The developers of the SkyOS project sat down with TechIMO to answer a few questions about the promising alternative operating system.
Interview with the SkyOS Developers
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
<quote>We also intend to make a free version of SkyOS 5.0 available, though we are not exactly sure on what form it will take.</quote>
So it’s a commercial OS now.
Does anyone still have a large screenshot of what the WindUI originally looked like in the SkyOS GUI competition?
Or a link to the website if it is still available.
I would like to see what goal they are trying to achieve in the UI.
So it’s a commercial OS now.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that as long as they keep their APIs open (and charge reasonable prices). I’m not sure, were they implying that they were open source?
OSS may have superior manpower, knowledge, intellect and bug finding ability, but sometimes lacks the focus to get this far in usability terms. There are notable exceptions, the just released FireFox 0.8 is bloody great!
Well they use OpenBFS. When you say BeOS do you mean OpenBeOS? Surely the original BeOS code is locked away in Palm somewhere.
So it’s a commercial OS now.
Wasn’t it since the beginning? Even so, that’s not crime on that. One can do whatever he wishes with the product of his own work, that’s what “free as in freedom” is all about. If he believes his product is good enough to make people pay for it, good for him! Personally I think 30 bucks is a quite fair price, considering the amount of work and dedication they’re putting on it.
It has always been described as simply a hobby OS.
I do agree though there’s nothing wrong with, it’s just that with so much cloak & dagger stuff surrounding this OS I felt it was worth clarifying one of the things people have been discussing for some time.
<quote>Wasn’t it from the beginning</quote>
Simple answer No.
You could have quoted:
> The $30 fee is actually the same price as retail price of the SkyOS 5.0 Final release.
This is more clear than the “also a free version” stuff.
I think perhaps your correct
It’s fine to make a commercial OS. The real question is : who in his right mind will spend his personnal time coding applications and drivers for an operating system that so few peoples will own ?
It sure didn’t work for BeOS. Linux gained momentum because it is free (as in beer, so anyone try it) and free (as in speech, : the author cannot kill it and pull the rug below application coders feet)
who in his right mind will spend his personnal time coding applications and drivers for an operating system that so few peoples will own?
Someone who wants to learn how an OS *works*, someone interested in development, someone wanting a challenge, as a hobby…..these are all characteristics of the author of SkyOS. Just because he doesn’t want to open source the inner workings of his OS doesn’t mean theres no reason to work on it!
I don’t understand this whole thing of having to open source everything. If the author decides to stop making his hobby OS in the future then so be it – thats his freedom, thats his choice.
SkyOS’s sources used to be available under the GPL. Does anyone still have a copy of them?
The Skyos people have been completely transparent from the beginning about the origins of their OS and its applications.
Its time to stop trolling and either enjoy the operate system or be quiet.
– Microsoft Fan
I guess…
For an OS to be useful for me, it has to be more than just pretty.
It has to have apps I want to use.
Honestly, I’d be VERY happy with a fast and clean OS that would run Windows Apps.
If that were possible, there’d be no need to reinvent the wheel and port apps over.
I’d love to see one of these alternative OS’s port WINE as a major feature.
Then I could use Microsoft Office (which I already Own), Quicken (Ditto) and other apps.
Then, there’d be less pressure to develop native apps and they could be developed at leisure.
Under WINE, one could even use the Windows version of Open Office, or other WordProcessors.
Not to mention (in this time of year), Tax Software.
I want an OS to run apps.
It’s good news they are working on ports of some O.S. apps. Great news.
I’ll probably buy this, even if I don’t use it. Just to support the idea of choice and having alternative OS’es available.
$30.00 isn’t much to ask.
<quote>Does anyone still have a copy of them?</quote>
I do.
Great interview! I really like what they dun with the GUI as well. I just hope this OS runs on my computer with no issues.
–Idoxash
http://www.nathanpalmer.com/skyos/contest_entry_images/wind_ui.jpg
Biggest I could find, there is one in “fullsize” somewhere but I don’t know where, I can’t put it back up on my server cause it’ll instantly die again then.
Ill be glad when breadbox releases geos 32bit.
