Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-24
Mockup calls itself an 'operating system', but at first glance, it looked like Yet Another Linux Distro to me.
The FAQ (http://www.mockup.org/faqs) answers:
Mockup is not another GNU/Linux distribution. Distributions put a lot of programs together with some integration. There's no real integration and consistency because applications written for different toolkits and environments are mixed.
We want to provide the applications the user needs and choose what the base system should have. No more OSS and ALSA, for example, because we choosen ALSA as our sound subsystem.
A matter of terminology I guess.
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-09-11
But that's exactly what it is. Linux is still Linux. Unless he writes this from scratch, it's still Linux, lest he plagiarizes the entire project. The term "Linux distro" isn't so immortal after all. Once he begins distributing Mockup, it is a distribution of the Linux kernel. What he does on top of that makes the difference, I'll admit, but I will not be fooled into thinking that this is not Linux being distributed, regardless of the logistics involved.
Member since:---
"But that's exactly what it is. Linux is still Linux. Unless he writes this from scratch, it's still Linux, lest he plagiarizes the entire project. The term "Linux distro" isn't so immortal after all. Once he begins distributing Mockup, it is a distribution of the Linux kernel. What he does on top of that makes the difference, I'll admit, but I will not be fooled into thinking that this is not Linux being distributed, regardless of the logistics involved."
no Linux is GNU/Linux .
this isn't Linux, this is Mockup/Linux.
not get too stallman here but thats the problem with refering to the OS as linux, it kinda perpetuates this idea that the kernel IS the os. (not that i have ever actually used the term gnu/linux myself)
Member since:2005-09-10
Member since:2005-09-11
Member since:2005-07-07
no Linux is GNU/Linux .
this isn't Linux, this is Mockup/Linux.
Do you even know what you said? If you think you do, then it is time for your regular lobotomy.
Is it another GNU/Linux distribution?
Mockup is not another GNU/Linux distribution. Distributions put a lot of programs together with some integration. There's no real integration and consistency because applications written for different toolkits and environments are mixed.
We want to provide the applications the user needs and choose what the base system should have. No more OSS and ALSA, for example, because we choosen ALSA as our sound subsystem.
In translation it is not usual linux distribution. While other depend on the same software, his distro differs in the fact, that it provides unique and uniformed desktop tools.
It is just reffering that this is not YALD (Yet Another Linux Distribution).
In other technical merrit, the only thing that Mockup provides is desktop. And as such it can run on completely different kernel than Linux. As long as it is DESKTOP what it provides it is not OS just DESKTOP.
But as long as they say that preffered kernel is Linux, it is just another form that Linux can take (GNU/Linux is the term used for many reasons and talking about patches is irrelevant in this case, it would mean that if you run linux-mm (tree that has a lot of testing patches incorporated) you still run Gnu/Linux and not MM/Linux).
Member since:2005-07-06
> Linux is still Linux.
I disagree, you don't need to ditch the kernel to make an OS much different than a traditional Linux distro, if for example you hide all the system stuff such as /etc, /boot, /proc, /sys under a /system, rename etc into conf, etc.. you get something very different from a traditionnal Linux distro and you're still using the Linux kernel.
Blue Eyed OS have tried to make a BeOS clone using a Linux kernel, AFAIK they failed but this is from lack of contributors (not unexpected the way they were communicating), not because of an inherent impossibility of making an OS far from traditionnal Linux distros using the Linux kernel.
That said I don't know much about MockUp except that the author have a big mouth.
Member since:2005-09-11
I guess I should have specified more clearly. The Linux kernel is still the Linux kernel.
If you stick the Linux kernel in a cell phone, and start giving those away (I wish) you would have yet another distribution (the logistics) of a Linux kernel. If you stick Linux into a Bus scheduler, and begin selling those to motherboard developers, yet again you are sending out another distribution of Linux, hence what I said that the term "linux distro" is not so immortal; it is still a generic term.
Claiming that your project is not one thing tends to cause reactions when it appears to be just that thing the claim refuses. They should be really careful with that statement I think -- that "big mouth" of theirs I mean.
Member since:2005-07-06
In the respect of trade mark law, I agree with you. This is indeed a linux distribution.
But most of the world don't think of a linux distribution that way. For most of us a linux distribution is a project/organization that maintains a repository of prepackaged open source projects, applying some moderate QA and integration work to pass it of as something, quite, but not entierly, unlike an operating system.
The reason why it is called a distribution, and not an OS , is because the maintainer can't or won't take responsibilliy for the included components.
Member since:2005-06-30
For me the term "Linux distro" has a different meaning. It depends on your point of view.
For example RMS says that Linux distros should be called GNU/Linux distros or GNU-based operating systems with the Linux kernel and it always generates stupid threads or flames.
