Anyone have any experience with SkyOS?

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: OffTopic

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: OffTopic

No experience with SkyOS, however I like to know more. Is there a hardware compatible list available?

It look to me like another *nix variant like QNX/BEOS that isn't going to go much beyond beta.

I don't know about QNX, but BeOS wasn't a *nix variant. It was a brand new from the ground up OS based on nothing but itself. It had a Posix compliant shell, but you could probably write one of those for Windows, so that doesn't make it *nix.

Joe

Sorry to call it *nix...just grouping everyone under one umbrella (DOS/Windows was based off Unix too, BeOS file system was based of Unix, and QNX has the most elegant microkernel there is). I loved BeOS/QNX, and was hopping one of them become a viable alternative to Windows, because IMHO, it would be a better for me to migrate from Amiga.

I remembered running QNX off a single floppy with GUI, browser & text editor.

Get a new amiga.

 

[Nothinman]

It didn't work? Plenty of institutions still rely on OS/2. It didn't make IBM as much money as they had hoped, but that doesn't mean it "didn't work."

Sure it didn't work, originally the plan was to use OS/2 as the 32-bit replacement for Windows in cooperation with MS. The fact that none of that happened and they just got luck and sold a few hundred units tells me that it didn't work.

BSD was quite available. If it wasn't for that stupid lawsuit, Linux might have been working on BSD instead.

Which is exactly why I mentioned that both minix and BSD had licensing issues at the time, otherwise Linus wouldn't have had a reason to start his own OS.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

It didn't work? Plenty of institutions still rely on OS/2. It didn't make IBM as much money as they had hoped, but that doesn't mean it "didn't work."

Sure it didn't work, originally the plan was to use OS/2 as the 32-bit replacement for Windows in cooperation with MS. The fact that none of that happened and they just got luck and sold a few hundred units tells me that it didn't work.

It could still be going strong right now if they let it.

 

[Nothinman]

Going about as strong as the Amiga maybe...

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Going about as strong as the Amiga maybe...

Nah, there are probably still some financial institutions out there running OS/2. They won't change if they don't have to.

And amiga has been reborn.

 

[Nothinman]

A lot of them still use DOS too, does that mean DOS is "going strong"?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
A lot of them still use DOS too, does that mean DOS is "going strong"?

It could be, if it was still updated.

 

[Childs]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
If it didn't work for IBM when Windows wasn't nearly as ingrained in society as it is now, what makes you think these guys can do it?

I dont thnk the Sky OS team is having MS write it for them, so its hardly the same thing. At any one point in OS history there was some OS that was considered the standard. Well, no company stays on top forever. If the SkyOS team wants to try then more power to them. maybe they'll learn something, maybe they'll be sucessful, who knows, but if you don't try you'll never know.

I guess I'm getting old, I'd rather not sit around reinventing the wheel every few years.

It doesn't have to equate to reinventing the wheel, but you can make a improvements to any given system. Who knows what type of OS improvements these guys can come up with that may be useful down the road. If people didn't try to reinvent the wheel, we would be riding on stone, not rubber with air, or gas, or self inflating tires. You look at something and see how you can do it better. You either make an improvement to an existing system, or create a new one. These guys/gals created a new one, and they did it for a reason, so I don't see how it could be a waste of time at this point.

Thats like saying why invent a plane, when you can drive or ride a horse, or even take a boat? Who needs a telegraph...everyone else uses carrier pigeons or messengers.

Linus wasn't doing it as a commercial endeavor, he was doing it because he wanted unix on his PC and there wasn't anything else available. Do you really think Linux would have gained as much momentum as it did if it were closed source?

If you read their About page, you'll see that this project didnt start as a commercial endeavor as well. Over the years it has evolved, and he thinks he can make money on it. Not everything needs to be open source. He claims he didnt use any gpl'd code, so he has no obligation to open it. If he was trying to bundle his OS with low cost machines like the Walmart PCs, open source does not matter. The market is different.

But OSes are some of the most difficult things to write properly, so why waste your time reinventing something that's already been written and debugged? Especially considering how many we have available already.

Well then why try to do anything if its going to be hard? Its only wasting your time when there are no possible benefits. Hell, his goal might be to just raise enough money to pay his house off. He may want to dominate the OS market, who knows. You can only judge its merits when its all said and done.

