Brandon Sharitt contacted us and introduced us the operating system he is working on: “I’ve recently joined yet another opensource operating system that is supposed to unify all other operating sytems while ‘destroying’ Microsoft. The only difference with this one is that it may actually work. The project is called BoxOS.”“The whole project started out at first as a command user interface for FreeDOS. From there it moved to a Linux kernel, and eventually they began piling other opensource projects like FreeDOS, WINE, and a whole bunch of others on top of a Linux kernel. Just recently the project has changed into a project to basically build a new seemless operating system where aplications from all the major operating systems will work together. At the moment Linux, Windows and DOS are going to be suported no matter what, and the project is looking for a way to implement MacOS compatibility, and to support any other operating systems that they can. Since it is relativly new, the kernel isn’t ready yet, althouhg work has started. Initally the plan was to use a modified Linux kernel, but that has been changed in favor of building a new one from scratch so that diffent OS compatibility can be achieved with more stability. Those of you reading this may be wondering why it will work when so many others have failed. There are several reasons. First, it has some background to it, so it’s not starting out of nothing. Second, it is using parts already established opensource projects like Linux, WINE, FreeDOS, and ReactOS just to name a few. This means that everything won’t be from scratch. Third, and most importantly, it has a strong development team with good leadership. Chris Hocking and Patrick White, who founded the project, have a clear vision, and arn’t afraid to push their vision foward. In the end, I think BoxOS has a future as a viable operating system.”
BoxOS To Have Both Unix and DOS/Windows Compatibility
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
This has got to be a joke.
<quote>
We have seen quite a few anouncements of “promising” Operating Systems with “great potential” during the pre-development of BoxOS. The problem is that when I follow the links I normally find a description of the concept, a floppy-bootloader written in assembly, and not much else.
</quote>
And this is not exactly that?
(I have this strange feeling that I’ve read that quote before, I think it’s on a page at atheos.cx)
Must be a joke.
If it’s not, then the guy must be the must ostentatious person I’ve ever seen.
Anyway, that made me laugh, so it’s not completely bad 😉
It just sounds too good to be true. If it is a joke, they really went out of their way to make a nice homepage for it.
and what do you call windows, personaly i call it a joke also
That quote Bob Soap listed is a total ripoff from the Atheos site. From http://www.atheos.cx …
I have seen quite a few anouncements of “promising” OSes with “great potential” during the development of AtheOS. The problem is that when I follow the links I normally find a description of the concept, a floppy-bootloader written in assembly, and not much else.
At least windows is a working system, and not a figment of someone’s project jumping imagination.
maurej; he practically stated that in his comment. read it before getting all huffy.
That’s fine if he “practically stated” it, I was simply confirming it. Doesn’t mean I’m getting huffy, or that I didn’t read his post. Don’t get your panties in a knot there, buddy.
I think maybe OS developers should acctualy devolop something before bothering to make a website at least then you’d hyave a reason to go there.
my 2 cents.
Quotes from their “kernel” mailing list
On how to get an OS kernel for their project
‘1. Find where in the source does linux store this information
2. Edit this information to say “BoxOS” instead of “linux”‘
On integrating WINE with the kernel
‘I now realize that kernel modules cannot access shared libraries’
On Copyright laws
‘We really don’t give a dam (sic) about them’
So this is yet another “Windows killer” thought up by semi-literate BASIC programmers who believe that “Unix compatible” means that “dir” is renamed to “ls”. Unlike the others these guys are SO smart that their project is worthy of attention even before they’ve properly decided what their aims/goals are.
We could have an OSNews article on one of these ideas every day for a year, and not see a single Windows app run on any of them. Not my editorial decision of course
I’m Pat, Co-founder of BoxOS and head of Kernel Development. NoBeForMe’s little mailing list is a sad excuse for a low blow. I am writing a _NEW_ kernel. Not editing Linux. Even if this project and all the developers disband, I will _STILL_ continue to pump every available minute of the day into making this project really work. I had an idea… I will make it happen!
I’m the kernel administrator for this project and I have a few things to point out.
Many of you seem sceptical, and with good reason. Yes, it is true that many open source OS’s have failed miserably in the past. (And I predicably say …) Well we are different. We’ve got great developers and great administration, all with great ideas and talent. Just wait and see, its going to be grand.
