OSNews

Its new. The old one was fairly limited and was a some work to get that little bit done. So now you don't have to live with "SkyOS" gray anymore

Sort of like a rain drop in an ocean

Never meant big waves but it will cause a stir among geeks and aficionados to know basically a one man team created a project of this scope and magnitude when you have other projects,open source mind you,like ReactOs and Haiku still struggling to make things happen.

I think you are asking for trouble, no offense.Everytime a story of SkyOs is posted it tends to go down this line and gets pretty nasty.If I were you I wont go there.

My *guess* is that a closed source environment naturally allows for a more polished and integrated stack. In open source development you are constantly under a certain level of pressure from external contributors and users to get exciting new developments merged, which can break your focus and require a butt load of discipline to manage.

Not to mention, in this early stage of development it is also possible all the cool ideas would be stolen or ported to Linux and the OS would never get a chance to shine on its own...

It was simpler than that: It was Robert's project and he wants complete control. It's his hobby, his code, his choice.

Oh there is a Skyos theme for gnome. I kid you not.

Not to mention, in this early stage of development it is also possible all the cool ideas would be stolen or ported to Linux and the OS would never get a chance to shine on its own...

Now wouldn't that be ironic! Do you have any idea how much of the userland in this OS is ported from Linux? heaven forbid he would give anything back.

Edited 2007-11-27 01:02

I said "cool ideas" NOT "code". An OS is more than the product of it's code.

As for giving back, I'm sure the developer(s) of SkyOS already *are* publishing/distributing source patches to GPL'd works, otherwise they would be violating the terms of the license.

According to the GPL, people buying SkyOS should have access to modified sources that are included in SkyOS.

Since all software is built with factory these days, all patches to default software releases are included in SkyOS (recipes) so basicly all patches are available.

The people complaining about open/closed source should learn some more about the idea of open source software.
As other people said, most if not all projects are happy when yet another OS uses there software.

Besides that, the new features in every build are always a remarkable progress. You can't say that about every OS.

Sometimes a person just wants to build something on their own, having total control over the way its done.

This is difficult with the OSS model as the fragmentation and forking of code can get out of control. This is perfectly reasonable, and based on the success and community around SkyOS, it's clearly a workable situation even for an alternative OS.

SkyOS was actually open source up to version 4.0 and subsequently closed by the author.

Up to 3 actually I believe, maybe 2.

The simple story is, the main developer doesnt want the project to stray off his hands in to the wild lands of forklandia.

Sorry, I didn't knew this was such a hot issue. Personally I couldn't care less which license an OS uses. After all were all free to choose if we use it or not.

Anyhow I was just amazed it was closed source from a commercial perspective.If you look at tons of examples in the past imo this isn't a viable business alternative for a niche market OS (BeOS, Zeta anyone?).

How long have you been reading this site? every time SkyOS has news, there is at least 1/2 dozen half witts who come out of their hovel to bashing Robert and his project. Some of us, even those of us who don't use it, are sick and tired of the same stupid lies being repeated everytime.

Heck, I've used this site since 2004 (possibly 2003), before it became a 'register to post' site. I've seen people come and go. I find it funny that there are people who have still been living under a rock in respects to these projects.

aniruddha -> joined: 2007-11-26
that was his first ever post

Edited 2007-11-27 18:09

Lol, that proves my innocence... :p

Couldn't agree more, everytime SkyOS is mentioned, someone complain about the license, it's getting tiring and boring. It's their OS and they can go what they like with it. I have developed things and released them for free, but I wouldn't provide the source code, as I like to maintain control of it.

Yeah. A lot of people seem to confuse "Open Source" with "it must not cost anything".
Wonder if the same people would be as willing to take a serious paycut (or work without pay) at their current job so that the company they work for can give away their product for free?

It's actually more like alpha, really.

Usually the definition of "Beta" refers to a product that is feature complete, but buggy, or has known issues.

Since new features are being added to SkyOS at every release, it's certainly not Beta in the normal sense. This is why it's not out of "beta" yet.

Besides, Wine was in alpha for like 12 years before they released the first beta... go figure.

Actually I would argue it's more a release candidate by KDE standards...