 

[Nothinman]

I dont thnk the Sky OS team is having MS write it for them, so its hardly the same thing. At any one point in OS history there was some OS that was considered the standard. Well, no company stays on top forever. If the SkyOS team wants to try then more power to them. maybe they'll learn something, maybe they'll be sucessful, who knows, but if you don't try you'll never know.

I never said MS was working with them, infact if MS was they would have a much better chance of things going well. What I meant is that every time someone tries to dethrone someone by writing an emulator for their stuff it backfires. OS/2 was magnitudes better than Win311 and could run 32-bit OS/2 apps as well as 16-bit Win311 apps and yet Windows won out. Linux has been able to run a lot of Windows apps via WINE for some time now and it's not helped anything. FreeBSD can run Linux apps and all it does is give people no incentive to port their software to FreeBSD because it already runs.

It doesn't have to equate to reinventing the wheel, but you can make a improvements to any given system

They're writing an OS with dozens of subsystems that are already available under BSD licenses and a PE executable loader for Windows apps, how is that not reinventing the wheel?

If people didn't try to reinvent the wheel, we would be riding on stone, not rubber with air, or gas, or self inflating tires

No, that's taking an existing design and improving on it. Like Theo did when he forked NetBSD to start OpenBSD.

Not everything needs to be open source

No, but why would you use SkyOS when you can just as well run Windows? You'll get better hardware and software support and you're sure all of your apps will work as expected. People started toying with Linux because it was free, there was no investment to be lost.

Hell, his goal might be to just raise enough money to pay his house off.

Which means no commercial entity in their right mind would pay for his software if he's just going to stop supporting it when his house is paid off. Again, people started toying with Linux because there was no investment to be lost. If Linus said "f' off, I quit' it doesn't matter because it's free and the source is there so someone else can pick up the ball and run with it.

You can only judge its merits when its all said and done.

It'll never be done, OSes are constantly evolving and the SkyOS guys are going to be constantly be playing catchup if they want to be compatible with Windows.

 

[skreet]

I dont know if anyone has mentioned this but it says that it was written from scratch and is not *nix based, but I see Firefox, Thunderbird, Bash and other *nix applications (not that the formers are not available on other OSes).

Why would they use the Borne Again Shell on a written from scratch OS?


I may look for a copy of it and try it out.

 

[OffTopic1]

Originally posted by: skreet
I dont know if anyone has mentioned this but it says that it was written from scratch and is not *nix based, but I see Firefox, Thunderbird, Bash and other *nix applications (not that the formers are not available on other OSes).

Why would they use the Borne Again Shell on a written from scratch OS?


I may look for a copy of it and try it out.

SkyOS 5.0 Beta Exclusive Preview

The shell seems to accept a variety of MS-DOS and Bash-style UNIX commands.

Most Linux/Unix applications can be easily ported to SkyOS due to a low-level Linux emulation layer, plus the development team intends to soon start working on a feature to allow Linux binaries to be directly loaded without recompilation.

Sound like Linux to Unix.

 

[Childs]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
I never said MS was working with them, infact if MS was they would have a much better chance of things going well. <SNIP>

So are the Linux and BSD folks wasting their time? Is Apple, IBM, Redhat, and Novell wasting their time by selling OS's?

They're writing an OS with dozens of subsystems that are already available under BSD licenses and a PE executable loader for Windows apps, how is that not reinventing the wheel?

Who says the BSD way is the right way to go? In fact, why do you think there are so many variants of Linux and BSD? Because they think their approach is better, time will tell. If the SkyOS implementation is superior then they will have an advantage.

No, that's taking an existing design and improving on it. Like Theo did when he forked NetBSD to start OpenBSD.

Thats no different than writing from scratch, in their eyes they are just improving more than Theo. There was something Theo didn't like, and he changed it. He had his reasons. The SkyOS team probably have their reasons as well.

No, but why would you use SkyOS when you can just as well run Windows? <SNIP>.

If I get it in my hands I might tell you why I'd prefer it over Windows. I would run Linux over Windows if I actually had to pay for Windows. I run Mac OS X instead of Windows. Back in the day I actually paid for my Linux distros, because I didn't have broadband and getting the CDs for $20 was worth it for me.

Win32 support provides a bridge for your desired customer base. As a Windows clone it would probably not make much sense, but I'm sure the OS will be able to do more than just run Windows Apps.

Why does Walmart bundle Linspire instead of Windows? Fry's does this as well, with a similar OS. Because its cheap, and it can probably do what that market wants it to do. You can say there are zillions of Windows programs out there, but most people don't need, nor want, 99.9% of those programs. And if there is a Windows app you want to run, the SkyOS team is trying to give you that ability. There is a market for such an OS.

