SkyOS 5.0 beta 6 has been released to all SkyOS beta team members. There are too many changes and improvements to mention them all, but many recent news items are newly available in this beta, including the new ISS, improvements to the GUI, fixed partition manager, sticky notes, new drivers and much more. A few screenshots of beta 6 can be found in this thread on the SkyOS forums.
SkyOS 5.0 Beta 6 Released
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
There are too many changes and improvements to mention them all, but…
How does ONE guy manage to code so much!?
I hope I am wrong and surely am not trying to flamebait – but is he ‘borrowing’ code from other open source systems? Does anyone other than Robert look at the code? Are there any (closed) security audits atleast?
Otherwise, this seems to be commendable effort for a (primarily) one man project. Good show!
Regards,
Shaitan
99.9% is coded by one austrailian man
Just so you know.
this os seems to be awsom product. but i have couple of questions about hardware
is the winmodem support??? if no then are you planning to?
what tv tuner cards are supported? is there tv viewing app that also has support for remote controls?
Winmodems will definitely not be supported in near future.
Currently I have a WinTV PVR-250 running which works already, although not all hardware features are supported yet. If there is enough time before 5.0-final I will try to finish this driver, the TV-SubSystem and SkyTV so it can be included in 5.0.
Oh, and no, no remote control yet. (Didn’t get any specifications for the included remote port on the WinTV yet)
At least SkyFS is the OpenBeOS’ BFS code.
But this is fair
What’s this link on the desktop? It has a drive icon but doesn’t sound like it’s one. Hardware manager or something?
I thought it was impossible for a single person to build a whole operating system? That is what his study said, and since it was paid for it must be true right.
By then way great screenshots.
reminds me of that film Dumb ‘n’ Dumber. he’s talking to an absolute babe who’s from austria and he says “Hey, let’s put another shrimp on the barbie!”
The system manager is the central configuration interface for SkyOS. For example using the system manager you can configure your sound, graphic, network devices, list installed hardware, change themes, change desktop layout, configure proxies, network filtering, …
But yes, the icon isn’t correct yet. (will change this asap).
What it appears as for you doesn’t really matter. Also you should check out earlier news post and get your clues right.
reminds me of that film Dumb ‘n’ Dumber. he’s talking to an absolute babe who’s from austria and he says “Hey, let’s put another shrimp on the barbie!”
hahaha that part is soo funny
Sorry for going off topic here 
SkyOS is doing a great!
Where do you download it from? I can’t figure that part out. If it’s free, why can’t I download it? The website has link but you never actually get to a place where you can download it. Argh.
SkyOs Beta Program is a pay to participate system, it helps cover some costs towards the development
Doesn’t sound very free to me.
this version will cost US$30 to purchase, the beta program costs the same and at the end all beta participants receive a full copy of SkyOs 5.0, no one said v5.0 was going to be free but there will be a Evaluation version available, although the skyOs team hasnt said how it will be limited
I mean why should we pay for another OS when MS Windows already provides everything and is the most compatible OS on the market? I’m not saying no one should pay for it, they can do if they want to, but the idea of charging for an OS that only uses Open Source software to run on is pure nonsense and absurd.
It just seems like everyone wants to profit from this OpenSource deal as much as they can.
not all the software is opensource, SkyOs Native app’s are appearing from 3rd party programmers, okay nothing major at the moment, but it is happening, and how is SkyOs profiting? between 1997-2004 no charges were placed on skyOs, only with 5.0 have charges been brought in
This appears to me like a GNU Linux rip-off.
And for me it’s clear you have no idea what you’re talking about.
<<
Winmodems will definitely not be supported in near future.
Currently I have a WinTV PVR-250 running which works already, although not all hardware features are supported yet. If there is enough time before 5.0-final I will try to finish this driver, the TV-SubSystem and SkyTV so it can be included in 5.0.
Oh, and no, no remote control yet. (Didn’t get any specifications for the included remote port on the WinTV yet)
>>
You should go check out this forum (specifically speak with SHS)…you can get all the information you need on this card, it is widely used and supported.
http://www.shspvr.com/forum/
Cheers – I can help test the remote out if you need it, I have some Hauppauge devices including the pvr250.
My major question about all projects, open-source or closed… free or not… is “What is better?”. I can completely understand this project being a great hobby for the head developer, and it must be very fulfilling to work on a project like this, but why all of the sudden is this project now costing cash to fund?
Obviously the response is “well this takes up my time, which yields money”… but this time spent is at your choice, and that choice should either 1. make a focus to actually create a real project, not a hobbyist one, or 2. come to the fact that this isn’t anything but a hobbyist project. When you start to mix lines, thats when people start to resent you and your project.
If your working `99.9%` alone, who are you paying except yourself? Next point being, why is it you are spending so much time on a project that will always be behind the curve of Mac OS, Linux, and Windows. It is completely admirable for you to take on so much work, but if your going to put out another operating system, don’t you think you should at least keep it free? More so, why would people want to pay you for something that isn’t even cutting edge? I read the about page, some items were interesting, but nothing revolutionary that will benefit any company I work for, nor my home computers.
There are thousands of Linux kernel developers and hackers, and then the corporate fronts of MS and Apple… I’m not saying your work should go unappreciated, but the fact that you will never be able to accumulate the hardware/software compatability that these groups do should make you at least come to the realization that your project isn’t worth money to anyone except bored kids with a credit card.
Either keep it a free project, or start getting some SERIOUS help, because there is no way people will ever waste cash on a project like this, unless they furfill the above paragraphs stereotype. I feel that this is just a fleeting effort to cash in on something you originally started for fun, but now see an opportunity to bring in profit from it. If you spend no money on developing (which people can spin a thousand ways), then really… what are you doing except profiting from a project people respect, at no major aide to them?
For everyone who is complaining about buying the software, get real!
I try to spend money by buying the boxed versions of open source programs whenever I can. In the past I have purchased FreeBSD the desktop edition, FBSD subscription, Mandrake, Mandrake club, crossover office etc. I don’t know where you are but electricity costs money, $30.00 seems fair for the cost of trying out the OS. If you don’t like it, then don’t buy it, but don’t run down the developer of the OS.
This reminds me of the complaints about Linspire not having the source handy for LPhoto, even though they were in compliance with the GPL.
I am using electricity right now for all of my computers… as I am sure the developer is already. Why do you assume that we should pay for electrical bills for computers that would likely be on anyways? This is a normal expense of life, we aren’t talk about him buying legions of hardware to develop on.
