Following features are supported in the upcoming SkyOS 4 version:
Multiple UHCI controllers, common HCD driver, USB Driver and interface, USB HUB Class driver and Mass storage class driver. So you can use you USB harddisks/floppy/cdrom/card-readers or digital cameras already. The USB/UHCI driver supports all transfer types (Interrupt, Control, Bulk, ISO). Additionally, the USB system is intergrated into SkyOS. Just plug your device into your USB Hub’s, it will be detected and initialized automatically.
SkyOS USB Support Improved
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
SkyOS is an amazing piece of work. It would be interesting if the author were to open it up a little bit more – it would really go somewhere.
CHarlie: I agree with you.
Looking at the screenshots, I think some improvements in UI can be made: 1) make the shadow of the buttons the correct way, thus not only the upper side but also the left side, 2) display the texts in the menus 1 or 2 pixels more above, and 3) display the text in edit and dropdown fields 1 or 2 pixels more below.
And for opening up it a bit, in each case he could publish the source code under a license that allows changing the source code, if the changed version is spread to no other persons than himself, so that he can audit each patch that would be applied to the project.
I never cease to be amazed at just how much Robert Szeleney has managed to achieve with SkyOS. It’s a stunning project, especially when you consider just how much effort must have gone into bringing it this far. Documentation is also very good (Eugenia’s UI suggestion is even in there :>).
I hope SkyOS keeps on pushing itself forward.
I agree with everyone here; SkyOS is a truly amazing piece of work. So is Syllable, for that matter .. I was stunned when I loaded Syllable onto this modern machine (nForce2, AMD Athlon XP, ATI Radeon 9700) and -everything- worked (albeit no hardware accelerated 2D). It’s quite an accomplishment that both of these projects support as much hardware as they do.
PS: Please support the newer Radeon card if at all possible =)
From the bits and pieces I know of SkyOS, it is “freeware” with some parts GPL’d. Do you know of any parts that are outright closed?
SkyOS appears to evolve faster than any other OS out there. I’m constantly amazed. I am going to try it one of these days.
Maybe some think that open sourced the code better for SkyOS. Honestly I that is his right whether he want to keep it closed or open it. Why there are still people keep on request him to open the source? If they think they can improve SkyOS, it might be wrong.
If these people is capable enough for sure they have already make Syllable completed and not only leave to Vander and friend. Or they should have produce a decent desktop system on top of Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD etc, supposedly better that SkyOS.
I think these people are just crap that think they can do something better than someone that already did a good job. The reality is that they are not capable and just making noise requesting for others to open source their project. These kind of guy just stained the Open Source community.
That’s *exactly* the question I ask myself everytimes there’s a progress report on SkyOS. I’m just totally blown away by that guy.
Wasn’t it the same with AtheOS?
Or even the reason why SCO is sueing IBM. “The Linux project could not have made it sofar without corparate help” // Just saying not implying that SCO is right or wrong.
And the basic stuff like kernel and drivers are a lot easier and kinda of generenic ( applies to all OS’s and can be almost copied and pasted )in any OS.
Its the realy cool stuff that makes OSX, Windows and GNU/Linux different from each other that is difficult as this needs creativity besides plain coding skills.
I think that the amazing progress made by SkyOS is, at least in part, the result of not being open.
The OS is the vision of one person. What he wants in is put in. He does not need to get the group to agree. The nearly unneeded features are left out. (network transparency in X for example)
There are not many coordination problems when you don’t have lots of people adding to your source code and potentially making changes you had not planned for.
There is one, clearly defined, integrated GUI. IMHO, this is an absolute must when developing an OS. Linux and BSD are constantly trying to overcome this.
The programmer is able to do a task to completion. Many OSS programmers have no need of a feature or even a GUI so they don’t write it.
Closed source, managed development may not be as much fun for the individual developers, but it does produce results.
IMHO, without a manager to control progress, MacOS, BeOS, AmigaOS and yes, even Windows would not have turned out as polished and desktop friendly as they have.