Which means no commercial entity <SNIP> pick up the ball and run with it.

That was just a for instance. And there is an investment in Linux, the "time" you think is so precious. And the lack of accountability is one of the problems with Linux. This is why closed source, commercial software is attractive to many people. You have a problem, you have somewhere to go. You can trust the source. You don't get your solutions from whoever happened to be looking at your thread at the time.

You can only judge its merits when its all said and done.

It'll never be done, OSes are constantly evolving and the SkyOS guys are going to be constantly be playing catchup if they want to be compatible with Windows.

If they fold, then it will be done, and you may have been correct when you said they were wasting their time. If they are around 10 years from now, then they must be doing something right, and it can hardly considered a waste of time.

 

[Nothinman]

So are the Linux and BSD folks wasting their time? Is Apple, IBM, Redhat, and Novell wasting their time by selling OS's?

No, they had valid reasons to developer their OSes, most of which I've covered already. Apple took the smart route and didn't reinvent the wheel, they took parts from Mach and FreeBSD and added what they thought was value add to their customers. Novell is doing the same thing, they're phasing out their older NetWare in favor of a Linux based solution.

Who says the BSD way is the right way to go?

Because the base is already there and can be released closed source.

In fact, why do you think there are so many variants of Linux and BSD?

3 BSD forks doesn't constitute a lot to me. And Linux distributions don't count because they share 95% or more of their code, all they do different is package management, default settings, icons, etc.

If the SkyOS implementation is superior then they will have an advantage.

Technological superiority doesn't win, MS has proven that time and time again.

Thats no different than writing from scratch,

Like hell it isn't.

The SkyOS team probably have their reasons as well.

That's fine, but they're wasting their time writing things like drivers that already exist when they could be focusing on what they think is wrong.

but I'm sure the OS will be able to do more than just run Windows Apps.

Sure it'll run Linux apps too. It'll be yet another "also ran" that will fall aside like BeOS.

And the lack of accountability is one of the problems with Linux. This is why closed source, commercial software is attractive to many people

Only if you believe the FUD from a decade ago. You can get the exact same level of commercial support with Linux, actually the support is generally many times better, as you could with any closed source system.

You have a problem, you have somewhere to go

Right and most of the time they tell you "We'll be fixing that in our next release" or mark your problem as "tolerable" and put at the bottom of their TODO list.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
3 BSD forks doesn't constitute a lot to me. And Linux distributions don't count because they share 95% or more of their code, all they do different is package management, default settings, icons, etc.

NetBSD
OpenBSD
FreeBSD
DragonflyBSD
MirBSD

And a number of distributions of those various OSes.

 

[Childs]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
No, they had valid reasons to developer their OSes, most of which I've covered already. Apple took the smart route and didn't reinvent the wheel, they took parts from Mach and FreeBSD and added what they thought was value add to their customers. Novell is doing the same thing, they're phasing out their older NetWare in favor of a Linux based solution.

Because the base is already there and can be released closed source.

Well, by your logic those other OS's were a waste of time anyways because we have Windows. And Apple is taking a top down approach. What they borrowed they are rewriting. You think they are doing it because they had nothing better to do? SkyOS has no market to protect, so the one thing they have is time. In that situation, you might as well design your subsystems the way to want to achieve your design goal. It does you no good to adopt another code base if you have to compromise the integrity of your project.

Hell, even MS claims to have rewritten their OSs from time to time.

So no one is wasting their time except SkyOS eh? You seem to be drawing an invisible line somewhere in an OS's architecture that says what is a waste of time to rewrite and what is not. If the existing solutions do not fit into your design goals, you write it from scratch. As far as we know, these guys aren't taking a working subsystem, rewriting it, then putting it back where it was. They are writing everything from scratch to reach their design goals.

3 BSD forks doesn't constitute a lot to me. And Linux distributions don't count because they share 95% or more of their code, all they do different is package management, default settings, icons, etc.

I haven't looked at the BSDs in awhile, but the last time I looked there were serious philosophical design implementations. Diff the sources from one distribution from another, and you'll see a difference greater than 95%. You can argue that none of those changes are relevant, but those changes were made for a reason. I have yet to see a universal ratio to determine what is a waste of time and what is not.

Technological superiority doesn't win, MS has proven that time and time again.

So the knowledge acquired in such a pursuit is meaningless? If anything, MS will rip it off, but does that mean no one should try anything different than what we already have?