Keep context when you are speaking about cost, don’t be so over zealous about handing out your hard earned money to someone who is randomly trying to start capitalizing on a project that should be free anyways.
SkyOS isn’t even remotely close to FreeBSD or Linux as a project, so your comparisions of your frivolous spending to fund those projects is moot when it comes to a project that has a completely different way of life.
Maybe some people want something else than Unix&Win, something different, something that does its job and nothing else ?
Maybe some people have enough of the “switch to Linux” propaganda, Windows monopole and Apple kitch ?
And maybe they are ready to pay for that if someone can make it ?
I am one of those…
And if SkyOS fullfills its promises I’ll be happy to spend some money to pay one of the many hours this guy spent on his OS…
Regards,
Leo.
“…but why all of the sudden is this project now costing cash to fund?”
Because we are hoping to move SkyOS into a commercial alternatve.
“Obviously the response is “well this takes up my time, which yields money”… but this time spent is at your choice, and that choice should either 1. make a focus to actually create a real project, not a hobbyist one, or 2. come to the fact that this isn’t anything but a hobbyist project. When you start to mix lines, thats when people start to resent you and your project.”
We’re not trying to “mix lines”. SkyOS is changing from a part-time hobby project to a full-time commercial project.
“Next point being, why is it you are spending so much time on a project that will always be behind the curve of Mac OS, Linux, and Windows.”
That’s rather the fatalist’s view, now isn’t it? Just look at what BeOS was able to accomplish.
“It is completely admirable for you to take on so much work, but if your going to put out another operating system, don’t you think you should at least keep it free? More so, why would people want to pay you for something that isn’t even cutting edge? I read the about page, some items were interesting, but nothing revolutionary that will benefit any company I work for, nor my home computers.”
Your first sentence and the rest of your paragraph are contradictory of one another. You say that we should not ask for money for our product, and then you say that SkyOS isn’t “cutting edge” (which is not true). But as SkyOS begins to generate enough money, we can begin to concentrate on SkyOS full-time and add even more “cutting edge” advances.
“There are thousands of Linux kernel developers and hackers, and then the corporate fronts of MS and Apple… I’m not saying your work should go unappreciated, but the fact that you will never be able to accumulate the hardware/software compatability that these groups do should make you at least come to the realization that your project isn’t worth money to anyone except bored kids with a credit card.”
You could have said the same thing about Linux 4 years ago. Why bother, you’ll never be able to catch up. You could have said the same thing to Apple pre-OS X, why bother, Microsoft has already won. You could have said the same thing to Microsoft in 1985, why bother, Apple has already won. We are already beginning to accumulate the hardware and software that is needed. Just last night, I installed SkyOS, booted up, listened to some music, watched a video, edited a Word .doc document, and edited some images. And this is still just in the beta.
“Either keep it a free project, or start getting some SERIOUS help, because there is no way people will ever waste cash on a project like this, unless they furfill the above paragraphs stereotype. I feel that this is just a fleeting effort to cash in on something you originally started for fun, but now see an opportunity to bring in profit from it. If you spend no money on developing (which people can spin a thousand ways), then really… what are you doing except profiting from a project people respect, at no major aide to them?”
As was stated before, the intention is to take what has been probably the most highly regarded amateur OS project for quite some time, and take it to the next level. By making SkyOS a commercial product, we are hoping to be able to spend full-time developing for SkyOS. SkyOS has a lot more help than it did a year and a half ago. We have two full-time graphics artists working on improving all graphical aspects of SkyOS. We have a number of programmers that are contributing software and software tutorials. It seems like you are telling us to either go commercial or don’t. We’re going commercial. I hope I interpreted the intentions of your post correctly.
I think people may be under the wrong impression regarding SkyOS. I requested an SDK about a year ago. I was interested in building a little test application just to try out my programming skills. My request went unanswered despite several follow-up requests.
SkyOS is neither a free OS nor is it open. All source code is kept under lock and key by the sole developer. No one else is contributing to the development. No one else is writing applications.
SkyOS is solely developed by one guy who keeps a pretty tight lid on the project.
I’m not critizing this approach, I am just pointing out that this project is organized quite differently from most other projects found on sourceforge.
Good day,
Andrew
I reckon I will have too much text to paste back responses, so I will try to summerize as best as I can.
This isn’t 1991, Linus isn’t a CS student anymore, we are way past the early days of modern computing. It is silly to try and compare a project like SkyOS, which is NOW apparently, a fully commerical OS to Mac OS or Windows. You have left the hobbyist market and therefore lost your foothole. The project is a great hobbyist project, I haven’t said otherwise. There can no longer be parallels to Linux (being a kernel), and SkyOS (being an OS)… as Linux was a hobbyist project that has commercial offspring, and SkyOS just being commercial now.
My `fatalist view` is realism. We are as I said in a different day then that of the Linux and FSF movements that branched into what we see and love today.
Just last night, I installed SkyOS, booted up, listened to some music, watched a video, edited a Word .doc document, and edited some images. And this is still just in the beta.
And that describes Linux, Mac OS, and Windows also. The cutting-edge features which you believe the project has is nothing more then spin on ideas and implementations that already exist. That can be debated till we are blue in the face, but if you have a stunning example of innovation and cutting-edge, please just point me to it.
My final summation of this is, why take a project that people apparently LOVE as a hobbyist project, and start commercializing it? If money is the incentive thats foolish at best — but as you have stated, SkyOS plans to work harder when it becomes a commercial product. Why not open up the entire thing, except heavy outside development, and keep rolling a hobbyist OS that people love? If you want to talk about `what Linux has done`, at least follow suit. Why can’t this OS be everyones hobby too? That “me me me, I did it all” attitude is a bit over the top with so many bright minds willing to work for free to create a product that you could spin commercially later on.
To limit my forum spam… @Leo Maybe some people want something else than Unix&Win, something different, something that does its job and nothing else ?
Thats all well and good, but I don’t really see where your actually making a point… something different? There are already plenty of alternatives out there… and the aspect of “that does its job and nothing else”… I can’t even begin to wonder what that actually means, can you elaborate for me?
Not false: I also asked for some information regarding development for SkyOS and got no answer as well…
Leo.
It seems you just have a different view than many people. You seem to think that innovation for the PC is dead, so everyone might as well just accept it and embrace Windows. I think that that’s a pretty pessimistic view, but you are welcome to it. Personally, I don’t like to think we’ve reached the zenith of innovation in personal computing.
Why not open SkyOS? Why open SkyOS? There is already one very nice open-source operating system in Linux (and its distros). This is just another way of doing things, one that we feel works well.
