SkyOS beta 6762 has been released. "SkyOS Beta 6762 is now available to download directly from the Beta Center. This build features the new Viewer, a huge performance increase, 36 additional API Classes, updated libraries, a new font alpha blending method, 280+ fixed bugs including critical boot bug fixes."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-06
GPL code is not used in the kernel or libraries. GPL'ed apps are used and the sources are available (Bash, GCC, etc).
SkyOS also uses no BSD code. It does use a heavily modified OpenBFS which has an MIT license.
The appearence was the result of a contest here on OSNews a few years back. Yes, it hasn't aged well, and it will be modified before final release.
Robert prefers to keep SkyOS closed source. His choice.
If you don't like paying to beta test SkyOS, just don't use it. Don't complain.
Member since:2006-02-15
If you don't like paying to beta test SkyOS, just don't use it. Don't complain.
Everything I've seen and heard about SkyOS, it seems like a really really really great OS, and I would like to beta test it 
I just haven't had chance this far.. But yeah, it sure looks very pretty, even if the UI looks are a few years old! And the new Viewer..well, I just wish Nautilus would do the same!! As much as I like open-source I also do appreciate high-quality code and SkyOS seems to be the latter, all the way through (Note: this may be a bit biased opinion since this is based on just the screenshot and -casts, no need to complain to me)
Member since:2005-07-06
I often find myself asking why it is that so many OSS users and coders seem to think that everything should be OSS. I mean, OSS is great, and I do think there is a great place in the computing world for it, but it cannot, or should not, be seen as a be all and end all.
I find that the best projects that use OSS are those that combine fine proprietary systems or programs with OSS foundations the way OS X does. I have yet to give SkyOS a try, but I can definitely see myself using a system like this in the future, and the fact that it is not Open Source does not bother me at all.
Member since:2006-01-16
There is no real benefit for the user in "proprietary". If the same software would be available in a proprietary fashion or free, as in speech, the latter would always be the better choice.
But it is not always the best choice, monitary wise, for the developer. It would probably be no good choice for Coca Cola to give away their formula to everyone.
That said, I can understand users who don't want to forego the additional rights and power free software gives to them, even if they have to live with reduced functionality. For example, it is perfectly reasonable to not run software you don't have full control of in general. And enforcing free software is in effect enforcing your own rights, as a user.
Member since:2005-08-22
That said, I can understand users who don't want to forego the additional rights and power free software gives to them, even if they have to live with reduced functionality.
I prefer the benefit of a stable platform. Open source systems are constantly changing. There is no such thing as a standard platform you can rely on users having. Open source developers typically have little regard for the importance of binary compatibility.
As a software developer, you have to spend far more time than you should keeping up with the ever changing APIs. It doesn't matter if your new API is slightly better than your old one if it means I have to keep rewriting my code with each new release.
Member since:2006-01-16
Member since:2005-08-22
The "ever changing" APIs is a myth. Most even stone age programs still compile on new systems without any patch needed.
Not true at all. You're only able to compile older apps if you load your system up with ancient versions of libraries. That's not API compatibility, that's just the ability for different APIs to coexist. Very big difference.
Let's also not forget the horrible disregard for binary compatibility on Linux. GCC alone breaks all binary compatibility every few releases.
Member since:2006-01-16
Your posting sounds ignorant to me. I got not the same impression than you, but still I know what I talk about, too. And to me it seems that most open source APIs stay compatible for a long time. Even if there occur changes, they are mostly minor ones and can easily patched.
Your post about binary compatibility is senseless. The disregard of it is anything else than "horrible". It doesn't matter. Next, gcc stays binary compatible a long, long, long time. It's only g++ that broke often recently.
On Windows I want binary compatibility, because I would need it! On a open source operating system it's nothing more than a hindrance to evolution of the software.
But now to go one step further: API/ABI compatibility on Windows as the outstanding proprietary platform to compare with, is horrible too -- talking about libraries! Most programs install their own version of the needed libs just exactly for this reason. And the mess goes so far that Windows has extra mechanisms builtin to restore overwritten librarys automatically!
