.

As I said before, ask your leader to show us the tcp/ip stack, since it should be written from scratch if the rest of the operating system is.

As for the applications issue, it is quite telling that some programs have been renamed to give people the impression that they were developed by the SkyOS team. Obviously your leader wants to give as much credit as possible to SkyOS, and as least as possible to the people that created those applications. This is very telling of his character, which should tell you that you should not simply trust his word that the operating system is built from scratch. As I stated before, I'm going with what is probable, you're going with the word of someone who charges $30 for a beta.

...it is quite telling that some programs have been renamed to give people the impression that they were developed by the SkyOS team.

You mean like:

Firefox
Thunderbird
Nvu
Bash
Quake I
Quake II
Open Transport Tycoon Deluxe
Gaim
Gimp
FooBillard
LBreakOut 2
Blender
Abiword
Bochs
dotGNU

None of these apps have we claimed to have written, nor have we attempted to "re-brand" them. We have no interest in re-naming any of these applications; quite the opposite, most of these are well-known applications, and the fact that they are available for SkyOS is an advertisement for SkyOS, that many popular applications are available for the platform.

None of these apps have we claimed to have written, nor have we attempted to "re-brand" them. We have no interest


Wow, way to do your p.r. work. I clearly stated some programs, not all. You keep trying to re-word my arguments instead of actually addressing my points.

Would you accept these same kinds of answers from Microsoft? What if Microsoft claimed that Vista was 100% original, but later you found that the file manager was actually an open source port renamed "VistaExplorer." Would you accept the explanation that that the program is not actually part of the operating system? What if they renamed 10-15 open source programs "Vista-whatever" and then provided a list of programs they didn't rename as a response?

So which part of SkyOS are you suggesting we ported and re-branded as an original work?

Besides SkyFS (which is modified and incompatible with BeFS so a name change here is a given), I can't think of anything that has been rebranded. Actually, I whish the SkyOS team *would* rebrand (like Linspire does). Creates a more coherent feel.

Anyway, can you name any, original poster? I'm curious!

Do remember (and I know you do, Thom, this is for others) that OpenBeOS (now "Haiku) was licensed under the MIT license, which is a very un-restrictive license. This gave us full decision as to whether or not we wanted to re-name our implementation of the file system. On top of that, we discussed this decision with the OpenBeOS developers, who did not have a problem with the decision.

The decision to use the OpenBFS file system is one of the best that we have made, in my opinion. It is extremely robust, and allowed for a great deal of new features in SkyOS. Above all, it has opened a very good channel for us with the Haiku developers, which is a relationship we value very highly.

So, have you decided to stfu and leave, or can you actually back up *anything* you've said in this entire thread? I'm thinking the former.

Congrats to you!

Yet another idiot who doesn't understand the difference between free as in freedom (=open source) and free as in free beer. The one doesn't imply the other.

You haven't got a clue of what you are talking about.
If I could have it my way, idiotic, coward anonymous like you wouldn't be allowed to post here without registering.
You are a disgrace to this place: you bring down the level to that of a brothel.

I find it extremely interesting that these people cannot name a single piece of Software in SkyOS that has been rebranded. Hm. Wonder why..


Maybe because this isn't a chat room and you can't expect an immediate response. If you and Kelly would have actually read through the posts you would have noticed that the media player was already admitted by someone else to be renamed. I also mentioned the mp3 player, the system monitor, and the "skycruzer" seems suspicious as well. These are only from what we can see in the screenshots, I'm sure if they released a free beta more "Sky-apps" would be noticed. There's still the issue of the icons, because you would think that an operating system built from scratch would at least have original icons.

One thing I keep noticing is that the Linuz zealots keep assuming that people who makes a positive post about SkyOS are "fanboys" I don't even use it, I use Linux, and I'm embarassed by the few Linux losers on here bashing SkyOS.


NO ONE is pushing Linux in this discussion, your "Linuz zealots" don't exist here. I have been the most vocal and I don't even use Linux. However there has been some voting down of people that criticized SkyOS.

So it sounds like the important thing to you is to prove that people do not like our project or our community (which I, as well as most other people, clearly know is not the case). That really shines a spotlight on the motivations behind your words.

Absolutely hopeless. You can only see the negative side of things and you stubbornly refuse to open your mind to opinions different than yours.
What would you reply to this:



>> Re:Slashdotted in the mysterious future? (Score:5, Insightful)
by squiggleslash (241428) on Thursday December 23, @11:15AM (#11167966)
(Last Journal: Sunday August 28, @02:15PM)
I'd be happy with something not Unix based, as long as it's an open system - open in the sense of being open source/free software, expandable, etc. It needs to support TCP/IP, and it has to be mainstream enough to not cause massive problems with the concept of porting software. If AROS [aros.org] had more drivers and had memory protection, I'd be tempted by it because the UI works the way I want a computer to work.