We have added a number of innovative features to SkyOS. You’re welcome to read through the news archive on our website to find them, as I am short on time right now.
This looks great and all, however I’m trying my best to stay away from non-free software. I understand you guys wont some cash for all the time and hard work you spent on this project and that’s cool. So, why don’t you do like Blender 3d did? You could even release it under BSD and close every major version and repeat the process. What do you say; you want me as a user or what?
(I’m a dyslectic Swede so give me a break.)
I don’t tell people to accept or embrace anything, I just don’t think SkyOS is doing anything that the major three operating systems don’t already do. We haven’t reached the zenith of innovation, once again, SkyOS just doesn’t do any of it. You are telling me that because I say SkyOS doesn’t do X Y Z, that means I am making a bold statement for all operating systems?
Yes, Linux is very nice… and it fills holes for a lot of places. Where does SkyOS come in then? Windows has it’s spots, so does Mac OS, and Linux implementations are EVERYWHERE. Where and when do we see the usefulness of SkyOS over those, and all other operating systems?
And I am sorry you are short on time, but I would really rather prefer being told HOW it’s innovative. Appending the word doesn’t make it so. What you think may be innovative may be old hat to me. Which is why I asked for a `stunning example`, so I could relieve doubt in my mind.
Just please in your responses, stop glazing over my words as linux or windows zealatory. I am merely asking for reasoning in the usage of SkyOS, especially in context with commercialism. I am not a person who says ‘we don’t need another damn OS’. I have never commented on SkyOS until I saw it’s blatent move to commercialism, thats when I start to question a project.
Free is free, we can play test and develop… but when you go commercial, expect to start answering hard questions and taking ridicule for doing so. You aren’t in the hobbyist league anymore. But that doesn’t mean you are in the majors by default, your going to have to play in the minors and gain respect, which is fine… it’s a natural progression. But I am a consumer, and a computer user, and I want to know … Why SkyOS. If you can’t answer that, why should I care? And I hope your response isn’t “Then don’t care”, because in commercialism, you need all the support you can muster, and then some.
Why are so many people complaining about the costs?
BeOS wasn’t free either, right?
But it was still used and loved by many, right?
And people are still using it today, even though it’s dead, right?
Was BeOS open? Was BeOS free? Nah…
Because there are a lot of ways to spend money, and not all of them are justified equally? Why is it wrong to question paying for something when it was originally free? It’s not a matter of payment, it’s a matter of why.
The same can be said for Plan 9 or any other obscure OS that only a handful of people use. It still comes down to numbers. SkyOS is no where near the OS in development nor user base that any of the major operating systems (Win, Linux, Mac, Solaris, *BSD, et al).
Money IS just money, but why is it there is such a problem on OSNews with people who want to make conservative usage of their income? What is wrong with rationalizing a decision to buy SkyOS? Nothing, you do the same daily for any purchase.
I’m getting really tired of this topic… I beleive Robert is absolutely doing the right thing by keeping his project closed. Linux had the chance to seriously gain a home desktop foothold in the past years, and it didn’t (it did in my house though, typing this in MDK 10.0).
I think SkyOS has seriously more potential for the home desktop than Linux does. Linux is a great system, but it wasn’t specifically designed with the home desktop/ease of use in mind. SkyOS, on the other hand, is. Therefore, any comparison between the two is false; it’s like comparing an off-road car to a racecar; they both can be good, but they have a completely different purpose.
Leave Robert/Kelly etc alone with this open-the-source-and-30-dollars-is-too-much crap, you’re only making a fool out of yourself.
Well, to turn your question around…why should we get SkyOS for free?
Why shouldn’t we be able to walk into our favorite restaurants and demand they give us a free meal…or at least the recipe to it. I mean, after all, the recipe only cost them time to make…so it’s basically free, right?
at the moment SkyOs 5.0 SDK is only available to beta program participants reason, because if you dont have SkyOs 5.0 beta how you going to test your APP? also 3rd aprty apps are being produced so before you say they arent learn to read posts on the skyOs.org forums and if you didnt get a response off the forum it might be because your post wasnt clear
This isn’t about eating dinner, this is an operating system.
Why should we get SkyOS for free? Because it has been since 1997, because it is known BECAUSE it is a hobbyist OS, because it isn’t realistically a competitor now for the commercial market. Now that I think about it, I don’t even have to justify WHY it should be free, they set the precedent for their own OS, I am merely asking why they are changing it.
And to answer your silly scenario… no, the recipe doesn’t cost them just time. It costs them ingrediants, utilities, overhead, staff, et al. Now you can have a rebuttal of ‘well this costs them utilities (electricity), staff (developers), overhead (houses to develop in, hosting for the web site), and whatever you want to label generically as ingrediants’. The inherent problem in your joke of a sarcastic comment is that paralleling a resturant which is a pre-established place for commercialism will never create the same distinctions in commercialism as a hobbyist operating system. Like I’ve said, you can spin it out however you want, but that won’t make it true.
Prior to this release, SkyOS managed to become peoples `favorite hobbyist OS` since working from 1997. This isn’t the favorite commercial os of 2004, and won’t ever be… and if you want to say ‘you don’t know that’, prove me wrong. I’m not playing the prognosticator here or anything, I just play off reality and go on my way. Show me, and all of those other people who like to have a reason to spend their money, why. Thats the nature of commercialism after all — make a product, or provide a sevice that does it better, faster, and stronger.
Linux does that all for free, Mac OS does that for their hardware, Windows does that for a cost across the x86 platform… where is the commercial market do any of you see the reality of SkyOS succeeding between two 20-year-old giants and a 13-year-old phenomenom named Linux? We then get into Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, and the other proprietary UNIX branches to which are now being kicked away by Linux. Just because one person has an amazing success doesn’t mean SkyOS will (look at BeOS).
alot of linux Distro’s you either have to buy them in a box set or you dont get Support, and you have to download 4CD’s worth of software some of which you may never use (for example fedora core2), linux is free as in free to view, not necessarily free to use.
Of course, it can be argued that if BeOS was free (or Be had released the code before going under) BeOS would still be here today. YellowTab and the OpenBeOS folks would be working on the Dano code, being able to continue to keep the OS going. An open-source (at least partially) commercial OS is not out of the question — Apple seems to do just fine with it.
Now, I’m not going to say that the Be folks should have kept their code open — that was entirely their decision to make, and frankly, none of my damn business. However, one does have to admit that one of the weaknesses of the closed-source business model (particularly for a niche product like an alternative OS), is that its fate is tied to one company, and when they go under, that’s the end of that. Its time to go through the time-consuming process of changing platforms.