In response to NoBeForMe’s comment about what he read on the kernel list:
Those quotes require context to be understood. I know because those quotes were from me. A bit more reading into the list posts and you would see that it is not as it sounds. That was from when we were going to use the Linux kernel as a base, and work from there. We have now since decided to create our own kernel to suite our needs, which are quite different than the needs of the Linux kernel.
This is a very exciting project, and I truly feel that we are on our way to creating something great. It is in its infant stages, but things are moving quickly. Keep an eye on us.
> We’ve got great developers and great administration, all with great ideas and talent
You forget the gigantic ego.
But guys, really, keep up the good joke! As I already stated before, that makes me laugh, and I thank you for that.
To be honest, it’s not that I don’t believe in your project (well, actually, I see so many so-called new OS projects these days that I am becoming more and more skeptical each time), but it’s more the tone you’ve been using that makes me laugh and doubt.
Try to be a bit more humble next time.
Hey, don’t judge them before we’ve seen the results.
It’s up to every person what to code, and if this project really should fail those guys may at least learn something.
Hello everyone!
I am one of the founders at BoxOS. I just saw this article and wanted to clear a few things up.
> This has got to be a joke.
Actually it’s not a joke. We are very serious about making an OS.
> That quote Bob Soap listed is a total ripoff from the Atheos site. From http://www.atheos.cx
Intersting. One of my friends made the site for me (and the rest of the BoxOS team). I think he might have done the dirty on us!
He’s only a webmaster – not a developer, so I forgive him.
Well I guess the statement is true. Just copied!
> At least windows is a working system, and not a figment of someone’s project jumping imagination.
The good thing about BoxOS is it has an imagination. A lot of the dieing, now dead OS projects had no vision. They just wanted to make an OS. We acutally (believe it or not!), have a vision of making a good and sucessful operating system. Another good thing is all the developers believe in what they are doing. So even if they don’t *everything* about development, they are very eager to learn. A lot of the developers are pro’s in other areas (developing security systems, etc. not specifically OS development), so they have a fantastic understanding of development (in general), plus the power to learn all they can about this new area in which they are venturing in to.
> I think maybe OS developers should acctualy devolop something before bothering to make a website at least then you’d hyave a reason to go there.
BoxOS is a community developed OS, like other projects such as FreeDOS. Thus promoting the project (whether it be good or bad publicity – and this so far has been a bit of both!), is vital. The webpage is a good way of promoting the site.
> Quotes from their “kernel” mailing list
Good to see you actually looked at our site!
> On how to get an OS kernel for their project
‘1. Find where in the source does linux store this information
2. Edit this information to say “BoxOS” instead of “linux”‘
Now I must admit, this does look dodgy – very dodgy in fact. But there is a lot more to it than contained in the public mailing lists. If I where to explain this we would be here for quite some time, and you would probably still find a way to “bag” our project and ideas.
> On integrating WINE with the kernel
‘I now realize that kernel modules cannot access shared libraries’
I cannot add a good reply to that statement because I never followed that post.
> On Copyright laws
‘We really don’t give a dam (sic) about them’
Well this was one of my statements. Sounds dodgy doesn’t it! We do care about international and local laws. And we do follow them. This was just an “over-the-top” way of proving my point.
> So this is yet another “Windows killer” thought up by semi-literate BASIC programmers who believe that “Unix compatible” means that “dir” is renamed to “ls”. Unlike the others these guys are SO smart that their project is worthy of attention even before they’ve properly decided what their aims/goals are.
Well your almost right there! I (myself) am a semi-literate Basic program who believes that “Unix compatible” means that “dir” is renamed to “ls”. This project [BoxOS] is not a “Windows killer”. It’s just a vision that I am trying to bring to life with the help from the Open Source community. So I don’t think I am “SO smart”. We don’t think our project is currently worthy of attention. When we make our first release then maybe we will. The reason the original article was posted was because a happy person from the general public became interested in the project and submitted an article. We support this, however, we never told him he had to do it. So please don’t blame our administration team for promoting something that currently doesn’t exist – yet.
> You forget the gigantic ego.
Well I think it’s good that we have a giant ego. It helps the project get moving.
> To be honest, it’s not that I don’t believe in your project (well, actually, I see so many so-called new OS projects these days that I am becoming more and more skeptical each time), but it’s more the tone you’ve been using that makes me laugh and doubt.
Try to be a bit more humble next time.
For developers, we have got a funny attitude yes. But it’s something new that makes it so good. Where just not borring old OS developers. We are new to the game and therefore do not have any limitations. We will do anything to make our products work. Sure there are setbacks, but like they say in the classics:
“If you don’t suceeed, try, try again!”