But SkyOS isn't really it. It's a nice design, apparently, and it's got a mainstream enough design to make porting far from impossible (as this article shows), but it's proprietary (I can't make modifications to it or support myself) and it doesn't have the support of a large organization that'll be around for years.

The SkyOS fan club might want to look at Atheos. There, again, was an operating system developed by a single individual to furfill his vision. He then, for reasons unknown, dropped out of sight.

Thankfully, for Atheos users, he'd taken the precaution of GPL'ing the system. So Atheos users were able to support themselves, eventually making an official fork of the no-longer-maintained system, and continue development.

I use Mac OS X, GNU/Linux, and OpenBSD. The former is proprietary but supported by a group that's not going to go away. The latter two are open and support for either's not going to go away. I have moral issues with the former, but for now, it's a good system and from a practical perspective, there's no issue with continuing to use it. SkyOS doesn't really fit as either, and past experience of pointing this out shows that, by and large, SkyOS's major online advocates are a bunch of loud-mouthed jerks who'll accuse anyone of being a free software "zealot" for pointing out the obvious (even when, as I did then and continue to do now, I said it was a choice between having major, guaranteed, commercial support or making it free software.)

So I can't really use it in the hope that if something goes wrong the SkyOS people will do the right thing and find a way to get users the support they need. I don't think they will, they're ideologically opposed to doing so. And because of that, they've created practical barriers to anyone who wants to use it for anything but the most trivial purposes.<<

And again, you dedicate an entire post in an attempt to inspire contempt and ill-will towards our community and project. I still stand by my statement that it speaks volumes about your true motivations.

It reads much more like a mildly-whiny opinion about the viability of a fringe proprietary operating system. Please specify the exact sentences that inspire contempt and ill-will toward (1) your community (2) your project.

It looks as if you can't read.
So I'll make it easy and summarize it for you:

The post says that a fringe operating system nowadays can only be viable if it is non proprietary.
That is what I have been saying all along and what should be obvious to everybody, except to you.

The post says that a fringe operating system nowadays can only be viable if it is non proprietary.
That is what I have been saying all along and what should be obvious to everybody, except to you.

Do you really believe that? Other people create commercial/proprietary software as well, why is an operating system any different. The way SkyOS handles beta registrations is a way to ensure funding while developping, and those who participate choose to do so. Obviously there are people interested in supporting a project like this.

"Do you really believe that?"

Yes, otherwise I wouldn't be wasting my time.

"Other people create commercial/proprietary software as well, why is an operating system any different."

Oh please! Don't tell me that a registry cleaner (like RegSupreme) is comparable to an operating system.

"The way SkyOS handles beta registrations is a way to ensure funding while developping, and those who participate choose to do so."

Nowhere in this thread I wrote that I have any objection to that. But the funds they can bring are nothing compared to what is needed.

"Obviously there are people interested in supporting a project like this."

Oh yes, of course. The poiunt is: how many? How active? Which age?

I find your post extremely naive.

How do you know if I am a disgruntled beta tester, who having paid is disappointed by the pace of the project, the arrogance of the management, the childishness of many user...

I am not saying that the above is a fact. It is only a very likely possibility. In case you don't know, such a group of disappointed beta testers *does exist*.

"You want to see childish users? Masquerade as a newbie and ask for help from Linux users, especially Debian users lol. Chances are rare you'll get any kind of useful response. I've used Linux a long long time, far long enough to notice that trend over and over again"

The usual nonsense. As somebody who has posted thousands of times to help others, I can confirm that is BS of the worst sort and it makes me doubt that you have used linux for any lenght of time, if ever.

The usual nonsense. As somebody who has posted thousands of times to help others, I can confirm that is BS of the worst sort and it makes me doubt that you have used linux for any lenght of time, if ever.

I wouldn't doubt what he said. I've used Linux since early 90's, Slack, RedHat, Suse, Mandrake and now Ubuntu and some Gentoo. He's right about the generosity of Gentoo users (which you didn't quote btw) and he's also correct about less than ideal treatment of new users. It's something I hate to see, but there are many Linux users who have no patience for questions. Up until I started reading Gentoo forums, I really dreaded asking for any help unless it was someone I was familiar with.

"He's right about the generosity of Gentoo users (which you didn't quote btw)"

I didn't because they are OK, but they are not the only ones (but the Gentoo mods can be truly nasty sometimes).
You must also have the common sense of asking in the right place. For instance linuxiso.org isn't one of them, because many users are quite shallow and all they want is a free download. However a few people there struggle and do their best to help.
Also this myth that Debian users are unfriendly annoys me: it is simply not true, and I know what I am talking about.