From what i understand skyos is ok but it is as slow
as windows 95.
I use windows 98se cause it does everything i need.
its stable
easy to use an install
I will only try skyos if it can do java.
I love my instant messangers.
I tried linux a few times it was ok.
I tried beos but it i had video card
problem.
Im not gonna an get a video card just to run
a certain os.
Since windows meets my needs an does everything i want
it to do.
B30S rules, d00d! <sigh>
SkyOS only uses OpenBeOS’ BFS, not Palm’s BeOS source code. If they had that and were actually using it, they would be _much_ further along than they are.
They have the same Chicken and nEgg situation that BeOS did; why develop when there are no users and why use when there are no programs. Well if everyone felt this way then we will never get Microsoft Windows off of the majority list.
$30 is a reasonable price, as long as you are aware that it probably isn’t going to do everything that you want an OS to do, and that it is still under development. Too many people want their software for free, without compensating the programmers who put their valuable time into such projects.
$30 is a reasonable price, as long as you are aware that it probably isn’t going to do everything that you want an OS to do, and that it is still under development.
I don’t get it.
If I want to pay for an OS, I can just go out and buy Windows XP – it does the work.
If I want to fool around with a hobby OS that doesn’t do anything really useful, there are plenty of free ones to choose from already, that also come with their source code (which will let me tinker with the inner working, as well as garantee me that the developpers cannot kill it even if they want to)
Those who know me know I’m far from being a Linux zealot, but I’ve been on a Linux only PC for months now, and I don’t intend to use Windows again as long as the OSS crowd keeps up the great work.
I’ve been following SkyOS closely for some time now. Back when i tried it (SkyOS 3.7) it wasn’t very useable, but from the screenshots I’ve seen lately, it seems to have come a very long way. Like many, I am still reluctant to try SkyOS, but once it is released, and if it’s usable, I will have no problem paying $30. Robert is doing an amazing job, and there are new developers porting apps (such as GAIM, and Abiword) which are coming along nicely. I’m sure people were spreading this FUD (some still do) years ago)…let’s quit with the stupid trolling and concentrate on making USEFUL comments.
“$30 is a reasonable price, as long as you are aware that it probably isn’t going to do everything that you want an OS to do, and that it is still under development.”
So why is $30 a reasonable price? You’ve just given two reasons why it’s not. Seems to me that it’s not really worth anything if it doesn’t come with source and it can’t do any tasks particularly well.
-Erwos
Good to see they expressed their intention of obeying the GPL, an issue which bothered a lot of people. However, I won’t approve of what they are doing until the entire codebase is GPL or compatible. Proprietary software can be seen as a crime against society, and in this day and age when we have Free Software through a number of licenses, not just the GPL, it’s bizarre for a team to pick a different philosophy. I don’t know what they’re thinking.
So why is $30 a reasonable price? You’ve just given two reasons why it’s not. Seems to me that it’s not really worth anything if it doesn’t come with source and it can’t do any tasks particularly well.
A) Because you probably spend more than $30 on beer in a week.
B) Because I’m sure you don’t go seriously tinkering with the source code of *all* your applications.
The whole “If it doesn’t have source code it’s useless to me” argument is the worst one I’ve ever seen. I’d much rather have something work than have the source code. Source code for most is a last resort, and kernel source even more so. How many linux uses have actually bothered to touch the linux kernel source do you figure?
“”I don’t know what they’re thinking.””
Strange. If you’d read the article Robert and the others EXPLAIN their thinking on this issue.
“”Proprietary software can be seen as a crime against society””
Only by morons. It’s their effort that has gone into producing this code, and they can license any way they damn well please. Society has no more automatic right to their code than it does to my chilli recipe.
i lvoe skyos!!!!
There is no GPL code in the kernel. The only GPL code used with SkyOS is in some of the included applications. There is also some BSD code for some of the drivers.
I’m guessing that Robert has arranged matters so that porting POSIX compliant code is not a great strain (I say this based on how brief a time it took to port Bochs and some other apps). At a guess quite a bit of the SkyOS userland will be ported POSIX-compliant OSS applications and since they’ve made a statement indicating they are going to comply to the original licenses there’s no problem with that.
