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 426609
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

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

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

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

It depends what you call an interface. But if we're talking about operating for computers, and not for computers + windows + IE (replace by your combo of choice), then EyeOS is not an operating system.

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!

Again, you're being imprecise. It depends what is your point of view. For an user, it does not. For the developper of the operating system, it didn't until... say... the Amiga days maybe ? All modern operating systems are made of several parts that are developped separately, because it allows work paralelization and much, much better debugging and bug tracking.

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?

Yes it is. And it is part of the OS. But it's not a computer OS.

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.

For the third time, aren't we talking about computer operating systems here ? Duh, even if Microsoft would like to, Windows is not part of the computer at the moment. Only apple manages to do the trick by calling the computer+OS bundle a Macintosh and suing everyone trying to use a legally bought copy of their computer OS on other computers, but the distinction is pure marketting.

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!

It's highly debatable. Both are, from a computer OS point of view, just some user application... That's where the editor's opinion becomes useful ;)

Edited 2010-05-26 09:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

Anonymous Coward Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree that EyeOS is not really an Operating System because it needs an Operating System and a Browser to access it. Granted, there are efforts to bolt EyeOS on top of a Linux distro to act like a Window Manger/Desktop Environment, but it lacks the important task of being an interface between a user and the hardware. (kernel, drivers, etc.)

On the other hand.... OSNews posts KDE and Gnome releases, as well as news about MS Office, and other applications....so EyeOS does deserve a place amongst OSNews because it's the type of thing that OS Enthusiasts want to hear about.

[Edit: Crappy spelling]

Edited 2010-05-26 10:14 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2