Like hell it isn't.

hahahaha. Thats a matter of opinion. Rewriting one part does you no good if the rest of your borrowed code base does not fit in your design goals. If you can't use it, you can't use it. Now changing the splash image and calling it a separate OS is a waste of time. Having improved security, thread and memory management, improved networking, graphics subsystem, and user experience is not.

Now, of course none of it may be better than what is available is xBSD and linux, so we won't know if they wasted their time until they release their OS. I do however, believe they have an inherent advantage in that they can survey the landscape and see what works and what doesn't. Anything thats theory right now they can implement. They can build upon the design wins and avoid the disasters.

That's fine, but they're wasting their time writing things like drivers that already exist when they could be focusing on what they think is wrong.

Maybe they think hardware at the level should be handled differently. Who knows, but its their prerogative to make such changes if need be. Again, were standing on the outside, so how you say what is and isn't a waste of time? Its a lot of work (which is probably why you seem to cringe at the thought of doing it), and no one likes to waste their time, so they are probably doing it for a reason.

Sure it'll run Linux apps too. It'll be yet another "also ran" that will fall aside like BeOS.

BeOS was close, and they took their shot. Can't blame them for trying. Does that mean no one else should try? There could have still been a place for BeOS. Licensing to the Walmart and Fry's of the world. Who would have thought those guys would sell their own PCs. You need an cheap OS for those PC's because of the target market. I personally would rather run BeOS on my cheap $200 PC than Linspire.

You never know what direction the market will go, and what you're working on may have a place in the future.

Only if you believe the FUD from a decade ago. You can get the exact same level of commercial support with Linux, actually the support is generally many times better, as you could with any closed source system.

Well if thats the case, most businesses would be running Linux. Market realities dictate a different situation. The linux culture is different. If the SkyOS guys are trying to sell their OS to those guys, then they maybe wasting their time. Their gui, Win32 support, etc, makes me think a different crowd, one that linux has never made any real progress with.

Right and most of the time they tell you "We'll be fixing that in our next release" or mark your problem as "tolerable" and put at the bottom of their TODO list.

That may be, but these guys haven't even gotten started yet, so how can you judge their product and level of support at this point?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Childs

I haven't looked at the BSDs in awhile, but the last time I looked there were serious philosophical design implementations. Diff the sources from one distribution from another, and you'll see a difference greater than 95%. You can argue that none of those changes are relevant, but those changes were made for a reason. I have yet to see a universal ratio to determine what is a waste of time and what is not.

I don't think a simple diff will do the work, but I bet there is more than 5% of shared code between them.

 

[Nothinman]

Well, by your logic those other OS's were a waste of time anyways because we have Windows

At the time of their writing we didn't have Windows, at least not in the capacity we have now.

It does you no good to adopt another code base if you have to compromise the integrity of your project.

But according to their page their project goals are just to create a Windows replacement. That can be done with existing projects as a base, but it's not likely to happen anyway. Even with their iPod and iLife crap they can't make a dent in Windows' marketshare. BeOS tried the same thing and failed miserably.

Hell, even MS claims to have rewritten their OSs from time to time.

Win9X up to ME was started from DOS which was started from CP/M which they bought. NT was forked from OS/2 which I'm assuming was an original IBM development.

Diff the sources from one distribution from another, and you'll see a difference greater than 95%

Why should I when obviously you've already one it.

I do however, believe they have an inherent advantage in that they can survey the landscape and see what works and what doesn't

They have some odd power of observation that no one else does?

Its a lot of work (which is probably why you seem to cringe at the thought of doing it), and no one likes to waste their time, so they are probably doing it for a reason.

I'm sure they have their reasons, but I would be incredibly surprised if they make it more than 3 releases after they start selling it. BeOS was the same way everyone cried "BeOS rocks" and yet noone ran it.

You need an cheap OS for those PC's because of the target market. I personally would rather run BeOS on my cheap $200 PC than Linspire.

Yes, but in either cases you end up with a $200 PC that won't run any of the games or apps that Walmart sells because they're all written for Windows.

Well if thats the case, most businesses would be running Linux

More and more are moving all the time. My company is getting new Linux boxes all of the time and a lot of our clients are asking for Linux.

Their gui, Win32 support, etc, makes me think a different crowd, one that linux has never made any real progress with.