I don't think it's a fair comparison. Wine is an emulator and its developers have to cope with Windows flavours, quirks and changes, in order to make it compatible with tons of software, as well as keep it updated with the host OS. SkyOS is a closed source project and an independent OS. I'd say the SkyOS team have hardware compatibility issues to cope with: drivers to test and hardware to keep updated with.

does this really need to be brought up in every story on sky?

Yes, it has been in beta forever. It is just one guy developing it. It is not vapourware, it is improving at a measurable rate (actually, remarkably quickly) The only difference between sky and all those >1.0 apps in linux is that sky has a closed beta program.

the guy DID write a kernel and a GUI stack all on his own. That's nothing to sneeze at, but still, SkyOS IS decidedly FOSS hostile given the fact that it relies so heavily on FOSS components.

SkyOS IS decidedly FOSS hostile given the fact that it relies so heavily on FOSS components

You must be joking... FOSS-hostile, in my opinion, would be something like intentionally using proprietary technologies, formats, and APIs, refusing to give out the specifications, and then maybe use trademarks, patents, and anti-reverse-engineering laws to attack and sue FOSS projects that attempt to reverse-engineer, recreate or, even coexist with the product.

If you believe porting and using FOSS software, including those released under non-GPL licenses, on a closed-source operating system is "hostile" toward those same FOSS projects, then I'm certain there's a lot of people that disagree with you.

Robert has contributed back to several of the open-source projects that he uses.

Strongly-opinionated, biased people with half-assed "facts" annoy me to no end.

Yeah, I can see where you're coming from. He's abiding by the licenses and gives credit where credit is due. He is clearly hostile...

Am i the only one who thinks that the only reason this project could exist is open source. Things like freetype,gcc,gecko,openbfs,cups.

Hey, where would linux be without all those open source projects?

Linux does not have the single right to this software...

It's the nature of open source to be used in different projects. Be it open or closed source...
Even if SkyOS is closed source, it does not keep changes to open source projects from their creators. Check the different projects and the skyos site, if you want the sources of some of those packages, they are freely available since most of them are just the standard releases (sometimes with only a few minor patches). Those patches are available to people that bought SkyOS so there is no GPL violation there...

Edited 2007-11-27 01:55 UTC

Actually, a minor correction, these patches are available to everyone. If you want the patches just drop Robert and email and he'll send to you. IIRC he has already submitted patches back to the projects, but a good many of them one could class as useless since the changes are SkyOS specific and thus don't benefit anyone outside the SkyOS beta testing team.

As for why it is 'closed source' right now - does it actually matter? as far as I see, the only people clammering for the source code in this forum are those who know nothing about programming and simply want to 'give it a try' rather than anything to do with contribution.

As for the future; its all up to Robert, for all we know he could start selling Intel based machines loaded with SkyOS like what is done with Apple Mac's. It'll be great once it gets to the stage of being ready for 'public release'. As for his reason, I'd say control - opensource isn't the panacea for all problems, and when it comes to developing user orientated applications that need alot of focus and control, the opensource model isn't always the best one - sometimes a mixture is (open and closed source components working together).

And, is not the very principle of Open Source?

The fact that the host system is proprietary does not detach from the fact that the Open Source technologies used in userland are great solutions.

Are open source projects on Windows looked upon with the same amount of scrutiny that SkyOS is given? Does Mozilla Firefox not exist in Windows? Is there no GCC in Windows?

Sorry, but I fail to see your point aside from trying to stir up trouble.

"Are open source projects on Windows looked upon with the same amount of scrutiny that SkyOS is given? Does Mozilla Firefox not exist in Windows? Is there no GCC in Windows?"

This comparison is not at all apt. Microsoft doesn't use Firefox to provide a browser. They don't use GCC to provide a compiler. Microsoft is not building a proprietary OS with a great many OSS building blocks.

That's what they are there for, so I have no problem with Robert doing this But please use a little critical thinking and realize that OSS folks porting their stuff to a proprietary OS is not at all comparable to someone using OSS to build (or fill in the gaps if you prefer) a proprietary OS.

