Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 20th Dec 2009 21:22 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes I just stumbled upon an interesting forum thread over at AmigaWorld.net. The thread details whether or not AmigaOS and MorphOS should be called "hobby operating systems", and what kind of criteria should be applied. This sounded like an interesting point of discussion for OSNews.
Thread beginning with comment 400509
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Interesting
by roger_ramjet on Sun 20th Dec 2009 21:36 UTC
roger_ramjet
Member since:
2007-04-30

Thanks for this interesting article.

I would have to say a hobby operating system would be an OS that is not used for commercial purposes or have a commercial backing.

I did a small website on Aros for a uni assignment i classified it as a hobby OS.

It is not designed by a commercial entity and its not used to make profit.

Sure Linux is open source but it has commercial backing and is used to make profit too.

Something Like AROS or MenuetOS is defintiely hobby because its designed with love and used with love ONLY.

(At this stage any way)

Perhaps i'm wrong though. Frying Pan CD burning software is for sale on AROS.

H'mmm im having a hard time classifying now.
Looking forward to comments.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Interesting
by AmigaRobbo on Sun 20th Dec 2009 21:55 in reply to "Interesting"
AmigaRobbo Member since:
2005-11-15

You mention Frying Pan is a retail price,Amiga OS4.1 is itself a commercial production:-

http://www.acube-systems.biz/index.php?page=software&pid=1

I'd still call it a 'hobby' OS, I find it fun to tinker with, I can do (almost) everything with it that I want to do in OSX or Windows, so it's usable.

Still by the definition of a OS that in itself you like to play around with, in itself, not the applications available for it, would that make many Linux a hobby OS for people who like learn about PC/Linux, and the exact same distro not a hobby OS for people who just get on with the business of Surfing the interwebs and mail etc?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Interesting
by sorpigal on Sun 20th Dec 2009 22:14 in reply to "Interesting"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Commercial backing is not such a good distinction, IMO. Linux was being called a hobby OS in some press up into 2002 IIRC.

The real measurement should be whether or not the OS is of interest for production work, no matter what the kind. It's harder to judge, sure, but if the OS is generally intended for and used for real work, as opposed to just for tinkering with the OS itself, then it's no longer a hobby OS.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Interesting
by strcpy on Sun 20th Dec 2009 22:26 in reply to "RE: Interesting"
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20

Linux was being called a hobby OS in some press up into 2002 IIRC.


Yeah and nowadays you hear often Linux people using the term when describing other open source operating systems. As Linux is now, you know, big boy stuff. What goes around, comes around.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Interesting
by bhtooefr on Sun 20th Dec 2009 23:02 in reply to "RE: Interesting"
bhtooefr Member since:
2009-02-19

And, the RISCOS Ltd. branch of RISC OS wouldn't be a hobby OS, under that commercial distinction.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Interesting
by WorknMan on Sun 20th Dec 2009 23:45 in reply to "RE: Interesting"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

The real measurement should be whether or not the OS is of interest for production work, no matter what the kind. It's harder to judge, sure, but if the OS is generally intended for and used for real work, as opposed to just for tinkering with the OS itself, then it's no longer a hobby OS.


Yes, I agree with this interpretation. When trying to determine whether an OS is a hobby OS or not, the real test is this - do you use it to do useful stuff outside of tinkering (browsing the web, sending/receiving email, gaming, etc), or do you just 'play' with it?

That being said, what is a hobby OS for some will not be for others. For example, in my case, Linux at home is a hobby OS, cuz I usually just install it to play around with it, whereas I get actual work done with Windows. That doesn't mean I *couldn't* do more with Linux at home... I just choose not to. By contrast, I actually use Unix/Linux to get real work done while at work, because the company I work for runs server apps on these operating systems that I need to interract with.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Interesting
by roger_ramjet on Mon 21st Dec 2009 00:44 in reply to "RE: Interesting"
roger_ramjet Member since:
2007-04-30

"The real measurement should be whether or not the OS is of interest for production work"

I think this hits the nail right on the head.
No single person/group or organization could classify an OS themselves.

It comes down to what its used for.

Thanks for this.
Great !

Reply Parent Score: 1