Still, if some error is detected in a rather old lib from MS, like the wmf (?) image exploit last year, people start to find this lib is shipped with dozens of applications they would never dream of. This wouldn't happen on a open source system, apart from your "API incompatibility" most programs manage to use the system-wide libs instead of static linkage etc.
Member since:2005-08-22
Your post about binary compatibility is senseless. The disregard of it is anything else than "horrible". It doesn't matter. Next, gcc stays binary compatible a long, long, long time. It's only g++ that broke often recently.
I meant GCC in the GNU Compiler Collection sense, not in the C compiler sense. G++ breaks compatibility frequently. Once you get outside of x86, there tend to be a few platforms breaking binary compatibility with every release.
On Windows I want binary compatibility, because I would need it! On a open source operating system it's nothing more than a hindrance to evolution of the software.
I don't care about evolution of software. I want a stable platform to work on. It's not worth breaking things for every minor improvement.
Binary compatibility matters for all users. Source compatibility only matters for developers, who are vastly outnumbered by normal users. And it only matters as much as it does because a Linux system is hundreds of libraries with little to no coordination between the developers.
But now to go one step further: API/ABI compatibility on Windows as the outstanding proprietary platform to compare with, is horrible too -- talking about libraries! Most programs install their own version of the needed libs just exactly for this reason. And the mess goes so far that Windows has extra mechanisms builtin to restore overwritten librarys automatically!
Microsoft very stupidly put little in the way of version control into DLLs. They improved it in later years. The problems you're talking about are incompetent developers. They're not flaws in the system.
This wouldn't happen on a open source system, apart from your "API incompatibility" most programs manage to use the system-wide libs instead of static linkage etc.
You should pay more attention. It's really common for zlib, libpng, libssl, and a few other common libraries to be statically linked. wxWidgets is another common one to be statically linked - largely because they tend to make API changes even in point releases. It's more license issues than anything else that prevents static linking being more common.
Member since:2006-09-07
Member since:2005-08-22
Linux developers don't give a sh*t, but not all Open Source developers are like that.
Not all, but most. Including just about every big name in the community.
Then have a look at Windows. A new API (on top of all the old ones) with ever release.
How do you propose adding functionality without adding APIs to access it? The only drastic change since Win95 was .NET. Sure, driver APIs have had to change over time to handle drastic changes in hardware, but even those managed to stay stable from Win98 through XP (not sure if Vista does WDM).
Member since:2005-07-18
Member since:2005-08-22
Member since:
2005-11-16
Does anyone else find it stunning the progress made in such a short time, by such a tiny team?
This is shaping up into a genuinely usable desktop OS, not just a hobbyist project of interest to a small number of like-minded people. The aesthetics may be a touch dated now, but that's a small and easily fixed issue. The actual functionality and features of the OS are very impressive and modern.
Look at the huge development teams employed by large companies like Microsoft, and the time they often take just to implement tweaks and patches. Hard to believe that so much of a complex modern OS like Sky OS is created by just one man.
If you ever need evidence that size isn't everything...
Member since:2006-01-24
yep, no matter what your preference is regarding FOSS, there's no denying the rapid and impressive development of this alternate os. now, before captain obvious jumps in pointing out that alot of this code comes from other projects, yes that is true but even if you ignored all the code written specifically for Skyos you'd still have to acknowledge the skill and speed with which Robert ports software to his operating system.
even though I'm pro-open source, my passion for everything os related is much bigger and I really look forward to trying the upcoming livecd. again, impressive work!
Member since:
2006-02-16
Member since:2005-12-12
Member since:2007-02-22
Member since:
2006-02-05
Member since:2007-04-13
Honestly... whilst you are entitled to your ideals and opinions, why are you complaining? Nobody is forcing you to use SkyOS. Nobody is making you pay. And nobody wants to listen to you whining invalid complaints about something you have the _free_ _choice_ to stay away from.
Member since:2006-02-05
@ WereCatf & FreeGamer
Jeez, you guys need a little help in the humor department. Read the very first post of the thread, then read mine again (to the last word) and realize I was goofing.
Seriously now, I'm really impressed by SkyOS, and wish I had lot more free time to jump in the project and contribute to it ...
Member since:2005-07-18
Member since:2006-02-05
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-02-15
That OS is using GPL and BSD code all over the place
If GPL code had been "all over the place" they'd have to open their sources to others, you know that? Or do you mean apps like wine, which are GPL but aren't actually part of the OS....