Gnome is damned close to what the SkyOS people are going for and WINE is probably more complete than SkyOS, not that I can download and test it to see for sure. But I would bet that Linux, Gnome and WINE will replace Windows before SkyOS ever does.

That may be, but these guys haven't even gotten started yet, so how can you judge their product and level of support at this point?

I was talking about other commercial companies.

 

[Childs]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

At the time of their writing we didn't have Windows, at least not in the capacity we have now.

But we had CP/M. We had Sys V. There have been OS's with dominate marketshare before. If everyone stopped when someone got there first there would be no progress.

But according to their page their project goals are just to create a Windows replacement. That can be done with existing projects as a base, but it's not likely to happen anyway. Even with their iPod and iLife crap they can't make a dent in Windows' marketshare. BeOS tried the same thing and failed miserably.

Again, just because someone else failed doesnt mean another can't succeed. The timing wasn't right for Be, but it may be for another. But when you don't even try, you'll never be in position to take advantage of whatever the future may hold.

Win9X up to ME was started from DOS which was started from CP/M which they bought. NT was forked from OS/2 which I'm assuming was an original IBM development.

I believe DOS was a clone of CP/M, purchased from some guy for $50K. What if that guy told someone he wanted to create a clone of CP/M and someone said don't do it! Its a waste of your time! Too much work! We already have CP/M? WTFOMGBBQ!?!?!?!?!

They have some odd power of observation that no one else does?

Perhaps. I never thought ipod would have amounted to anything, but my stock went from about $12 to over $90, then split on friday. Sometimes all you have to do is take a chance.

I'm sure they have their reasons, but I would be incredibly surprised if they make it more than 3 releases after they start selling it. BeOS was the same way everyone cried "BeOS rocks" and yet noone ran it.

That maybe, but BeOS should not be a deterrent for anyone who wants to try something. A cautionary tale sure, but someone else's failure has no direct bearing on your abilities.

Yes, but in either cases you end up with a $200 PC that won't run any of the games or apps that Walmart sells because they're all written for Windows.

And Linspire does?

More and more are moving all the time. My company is getting new Linux boxes all of the time and a lot of our clients are asking for Linux.

And how many of those companies are putting it on the desktop?

Gnome is damned close to what the SkyOS people are going for and WINE is probably more complete than SkyOS, not that I can download and test it to see for sure. But I would bet that Linux, Gnome and WINE will replace Windows before SkyOS ever does.

That may be, many people have tired that approach and havent gotten very far. Heck, I use linux and gnome, but its obvious from using it, that it wasn't designed for desktop use. If the foundation (linux and gpl'd subsystems), and the gui (xserver, gnome & kde) weren't designed for mainstream desktop use, why would you use it as a base for an OS that is designed for mainstream use? What you'll end up doing is a bunch of hacks that lead to bloat, further polluting your design goals. The foundation isn't right, and even the X guys know their implementation needs an overhaul. There are guys all over the world rewriting their code to take on some aspect that they didn't think of when they started. The SKyOS claim to know where they want to be, so it makes some sense that they want to start from scratch.

I was talking about other commercial companies.

And I was talking about the SkyOS guys.

Its not that I don't think some of your predictions will come to pass, but if these guys want to try it, then good luck and god's speed! No intellectual endeavor is ever a waste of time IMO. You usually always learn something from it, and it helps you in the future. From a business perspective, you can see what these guys do, and based on their results you can confirm what you already know, or it can open up all sorts of new possibilities that you wouldn't have thought of because you didn't try it yourself.

 

[Nothinman]

But we had CP/M. We had Sys V. There have been OS's with dominate marketshare before. If everyone stopped when someone got there first there would be no progress.

CP/M became DOS which became Win9X. Commercial unixes are still based on SysV or BSD.

I never thought ipod would have amounted to anything, but my stock went from about $12 to over $90, then split on friday. Sometimes all you have to do is take a chance.

Everything Apple does is fashionable, it's just that most people don't want to spend that much money on a computer that won't be compatible with their games and such. Since the iPod wasn't tied to OS X it was easy for people to buy and use with their Windows computers instead of paying $3K on something from Apple.

A cautionary tale sure, but someone else's failure has no direct bearing on your abilities.

No, but it may have a direct bearing on what's available for me to use. If they would contribute to Gnome I would benefit from their ideas, since they're tying their stuff to a proprietary OS I'll probably never use it.

And Linspire does?

Maybe, WINE runs a lot of Windows games these days.

And how many of those companies are putting it on the desktop?