Remember that Linux has always leveraged GPL/POSIX applications in exactly this fashion for the Linux userland. The vast majority of any Linux distribution is made up of POSIX compliant code under a variety of OSS licenses (Mostly GPL). The actual kernel represents a tiny fraction of the code in a Linux distribution, and although applications need to be aware of certain OS/architecture specific details (Which is why they must usually be ported, not just recompiled) most of the code in them can run on any POSIX compliant system without alteration.
Of course that brings up the interesting thought of where Linux would be if GNU had never existed. Using the BSD userland?
I’m getting sick of this.
I think Robert has the full right to keep HIS project closed, and even if he charges a million bucks per copy, he has to full right to do so. If you don’t agree with the 30$, well fine, don’t buy it! I don’t see the problem here.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with open-source, it’s just that it ain’t the solution to everything. Whether you like it or not, Linux being open source and all had bad results as well– the jungle of ditributions is really stopping people from diving into Linux. Which is a shame, because more diversitiy on the OS market would really improve competition. And, as we all know, everyone benefits from competition (prices go down, quality improves).
But back to topic. SkyOS is really making huge leaps forward, and other projects can only dream about the progress the SkyOS team has made in the last couple of months. Instead of whining about the ****** GPL, start showing some respect for what these guys are doing.
I couldn’t have put it better myself. I’m a Linux lover but you don’t see me bashing every other project but Linux, do you? (well maybe Microsoft a little).
To the SkyOS folks, don’t listen to the trolls!
@Hexydes:
There is no GPL code in the kernel. The only GPL code used with SkyOS is in some of the included applications. There is also some BSD code for some of the drivers.
Actually, that’s still up for debate. A few months ago some drivers were being used in SkyOS that were GPL. The argument was that they’re dynamically linked, etc, not really part of the kernel. But the GPL says that doesn’t matter.
Additionally, there are some disturbing similarities between several SkyOS kernel functions and older Linux kernels. Only time will tell, but I and many others are suspicious of how a relatively unknown OS could gain so much robust and mature functionality in such a short amount of time. It is highly unusual.
“Only time will tell, but I and many others are suspicious of how a relatively unknown OS could gain so much robust and mature functionality in such a short amount of time. It is highly unusual.”
A *very large and deep sigh….* Since when does “unusual” mean “impossible”?
Seems to me you guys are just plain jealous. Period.
who in his right mind will spend his personnal time coding applications and drivers for an operating system that so few peoples will own?
One could have said that to Linus 10 years ago…tx god no one did
“Only time will tell, but I and many others are suspicious of how a relatively unknown OS could gain so much robust and mature functionality in such a short amount of time. It is highly unusual.”
Funny, isn’t that what Darl McBride is saying about Linux as one of his reasons why he thinks Linux uses UNIX code?
Yep i agree not to mention this kids still at school if it is really a 1 man project it’s perfectly reasonable to say where did he find the time?
Why are people referring to this as trolling, what on earth do they imagine people have against this project?
Trolling comes from an emotional attachment to something, I doubt very much anyone is that attached to Skyos yet, nor does anyone find it a threat to their current OS, so imo the trolling arguement is completly unfounded.
As Shawn said there were issues a while back, people didn’t invent these suspicions they are born of an initial dishonesty(hmm I don’t really like that word lets refer to it as ignorance), the fact is this is what set the ball rolling.
BTW If this OS is to be commercial why aren’t the new coders going to be paid? doesn’t seem fair to me.
“There is no GPL code in the kernel. The only GPL code used with SkyOS is in some of the included applications. There is also some BSD code for some of the drivers.
How much of it does SCO own? he he sorry couldn’t resist.
SkyOS has massive potential personally controlling the core code base is just plain smart. We don’t need another forked codebase OS.
Not sure which side your fighting for here that statement could be interpreted different but equally usefully by both sides imo.