I’ve been hanging around the SkyOS boards for the last 6 months or so, and we’ve been talking a lot about UI changes. I started a thread calling for a GUI redesign contest, to which Robert and everyone else thought it was a good idea. People are working on designs with descriptions. Mine is the first one posted, and anyone who wants to see it just need to bop over to the forums on their website.
http://www.skyos.org
Ever see the movie “Multiplicity” with Micheal Keaton … I suspect there is an entire clone army Robert Szeleney’s working ’round the clock.
I think osnews should do an Interview with Robert. Everyone here is curious about how he achieves so much in his OS.
I wander over to website for his OS every now and then…all I can say is this guy has it. I think if Szeleney doesn’t want it Open, then that’s the way it should be. One scientist can do more than an army of magicians…
More power to ya…just let it remain free if you can
>I think osnews should do an Interview with Robert.
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=185
“Maybe some think that open sourced the code better for SkyOS. Honestly I that is his right whether he want to keep it closed or open it. Why there are still people keep on request him to open the source?”
Of course it’s his right to keep the source closed. However, that means that if the author falls off the face of the earth or gets tired of SkyOS and lets it go into neglect, no one else can pick up where he left off, and the users are left hanging. Contrast this with AtheOS and Syllable. If AtheOS were closed, Syllable would not even exist. In short, letting the source be open gives users some insurance against the loss or disinterest of the developer(s), and that is especially helpful for smaller, more obscure software projects.
“I think that the amazing progress made by SkyOS is, at least in part, the result of not being open.
“The OS is the vision of one person. What he wants in is put in. He does not need to get the group to agree. The nearly unneeded features are left out. . . .
“IMHO, without a manager to control progress, MacOS, BeOS, AmigaOS and yes, even Windows would not have turned out as polished and desktop friendly as they have.”
Management has more to do with it than the openness or closedness of the source. Just because the source is open does not mean that it’s a free-for-all where any developer can add code to the project. Linux doesn’t work that way, nor any open source project of significant size. There is always a leadership that vets code contributions.
The UI problems of Linux systems have little to do with the openness of the code and a lot more to do with the history of the evolution of Unix systems. Imagine if the Unix GUI wars had been solved by the OSF releasing Motif under the X license and distributing it with the reference implementation of X. Would we even be having this discussion?
And the basic stuff like kernel and drivers are a lot easier and kinda of generenic ( applies to all OS’s and can be almost copied and pasted )in any OS.
Please explain? How can a Mach device driver be copy and pasted into something like L4 (when both are microkernels), or into QNX (another micorkernel).
The hardest thing about OS Dev, besides the actual design of the operating environment, is finding all the docs for the hardware out there, and writing drivers to support that hardware, to fit into the mould of the operating environment.
Just remember, not everyone is writing a *nix clone…
Most likely he is studying existing code from Linux and adapting it for his own purposes. Which is a good thing.
“”And the basic stuff like kernel and drivers are a lot easier and kinda of generenic ( applies to all OS’s and can be almost copied and pasted )in any OS. “” – Smurf975
Have you ever tried writing OS code? There’s practically nothing generic whatsoever unless you go down the route of simply cloning someone else’s design. OS dev is damn hard work, cut and paste has nothing to do with it.
“”Most likely he is studying existing code from Linux and adapting it for his own purposes. Which is a good thing.
“” – Tim
I’m glad there’s a smiley because otherwise this would be one of the most cynical comments I’ve ever seen. “It’s pretty good therefore it must be copied” is on a par with SCO’s argument about the pace of Linux development meaning the Linux devs must have incorporated SCO’s Unix source.
Of course it’s his right to keep the source closed. However, that means that if the author falls off the face of the earth or gets tired of SkyOS and lets it go into neglect, no one else can pick up where he left off, and the users are left hanging. Contrast this with AtheOS and Syllable. If AtheOS were closed, Syllable would not even exist. In short, letting the source be open gives users some insurance against the loss or disinterest of the developer(s), and that is especially helpful for smaller, more obscure software projects.