I don't know, I don't work directly with them. But the fact that they're asking for Linux over Tru64, Solaris, Windows, etc is a huge difference from 5 years ago. Personally we would have more desktop Linux boxes where I work if it weren't for the proprietary software we own and produce that only works on Windows.

Heck, I use linux and gnome, but its obvious from using it, that it wasn't designed for desktop use

How is it obvious?

The foundation isn't right, and even the X guys know their implementation needs an overhaul.

The foundation is fine and the X guys are idiots, they're the reason Debian has had to maintain dozens of out of tree patches over the years. Once the modularized X.org gets released most of that should be fixed.

And I was talking about the SkyOS guys.

But you can't because they have no support system yet, so all the talk about their quality of support is conjecture.

 

[Childs]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

CP/M became DOS which became Win9X. Commercial unixes are still based on SysV or BSD.

I believe you are mistaken. Patterson took a CP/M manual and wrote a poor clone, called QDOS. At least according to Triumph of the Nerds.

Everything Apple does is fashionable, it's just that most people don't want to spend that much money on a computer that won't be compatible with their games and such. Since the iPod wasn't tied to OS X it was easy for people to buy and use with their Windows computers instead of paying $3K on something from Apple.

But that has no bearing on the fact that Apple did their own thing, not simply licensed an existing player or DRM, put it out there, and made some adjustments to meet market expectations.

No, but it may have a direct bearing on what's available for me to use. If they would contribute to Gnome I would benefit from their ideas, since they're tying their stuff to a proprietary OS I'll probably never use it.

That's kind of ego centric don't you think? And who's to say you won't get an indirect benefit if Sky releases and has some good ideas. Those ideas, conceptually, might make their way into gnome. Thats the good thing about people trying new things.

Maybe, WINE runs a lot of Windows games these days.

And grandma and uncle jim will get that going.

I don't know, I don't work directly with them. But the fact that they're asking for Linux over Tru64, Solaris, Windows, etc is a huge difference from 5 years ago. Personally we would have more desktop Linux boxes where I work if it weren't for the proprietary software we own and produce that only works on Windows.

So there is a market for something that isn't Windows eh? If people are willing to consider different OSes, then choice is not a bad thing, and SkyOS may have a place in the OS world.

How is it obvious?

When I get to work I'll tell you. MacOS X rules the desktop in my home!

The foundation is fine and the X guys are idiots, they're the reason Debian has had to maintain dozens of out of tree patches over the years. Once the modularized X.org gets released most of that should be fixed.

But aren't they wasting their time? They should just continue to build on what they have to avoid wasting their time.

But you can't because they have no support system yet, so all the talk about their quality of support is conjecture.

I was talking about SkyOS and the attractiveness of supporting closed systems. heh, so you can use some other company's support quality to claim why SkyOS or any proprietary OS won't succeed? Then I'll point to any of the number of commercial closed software companies that provide excellent support.

 

[Nothinman]

I believe you are mistaken. Patterson took a CP/M manual and wrote a poor clone, called QDOS. At least according to Triumph of the Nerds.

I could be mistaken, I wasn't exactly into computers at that time.

But that has no bearing on the fact that Apple did their own thing, not simply licensed an existing player or DRM, put it out there, and made some adjustments to meet market expectations.

No, but they used existing music formats instead of inventing their own.

And grandma and uncle jim will get that going.

Most likely grandma and uncle jim will be running a pirated copy of Windows in under a month no matter what OS comes with their Walmart PC.

So there is a market for something that isn't Windows eh? If people are willing to consider different OSes, then choice is not a bad thing, and SkyOS may have a place in the OS world.

But when you rely on an OS that uses an emulation or compatibility layer to run Windows apps you put yourself in a very bad position, any little update could break your whole system. Even now MS is working on ways to make wine not work with their future software, do you really think SkyOS will fare any better?

When I get to work I'll tell you. MacOS X rules the desktop in my home!

The OS X UI is even more annoying than Windows.

But aren't they wasting their time? They should just continue to build on what they have to avoid wasting their time.

They're taking their existing XFree86 code-base and modularizing it, they haven't started anything over from scratch.

I was talking about SkyOS and the attractiveness of supporting closed systems

There is no attractiveness with regards to closed systems.

heh, so you can use some other company's support quality to claim why SkyOS or any proprietary OS won't succeed?

No, all I was doing is pointing out why closed systems' support is ass and why it shouldn't be considered an advantage.

Then I'll point to any of the number of commercial closed software companies that provide excellent support.