Some people might think that GNU/Linux is not a right term because Linux distributions use software from a lot of projects and if you want to apply this logic you should use the term "GNOME/KDE/Xorg/GNU/Linux".
"Linux distro" is a generic term that means everything and nothing. I used the term "operating system with the Linux kernel" because this is a different project. Linux distrubutions often package a lot of things and don't have a coherent desktop, they use both GNOME and KDE (anyone noticed that under SuSE kdebase depends on some GNOME stuff?) they provides both OOo and KOffice (and even GNOME Office).
Have you ever noticed that undef Windows and MacOS the majority (if not every) application has the same look and feel? Ok, now compare those desktops with a Linux distribution...
What I meant saying that "Mockup is not a Linux distro" is "Mockup is not a normal Linux distribution, it's more a coherent and integrated operating system that has _one_ desktop and _one_ toolkit".
Your point is valid and mine too.
Your point is valid because Mockup distributes a Linux kernel and other software and mine is valid too because it's not a normal Linux distribution.
If the Web pages are so unclear it means that I must improve them.
Member since:---
"Linux distro" is a generic term that means everything and nothing. I used the term "operating system with the Linux kernel" because this is a different project. Linux distrubutions often package a lot of things and don't have a coherent desktop, they use both GNOME and KDE (anyone noticed that under SuSE kdebase depends on some GNOME stuff?) they provides both OOo and KOffice (and even GNOME Office).
Have you ever noticed that undef Windows and MacOS the majority (if not every) application has the same look and feel? Ok, now compare those desktops with a Linux distribution...
What I meant saying that "Mockup is not a Linux distro" is "Mockup is not a normal Linux distribution, it's more a coherent and integrated operating system that has _one_ desktop and _one_ toolkit".
Pier, let's be honest here. Just because you're trying to enforce one toolkit and one desktop doesn't qualify Mockup as something different than another distro. I can understand your goals, but at this point in time you're just trying to limit what people can run on Mockup. I don't think it's enough to call it another OS.
I think the original goal of replicating the BeOS APIs would have qualified as a new OS. I think something like komodo, http://www.komodoware.com is probably closer to a different OS because it uses a brand new toolkit and is completely based around Mono.
Member since:2005-07-11
So, you're saying http://gobolinux.org isn't Linux?
Member since:2005-07-24
I wouldn't call that "yet another Linux distro".
I just said it looks like a linux distro at first glance, then quoted their reason for calling it an OS instead of a distro, and then concluded it's mainly a terminology thing.
In other words, I tried to prevent the (pretty useless imho) terminology discussion that happened anyway.
I'm sorry, my effort failed there, I guess I should've been more clear.
Member since:
---
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
---
Member since:---
Member since:---
hehe you're right...
1) I always thought it would be cool to have a Desktop Environment based on Qt, but without the bloat of KDE (think of XFCE vs GNOME).
2) The ideas expressed here:
http://www.digitalfanatics.org/qt4/articles/mockup.html
and here:
http://www.mockup.org/faqs
and in some other random pages, are very interesting for a musician or artist in general, who is also a linux fanatic 
Note that i can have almost everything described there on my customized ubuntu, right now, but mockup adds the perspective of an OS instead of a linux distro. Of course, at this time, that means almost nothing but it's a different point of view and that should eventually reflect in a polished, non-bloat, sane environment.
yes it's still a customized Debian GNU/Linux (sort of) but i hope you get my point.
PS: I don't pay much attention to the screenshots indeed, i'd say the interface at this time is inspired by beos though 
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2005-09-10
Member since:---
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
has anybody tried to actually install it? i'm using qemu to try this thing out, but the repo's seem to miss crucial files.
mockup:~# cdebootstrap sid /mnt file:///opt/packages
P: Retrieving Release.gpg
E: Couldn't download Release.gpg!
and the same thing happens when using the online mirror directly
any idea?
Member since:
2005-06-29
Whenever you make any package available to the public, users or developers, the first thing you want to ensure is that it is "easy" to install. It doesn't matter if the package is alpha, omega or beta. If users can't install it easily you are going to leave a first bad impression. I'm told those impressions last forever. The installation process is vital. Unfortunately, many developers take it for granted.
Member since:---
"You are warned, it is just an alpha release. This means that it's useful only
for developers and it's not easy to install."
http://lists.mockup.org/pipermail/mockup-devel/2005-October/000049....
And I always thought that before worrying about an easy install, devs should worry about actually producing something people might want to install.
Member since:---
>>>And I always thought that before worrying about an easy install, devs should worry about actually producing something people might want to install.
It isn't "difficult" to install, it's just "uninstallable": there are important files missing, inaccurate descriptions and simple typos everywhere.