Microsoft would be perfectly happy without Firefox. SkyOS on the other hand would not be perfectly happy without Freetype etc. It's not the same thing. What Robert is doing doesn't bother me, but it's just not the same thing. You can't dismiss people who are annoyed by it with a comparison that doesn't fit at all.

This comparison is not at all apt. Microsoft doesn't use Firefox to provide a browser. They don't use GCC to provide a compiler. Microsoft is not building a proprietary OS with a great many OSS building blocks.

In fact, the more accurate comparison would be Apple and OS X... there's GCC, Darwin, KHTML, CUPS?, etc... (I don't use it, so I'm sure there are other technologies)

Of course, Apple arguably contributes back to these projects as well, just as Robert and SkyOS does.

So you don't believe that this is a principle of free software? The freedom to do with it what I choose?

Is there going to be a line drawn where I can and cannot enjoy free software because of the licensing terms of the host operating systems? Even when it does nothing more but stand at a disagreement with a few people who hold their cookies a little too tight?

I personally would jump at the fact that these technologies are being embraced, and the wheel is not being reinvented with other proprietary technologies.

Isn't everyone always bellyaching that Microsoft reinvents the wheel with things like OOXML instead of ODF?

What's the issue in embracing and implementing an open source technology?

It's the exact same thing, the only reason SkyOS at this time would not function without these technologies is because it's in it's infancy.

It's naive to think that it's impossible to implement other, closed solutions. The open source path was just more elegant, and developer friendly. I'm sure with time alternatives will pop up.

That's besides the point however, the point is that the same bunch of people who take such pride in open source technology are now annoyed because they disagree with the licensing terms of the host operating system.

I think theres a point you reach before it becomes fanaticism, and it's been reached. A while ago.

Well, I'm interested because it's a completely new operating system (in the sense that it's not based on UNIX, AmigaOS, Windows, BeOS, Psion, PalmOS, VMS, CP/M...) and it's one of those hobbyist things that you wouldn't think possible these days.

Yeah, the moral of the story is: Roberts project, Roberts rules. If you don't like it it's your problem, not his.

Nothing in the licensing of those projects prohibits what he's doing. I also notice that the projects themselves never whine about this, it's only hanger-ons and people not actually involved that do.

Yes, you are.

Code like Gecko, CUPS -- that's just copyleft cruft. The meat of the OS, what you pay for, is closed-source software.

You take out the open-source cruft from SkyOS, and you have an operating system. You take out the closed-source code, you have some silly binaries floating in space useless to anyone.

Wait, what? BeFS, GCC and FreeType (To name three) are "cruft"?



Not even Robert would agree with you, I'd wager. If all of the OSS components were removed Robert would have a lot of work to do, not least of which would be finding a compiler that could build everything. He chose to use OSS components because he doesn't want to do that work, and because they're good quality.

I can never decide if you're a troll, or just don't know what you're talking about. At the moment I'm leaning towards the later.

Atually, this time, I'm with Almafeta.

His point is that a kernel should be able to boot without most of the userland tools, while, without a kernel, you cannot boot (without some very very clever programming). So you could pretty easily create a skyos that doesn't rely on freetype/firefox/even openBfs, it may not be so functional, but it would work.
However you could not easily make firefox NOT rely on an operating system.

No, that isn't his point. Calling critical system components "cruft" is ridiculous.

Edited 2007-11-28 15:40

Maybe we can't do that because we can't try it... Some of us (aka anyone who bought Vista or Leopard) are sick and tired of PAYING to participate in beta tests

So don't leave comments then. It's hardly fair to criticize a product you're not even prepared to try.

The whole paying for betas is an old argument that's been addressed many times before, but at the end of the day it's not your product to dictate how it should or shouldn't be funded.

If money really is the only thing stopping you from actually posting something constructive then how about you wait a little more patiently for the /free/ live CD which has been promised, give that a spin, and then comment?

I, for one, am sick and tired of all the hard work these guys are doing getting completely ignored in favor of petty arguments from the open source community.

Edited 2007-11-27 03:38

Because people are idiots.

Doubtless, the same arguments will be aired, yet, again the next time too. If only cause most wont pay for a beta and without hands-on experience theirs not really a lot else to say. Part of the price it pays for not being 'open' in the sense of most other betas of closed source projects.