I find it about unmature that a lot of you guys wish SkyOS was open source and now you all going nutz about saying it has code work in it from LINUX. I mean come on I guess you all going to pertend to be SCO now huh? Get over your selfs, get back to your LINUX, stop trying to find all the bad issues with SkyOS because you all are mad it’s closed source and not open. To be perfectly honest if it was open source I would not even use it. It would be a bloated mess like LINUX and a few other projects are today. What’s really messed up is you guys spend more time trying to pick apart some poor guy’s close source OS that he is trying to build and make a lill money off instead of Windows.
–Idoxash
One could have said that to Linus 10 years ago…tx god no one did
Yep, but Linux was open-source, which mean even if the OS developpers stopped any work, you could still count on having the OS around, and you could get someone else to work on it. Open source means that the software cannot be killed – and that what you build on top of it will still run tomorrow.
Proprietary OS are differents. Those who have invested in OS/2 applications and drivers have lost a lot of time and money. You don’t want to bet “on the wrong horse” – if the OS you develop for goes belly up, and it’s source isn’t opened, then your work is gona die along with the OS.
I admire the work done on SkyOS, but most peoples need a good reason to spend $30 other than “because it was a lot of work”. Can I do some real work done ? Can I play with the source ? What can I do with it beside boot it ?
Betcour: You don’t want to bet “on the wrong horse” – if the OS you develop for goes belly up, and it’s source isn’t opened, then your work is gona die along with the OS.
Not really… If the programs you write are cross platform (or even “somewhat” that way) then you don’t need to worry about it.
http://www.nathanpalmer.com/skyos/contest_entry_images/wind_ui.jpg
Biggest I could find, there is one in “fullsize” somewhere but I don’t know where, I can’t put it back up on my server cause it’ll instantly die again then.
I already had the smaller version, but thanks anyway.
I wonder why the larger version is no longer on the nathanpalmer website. I made a search for it and all I get is skybox.
@Hexydes: Was Nathans servers getting hammered or something because of one image?
Assuming that SkyOS is operational, relatively bug-free, is compatible with my hardware, and is bundled with unique and original software I’d say $30 is worth it.
But I wouldn’t pay $30 for some Linux wannabe that runs the exact same apps and desktops as every other Linux/Solaris/Unix OS.
-Bob
Right… Like all those incompatible forks of Linux. And KDE. And GNOME. And XFree86. And GTK+. And Qt…
I have no problem with the SkyOS people keeping the source closed. That’s their choice. But the “incompatible forks” argument is just plain dumb.
Right… Like all those incompatible forks of Linux. And KDE. And GNOME. And XFree86. And GTK+. And Qt…
I have no problem with the SkyOS people keeping the source closed. That’s their choice. But the “incompatible forks” argument is just plain dumb.
Trying looking at a RedHat distro. When making BlueCurve, they modified Qt, making it not fully compatible. A lot of things don’t work if you use the original BlueCurve modified version of Qt. RedHat KDE is still not fully compatible. Try this:
Install Mandrake 9.2
Install RedHat Enterprise Linux 3
Share your home directory between the two
Login into Mandrake using KDE, then log out
Login into RedHat using KDE, then log out
Login into Mandrake using KDE
When you go back to Mandrake, the kicker will be messed up. Most things will be missing, and others will be out of place.
Lets not forget every distro has its own filesystem layout. Or that a binary compiled on one distro isn’t likely to work on another.
Linux developers are generally only concerned with compatibility on a source level. While that’s nice for developers, it’s terrible for end users. End users care much more for binary compatibility.
Actually, that’s still up for debate. A few months ago some drivers were being used in SkyOS that were GPL. The argument was that they’re dynamically linked, etc, not really part of the kernel. But the GPL says that doesn’t matter.
Any drivers that worked in this way have been removed. Robert was not aware that using drivers in this way would have this effect. Since we figured this out, any drivers that were used in this way before have either been re-written from scratch or used from other places, such as BSD.
Additionally, there are some disturbing similarities between several SkyOS kernel functions and older Linux kernels. Only time will tell, but I and many others are suspicious of how a relatively unknown OS could gain so much robust and mature functionality in such a short amount of time. It is highly unusual.
And this is what, evidence?