Why do you care so much about it? Why not let them try to create a commercial os and if they fail then nothing more about it.
I’ve already paid them to get access to the betas and to get a n original cd when it’s done. I pay because I think skyos is a great project and that it has potential to become much more than a small hobbyos that noone use. I don’t want to run windows and I don’t think linux/*bsd/etc. is good as desktop os’s but I think skyos might be one day.
The thing is, SkyOS isn’t trying to become a commercial success. They are still a hobbyist OS. Hobbyist OS != free OS. If they were trying to become a commercial success they’d charge a hell of a lot more than $30.00
Personally, I don’t see what you big problem with this is…so what if you don’t personally see a reason to pay for SkyOS, that doesn’t mean everyone else is like you. Personally I don’t see the point of buying a Mac, or a Sparc, or a Rolls Royce for that matter…but some people definitely do.
Just do everyone here a favor and stop whining because you can’t get this for free anymore and go download Linux or Syllable or something.
(…) is that its fate is tied to one company, and when they go under, that’s the end of that.
False logic. Even when you keep the source closed, an OS doesn’t die after the company owning it went down. Look at BeOS; even though no source was released (besides the Dan0 leak) BeOS still isn’t “dead” (okay, it ain’t actually flowing over with life either, but still). OpenBeOS and Yellowtab do everytinhg to keep it going.
And what if the company went down, but they release the source prior to that? Then another company/individual will take over (heck, they could even employ Robert and Kelly
).
I don’t think its nowhere near wise arguing what to do and what not to with a one-man’s project. It’s up to Robert on what path should SkyOS take. He made the right source of having the source tightly guarded till this very moment, because he can have time to decide what to do with it and keep all options open. And yes, he has to deal with everyday expenses, so the beta program could at least top up his income to cover his loss time developing SkyOS.
Everyone should at least give him praises, for there is not one thing that he is doing is wrong and unfair. From what SkyOS has achieved today, I can see that he is a dedicated and talented man. There’s nothing wrong developing a closed-source OS. If for whatever reason you want the source audited, pay for the audit from your own pocket. I don’t think Robert mind doing that. Because he knows what he has coded, and he shouldn’t have any resistance for an audit paid up front, if there aren’t any _illegal_ stolen code.
Phew. Go on Robert! You’re doing great.
False logic.
Actually, its an impedance-mismatch in definitions. Specifically, the definition of “die” and “end.”
Even when you keep the source closed, an OS doesn’t die after the company owning it went down.
Sure it does. If the entity maintaining the OS doesn’t have the source, the OS is effectively dead. Hacks can really only take you so far, and ultimately, hacking an OS to which you do not have the source is futile. Take, for example, the BeOS VM. It needs a lot of TLC. Its got a 1GB memory limit, and an antiquated fixed-size disk-cache. For a “multimedia OS” that’s really just unacceptable. Beyond that, the OS is tied to an antique version of GCC (for binary-compatibility reasons) — without the code, YellowTab can’t update it to a newer one. Ironic, for an OS which touted the benefits of starting over afresh without backwards-compatibility! Without kernel-code, adopting a new DRI-like mechanism for OpenGL drivers is out of the question, locking BeOS out of the hardware-accelerated GUI paradigm all the rage these days. So to a few hardcore people, BeOS might be something but dead — but by any mainstream definition, it is quite dead.
And what if the company went down, but they release the source prior to that?
I specifically mentioned that case, and yes, it would work. The point is that at some point, the source must be released. This is especially important for niche products — far too much great technology has died with their parent companies.
Hi guys,
First of all, why have we pay for this systems ?
There’s a lot of Linux distribuitons to enhanced.
That’s all!
gutemberg
I don’t think its nowhere near wise arguing what to do and what not to with a one-man’s project.
I agree that Robert has the right to do what he wants with his OS. However, the users also need to understand that by running his OS they are accepting several risks, such as –
* Continuity – What happens to the OS is Robert just decides to discontinue working on it and refuses to give up the source? What if (God forbid) something happens to Robert?
* Security – Statistically speaking, a one-man coded closed source OS _is_ definitely going to end up having security issues!
* …
As long as the OS was in the ‘hobbyist’ domain – these were not such an issue. People would just go back to using whatever they were using earlier/using parallely. But now that it’s poised to become ‘commercial’ I think users have a right to get these risks mitigated.
I think most users (including me) wouldn’t want to live with these risks, and therefore would choose not to use SkyOS…
Regards,
Shaitan
it mayb a case that now its going commercial that more than one Os coder works on the Os Core, to make sure the scenario of something happening god forbid does occur, it will also allow someone else to check the code for errors and leave someone to carry on the development if robert decides he’s taken it far enough
SkyOS is making some rocking progress; can’t believe its a one-man show, but he’s doing alright, still. I still wouldn’t install it (no way I’m paying for a hobby OS, just being pragmatic man, hcill), but it seems its going to have alot to offer the people who do pay.
IMO, for a commercial(?) OS like this, gaining mindshare is more important that making profit from CDs.. Distribute for free, get installed base & free word-of-mouth advertisment (very important!), more magazine reviews etc. Then you get more better ways for making profit – ala Mandrake. Or continue selling CDs to your small community.. and that’s commercial _hobbyist_ OS still..
I remember that Steinberg developed a Cubase version for BeOS. Maybe, if SkyOS V5 really rocks some commercial developers will create software for this OS. It’s not impossible. But this will of course only happen if he is able to sell some copies of his OS. And I don’t belive that SkyOS will be a commercial success, because you need so much money for advertizing and so on…
“Be” tried to introduce their OS with a lot of money and manpower – this was obviously the false approach. Maybe SkyOS can grow like Linux…
Or maybe there is a niche for SkyOS (like MacOS is for publishing and video editing) – are there any techniques implemeted in SkyOS that are interesting for some kind of jobs? (Like the low latency feature in BeOS?)
So, if SkyOS isn’t free, and there aren’t any killer apps (which I doubt will ever exist), why would people pay for it? Just to play around with de UI? I’d rather pay for Windows – at least I can run my favourite games!
One more thing: those who think ONE SINGLE MAN coded SkyOS must be out of their mind, and don’t know how hard it is to plan -> code -> debug -> improve -> plan -> … any piece of SW, especially one with such a huge dimension. The best he can do is tu glue pieces gathered from OSS projects and give them a consistant look. If he were that good I bet Microsoft or any other industry giant should have hiered him by now!