In concluding:
I think this project has great potential. I really do! I really think this project will work. Please keep your abuse until we actually fail (which we won’t). If we do fail, then feel free to e-mail me at [email protected] and abuse me all you want. Until then, either help us, or stay out of it. I mean this in the nicest possible way.
I would like to make an public appology for any errors in this posting. I am sure there are spelling mistakes, etc. and even dodgy quotes that probably need fixing. But really, I am just showing my point of view. This is my two cents.
Thanks for your ideas, view and suggestions. Even the abuse will turn BoxOS in to a better project. Thankyou!
From,
Chris Hocking
Having visited the website I must say that the concept of BoxOS seems valid, so there’s nothing funny about it. Even though it may seem to outsiders that it’s nothing more than a kind of special Linux distro – on the contrary it will require a HUGE programming effort to make this thing work. But if it does, provided this product happens to be really easy to install and use, this could be a great alternative to proprietary MS OSs.
Making fun of other people’s visions and ideas is really easy. Much easier than having your own.
(let me finish this with a quote from a very bad movie):
never underestimate the power of radical vision
This reminds me of Lindows.
I MAY work. But MacOS compatibility….. erm… well… look at http://sourceforge.net/projects/achelous
Maybe this project with 0% project activity can help you. *g*
Sorry, I didn’t want to say “I MAY work”. It should mean “It MAY work”. (dropping a “t” can cause this
)
Haven’t I seen this project before?? Maybe the big PR announcement made last week about Lindows? The Linux os with Windows compatibility? <a href =”http://www.lindows.com“>www.lindows.com Check it out
Freedows . . . Lindows. Whatever. Lets take ten “compatibility layers” that are in endless beta ™ on Linux, that half-ass work and then slap them all together and make an OS????? Wanna?
I’m gonna build an OS using the Linux kernel that will run software that exists in the future, before it is written (you ougta see the screenshots of Quake 8!!!).
Its using a new technology I invented called the BS_Smart binary compilitron journaled medium-endian flux capacitor i-node semephoric melmnaker, which will be built into a new dll file available for WinXX, Linux, *BSD, Atari, Amiga 3.x, Java, OS/2, Epoch, Freedows, Lindows, DR-DOS, MS-DOS, PC-DOS, FreeDOS, RxDOS, EComStation, BeOS, TOS, Plan9, AtheOS, MenuetOS, Solaris, Xenix, IRIX, VMS, FreeVMS, and if the demand is high enough even MacOS, though technical issues may prevent a MacOS port.
I’m the kernel administrator for this project.
Every negative post that is against BoxOS is based on some other failing OS. Our vision is completely different from an other Open Source project out there. There have been many failing OS projects, but they have been implimenting nothing new, just different, and thats not enough. Yes, there is a company creating an OS with Windows and Linux compatability, but it costs $99! I can get a copy of Windows XP for that price!
As for our buldging ego’s, i’m proud of that, it is a great strength, it shows that we have pride and what we do and won’t back down.
So, before you make sallow insults, read into it a bit more, you may find that your comments are completely invalid.
I made a few spelling errors in the last one, and I appologize. They aren’t tough to figure out. That’s what happens when you get me worked up.
> Freedows . . . Lindows. Whatever. Lets take ten “compatibility layers” that are in endless beta ™ on Linux, that half-ass work and then slap them all together and make an OS????? Wanna?
We are working in stages. We are going to start on a Linux compatibility layer. This stage will be helped by the access to Linux kernel code and other Open Source projects that have tried to make Linux Layers. This is [of course] after we have a stable kernel. The next step is to make a DOS layer. This will be helped/supported with DOSEMU and FreeDOS source viewing. Then we will try to produce WIN Console support, WIN16 support and finnaly WIN32 support. These will be supported with other projects like Wine and Willows – although most of the code will be our own.
> I’m gonna build an OS using the Linux kernel that will run software that exists in the future, before it is written (you ougta see the screenshots of Quake 8!!!).
The BoxOS webpage is out-of-date. We are *not* using a Linux kernel. We are creating our own kernel. We are not trying to run software that exists in the future. We are trying to add support for existing software products. Like we said, we are taking it in stages. We will be happy when we can run DOS edit in our CUI.
