Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 25th May 2010 21:10 UTC, submitted by asupcb
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 426614
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Why is EyeOS not an operating system?
by Sabon on Wed 26th May 2010 14:55
in reply to "RE[3]: Why is EyeOS not an operating system?"
Member since:2005-07-06
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.
Hmmm - Then Windows is not an OS because it is just a layer on top of what boots up the computer. Yes, technically you CAN boot up Windows without the GUI which means that Windows is not an OS.
RE[5]: Why is EyeOS not an operating system?
by Sabon on Wed 26th May 2010 14:56
in reply to "RE[4]: Why is EyeOS not an operating system?"
Member since:2005-07-06
RE[5]: Why is EyeOS not an operating system?
by Laurence on Wed 26th May 2010 15:19
in reply to "RE[4]: Why is EyeOS not an operating system?"
Member since:2007-03-26
Hmmm - Then Windows is not an OS because it is just a layer on top of what boots up the computer. Yes, technically you CAN boot up Windows without the GUI which means that Windows is not an OS.
*sign* I've already addressed this point in the very post you were addressing, but let me reiterate:
Windows is the product name.
EXPLORER.EXE is Windows' shell
NT is Windows' kernel.
So yes, you can boot Windows without EXPLORER.EXE and no, EXPLORER.EXE is not an OS (though it's part of the Windows OS).
Also, to further complicate matters, there are GUI parts in the NT kernel. So you can't entirely separate the GUI entirely from NT - though you can change the desktop, file manager and other shell components as well as the themes and stylings (as explained several times above).
So to summarise, Windows /IS/ an OS. NT is the kernel layer of Windows and EXPLORER.EXE is the shell part of Windows. Neither is an OS on it's own, but both are parts of the OS product.
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:
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.
where did I say that this shouldn't be mentioned on here?
Now you're just ranting for the sake of ranting.
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.