If there are trully better programmer that think he can improve other’s work, the replacement will emerge if this os die. This project maybe just the result of his hobby, he didn’t claim to dominate the world.
The real problem is that when there are people that always claimed if it is open sourced, they can make it better. The real situation is that (from the various project) they themselve just abandoned it and did nothing or maybe fail to improve it.
> http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=185
That was in 2001. How about an updated one.
Well it’s not that hard to figure out. One person is a very efficient team. The whole decision making progress gets very steamline. In-fighting is much more rare. How to go about something is defined much more rapidly. One person can keap the design and vision in their head and go with out it without having to keap explaining it to others and then debating if it’s right or not.
Many things in the world are easiest done by one person. It may seam like many people could do it faster but thats simply not true. All the things above speed up projects masively. And when it becomes something very complex like an OS being a one man army makes things much better. Group effort is for things that take to being broken into chunks very well. Those projects are usualy simple things that just need brute force, like moving from one apartment to the next.
Those that don’t understand these things are the ones that are dependent on others to get stuff done. Those that do are the people who get stuff done.
“If there are trully better programmer that think he can improve other’s work, the replacement will emerge if this os die. This project maybe just the result of his hobby, he didn’t claim to dominate the world.”
You’ve managed to miss the point entirely. If the project’s Open Source and get abandoned, a fork can continue from where the former dev team left off (Syllable *is* a good example of this). If, on the other hand, the code remains locked-up, the whole thing would have to be re-written from scratch. This is a decided disadvantage from the point of view of the userbase.
“The real problem is that when there are people that always claimed if it is open sourced, they can make it better. The real situation is that (from the various project) they themselve just abandoned it and did nothing or maybe fail to improve it.”
You’re missing the point, again. There are other advantages besides “I can make it better” – how about the one above, for a start? Also, just because the code’s open sourced doesn’t mean that he’ll have to accept code contributions from *anyone* into Syllable. He’ll still retain control. Of course, if he doesn’t accept contributions, it’ll probably get forked. But there, again, nothing would have been lost from the point of view of the SkyOS project, since he wants to do everything on his own anyway.
No-one (apart from the trolls, but just ignore them) is saying he *must* open the SkyOS code. But there’s nothing wrong with advocating it, so long as the arguments are fairly presented.
Besides, in the interview above, the author himself admits that he closed-sourced it for purely selfish reasons. ” Until version 3.0, SkyOS was open source. But now, I don`t want SkyOS to be open source. I put so many work into this project, that I don`t want to give to source away.” He’s doing it purely because he simply doesn’t want to share. That is his right, of course, but arguing that he did it for technical reasons is a joke – Szeleney’s publicly admitted otherwise, himself.
Yeaaaah, I know the good side of Open Source and I myself love GPL but I’m tired of posting that always insist on others to open sourced their code. There are already a lot of open source project that everyone can contribute or improved. Syllable itself require good contributor but it seem rather than Vander, also Linux, *BSD, MenuetOS etc. This type of person (maybe you call them troll) always give the bad image on the open source supporter.
Regarding the SkyOS author, it his right to do what ever he like to his OS. If we think his OS is good why can’t we improve other OS that already open sourced such as Linux etc so that it is at par with his OS.
“Regarding the SkyOS author, it his right to do what ever he like to his OS.”
Yes, you keep re-stating this again and again. I don’t think anyone’s seriously debating with you on this point. I’m certainly not – I explicitly stated more than once that I agree, in my last post.
“If we think his OS is good why can’t we improve other OS that already open sourced such as Linux etc so that it is at par with his OS.”
LOL!
Whilst SkyOS is an impressive project, especially for a one-man effort, suggesting that Linux et al should be playing catch-up is a joke. Let’s not go overboard here.
Besides, if the author genuinely wanted people to incorporate his ideas into other projects, he wouldn’t be keeping the source closed. As Szeleney so eloquently (or not) puts it, “I don`t want to give to source away.” This is a real stumbling block to development. It’s much easier to incorporate and build upon good ideas if there’s a reference implementation available, working code which developers can freely examine and re-use. In the case of SkyOS, this is clearly not the case. Yet again, I state that I do not question that Szeleney has every right to do this, I merely point out that from this particular perspective, it’s a real pity.