Come on… flame me!
I think it’s interesting to talk about the fact that SkyOS is a closed source commercial OS. The whole idea behind open source was that it gave anyone the code to look at and play with on their own. Unlike Bill Gates, no one was holding the source hostage, no one was making draconian decisions. People had a vested interest because they felt part of the project because they could download, play with, add to the source code. Well we can’t do that with SkyOS.
And Linux has a pretty strong non-commercial aspect to it. Sure there are lot’s of companies supporting it and making money off of it but the source is free and I can give it away on my web site if I want. SkyOS is now a commercial venture. Like QNX. Since SkyOS is now a business I would expect him to be making development decisions based on business issues. Things like competition, market share, tech support, and profitiability should now be weighing on his decisions.
When you are part of a hobbyist OS project profitibility and marketshare are not part of the equation.
So I think another important question to ask, completely separate from the technical merits of SkyOS, is what’s in it for me if I volunteer my time to a commercial, closed source OS project? I sure don’t get source code to compile and play with. If I wanted to write applications I could do that in Java (for free). Or I could get Visual InterDev and write some pretty cool commercial applications for Windows or Mac.
If SkyOS is a commercial venture, and I pay my $30 do I get a share in the profits at some point? That’s where a marketing plan comes in. That’s where Robert spells out what makes SkyOS different and better than the competitors. This is where he spells out how and why he’s going to sell it and make money. That’s where he convinces us that he’s not just a good programmer but that he also has a good business plan.
Lots of techy projects have really cool technology. Marketing and selling techy projects is a whole new ball game. And lots of techy guys aren’t really good at the whole business aspect of selling technology. I am just finishing a 30 page research paper analyzing the success and failure of open source companies. And I ran a successful software company for several years. And I have a comp sci degree. I know a little bit about this.
So don’t take this as personal criticism against Robert or SkyOS. It’s not. But if SkyOS wants to be a commercial venture, it’s a whole different kind of game. In general companies don’t make any money selling an OS. An OS is just an end to a means. And sadly the playing field is littered with great OS’s that couldn’t find a niche. And the field is pretty crowded with really good existing OS’s.
So I for one would also be interested to hear how and why SkyOS is different and better than all the other OS’s. And I’d also like to hear how Robert is going to make money selling SkyOS.
Thanks,
Andrew
You really are an idiot. Just because you are not talented enough to code something like skyOS by your self does not mean robert is not. SkyOS is NOT a bunch of oss glued together. Its all been coded from scratch.
Your comment really shows who’s the idiot here!
I didn’t say he’s not talented, I just said that coding an entire OS from the ground up is not a job that can be done by one single man! Deal with it…
Take Linux for example: it’s “just” a kernel, and yet it takes a lot of people and their time to be improved/debugged. Look at KDE, a complete DE, it’s a HUGE project, with many, many people working on it. Think about any other major OSS project for that matter! Are you telling me that Robert can code the equivalent to that all by himself??? You’ve got to be kidding me…
> Are you telling me that Robert can code the equivalent to that all by himself??? You’ve got to be kidding me…
Please get your facts straight. Robert has been on SkyOS since Winter 1997. And the OS itself doesn’t have to mimic other OS, (Linux wanted to be a UNIX replacement) so the creator is free to do what he pleases. And today is certainly a better time to develop an OS than 10 years back. Broadband, finished work, known and resolved problems, etc. It is not impossible in 7+ years to end up with something like SkyOS. It is a proof of Robert’s determination.
@Kelly:
>There are already plenty of alternatives out there..
Care to give me one non-unix alternative to Windows ?
Leo.
BeOS?
And some other hobby OS’ on the poll here at http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=4737
Let’s look at the cost of SkyOS…
Teen: 6 weeks allowance
Smoker: 1 carton of cigarettes
Drinker: 3 suitcases of beer
Driver: 1 tank of gas
Computer Geek: 1 spindle 50 DVDRs
Fashion victim: 1 pair of jeans
I don’t see the problem. We aren’t talking Mac OSX money or Adobe Photoshop money or MS Office money here folks. It’s just $30.
Going commercial was the logical thing to do : Fame is nice, but 7 years of hard work should bring money too…
Besides, there are a few advantages that SkyOS
could have over the competiton :
1) one desktop, one toolkit
(the Kde vs Gnome slow acceptance of linux)
one distro
(the many distros of linux slow their progress)
no fork (same for BSD)
2) the man who (mainly) develop SkyOS is very smart.
(not many people have the wits and the dedication to create a full os from scratch) and there are chances that his code is high quality
3) it has access to GPL & BSD software/port,
so it shouldn’t lack software.
4) it is cheap. I see no reason why it couldn’t get a niche in the OS business. The SkyOS team just have to find it and target SkyOS at it
5) Well… remember the story of the hare and of the turtle ? Linux/Windows started the race a long time ago… but … they took their time on the way …. the race isn’t won yet.
6) Anyway…. don’t be lazy, think by yourself and try to find other advantages…there are more…
7) I admire Robert, Kelly and the others for their work and send them my best wishes for their success with SkyOS.
8) It really annoyed me to read the posts of Mark.
I think the SkyOS team must have been pissed off too. Nice patience, you have kelly by the way… nice polite and rational answering posts….
Well… I wish there were less posts like mark’s
Don’t like it? Don’t buy it.
Think of 1997 to 2004 as a long series
of try-before-you buy opportunities that
come with no sales pressure.
DS
Sorry for my awfull English…
I liked that last post from Andrew,
I’m curious and I would like too to have more details concerning
your commercial venture. Have you already
chosen your business model, your marketing strategy,
your niche…?
If you have, please, tell us…..
regards
You are claiming that SkyOS could not be created by one person… SkyOS has been in development since 1997 so why could it not have been…
I have programmed for 10+ years and have worked on small and large projects from single developer to multi-developer and believe it could be done.
It smells of jealousy here, my Linux-zealot-friends…
Its pointless arguing logic and business sense to people who download a linux distro then act like they single-handedly brought linux to the server market.
Welcome to the world of currency, where people use a unified medium of exchange for goods.
I think SkyOS has seriously more potential for the home desktop than Linux does.
Not really. If it was ever to threaten Windows’ monopoly status, MS would simply buy SkyOS and bury it. Robert would profit greatly, but SkyOS users would be left stranded.
I think this is a great hobby project, but unfortunately until MS’s monopoly ceases to be, there simply cannot be a closed-source, commercial competitor for MS on the desktop – no matter how good it is.