The GUI is ugly and aged badly
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To my eye it looks just fine.
Worst of all it's closed source, what the heck?
So? Not everything has to be open-source to be of good quality >_> Something being open-source doesn't automatically make it perfect. I know quite a bunch of very poor quality open-source apps too. I do support open-source but I have no delusions about it.
And I have to pay for Beta, where can I send my complains?
And I have to pay for food? For any commercial linux distro? TV? Not everything is completely free, as in money. Deal with it. Besides, if you paid for the Beta now you would get the final release for free so it's not a bad idea IMHO.
Member since:2007-08-04
Why don't you look at: http://www.syllable.org/docs/developers/doxygen/gui/classos_1_1Stri...
and:
http://skyos.org/documents/skygi/html/class_sky_g_i_1_1_string.html
Now the syllable class has been around since AtheOS days, so does it not look like it is an exact copy?
Do you not see that Robert does use GPL code?
Member since:2005-07-06
"Now the syllable class has been around since AtheOS days, so does it not look like it is an exact copy?
Do you not see that Robert does use GPL code?"
The similarities between the various classes interfaces (and not just the ones you linked to) are really impressive. But that only proves, if anything, that Robert took inspiration from Syllable's api.
Of course, since we cannot see SkyOS's code, we can't tell if he also copied the implementation of the classes.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
The AtheOS/Syllable API is very close to the BeOS API.
HaikuOS is an open source, MIT licenced BeOS clone.
Since HaikuOS is MIT licenced, it's code can be legally used in SkyOS.
And next to that. Designing a good API is difficult, and looking at how others done it, is a good thing to begin with. Having simular APIs makes porting applications between SkyOS, Syllable and BeOS/ZETA/HaikuOS easier, so I think there is not a bad thing to say about this, I think this is good.
But among people at this site, skyos-bashing just seems to be done, just because it's a closed source os.
Then I ask you this question: Does it matter for the end-user?
Member since:2006-09-07
"But among people at this site, skyos-bashing just seems to be done, just because it's a closed source os.
Then I ask you this question: Does it matter for the end-user?"
If Robert has copied source, it's just as bad as if you or I copied SkyOS. I paid for my copy (a few years ago). Did you? Does it matter to the end-user if they have a legal copy or not?
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-08-29
Wow. I just randomly looked at like 5 or 6 classes with the same name and they are pretty much identical. At most one or two functions are changed.
You can argue that it's only the interface, but header files are copyrighted too. Even if you change the definitions you can't just take the header file for a fairly complicated class and copy it verbatim. Furthermore, if the header files are the same it's pretty likely that the implementations are the same too. Someone would have to compare disassembly to be sure though
Member since:
2007-05-04
Yes, turing-complete eye candy obviously had to look like this.
I can imagine using an OS like this one which is not FOSS or even trolltech-licensed open stuff; just like a graphics card; but to use it for producing stuff I care about, rather than to print a conference pass or paying to wash my dog, I would want it to publicly pass some quality tests so I am not just putting another open e-mail relay out on the internet.
Similarly it is nice when one's ideas are used for the OS without so much delay, or profiteering, or giant DDR2 footprints. I might like rounds of micropayments to the contributors as I come to appreciate their work better, imagining that I too am profiteering by throwing in some work; but free is a kind of stopgap to that which entertains that the software itself profiteers, accruing to the astute literate person.
Even so; it would be nice if the Camtasia/VM was nailed to a Bogomips estimate.
Member since:
2005-07-06
I used a beta a while back to port a GUI game library I made for PocketPCs. Using the SkyOS API and my library it was a fast port. I had the library and the game working in 3-4 days (including sound).
I can't recall my account, so I'll just order a newer copy. It's only $30 or so, plus I moved. Just think, when SkyOS goes gold, the people at my old house will receive a CD w/ SkyOS -- wonder what they'll do?
(update: I found my account info, thank goodness for archiving e-mails, heh)
Edited 2007-08-04 13:24
Member since:
2005-07-23
In case you're wondering what image editor is on that screenshot, it's Pixel http://www.kanzelsberger.com ... it's nice but SkyOS will need more recent version
Member since:
2005-11-10
Yes they have made great progress but the main reason for that is they have no user base.
