Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 25th May 2010 21:10 UTC, submitted by asupcb
OSNews, Generic OSes EyeOS has released version 2.0 Beta. "After several months of hard work we're happy to announce the immediate availability of the official release of eyeOS 2.0 Beta. And even more: the new release doesn't come alone but with the brand new website, which has not ben redesigned for the last 2 years now. eyeOS 2.0 Beta can be downloaded from the new downloads page and tested from a Beta test server in"
Permalink for comment 426614
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Wow, you've really taken this issue to heart. I really don't mean this to be a flamewar or to seem like a personal attack - I just can't class graphical shell as an entire OS. So let me address some of your points:

The interface IS the OS! Take a course! please!

You'd better inform teh KDE team that their flagship product is an operating system and not just a Desktop Envronment then.

To separate the tactile and perceptible level from the routines and processes does not make sense when talking of an OS!

Yes it does because the two are supposed to be interchangeable (to a degree).

e.g. you can run several desktops on Linux (KDE, GNOME, XFCE, etc) but you can also run the same desktops on other operating systems (FreeBSD, OpenSolaris, Linux, etc).

The same is said for CLI shells (BASH, SH, ZSH, and so on).

So if the shell "IS" the OS, then that would make BASH, SH, ZSH, KDE, GNOME, XFCE all OSs. That would make Ubuntu and Xbuntu completely separate OSs. And that would make EXPLORER.EXE a separate OS that runs on top of NT (as you can run Windows with different shells, desktops and file managers from windows by changing the 'SHELL' path in -IIRC- WIN.INI from EXPLORER.EXE to your own customer shell).

So I'm sorry if you disagree with me, but your definition is too broad to be of any practical use.

the CLI/shell/whatever of a barebones linux system is also a interface!

Well obviously. I never stated otherwise.

If you can't communicate with a system through an interface, how would you know it is there?

APIs, kernel, etc.
Let's also not forget the number of OSs that run headless (sure they have shells for set up and configuration, but must of the time you shouldn't need them yet you still "know it's there" on a distributed file system node (for example).

You have to remember that there are several layers to an OS. Now while shells are usually critical to make an OS useable to 90% of the real world, so are web browsers, text editors and disk examiners / file explorers - yet they're not "the OS" either.

Keeping a web-based OS or a cloudOS or whatever you want to call it, is the same as having a severe restriction on what could be called an OS, worthy of being mentioned and referred to regularly here on OSNEWS.

where did I say that this shouldn't be mentioned on here?
Now you're just ranting for the sake of ranting.

Considering the recent mega-rants on video-codecs (since WHEN did they qualify for being directly OS-relevant - Yes, I read the argument for why, Thom!) this seems to be a huge shot-in-your-foot, OSNEWS editors! [ontopic] Very interesting! I might try this out! Any one having opinions on whether this is a viable (niche) OS for the future, or just a we-do-it-because-we-can experiment?

I'm really not sure what your point is anymore.
Nobody (as far as I can see) is stating that this shouldn't be included in OS News. I just stated that it's not technically an OS. That doesn't change the fact that it's still a project of interest - technical classifications aside.

Reply Parent Score: 3