Every form of customer support I've used has sucked horribly, at the very best you have a 50/50 chance of getting your question answered.

 

[Childs]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
No, but they used existing music formats instead of inventing their own.

Apple's DRM makes the format as closed as can be. Doesn't seem to be hurting sales any.

Most likely grandma and uncle jim will be running a pirated copy of Windows in under a month no matter what OS comes with their Walmart PC.

Possibly, but that doesn't mean the Linspire folks are making money.

But when you rely on an OS that uses an emulation or compatibility layer to run Windows apps you put yourself in a very bad position, any little update could break your whole system. Even now MS is working on ways to make wine not work with their future software, do you really think SkyOS will fare any better?

Dunno, but I'm not about to write them off yet either. Until we see a shipping version, one can't know with certainty how good their chances are.

The OS X UI is even more annoying than Windows.

hahahahahahahaha So what is good to you? KDE? Gnome? Windows? OSX couldn't be that bad if it tried.

They're taking their existing XFree86 code-base and modularizing it, they haven't started anything over from scratch.

And thats a trivial task? Would have been done by now if it was. Deconstructing your code base, compartmentalizing it, and design it in a way so that it scales for the future is never an easy thing to do, but you do it because the benefits outweighing not doing it.

There is no attractiveness with regards to closed systems.

heh, if you say so. If I buy a product or service and it simply works, then I really don't care if its open or not. If I have problems and they can fix it, then theres no problem. For software, as long as there's and SDK thats as open as I need it to be, and I'm sure thats more open than 99% of users need it to be.

No, all I was doing is pointing out why closed systems' support is ass and why it shouldn't be considered an advantage.

Every form of customer support I've used has sucked horribly, at the very best you have a 50/50 chance of getting your question answered.

I've worked for companies that paid for Sun and Oracle support, and you know what? I was always satisfied. We should be for the money we spent on support contracts. If you don't get your question answered by the first person you talk to, you wave your support contract in their face and get the issue escalated until you have a solution.

 

[Nothinman]

Apple's DRM makes the format as closed as can be. Doesn't seem to be hurting sales any.

But they still took an already established format and made it work for their needs. Do you have any idea how much longer it would have taken for them to put something out if they decided to start over and reinvent their own audio format from scratch?

Possibly, but that doesn't mean the Linspire folks are making money.

I don't care whether Linspire makes money or not.

Dunno, but I'm not about to write them off yet either. Until we see a shipping version, one can't know with certainty how good their chances are.

Sure you can. Look at WINE, they've been working at this for years and there's still tons of APIs that don't work right or aren't implemented at all. And once Longhorn gets released there will be a whole new set of things to work on implementing if there's any hope of running MS' next generation of applications.

hahahahahahahaha So what is good to you? KDE? Gnome? Windows? OSX couldn't be that bad if it tried.

OS X is terrible. That annoying task bar, the single menu system, Finder is ass, etc. I personally don't use a full fledged desktop at all on my boxes. But I like the "feel" of GTK2 over QT so I usually stick to Gnome apps.

And thats a trivial task?

Nope, but it's a lot smaller than writing everything from scratch.

Deconstructing your code base, compartmentalizing it, and design it in a way so that it scales for the future is never an easy thing to do, but you do it because the benefits outweighing not doing it.

Noone said it was easy. But as I said, it's a lot less work than rewriting from scratch. Have you ever tried writing a device driver? Very rarely is the documentation 100% accurate, if there's even documentation available. It took Linux developers months to reverse engineer the nVidia onboard NIC for the forcedeth driver, do you think the SkyOS people are just going to magically know how it works or just not support it?

If I buy a product or service and it simply works

If it were that simple I would agree, but it almost never is.

I've worked for companies that paid for Sun and Oracle support, and you know what? I was always satisfied. We should be for the money we spent on support contracts. If you don't get your question answered by the first person you talk to, you wave your support contract in their face and get the issue escalated until you have a solution.

I haven't had the pleasure of calling Sun or Oracle, but I cringe whenever one of our unix guys does because 90% of the time the question is incredibly stupid. And IIRC the last time they did call Sun with a good question it took a few weeks to get it resolved and Sun gave us the same answer that I had given them in the first place, it was a "misfeature" in one of the bundled Sun packages and required us to compile and install the package from source.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
CP/M became DOS which became Win9X.

Not quite. Read any basic PC industry history book for the details.