If they had a user base they would get a LOT more complaints about issues etc.
Also since it's be in bata status for the 4 or 5 years that I have noticed skyos, there is no release schedule or anything they spend a lot more time adding new features then fixing and stabilizing current features.
They have maybe a few thousand beta users (Me being one of them) who paid to beta test and have been waiting for 2 years or so for an actual release to come out.
Someone said this was not a hobby OS? I am sorry Ubuntu is not a hobby OS. They have a set release cycle, they have support, it can be used for business purposes etc.
Even PC BSD now has a release cycle, support and puts out actual releases.
Sky OS is cool but just like ReactOS it seems that it will always be beta and never actually become a useable OS with a regular release cycle, real support etc. I don't think Robert and crew really want to be in the business of supporting an OS with a growing user group etc. Providing support etc. Right now if something doesn't work, you submit a bug track and they get to it when they get to it. It's beta anyway.
Member since:2005-07-06
Yes they have made great progress but the main reason for that is they have no user base.
If they had a user base they would get a LOT more complaints about issues etc.
That's why its not an open beta. Robert is only one man. Can you imagine the backlog of bug reports?
They have maybe a few thousand beta users (Me being one of them) who paid to beta test and have been waiting for 2 years or so for an actual release to come out.
Robert is only one man and he never promised a release date. Remember, he has a day job.
Someone said this was not a hobby OS? I am sorry Ubuntu is not a hobby OS. They have a set release cycle, they have support, it can be used for business purposes etc.
Even PC BSD now has a release cycle, support and puts out actual releases.
It is a hobby OS with the intention of becomming a retail OS someday. That's the goal Robert is working to,
Sky OS is cool but just like ReactOS it seems that it will always be beta and never actually become a useable OS with a regular release cycle, real support etc. I don't think Robert and crew really want to be in the business of supporting an OS with a growing user group etc. Providing support etc. Right now if something doesn't work, you submit a bug track and they get to it when they get to it. It's beta anyway.
How long have OSS oses been in Beta? Let's see, Syllable, years, Gnu HURD, decades. Reactos, years. SkyOS is hardly the only case of a long beta cycle.
Yes Robert gets to it when he can. So?
Member since:2005-11-10
Hummmmm, you not making sense? You saying it's a hobby OS with the intention of becoming a retail OS? But in the same breath you say "Robert gets to it when he can" Which sounds like it will never be more then a hobby OS.
On top of that all the other OS's you named don't charge for beta testing saying that the fee you pay will go towards:
Download access to the newest beta version and all future beta versions including the final release
SkyOS Final as a downloadable ISO image once its available
But I guess that could be whenever or never. Maybe I should ask for a refund?
The funny thing is all those other OS's you named are just as useable as SKY and I dont have to pay a dime.
Anyway if anyone will ever take SKY serious maybe they need to take my beta money and hire some developers.
Member since:2007-02-22
Also since it's be in bata status for the 4 or 5 years that I have noticed skyos, there is no release schedule or anything they spend a lot more time adding new features then fixing and stabilizing current features.
SkyOS sticks to a release schedule of every two weeks. Those 280 bug fixes were done in the two weeks since the previous release, 6753.
Member since:2005-11-10
Not.
Looking at the release cycle it's random not every 2 weeks (At least builds that us beta testers have access to)
Also there are a lot of bug fixes in this one I admit. But normally new releases do not come out due to bug fixes but on a schedule based on new features.
I would like to see your every 2 week release schedule and when you can find it on their site?
Member since:2007-02-22
From the front page:
http://www.skyos.org/?q=node/605
Read the 'future' section.
Sure, the average has been closer to 18-20 days since announcement, but that's quite close enough to their promised rate of two weeks for me.
Member since:2005-11-10
Dude where you reading? Please give us the correct info.
I don't see but 3 Beta releases for this whole year?
We are at week 31 of the year. That is not every two weeks by any stretch!
Now sometimes the put out releases to the Alpha teams but as a paid Beta tester I don't have access to them!