Yep i agree not to mention this kids still at school if it is really a 1 man project it’s perfectly reasonable to say where did he find the time?
Why are people referring to this as trolling, what on earth do they imagine people have against this project?
If you are asking that literally, such as if you were amazed that someone could find the time to do that, then there would be no problem. The problem is, there are accusations (false ones at that) that SkyOS’s core parts are violating the GPL. This is simply not true.
BTW If this OS is to be commercial why aren’t the new coders going to be paid? doesn’t seem fair to me.
What are we going to pay them with? Its not like we are currently making any money from SkyOS. The little money that we have acquired from beta sales and 4.0 sales has currently gone into buying necessary hardware, paying for bandwidth, and saving some money up so that we can make copies of 5.0 when we are ready to release. Total amount of profit for the SkyOS developers at this point: $0.
Eventually, if SkyOS becomes commercially viable, we will of course be paying our software developers. And who do you think we will turn to when we need developers? My guess would be those who are currently on the team developing. So not only do the software devs on the team get access to the OS before everyone, as well as direct access to Robert for help and feature requests for development purposes, but they will also be the first ones we turn to when we are ready to start hiring people to develop for SkyOS.
I admire the work done on SkyOS, but most peoples need a good reason to spend $30 other than “because it was a lot of work”. Can I do some real work done ? Can I play with the source ? What can I do with it beside boot it ?
Everything has to start somewhere. Can SkyOS compete with Windows currently? On some levels yes, but in general, no. When we release 5.0, we will be a lot closer to that becoming a reality. With every release after that, it will be even closer. So you are basically saying by that statement that since we can’t instantly be at a point that has taken Microsoft 25 years to get to, we might as well fold up and just go home.
@Hexydes: Was Nathans servers getting hammered or something because of one image?
Not really, its just that the contest ended months ago. We probably have it somewhere, but its not really all that important. We took that design, and implemented it as best we could. We received feedback and changed the design. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Where we’re at now is the same genreal layout that WindUI had in the contest, but with both the practicality that we could give it, and the requests that the community made to us on how they wished it would evolve.
I’m a college student who’s been fascinated by alternative operating systems. I think that, compared to the price of other OSes on the market, that $30 is more than reasonable.
@Hexydes:
“And this is what, evidence?”
I will be speaking with Robert soon, I’ve already been in contact with legal counsel for the FSF and one of the Linux Kernel hackers. If I knew beyond a doubt I would spouting it everywhere and trying to start a flame campaign. But, I want to give the SkyOS developers a chance to explain some things and the last thing I want is a bunch of people spamming them repeatedly about violating the GPL, even though as you mentioned that was at one time valid.
My interest at heart is to ensure that the issue is resolved either by the removal of, or replacement of the code in question. Failing that, the release of the code under the appropriate license.
Note, this is why I never said in my above message that SkyOS was indeed violating the GPL currently, I merely said that I had suspicions and that I knew they had in the past which you admitted regarding the driver situation which I trust has been fully rectified.
Now as far as other violations, those *suspicions* and the “evidence” I have so far have been enough that the legal counsel for the FSF and the Linux kernel hacker have both encouraged me to research the issue in greater detail. I am continuing to do this, and when I have something well thought, substantiated, and researched I intend to approach Robert. In the meantime, until I can 100% accurately confirm my belief one way or another, I must remain “cautiously optimistic” and “suspicious” about SkyOS’ progress.
Thanks.
So exactly what code do you think it is we are using? And from which version of SkyOS are you basing this “evidence” on?
You’ve said over and over that you have evidence that we’re violating the GPL. Why not let everyone know what evidence you have? Obviously you think the FSF telling you to go and do more research is proof-positive that you’re on the right track, so why don’t you share what it is you think we’re violating, rather than constantly saying that you “have some evidence” and you will be “talking to Robert soon”? If you’re so confident, why don’t you just say what it is? If you were really interested in trying to solve GPL issues, that is what you would be doing, rather than secretly trying to build a campaign against us.
@Hexydes:
“So exactly what code do you think it is we are using? And from which version of SkyOS are you basing this “evidence” on?”