Originally posted by: Nothinman
No, but it may have a direct bearing on what's available for me to use. If they would contribute to Gnome I would benefit from their ideas, since they're tying their stuff to a proprietary OS I'll probably never use it.

By the same token, no-one stopping anyone else from working on Gnome, are they? The SkyOS author(s)' time and talent to do with as they please. Forcing them to work on some open-source project at the whim of the community, would indeed be a completely communist act. I hope that the O-S community never stoops that low.

Originally posted by: Nothinman

And how many of those companies are putting it on the desktop?

I don't know, I don't work directly with them. But the fact that they're asking for Linux over Tru64, Solaris, Windows, etc is a huge difference from 5 years ago. Personally we would have more desktop Linux boxes where I work if it weren't for the proprietary software we own and produce that only works on Windows.

The irony is, 5-8 years ago, NetBSD (and FreeBSD and Open386), were considered the only "real" free *nix's, and Linux was considered an immature hacker's playtoy, not suitable for anything else but hacking on the code.

Originally posted by: Nothinman

The foundation isn't right, and even the X guys know their implementation needs an overhaul.

The foundation is fine and the X guys are idiots, they're the reason Debian has had to maintain dozens of out of tree patches over the years. Once the modularized X.org gets released most of that should be fixed.

XFree86 has more-or-less always been a bit of a mess.

Originally posted by: Nothinman

And I was talking about the SkyOS guys.

But you can't because they have no support system yet, so all the talk about their quality of support is conjecture.

That was the biggest problem with BeOS - driver/hardware support. The OS itself, was rather quite advanced, and had some awesome capabilities. At the time, it did have far better "multimedia" capabilities that either Windows or Linux. In fact, I daresay, it prompted the creation of the Linux kernel-premption and low-latency patches, in order to attempt to compete on the basis of multimedia performance with BeOS.

What to say, that SkyOS won't develop some similar level of enhancements, and be superior to other current OSes of the day, eventually? Sometimes, competition is good, and it's not "wasted effort" at all, because the other competitors often benefit from the required level of "competitive evolution" as well.

Indeed, does Linux even yet have base-level support comparable to some of the things that BeFS was capable of doing? MS's WinFS is an attempt to finally add that level of FS support to Windows, how many years later?

 

[Nothinman]

By the same token, no-one stopping anyone else from working on Gnome, are they? The SkyOS author(s)' time and talent to do with as they please. Forcing them to work on some open-source project at the whim of the community, would indeed be a completely communist act. I hope that the O-S community never stoops that low.

Noone's forcing them to do anything, I was merely expressing my opinion that they're wasting their time on a project that has less of a chance of survival than BeOS.

The irony is, 5-8 years ago, NetBSD (and FreeBSD and Open386), were considered the only "real" free *nix's, and Linux was considered an immature hacker's playtoy, not suitable for anything else but hacking on the code.

There's no irony in that, unless you're thinking that in 10 years SkyOS will be at the same spot Linux is now. But I doubt that'll happen because there's no grass roots support like Linux had. What made Linux work well was the fact that it was OSS, not that it was technically better. Infact it wasn't, originally it was written to run specifically on only the hardware that Linus had in his house and he said himself it it won't be anything "big and professional like GNU", go figure.

XFree86 has more-or-less always been a bit of a mess.

Which is why it was forked to X.org, so that progress could be made. Are you saying that it would have been better for the X.org people to start over?

At the time, it did have far better "multimedia" capabilities that either Windows or Linux

In some spots it still does, but where did that get it?

In fact, I daresay, it prompted the creation of the Linux kernel-premption and low-latency patches, in order to attempt to compete on the basis of multimedia performance with BeOS.

Definately, I'm sure it had some influence. But look, the Linux kernel devs took an already well established source tree and altered it to meet their goals instead of starting over from scratch. And now Linux has lower latency that Windows in most areas and is probably close to BeOS in many areas.

What to say, that SkyOS won't develop some similar level of enhancements, and be superior to other current OSes of the day, eventually?

It might, but it'll end up like BeOS with people saying "Oh, lets make Linux do this because it works well in SkyOS" and SkyOS will fade away also like BeOS.

Indeed, does Linux even yet have base-level support comparable to some of the things that BeFS was capable of doing?

Didn't Be drop the database FS for 5.0 because of speed issues? But yes, reiser4 should be able to do all that even though I won't be running it any time soon. There's no reason for 99% of that crap to be in the filesystem, it should be implemented in userspace and then be portable to all filesystems.