Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 26th Nov 2007 21:36 UTC, submitted by Coldfirex
SkyOS SkyOS build 6814 has been released. Among its new features are streaming support, system-wide spell checking, the Mozilla embedded Gecko engine (which is used to create a few applications like a Wikipedia reader), an updated Viewer (file manager), a new theme engine, and more.
Thread beginning with comment 287070
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
my 2cents
by nulleight on Tue 27th Nov 2007 01:18 UTC
nulleight
Member since:
2007-06-22

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. I mean you guys should praise them... No wonder they make such a tremendous progress. I just ask myself if all those projects above were proprietary where would skyos be now? The answer is just - it wouldn't be. You are free to guess the moral of the story.

Reply Score: 8

RE: my 2cents
by madcrow on Tue 27th Nov 2007 01:52 in reply to "my 2cents"
madcrow Member since:
2006-03-13

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.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: my 2cents
by umccullough on Tue 27th Nov 2007 02:01 in reply to "RE: my 2cents"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

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.

Reply Parent Score: 13

RE[2]: my 2cents
by Soulbender on Tue 27th Nov 2007 04:02 in reply to "RE: my 2cents"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

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


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...

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: my 2cents
by Darkness on Tue 27th Nov 2007 01:53 in reply to "my 2cents"
Darkness Member since:
2005-08-27

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

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: my 2cents
by kaiwai on Tue 27th Nov 2007 03:49 in reply to "RE: my 2cents"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Those patches are available to people that bought SkyOS so there is no GPL violation there...


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).

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: my 2cents
by Nelson on Tue 27th Nov 2007 03:33 in reply to "my 2cents"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

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.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: my 2cents
by MamiyaOtaru on Tue 27th Nov 2007 05:19 in reply to "RE: my 2cents"
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

"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.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE: my 2cents
by Soulbender on Tue 27th Nov 2007 03:58 in reply to "my 2cents"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The answer is just - it wouldn't be. You are free to guess the moral of the story.


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.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: my 2cents
by Almafeta on Tue 27th Nov 2007 05:33 in reply to "my 2cents"
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

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.


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.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: my 2cents
by Vanders on Tue 27th Nov 2007 08:04 in reply to "RE: my 2cents"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

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


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

You take out the open-source cruft from SkyOS, and you have an operating system.


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.

Reply Parent Score: 6