These questions will be answered once I have verified them independently with appropriate developers.
Obviously you think the FSF telling you to go and do more research is proof-positive that you’re on the right track, so why don’t you share what it is you think we’re violating, rather than constantly saying that you “have some evidence” and you will be “talking to Robert soon”?
I will when the time is right and it has been thoroughly researched. Obviously I don’t want to spread specific technical misinformation everywhere until I’m rather confident that there is a problem.
“If you’re so confident, why don’t you just say what it is? If you were really interested in trying to solve GPL issues, that is what you would be doing, rather than secretly trying to build a campaign against us.”
If I were secretly trying to build a campaign against you then I have failed. As I have stated I am “cautiously optimistic” and “suspicious” at this point. Until I get a sign-off from someone that is more knowledgeable than I to validate my findings, I refuse at this point to say that SkyOS is. I will merely maintain my lack of confidence.
I will also very plainly state that at this time that: I believe that if SkyOS is violating the GPL, it is out of ignorance and NOT intentional disregard as that does not fit with Robert’s public image so far.
Nonetheless, I am left uneasy and I have the right to express that opinion.
@Hexydes:
Obviously you think the FSF telling you to go and do more research is proof-positive that you’re on the right track, so why don’t you share what it is you think we’re violating, rather than constantly saying that you “have some evidence” and you will be “talking to Robert soon”?
You want me to be “open” with my findings, yet SkyOS which was once open itself, is no longer. If SkyOS had remained open there wouldn’t be an issue at all since it would be obvious for any coder to see that SkyOS was not violating any license. I think many people feel betrayed by the fact that SkyOS was once open and is now closed. Additionally, many people are understandably suspicious because it seems way too convenient that SkyOS would advance to almost a 2.0.x Linux level in a mere two years or so. Highly unusual for any project.
I will be more than happy once this is all over and my findings have been verified and the matter has been resolved with Robert (if necessary) to proclaim everywhere anytime someone accuses SkyOS of violations in the future to state that based upon extensive research, conversations with the SkyOS developers, etc. that it is unlikely and that they should contact the SkyOS developers directly for further discussoin. But not until I know for certain.
“I think many people feel betrayed by the fact that SkyOS was once open and is now closed. Additionally, many people are understandably suspicious because it seems way too convenient that SkyOS would advance to almost a 2.0.x Linux level in a mere two years or so. Highly unusual for any project.”
Explain how people would feel betrayed. Does Robert owe the source code that he wrote to you? Does he have some sort of an obligation to give you the source code that he wrote?
I find the fact that you think our level of production “highly unusual” complimentary. Robert is a prolific coder. Its not unusual for him to literally spend 8 hours a day coding. Even on the weekends. And SkyOS did not appear 2 years ago. SkyOS has been in development since 1997.
Once again, you refuse to present your evidence. So you don’t want to make your “evidence” public on OSNews.com. Send it to me at [email protected]. I would be interested in seeing what you think it is we are doing that is violating the GPL.
“Nonetheless, I am left uneasy and I have the right to express that opinion.”
Yes, but making false claims to the detriment of someone else’s public perception is libel.
“You want me to be “open” with my findings, yet SkyOS which was once open itself, is no longer.
I’m sorry, but again, you didn’t have anything to do with SkyOS, so our decision to keep it open or closed is irrelevant to the situation. You, on the other hand, are insinuating that we are violating a license. The burden of proof is on you. You have now stated a number of times in this thread alone that you have evidence, and yet you present nothing. Unless you make public your “evidence” or send me an e-mail showing otherwise, I’m going to assume that that is exactly what you have: nothing.
“Obviously I don’t want to spread specific technical misinformation everywhere until I’m rather confident that there is a problem.”
Either present your evidence or drop it. You do more damage to SkyOS by saying “SkyOS is violating the GPL and I am going to release evidence soon that proves it.” than you would be giving your evidence and being wrong. If you give your evidence in the public and we can correct you, then we have an open forum to show that we truly are not guilty of what you are accusing us of.