I care less & less to even bother reading of its 'progress'. But, by all means, argue amongst yourselves as the rest of us,nevermind the 'real world', doesn't really give a damn, any more.

For a change, why can't people comment on the product itself?

Okay, I'll give it a shot!

....

....

Hmmm...

That's a really nice screen shot? Oh and look! They've managed a Gecko port to their C++ API! Isn't that just lovely for them, just think if they keep it up they'll manage to get an A++ in there some where. Jolly good of them to bring Wikipedia to the desktop! I say just think of the possibilities--an encyclopedia ANYONE can edit! What will they think of next? What WILL they think of next! I can hardly wait for next month's regularly scheduled beta release so we'll all have another screen shot to gawk at!

....

Y'know maybe you're on to something after all...

--bornagainpenguin (fully tongue in cheek and saying only positive things about SkyOS for a change--now mod me down anyway! >;-)

EDIT: reposted due to improper moderation pushing it off the page...

Actually, Robert has been very open about what opensource components he has used and if you want the patches, how to go about getting these patches.

I don't know why people make assumptions (like the person whom you replied to) simply because Robert doesn't have a Goodyear blimp riding above his head advertising everything he does.

I don't need to code for the project to see that Gecko is a port, but alas maybe you didn't know that.

My comment was a response to the accusation earlier that ideas could be stolen by linux, it said nothing whatsoever about the legality of SkyOS source.

Try to make a point in future please, simple one line flames don't cut it.

Made available.



It's easy, just join the beta team.

Or you can contribute something to the project. That way it is possible to join the beta-team without paying. That is how I joined ;-)

If you just want to test the system, then you will either have to wait for the public live CD or pay for it. But if you can contribute in some useful way then it is actually possible to join for free, free as in no money.... you do have to spend your time ;-)

Or you can contribute something to the project. That way it is possible to join the beta-team without paying. That is how I joined ;-)

Not anymore. According to his site after giving away 65 free ones only 4 actually contributed.
So if you're interested cough up $30 (less than €20) and you can join the beta program... and eventually get V1.0

Edited 2007-11-29 17:51

Agreed. Even if he WERE to open source it right before he gets bored or quits, he'd be the only one intimate enough with the code to understand it. This really is a valid concern, even though it gets dismissed by SkyOS people all the time.

But my biggest concern is what happens to the project when Robert gets bored.

HEAR! HEAR!

--bornagainpenguin

Well, the sooner you enter the SkyOS Beta Team, the most value you get !

I paid 30€ for SkyOS some 2 or three years ago,
and since then I received more new features/ports/bug fixes/patches through the SkyOS releases (read SkyOS service pack) that I ever had for windows xp or any game.

Besides, if (or when) Robert gets bored...your copy of SkyOS won't stop working...(strangely, people don't whine or complain that much about proprietary games, that cost much more than 30€,that will be obsolete much sooner than SkyOS, and whose support usually ends after 6 months)....and there are still people who love "dead" oses like OS2 or BeOS (no flame war intended).


On a side note, I can't wait for more lovely screen shots....for example, to display what the new theme engine is capable of.
Creators, please do impress me with your beautiful inovative designs !


keep up the good work SkyOS Team !
Lakedaemon

Edited 2007-11-27 17:47

Besides, if (or when) Robert gets bored...your copy of SkyOS won't stop working...(strangely, people don't whine or complain that much about proprietary games, that cost much more than 30€,that will be obsolete much sooner than SkyOS, and whose support usually ends after 6 months)....and there are still people who love "dead" oses like OS2 or BeOS (no flame war intended).

See my earlier comments* and you'll understand that I have complained about the BeOS. In fact I see it very much as a cautionary tale of what happens when good OSes are unable to live on due to lack of open source code...

--bornagainpenguin

* http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=18856&comment_id=28...

How is that even relevant given that no one knows what Roberts future might involve - for all we know, he is developing a strong foundation, then he might opensource it. If he becomes bored, he might opensource it.

None of us know what is ticking through Roberts mind at this moment so it would be pre-emptive to make assumptions over whether he is suddenly 'bored', 'excited' or 'interested'.