The author pushed this release to let people know he's actually working on it, and that's cool, but then again, it should have been clearly stated that this isn't even alpha software, it's MOCKUP
That said, i still mantain the idea is great
Member since:2005-06-30
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-06
Guys, I know many of you are OSS enthusiast or programmers, experts etc.
Try to get the point of Mockup: Pierluigi is trying to make a new OS based on the kernel of Linux. Without EVERYTHING you already know well.
Throw away KDE, X, Gnome, XFCE, your favourite package manager. Drop everything. He is simply trying to write from scratch an OS, and he is using Linux kernel only to save time.
From this point of view, the Mockup project is something really new, and innovative.
Member since:---
Actually, no. From what I gather, he's using at least xorg and KDE, and probably a few command line programs.
Getting that out of the way, I have to say calling it an OS in this case is actually appropriate. It changes enough that it really wouldn't make sense calling it a distro. Besides, it's just a naming convention; I don't see why some of you are all up in arms about it.
-bytecoder
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:---
Member since:
---
Here. http://www.mockup.org/faqs
They use the linux kernel, have no plans for another one, won't be using BeFS, use Qt, will rely on GNU tools.
This guy just wants a desktop/distro that only uses the Qt toolkit, nothing more.
Member since:
2005-07-06
I remember Mockup being an attempt at an open source BeOS clone. Then it was supposed to learn the lessons from BeOS that were to be learned, and do it better in a new attempt; aka forgoing trying to get binary or source compatibility with BeOS programs, just going for a very responsive and media-capable OS (in response to a rant by Eugenia no less!).
And now..it seems to have lost even more direction. I have no clue what the eventual added value will be, and I have to wonder what Mockup will eventually offer over distros based on alternative windowmanagers, of which there are a number now.
Member since:
2005-07-09
Member since:
---
ok, at this point i dont think you can even count the amount of specialised distros out there. hell, the most popular desktop distro in use right now is ubuntu, which is one de, one browser, one text editor, etc. so right off the bat, this isnt new, revolutionary, or anything even remotely like that. in fact, the one and only thing about this whole project that is in any way whatsoever new is their DE, which looks more or less like one guy trying to reinvent XFCE on Qt.
so what do we have with mockup thats different from say, ubuntu? well, lets see. a lack of developers, currently the number is a grand total of two. a lack of users, it is in developer release status and is impossible to install. based on zealotous hatred, most distros which specialise do so to improve the user experience for a specific group instead of trying to be everything to everyone, and will do what they can to rise above fanboi user rivalries on whose DE is bigger then whose.
IF they manage to get more developers, IF they can get over themselves, IF they can get over their redicules hatred of other projects, IF they can muster up a community following, and IF the end product is in any way, shape, or form usable before the whole thing fizzles out of existance, then maybe they will have something going for them. once they start towards any of those things, ill wish them luck. until then, they are Yet Another Distro waiting to die, and effort on mockup will be more or less a waste of time. ive got my money on the death thing.
anyone here remember HawkinsOS? you know, the rebranded freebsd done by the bsd troll that died about a month after it was announced, and before anything worth anything came out of it. i would say this is the Hawkins of the linux world.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Pier-Luigi has been working on Mockup for quite some time. It's not just some project that popped up last month.
That said, it seems like his goals (and licensing) are similar to Syllable. Both projects are built on an existing kernel. Both are LGPL/GPL. Both use the GNU toolset. Both are aiming at creating a modern clean system.
I really don't see why PierLuigi and the Bill (from COSMOE) can't simply join forces with the Syllable guys. Think how much they could accomplish if they worked together.
Maybe there's some big egos involved. Dunno. Vanders seems like a pretty good and fair fearless leader. I think it would really form something great if the three of them could sit down at a virtual table together and find a way to work together. Find out what each party really needs out of it, and see if they can all be accomodated. Ask them all, "what do we have to do to get you working with the other 2 of us?".
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-11
Member since:---
Member since:2005-07-11
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:
2005-07-06
> but they diverge a lot in their desired paths.
Not too much though. Regarding Cosmoe, the BeOS API is similar to Syllable's. Perhaps Pier doesn't like the Syllable API, but very strongly prefers Qt. (?)
There's always going to be *some* differences in goals and their ideas on the best way to achieve them -- that's the nature of why it's difficult to work together. However, both Pier and Bill seem to be very productive developers, so, the benefit to the community from them all working together (Vanders & Co. too) would very likely outweigh the benefit (again, to the community) of them working on their own separate projects.
This is one of the classic problems you see with free software projects, in relation to how they benefit the free software community.
That said, maybe Pier and Bill are more interested in pursuing their own personal goals (scratching their own itches), which is entirely understandable and is their prerogative.
My best guess is, projects with the goal of maximizing benefit to the community stand the best chance of long-term survival (and the best chance of getting more devs to pitch in and help out with it).