At the very least, don’t go into threads claiming evidence that we are doing something and then refuse to provide the evidence. If you think you have evidence, and you refuse to give it publicly or send it to us privately, then what purpose can going into threads saying what you are saying have other than to hurt our public reputation that we work so hard to maintain?
Since 1997, when if ever was SkyOS ever GPL?
Trying looking at a RedHat distro. When making BlueCurve, they modified Qt, making it not fully compatible.
———-
That was a bug, not a feature. They didn’t do that on purpose, and fixed it later. The same thing could happen in a closed-source OS, by introducing library version 3.3.1 that breaks binary-compatibility with 3.3.0 accidentally.
Lets not forget every distro has its own filesystem layout.
———-
That has nothing to do with the fact that the code is open source, and everything to do with the fact that Linux is composed of many seperate, independently-developed components. An open-source OS (eg: Darwin) that had a central development authority does not have this problem, and a closed-source OS that consisted of seperately-developed components could easily have this problem.
Or that a binary compiled on one distro isn’t likely to work on another.
———–
Again, that has nothing to do with forking of the code, and everything to do with the fact that different distros use different library versions. If distro A includes libfoo.so.1.2 and distro B includes libfoo.so.1.3, they could be incompatible, regardless of whether libfoo.so is open source or closed source.
While that’s nice for developers, it’s terrible for end users. End users care much more for binary compatibility.
———–
Your logic is fuzzy. Code forking can cause binary compatibility issues. Lack of central organization can cause binary compatibility issues. The SkyOS developers’ comments about OSS concern the former, while on Linux the problem is the latter.
All the examples you gave are issues related to lack of central control, which is not a problem if there is an authority of central control, and not the alleged tendency of OSS code to have incompatible forks!
“Explain how people would feel betrayed. Does Robert owe the source code that he wrote to you? Does he have some sort of an obligation to give you the source code that he wrote? ”
It really depends on your social consciousness. In many societies in various points in space and time, the answer would be that he would, without question. For whom do you live your life, that is the question.
“I have no problem with the SkyOS people keeping the source closed. That’s their choice. But the “incompatible forks” argument is just plain dumb.
I never said anything about “incompatible forks” Compatible or otherwise having 50 versions of the same OS that do things marginally different only serves to counfuse and confound the buying public i.e. Linux.
On that note…Riddle me this batman! if all the effort that has been put of creating all the hundreds of different linux distros was concentrated on one singular Linux OS where would Linux be today?
If i were half as good at coding as I am at System Administration i would be more apt to contribute code to SkyOS then to Linux. At least the SkyOS people have focused development and work toward an obtainable goal. I feel this will ensure their sucess and progress at a rapid pace.
I agree, those 100 linux distro suck…freebsd seems better to me
Just sit down, think and code, instead of talking here and you will see that it is possible.
LOL no more SCO jokes!!!!!!!!!
@Robert: i fully believe in your capabilities as a coder. Don’t listen to the trolls and keep working. Once I know SkyOS is usable enough for me i’ll gladly pay the $30 (or more).
@Shawn: you keep on insinuating you’re not trying to hurt the project, but if that were the case, wouldn’t you want to keep your comments to yourself until you have your proof? Is Shawn an alias for Darl McBride? </sco_joke>
He probably think because SkyOS has a usable GUI with 2D acceleration, that Robert must have copied from somewhere.
The thing is this OS began in 1997 as we have been told, that is plenty of time to build the guts of the system.
A lot of the recent work has been about the GUI and it’s API’s.
I don’t see the problem with the speed of development. If I am correct Robert borrowed from BSD, OpenBFS.
Robert please call your Networking stack, “SkyNET” as in terminator.
Also about your media player product please make it vertically thinner, and make it to be able to stick to the edges of the screen, eg. bottom right corner.
Keep it up. I think you’re doing a good job, and unless I have clear evidence either way, I’m staying out of the (source code) flamewars.
One question though – the source code of the much, much earlier 16-bit SkyOS used to be freely available. I’m interested in getting ahold of it, much for the same reason that I was interested in getting ahold of the Unix 6th Edition source code – purely archeological reasons!
Wesley Parish