All this is not answering the question : why would anyone buy SkyOS instead of Windows ? Windows is a bit more expensive but it does so much more. If the only market is OS enthousiasts (which are not Linux/BSD zealots already), the market is not going to be very big.
Moving from freeware to commercial-ware is a big jump – people cannot spread your software for you as copying becomes illegal, so you now have to do marketing. At the same time people expect a lot more from commercial software (ie : tech support, a nice boxed package, etc.). Will there be a hot-line for SkyOS ?
To whom it may concern: when you use the sentence “Linux zealots” the credibility of your post automatically suffers. Trying to pigeonhole people who don’t agree with you, especially trying to make them out to be irrational individuals, means that you do not actually have arguments to counter theirs (or that you do not feel that your arguments are strong enough to stand on their own).
I mean, no one calls Robert a “SkyOS zealot”, even though he’s been working and promoting his OS for seven years… 🙂
Anyway, I’ll reiterate my point: as much as I wish success to SkyOS, I don’t think it has much chances at getting significant market share and survive.
Moving from freeware to commercial-ware is a big jump – people cannot spread your software for you as copying becomes illegal, so you now have to do marketing.
This site alone has 5.5 million page hits per month… A cheap way of advertising! And that’s only OSNews.com! SkyOS has been on /. as well… Every OS has to start somewhere.
Offense is only an offense when it’s taken….
This site alone has 5.5 million page hits per month… A cheap way of advertising! And that’s only OSNews.com! SkyOS has been on /. as well… Every OS has to start somewhere.
Yes, however when you compete with Microsoft Windows (and the moment you charge money for an OS, you do) – you need to have a pretty darn good product. What does SkyOS do better than Windows XP, MacOS X and Linux ? What is your sales pitch ?
Every OS has to start somewhere indeed, but the only ones who survived against Windows had “something extra”. Linux wouldn’t have gotten anywhere if Linus had kept the source closed and charged $30 for it.
This is an interesting discussion and by participating in it I can put off having to clean the house a little longer 8-).
Firstly, when a project is an amateur ‘hobby’ project it deserves kid gloves. That is, negative comments aren’t valuable or useful. I think this changes when a project becomes a ‘for profit’ venture and here’s why. Once you start selling something people start asking things like:
What am I getting for my money? why isn’t X included for this price? somebody else has this – why is yours better? how soon will you have new features? etc etc. Also, the first time your project is reviewed by a dispassionate reviewer you had damn well have all your ducks in a row and have a really good story to tell. Because reviewers make a living by pointing out shortcomings and bad reviews are just as fun to read as good reviews. Anyone what American Idol lately 8-)?
So if you SkyOS people think we are being mean by asking pointed questions, you had better start asking yourself if everyone else in the world is going treat you any different.
You don’t see professional PR people getting all defensive and up in arms with each new release of Windows. I’ll tell you why. It’s not professional and it’s not what perpective customers expect to see from someone they might spend money one. People expect their questions answered. And if the answers are not honest and forthcoming people will think you are bogus and will walk.
If SkyOS is going to make a place for itself amoung the littered landscape of has-been OS offerings you guys would do better do work on your public relations. To start with here are a number of features which are considered to be cool and desirable in existing OS’s. As an exercise let’s hear how SkyOS will address them and if not, why not:
Hot OS features:
64-bit memory addressing
Symmetric multi-processing (multiple CPU’s)
Hyperthreading (a feature on newer Intel CPU’s)
Java support
Good internet browser
USB support
Easy device driver development
Micro-threaded kernel (a la Mach)
Integrated development environment
Thanks,
Andrew
I didn’t feel targeted by the use of the words “Linux zealots”…it’s just that it’s becoming such a cliche that it really gets on my nerves.
It also perverts the true meaning of the word. Did you know Jesus himself was probably a zealot at some point?
How about being a bit more creative and using other sentences like “Linux enthusiasts”, “Linux patriots”, “penguinistas”, “Linux adepts”, “Linux partisans”, instead of relying on that rethorical shortcut that smacks of intellectual laziness? Just a thought…
Yes, however when you compete with Microsoft Windows (and the moment you charge money for an OS, you do)
Nonsense. You only compete with Microsoft when you say: “Our OS product is better than Microsoft’s.” Robert hasn’t said anything like that.
What does SkyOS do better than Windows XP…
It’s something different than Windows, and it’s not a *nix variant.
…MacOS X…
It’s cheaper (no hardware costs), and it runs on the arch most people already own anyway, instead of Mac OS X, which requires you to buy a new computer.
…and Linux ?
Well, that’s the most obvious one: integration, standardization, unity, leadership (not saying Linus isn’t showing leadership, since he is, but only on the kernel. The rest is a free-for-all).
Linux wouldn’t have gotten anywhere if Linus had kept the source closed and charged $30 for it.
On the home desktop market, Linux hasn’t got anywhere (I repeat: I’m typing this in MDK 10.0… I like Linux
).
I get your point, and agreed.
I should point out that having one developer for an entire OS is not only possible its actually very desirable. In a recent interview with Andrew Tanenbaum on http://www.slashdot.org he describes several separate versions of UNIX which are one-man projects. Including his own MINIX project.
In a university computer science degree one often takes an operating systems development class. A pretty good developer can generally write a virtual memory system, a kernel, and a file system in a semester. A really good developer with 7 years could do a hell of a lot more than that. Especially with today’s development tools.
So I don’t think it’s unreasonable by any measure for one guy to write a good OS. Although a good team working together could be a lot more productive. But that’s an issue of management style and organization.
– Andrew
Since this discussion seems to have become about the SkyOS development model, I guess I’ll add my own opinion. I really can’t see I’d ever pay money for SkyOS, because I don’t see any guarantee that it will continue to advance.
With proprietry software created by a company, there will be progress because the company depends on it financially, with community development progress happens because there will always (probably) be someone who wants any feature that can be imagined, and will try to create it. With Sky’s model though, everyone is reliant fundamentally on wanting the same thing as the developer wants; and that isn’t a risk that I would like to take with my money.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that I think SkyOS is stuck between two proven models. Unless Roberts starts a company and employs people officially, I won’t want to pay money for the OS. After all, I can’t just swap it out if it lags behind in areas I need.
Indeed, writing an OS is relatively simple. Writing libraries with well-designed APIs is harder. Writing enough drivers to let people even run your OS takes a long time.
If I run SkyOS, I will likely lose 3D hardware acceleration, my sound card and NIC probably won’t work, and everything will likely run much slower because there are more people working on optimizing other OSes than there are total developers for this one. Sure, it’s only $30, but I’d much rather spend that $30 on something that’s useful to me.