And the last couple of releases have been close together. But that is about it. if you read the news section or the Beta forum where you actually download the Betas you will see that your two week assessment is WAY off.
Member since:2007-02-22
I guarantee you that if you finish reading the SkyOS front page ( http://www.skyos.org ) you'll read the announcement.
Member since:2005-11-10
Dude, you can't read I guess.
Lets look at the ACTUAL release schedule.
From the front page:
SkyOS Beta 6762 Available for download
Fri, 2007-08-03 14:35
SkyOS Beta 6753 available for download
Thu, 2007-06-21 17:49
SkyOS Build 6669 available for download
Sat, 2006-11-18 15:30
I can go on and on. Now please let me see a different release schedule that shows 2 weeks or any where close.
We can even look here on OS news and see the same release schedule as I am quoting.
- SkyOS Beta 6762 Released - Posted on 2007-08-03
- SkyOS Gets a New Viewer - Posted on 2007-07-28
- SkyOS Beta Build-6753 Available - Posted on 2007-06-21
- SkyOS Gets New C++ API, LiveCD Status Update - Posted on 2007-05-07
- SkyOS Gets Java, Wine, ACPI, More - Posted on 2007-01-16
- SkyOS Team Promises 2007 Release - Posted on 2007-01-01
- SkyOS Gets Virtual Filesystem - Posted on 2006-12-05
- SkyOS Build 6669 Released - Posted on 2006-11-19
- Impact of DMA in SkyOS Examined - Posted on 2006-10-16
- SkyOS Gets DMA Support - Posted on 2006-10-12
- SkyOS Gets Printing Support - Posted on 2006-09-21
- SkyOS Gets USB Support - Posted on 2006-09-12
- SkyOS Beta Build 6179 Released - Posted on 2006-09-04
- SkyOS Gets WidgetGecko - Posted on 2006-08-07
- SkyOS Beta Build 6132 Released - Posted on 2006-07-27
- SkyOS Gets Desktop Compositing, People Files, More - Posted on 2006-07-11
- SkyOS PE to ELF Translation Nearing Completion, More - Posted on 2006-06-24
- SkyOS: GUI Changes, Desktop Composing - Posted on 2006-04-03
- SkyOS Beta Build 5550 Released - Posted on 2006-03-26
Way more new features then actual releases. This release had a bunch of fixes but that is not normal.
Please read first before you comment.
Thanks.
Edited 2007-08-04 22:48
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2006-08-08
Member since:
2007-08-04
It doesn't matter how many releases there are! The truth of the matter is that Robert uses GPL code and then he bunches it all together for a *beta release*
Lets look at: http://www.skyos.org/documents/ddk/html/example_viarhine_driver.htm...
Does that not just look like the linux driver? Look at some of the functions(viaNetReceive(), viaNetInterrupt()) and lets also look at the register names, don't they look familar?
Doesn't everyone see that as *great* as Robert is that he is without a doubt porting all this and pawning it off as his own. I for one will not stand for this! The GPL(and other licenses) are meant to protect the developer. I want to see copyrights on the code he uses and I want to see this code. That is only fair. If you are going to use someones code and it is OSS code then be a man and release it.
Member since:2006-04-20
There is nothing what you have said that demonstrates any violation of copyright. SkyOS is a mostly POSIX compliant OS, so of course a lot of headers and functions are going to be very similar in appearance and structure to those in Linux. It allows for easy porting of Linux/UNIX software, and being a small OS, ease of porting software from other platforms is going to be a major consideration. If you have actually got some hard evidence (eg you have disassembled the OS) that Robert has done something illegal or unethical, then by all means present it, but if you don't, then the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt should prevail, and you should refrain from making slanderous allegations with nothing more than idle supposition on your part to back them up.
Member since:2006-12-06
It doesn't matter how many releases of Unix there are! The truth of the matter is that AT&T uses GPL code and then bunches it all together.
Lets look at any driver for Sys V.
Does that not just look like the linux driver? Look at some of the functions(viaNetReceive(), viaNetInterrupt()) and lets also look at the register names, don't they look familar?
Doesn't everyone see that as *great* as AT&T is that it is without a doubt porting all this and pawning it off as its own. I for one will not stand for this! The GPL(and other licenses) are meant to protect the developer. I want to see copyrights on the code he uses and I want to see this code. That is only fair. If you are going to use someones code and it is OSS code then be a man and release it.
