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 eyeOS.org 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 eyeOS.info."
Thread beginning with comment 426596
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Why is EyeOS not an operating system?
by asupcb on Wed 26th May 2010 04:43 UTC
asupcb
Member since:
2005-11-10

Why exactly would EyeOS not be considered an operating system? What is EyeOS missing that ChromeOS possesses? In fact I would say that EyeOS is more feature complete in some ways than ChromeOS is from a more conventional line of thinking as to what an OS should be.

Is there any particular reason that you couldn't just run this as your base operating system? I mean it is running on top of a LAMP stack like other operating systems do. I don't see why someone couldn't make this boot up as their primary OS with a little work. You might not want to do so, but if it can be done with ChromeOS then surely it could also be done with this system.

Edited for grammar

Edited 2010-05-26 04:46 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Why exactly would EyeOS not be considered an operating system? What is EyeOS missing that ChromeOS possesses? In fact I would say that EyeOS is more feature complete in some ways than ChromeOS is from a more conventional line of thinking as to what an OS should be.

Is there any particular reason that you couldn't just run this as your base operating system? I mean it is running on top of a LAMP stack like other operating systems do. I don't see why someone couldn't make this boot up as their primary OS with a little work. You might not want to do so, but if it can be done with ChromeOS then surely it could also be done with this system.



Because if you set this to boot in a simular way to ChromeOS, then just like ChromeOS, it would be a Linux-based OS with a non-Linux user space tools.

Much like Android and webOS are too.

Call me anal, but for me the OS is the actual underlying foundations. Everything bolted on top for usability (et al) is user space thus not the OS. Sure, a good number of user space tools are critical to make the machine in any way functional in the real world. But they're still not the OS itself.

So EyeOS is no more an operating system than KDE4 or Metacity/GNOME is.

Reply Parent Score: 3

madgabz Member since:
2008-12-21

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

To separate the tactile and perceptible level from the routines and processes does not make sense when talking of an OS! This is ooold news! the CLI/shell/whatever of a barebones linux system is also a interface! If you can't communicate with a system through an interface, how would you know it is there?

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. 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?

Edited 2010-05-26 08:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

wannabe geek Member since:
2006-09-27

I know, CS people always complain about the abuse of the "operating system" concept, but I think the strictest definition (as seen in Tanenbaum books, for instance), which basically restricts the operating system to the kernel, is not particularly useful these days. For instance, there are microkernels, nanokernels, exokernels, hypervisors and whatnot, which signal a clear trend towards getting as many things as possible outside of the kernel, and I've even read discussions about what a kernel really is.

But if you stop and think why you should care at all about what operating system you are using, it turns that you care because developers write applications on top of it. If your operating system has no applications, it's useless. So, let's suppose that most developers decide to just write Firefox plugins; then Firefox (particularly its API) would be, for all practical purposes, the OS. But, you may object, Firefox needs to run on top of, say, GNU/Linux. Fair enough, then the OS is Firefox+GNU/Linux, but the main layer is still Firefox, because it's where the action is, where all user applications are built. You could replace the underlying GNU/Linux with, say, FreeBSD, Haiku or your pet kernel that only supports your own hardware and can only run Firefox, and then you would get all the applications for free.

I picked the Firefox plugin example precisely because it's NOT really what is happening now.

Instead, I think a good summary is, in Gilad Bracha's words, "Javascript is the assembly language of the internet platform (and the browser is the OS)". I would add that W3C's standards like HTML, and WaSP tests like Acid3 are then the rough equivalent of POSIX.


But it's not about how you name it, be it an OS, a desktop, a platform or whatever. The main point is that the "OS battles" are about what developers will take as a basis to build ever more complex applications on top, not about the details of hardware drivers which are functionally identical from the user's point of view, and which, by their nature, can only have a limited complexity.

Reply Parent Score: 2

bogomipz Member since:
2005-07-11

I have to disagree. It *is* important how we name different concepts because otherwise everything gets confusing quickly.

The appropriate term is "software platform" or just "platform". The latter is already getting confusing because we also have "hardware platform", but you can understand which one was meant from context so it's usually ok to use the shorter form.

Firefox is a platform, eyeOS is a platform, Ruby on Rails is a platform, KDE is a platform, Emacs is a platform, and even Vim is a platform.

None of them are operating systems because they don't control the hardware. These are all layers on top of the operating system to provide a high level platform for people to develop software on.

Reply Parent Score: 2

bogomipz Member since:
2005-07-11

Is there any particular reason that you couldn't just run this as your base operating system? I mean it is running on top of a LAMP stack like other operating systems do.

You almost answered your own question there; EyeOS requires a LAMP stack to run.

The LAMP stack is the operating system.
EyeOS is a web application.

Why exactly would EyeOS not be considered an operating system? What is EyeOS missing that ChromeOS possesses?

There's a second level of confusion here because EyeOS runs on the server. The browser is not EyeOS, it's just what you use to access it. Similar to rdesktop not being an operating system, just a unix tool you use to access your Windows 2003 Server operating system.

So, you need a basic operating system with a http server to run EyeOS on, and you need a basic operating system with a web browser to access it.

ChromeOS is a Linux distribution that has a web browser as the only available application.

You could use ChromeOS to access your EyeOS desktop!

Reply Parent Score: 2