Why LOL? Because you think SkyOS if more advanced? Not for me. It maybe good in term of desktop usage concept but this is nothing new since Mac and Windows already implement this.Linux is far advance but it lack of in this area (for some).
And I keep on reiterate it because you seem didn’t understand what I mean. And do you think you are the only one who love open source? And the other are just dumb ass?
“Why LOL? Because you think SkyOS if more advanced?”
You’re obviously not even reading my posts. Here’s a juicy snippet for you:
“Whilst SkyOS is an impressive project, especially for a one-man effort, suggesting that Linux et al should be playing catch-up is a joke.”
So no… as would have been obvious if you’d bothered to read what I wrote, I laughed aloud at your suggestion that “we improve other OS that already open sourced such as Linux etc so that it is at par with his OS” – your exact words. Which you now agree was a ridiculous idea.
“And I keep on reiterate it because you seem didn’t understand what I mean.”
Really? Okay, let’s go over this again.
You said: “Regarding the SkyOS author, it his right to do what ever he like to his OS.” I said: “Yet again, I state that I do not question that Szeleney has every right to do this, I merely point out that from this particular perspective, it’s a real pity.” Note the words “yet again” – i.e. I had already said this several times, and yet you missed it. How have I misunderstood what you meant? I’m in agreement with you!
“And do you think you are the only one who love open source? And the other are just dumb ass?”
No… don’t put words into my mouth. This isn’t an “I love open source more than you!” pissing contest. I don’t love open source unconditionally; I am merely endeavouring to explain to you the some *technical* advantages inherent in the open approach, quite apart from the whole Freedom aspect. In response, you keep harping on about the rights of the author (again, I *agree* with you on this point!) like a stuck record, rather than engaging in a productive and fruitful discussion.
Idiot.
just stop bickering about an OS which neither of you have any rights to… let the author do whatever he wants(as you seam to agree is his right), but let him do it without your constant “sign waving” as trying to pressure someone into switching to an open source license is just a waste of time, especially when you already have a decent OS that is open sourced(GNU/Linux)
“just stop bickering about an OS which neither of you have any rights to…”
Hehe… Why should we do that? It’s fun. 😉
“let the author do whatever he wants(as you seam to agree is his right)”
Agreed on both counts. 🙂
“do it without your constant “sign waving” as trying to pressure someone into switching to an open source license is just a waste of time”
I’m personally (I can’t speak for anyone else) not trying to persuade the author into doing anything that he doesn’t want to do. Discussing the pros and cons of an open source approach, using the real-world example of a given project (SkyOS in this case) to illustrate the points made, does not amount to a pressure campaign. It just makes for an interesting discussion (or at least, I found it so, which is why I posted in the first place). Had I posted “OI! SZELENEY! OPEN SOURCE SKYOS *NOW*! FREEEEEEEEEEEDOM! WHO’S WITH ME?” I think you’d have much more of a case… 😀 But I didn’t, and I never would.
He said you can get the souce, you just got to ask him for it. He did not want to plaster it on the main page, but if you send him an email,you probably could get it.
Hi,
Please could you point out to me exactly where this is said on the SkyOS web site? It’s perfectly possible that I’m simply overlooking it, but try as I might, I can’t find mention of this anywhere on http://www.skyos.org/.
I note that some source is allegedly distributed in the SDK (http://skyos.org/developer/developer.php) but the download link is broken.
Besides, unless he’s clarified the licensing terms, the code will come “All rights reserved” under standard copyright law. This essentially means that he could claim legal rights to any and all derivative works, so someone would have to be foolish indeed to use the code in any project other than SkyOS itself. Even then, if they’re submitting a major contribution, they might not be happy relinquishing such a large degree of control.
But yes, I suppose it’s better than not having any access to the source at all.