Member since:2005-11-14
Member since:
2006-10-20
With the amount of complaining, nit-picking & sheer mean-spiritedness that commenting systems such as this make available, it just amazes me that anyone like Robert even makes the attempt, let alone does such an incredible job.
The last I checked, no one is holding a gun to anyone's head to purchase into the SkyOS beta program, nor is SkyOS being guaranteed to make periodic (every two weeks???? please.) releases.
If people don't want to partake, fine. Just please keep the nasty comments down to a dull roar.
My hat's off to Robert -- he's a coding machine! I hope that all of his hard work eventually pays off for him, beyond the satisfaction of his own personal achievement.
Member since:2007-03-26
Member since:
2007-08-04
Right... he came up with:
if (reg & (IntrRxErr | IntrRxDropped | IntrRxWakeUp | IntrRxEmpty | IntrRxNoBuf))
all by himself and it is just out of destiny that those are the same names that Donald Becker chose with his via driver.
I don't have hard evidence however if you look at my first point you can see that Robert's String class has the same header as the syllable one. It is an exact copy with the namespace changed. Do a diff on both of them. Coincidence? Did somehow he channel Kurt Skauen when writing that code? I think not. The same exact header.
Now lets also look at: http://skyos.org/documents/skygi/html/class_sky_g_i_1_1_rect.html
and:
http://www.syllable.org/docs/developers/doxygen/gui/classos_1_1Rect...
Don't they look quite similar? Especially DoIntersect????
Edited 2007-08-05 01:03
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-08-07
Appart from the fact that SkyOS and Syllable seem to use both Doxygen to produce their api documentation,
The two classes do NOT look the same at all.
Beside, please notice that :
1) Robert AND syllable might have looked for a MIT/BSD/whatever common source for inspiration (or not).
2) there aren't that many logical ways to implement a rectangle class as the operations you want to do on them (for a gui purpose).
And well, for gui purposes, I would expect to use "point ", "rect" names for variables.
About the via Rhine driver : a quick google search gave me these answers on this page
http://www.bebits.com/talkback/3266
Thanks in advance,
mrmdls
Got in touch with Richard Houle today, he confirms his driver was released under the BSD license, so it's free to be used as we wish.
Looks to me that the via Rhyne driver you are talking about (is this the one ?) is BSD code...So, basically, you are spreading F.U.D. and making a dangerous kind of false accusations out of the blue.
And you might just have made them after having diffed things and googled a bit WITHOUT making a proper lookout for licence facts, a process that took you 2 minutes.
Well, IF the previous paragraph is true, I really want to kick you hard in the nuts.
Edited 2007-08-05 09:41
Member since:
2005-08-07
I just read about your "inheritance"
(that's really a coder way to put it...I wonder if your child will have three heads and 4 pairs of arms too ^_^) and you survival trip.
Wow... it seems like a lot of fun is coming into the SkyOS world.
Congrats !
(and, next week, please don't eat poisonous mushrooms ^_^)
Member since:
2005-07-08
Member since:2005-07-06
http://www.skyos.org/ loads fine here.
Member since:2005-08-27
Adam
Yes, the problem is on your computer...
when the site was on the previous server, there was a DNS issue for some time, but that was fixed afterwards. As a remedy for the dns issue, you have probably put the IP address of the skyos server in your hosts file.
Since the site was recently moved to another server, this fix does not work any more and leads you to the wrong place.
You need to remove www.skyos.org from your hosts file.
Member since:
2005-08-27
about the 2 weekly release schedule:
Robert only announced that with the previous release, current release is the first following that announcement.
Also on that subject, Robert mentioned something about it on the forums:
http://www.skyos.org/board/viewtopic.php?p=96566#96566
Edited 2007-08-05 14:03 UTC
Member since:
2007-02-22
So, I finally get around to downloading the new SkyOS test release... and I notice the file is much smaller than normal. About 200MB smaller than the last one I downloaded.
Why might this be? Was software removed, or was it just better compression techniques or something on the devs' part?
Member since:
2005-11-14
Member since:2007-02-22
Member since:2005-11-14