The SkyOS developers might not like that way of thinking, but that’s the way the cookie crumbles. When BeOS came out, it offered a lot more extra features over existing OSes than SkyOS does and supported much more hardware, but even it failed. I fear the SkyOS developers are going to get a hard lesson in capitalism.
Well I was going to try it out and give it a whirl, but i can’t find any features that make me want to spend money on it.
Just being “different” isn’t enough for me I guess. Different says “we don’t have anything to show you application wise, but look at how well it works!” If it’s still around in a few years, I’ll maybe try it then. I love installing new OS’s and playing with them, but my budget doesn’t allow for that kind of frivolous spending on something that may or may not work.
An earlier post made this example
“Let’s look at the cost of SkyOS…
Teen: 6 weeks allowance
Smoker: 1 carton of cigarettes
Drinker: 3 suitcases of beer
Driver: 1 tank of gas
Computer Geek: 1 spindle 50 DVDRs
Fashion victim: 1 pair of jeans”
Well my counter arguement is that these are all things that these indivduals will use and enjoy. If i smoke, I buy a carton and I will smoke every one of them, if i drink i’ll drink them all (friends be damned)… etc, etc.
This being what it is, there isn’t even any guarantee that it will run on my hardware at all, and I don’t see anything about a refund anywhere… so if i buy it, its a done deal.
SO I for one won’t be trying it anytime soon, more power to those of you who do have a budget bigger than mine and can blink away money at a whim. For me hobby OS’s get played with when they are free, cause when I try them out all I’m usually out is some time and a CD, when you start talking money i get stingy real quick. Bills/Family/necessities all take precedence to my OS hobby, and before that is “New Hardware” my only income-level allowable “money-pit”.
So until it gets some features and some applications I use, (3d animation, video editing; which are pretty high end items that linux doesn’t even offer a lot of choice in yet)I can’t see myself paying for it.
Not trolling just adding my take on the situation. Best of luck maybe I’ll see you around in a few years.
A nun, he moos: If it was ever to threaten Windows’ monopoly status, MS would simply buy SkyOS and bury it.
First, Robert would have to accept MS’s offer and he may or may not do that if MS made one.
You can’t buy something from someone if they aren’t willing to sell it. I don’t know about Robert, but if I was in such a position, I would probably turn them down.
Did anyone ever say it was free? Versions previous to v5 were.. v5 is not.
“When BeOS came out, it offered a lot more extra features over existing OSes than SkyOS does and supported much more hardware, but even it failed”
It did’t really fail at all. Be Inc. thought they could make more money by focusing in a different direction.
yeah, beOS itself did not fail.. Be Inc did… unfortunately
I still use beos, one of the best OSs ever.
What I meant was that BeOS was not commercially successful. Since BeOS was such an innovative OS at the time and had a lot of financial backing, that it failed bodes poorly for SkyOS.
1: Yet another hobby OS.
2: people keep asking, but an answer is not forth coming.
I emailed the author – no answer, hmmm…
arghh. Call OSNEWS “Open Source News”.
Seriously, stop trying to tell people to open up their hard work they have the right to do what they want with it. Stop being so d@mn mean to corporate projects. If you don’t like it then don’t post how you hate it and just don’t buy it if you hate it so much. I personally like SkyOS and I see it as a new OS that will rise up..like how BeOS rose except this one has different roots.
95% of all people like open source because its (usually) free anyway.
Really, all this negativity and putting down people is really F’d Up. sigh..
You can’t buy something from someone if they aren’t willing to sell it. I don’t know about Robert, but if I was in such a position, I would probably turn them down.
Sadly, everyone has a price. If Microsoft were to offer you, I don’t know, $20 million dollars for it, would you turn them down? That’s only 0.05% of their cash reserve.
What if they offered you $50 million? $100 million?
If SkyOS was as much a threat to their desktop monopoly as Linux is, you can bet they’d be willing to pay that much for it. How much do you think MS’s OS monopoly is worth to them?
Again, this has nothing to do with the quality of Robert’s work. SkyOS is clearly a labor of love. I might buy it, just because I like testing new things. But I don’t think it stands a chance in the current OS market.
Stop being so d@mn mean to corporate projects.
I don’t think you can say that SkyOS is a “corporate” project. It’s a proprietary, closed-source one, for sure, but “corporate” doesn’t seem accurate.
If you don’t like it then don’t post how you hate it and just don’t buy it if you hate it so much.
No one’s said they hated it. Most said that they didn’t see the relevance of it. Other (like me) observed that it is a cool project but that it has little chance of catching on in a market dominated by MS.
There’s a reason Linux has come to be able to challenge MS – it doesn’t belong to any one person, and therefore it is impossible to buy it out, or run its owners out of business.
I personally like SkyOS and I see it as a new OS that will rise up..like how BeOS rose except this one has different roots.
Yeah, well, look what happened to BeOS: a superior OS that had its commercial future all but obliterated by Microsoft.
This is not about the philosophical merits of open-source, but rather the cold, hard reality that trying to beat Microsoft on its own turf is suicide – at least in the current context.
95% of all people like open source because its (usually) free anyway.
Care to back this statistic up?
I doubt Microsoft would be legally allowed to buy any OS. They are a Monopoly according to the US legal system and therefore any buyouts of competitors would be anti-competitive and therefore stopped.
Mark and others of the same opinion are just proving that Robert made the right decision. With a one-man project plus assistants, it’s much more productive to have a closed beta & source than to open everything up, and then have to deal with wide-ranging support issues and the criticism from those who have no clue about the work involved in this project.
If you-
A) have no idea why you should try it
B) think $30 is outrageous and ridiculous
then you’ve already ruled yourself out as a person who should try it, or would have anything useful to contribute as a beta teaster. It obvious by the various reactions that $30 is all it takes to seperate real enthusiasm from armchair criticism.
Why should I use SkyOS? Sure it looks great, and has received many great reviews, but what will SkyOS do that isn’t already available? Why should I, the user, support SkyOS?
1. SkyOS is competition.
SkyOS offers something different, a change from the norm. Do you really want to live in a world where one company controls almost 100% of the desktop community? What if Ford was the only maker of cars? What if Sony was the only maker of CD-Players? So much control placed in the hands of one company stifles innovations, allows old powerhouses to become lazy, and only do enough work to continue their monopoly status. Competition forces all players to continuously try to out-innovate the rest of the field, in order to ensure market share.