> Its using a new technology I invented called the BS_Smart binary compilitron journaled medium-endian flux capacitor i-node semephoric melmnaker, which will be built into a new dll file available for WinXX, Linux, *BSD, Atari, Amiga 3.x, Java, OS/2, Epoch, Freedows, Lindows, DR-DOS, MS-DOS, PC-DOS, FreeDOS, RxDOS, EComStation, BeOS, TOS, Plan9, AtheOS, MenuetOS, Solaris, Xenix, IRIX, VMS, FreeVMS, and if the demand is high enough even MacOS, though technical issues may prevent a MacOS port.
Well you do have one thing right – if the demand is high enough we may build a MacOS layer!
> I[t] MAY work. But MacOS compatibility….. erm… well… look at http://sourceforge.net/projects/achelous
Thanks for providing us with that link. It may prove very useful in the future.
In concluding:
Look, BoxOS is a good idea. And where a good bunch of people – deep down anyway! We will do anything to get this project working. Were not quiters, so that’s a big plus.
So just give us a break – really. Or help us out. Just give us idea’s and suggestions on how we can make it work. You all think you so fantastic, so help us out.
Thanks for your time,
Chris Hocking
>So just give us a break – really. Or help us out.
>Just give us idea’s and suggestions on how we can make it work.
Here’s an idea… Give up now!
Ofcourse I’m not gonna take you guys seriously, you’re announcing a product that hasn’t even reached any usable state at all. I don’t even know if you’ve got a single useful line of code written down.
Just one question tho, why would you even want all this compabilitylayers added to an operating system? It’ll take you guys forever to implement, and it will never get as good as the original. You’ll save time, by just coding a replica of all the software you need.
And will you please remove the idiotic statement on your site that I mentioned earlier, as you clearly haven’t got even a bootfloppy to demonstrate your OS.
>…during pre-development of BoxOS.
WHAT PRE-DEVELOPMENT!?
Hey bob, would you mind sending me a copy of your OS that runs Windows and Linux stuff? Thanx
The OS you made, I mean…
You want a OS that runs Windows apps, and linux apps: You’ve got cgywin for Windows users, and Wine for Linux users. that’s two operatingsystems running eachothers apps. (You’ve also got various emulators for powerpc consoles.)
I tend to read OS relevant material, but I’m not gonna claim I’m able to make my own OS yet, infact, I’d like a bit more experience just making software.
One question I’ve got burning tho, prior to this project, what software have the various members in your group actually developed?
Just giving you a fair warning that this is a WERY and I mean WERY huge project, and I’d rather not see time beeing spendt on it. I’d rather you developed your own OS (with quality apps), or quality apps for an existing OS.
(Supporting some cool stuff, and alot of badly coded bloatware for a “not too good” coded OS just doesn’t seem right.)
For shame, Sam Tramiel. You merely mentioned Atari, but didn’t specify which OS. The 8-Bit, TOS and/or GEM? I don’t have the list in front of me, did you include CP/M.
As for everyone else… Let people do what they want. The criticism that flows around here makes it seem like we’re all paying for useless work. If someone wants to do something, why are you belittling them? Unless your egos are equally huge and you require attention from all readers.
As for running an “all-in-one” OS, count me out. I’m at the point where I truly despise modern computers and operating systems. Currently I’m searching the web looking for Synapse’s Synfile+ for the Atari 8-bit line. And I’m so much happier using that (even via emulator) than using Windows or Linux.
Project Team:
I must applaud your goals & efforts in this developmental project. I encourage you to ignore many of these short sighted, distracting comments, some of which are quite trite. Reminds the Team, ‘Humans in space & walking on the moon??’, ‘Impossible!!, it was said. ‘Tis similar to anything else ‘impossible’, it just requires a bit more time & ingenuity.
Go for it & please do not be distracted for any reason. We need this!!
Maz
well i counld’t just tell you guys to quit or whatever,
but the problem we got here is not the making of the “all-compatible” os.
nobody needs one of those. if they need windows to play a game, they use windows.
if they need outlook to email a .doc file, they use windows.
if they need *nix to serve their network, they use *nix.
and so on.
if some want to defeat microsoft in less than a century, they most probably have to introduce
a fundamentally new approach to computing which will make all other os brands look
obsolete, do it quick, and dominate the world.
You can all suck me you geeks. I would love to hear from you personally about this matter. Please email me about this, i would really like to discuss this further with you all. looking forward to your response!
Everyone,
Dont let electrik get way with ridiculous posts. Let us all spam with letter bombs. I have started, but be effective, i need help!