SkyOS is competition.
2. SkyOS offers advantages.
SkyOS is not even in its final form, and already it is offering advantages. 64-bit journaling file system, advanced GUI with strong support for themes, attributes integrated seamlessly with many aspects of the operating system, LiveCD allowing users to “try” SkyOS….the list goes on and on. And there is no end in sight.
SkyOS offers advantages.
3. SkyOS is growing, fast.
In only one year, SkyOS has gone from a “hobby” project with only a few dozen interested fans and one developer, to a community of hundreds of admirers and a design team consisting of graphics designers, software developers, public relations analysts, and still at the core of it all, one man with a goal. A goal to create something for the future, and that future, is coming faster than you think.
SkyOS is growing, fast.
4. SkyOS listens to its users.
Where would SkyOS be without feedback from its highly valued community? Suggestions for new features, bundled applications, visual changes, and many other areas of interest are always listened to and provided for. SkyOS is not an operating system for its developers, it is an operating system for the people who will be using it. The second a company does not listen to what its users want, that company will fail.
SkyOS listens to its users.
There are so many reasons why you should support SkyOS. You should support SkyOS because you want a future that isn’t controlled by one company. You should support SkyOS because innovation is important to you. But most importantly, you should support SkyOS because SkyOS supports you. It is our goal to create the most positive, pleasant experience in computing that you will ever know. Everyday, we come closer to achieving that goal.
Help us to pave the way to a better tomorrow.
A nun, he moos: Sadly, everyone has a price. If Microsoft were to offer you, I don’t know, $20 million dollars for it, would you turn them down? That’s only 0.05% of their cash reserve.
What if they offered you $50 million? $100 million?
If I was a serious threat to their monopoly status, I could potentially gain far more by NOT selling out.
There’s only five things that would make me consider selling out in such a situation. 1) If I think I’m going to lose anyway. (And I’m not a pessimist, so the situation would have to be very convincing) 2) If I have “something up my sleeve.” 3) If I believe that MS is doing the right thing overall and that they now do a good job representing my interests, then I wouldn’t mind selling out to them. 4) If for some wierd reason they offer me a controlling (or at least significant) percentage of their company, so I can actually change how they do business. 5) If whatever they wish to buy has little meaning to me.
But then, I’ve always tended to be a tough person to “buy out”. However, I’m almost always willing to discuss things though.
A nun, he moos:But I don’t think it stands a chance in the current OS market.
I agree. It has to deal with Windows, Linux, etc… The position it is in is not a very favorable one.
However, I’ve seen some people pull some absolutely amazing stunts at times. Most of the ones I’ve witnessed were performed by one person or a small group of people who simply wouldn’t give up and managed to amazingly enough achieve the virtually impossible.
As a result, at this time I wouldn’t bet either way.
BTW… I already bought a copy. I’ve been too busy to play around with it much though.
Nonsense. You only compete with Microsoft when you say: “Our OS product is better than Microsoft’s.” Robert hasn’t said anything like that.
Not in a capitalist world. You compete with Windows the moment you offer an OS that aims to do the same thing (ie : desktop general-purpose OS) and make people pay for it like Microsoft does. Consumers need to buy an OS, and when they’ll look at it they’ll see Windows XP Home, SkyOS, Linux (distro of your choice). From there they’ll compare each product based on ease of use, cost, etc. In effect SkyOS is competing with Windows and Linux.
Consumers need to buy an OS, and when they’ll look at it they’ll see Windows XP Home, SkyOS, Linux (distro of your choice). From there they’ll compare each product based on ease of use, cost, etc.
No way. I’ve yet to see the first end-user buy a boxed version of any OS anyway, let alone compare them! For the gazzilionth time: Home-desktop end-users do not buy an OS, they just take for granted what’s on their pre-built Dell/Compaq/HP system.
The best way to get alternative OS’s on home-desktops without OEM deals is by using mouth-to-mouth fame. I use SkyOS, I tell my father how good it is, he takes a look at it, and wants it as well. Then, one of his friends comes over, sees his computer, etc.
Ahh the basic economic fallacy that individuals make rational decisions (actually they do but based on irrational emotions), and that individuals have access to perfect information.
I think when it comes to OS’s in the past users have bought the PC with the OS and have not chosen any OS. They use what they know and basically eliminate risk. Which I suppose is rational!
Actually, I don’t know that this can be taken for granted, simply because it’s never been tested properly. Although it’s true people will almost always stick with whatever OS comes installed, the situation might be different if buyers were explicitly given a choice of OS when they bought their brand name PC. People might in this case actually compare OSs before they purchase, simply because someone has brought it to their attention (and said they will save money if they pick something cheaper.)
And Re: Kelly.
Please stop giving that bullet point list of SkyOS advantages. It doesn’t give enough detail to put SkyOS above other systems anyway. For example, I have a journalling filesystem (reiser), advanced themeable GUI (gnome), LiveCD (knoppix). And so all that sort of list makes me think is why are you not mentioning other features? Are you trying to cover over the windows alike C api? The windows alike RC file dialog creation? Calling shared libraries dlls?
And yes, I am trying to provoke a response by picking windows style features, but hopefully instead of shouting at me it will be just writing an advert or something for the OS that says what SkyOS is trying to be, and how it’s going to be that.
“””
There are so many reasons why you should support SkyOS. You should support SkyOS because you want a future that isn’t controlled by one company.
“””
But that’s the point lots of people are trying to make. If you guys really do succeed and take over the OS market, we’ll still have an operating system CONTROLLED BY ONE COMPANY!
People have learned that this is a bad thing. We’ve seen perfectly honest companies turn “evil” once they start to do well/make money.
You’re basically saying “Don’t let MS control you, let us control you”.
You’re basically saying “Don’t let MS control you, let us control you”.
I’m studying Psychology, and, you know, when I hear someone saying stuff like this, I’d send them to a therapist. Clear sign of psychosis: paranoia.
I doubt Microsoft would be legally allowed to buy any OS. They are a Monopoly according to the US legal system and therefore any buyouts of competitors would be anti-competitive and therefore stopped.
I don’t think it’s that simple. First, since Robert isn’t a publicly-traded company, MS can’t do a “buyout”. They can make an offer to a private citizen to buy his technology. That’s quite different.
Secondly, since when has the DOJ represented any real menace to MS?
In theory, you’d be right, but in practice I don’t believe that this would stop MS from buying the technology.
So what you’re saying is that we should buy it because its not by Microsoft?
I mean, I have Linux for that. Or Mac OSX, if things get desperate.