Who is Going to Buy SkyOS? 118
An anonymous reader wonders: "With the huge amount of operating systems available (numerous free and non-free Linux distros, Windows, Mac OSX, BSD, etc) who would buy SkyOS? An OS that was once free will now become a commercial operating system with the release of version 5.0. Although 'Porting applications from POSIX operating systems is an easy task', applications will still have to be ported since SkyOS 'isn't based on any other operating system'. This leads me to wonder...is there something about this operating system that I'm missing? Has anyone out there tried SkyOS and why would anyone pay for SkyOS with all of the alternatives out there with tonnes of software easily available?"
Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why? (Score:1)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Marketing and the lack of an availible platform killed BeOS. It wasn't untill around 2000 or so i got the c
Re:Why? (Score:2)
SkyOS sounds like a slower rehash of BeOS complete to the lack of major hardware support (still no wifi support, for instance)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
The nail in the coffin was the lack of a decent Web Browser for the longest time. Even back in 1997 the
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
People who are shopping on the basis of price really like the F-R-E-E word; it's a tough one to beat. The only advantage I think they could have over Linux is better documentation and support, but you can't provide 24/7 telephone support to everyone who buys a $30 CD set (it's just not feasible); so really I don't think they're going to be doing much of anything. Xandros and Linspire are out there for people who
Re:Why? (Score:1)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are people dellusional about what motivates purchases?
People will buy SkyOS becuase there is a cost associated to it. For no other reason, rationale or sentimental, than the fact it has a price tag.
For instance, take a look at a typical edition of Cosmopolitan magazine. Go ahead, flip through it. Don't worry, the chick next to you in line might think it's hot. There are so many advertisements in that magazine, you'll be hard pressed to actually find "content". The publishing house makes so much money off the advertisements, that they could pay people just to accept the magazine yet, it still has a price tag; so much money infact, they really don't need "content" and much of it is "fluff" to appear as if there's something of value other than the advertisements. Why? The Advertisement Firms insist they maintain a cover price, becuase they feel people will not take the publication seriously (including holding any value to the advertisements within) if the work was was for free. Now, to emphasize how much of that magazine is content, rip out every page that has the smallest blatant advertisement on it. Or, at your whim, hold all pages that have any "content" thereon. Doesn't matter, either way it will be pathetic I garruntee it.
It's not much talked about, or doesn't seem so, that one of the largest milestones the Open Source community has is convincing someone there is "value" in a "free" product. Especially, if that individual has been raised in such a capitalistic driven society; they literally can not conclude the possibility anyone could produce a valuable product for free without monetary or material compensation. It's out of their grasp, it does not compute. They default to a conclusion that something must be wrong or lacking if someone is willing to just hand it off on someone else.
Someone will buy SkyOS. Will they be the next Microsoft? I doubt it. But, I know for certain, someone will buy it in high regard and expectation of "quality" becuase sense they purchased the product... that makes the people making it, "professionals". To a Capitalist, ability and capability is soley determined by price.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Especially, if that individual has been raised in such a capitalistic driven society; they literally can not conclude the possibility anyone could produce a valuable product for free without monetary or material compensation. It's out of their grasp, it does not compute
There's this thing that became quite popular more than 50 years ago, and it was given away free! No price whatsoever. It was called television, and a lot of people saw value in it. It had so much value that many people use this service far too much. About 50 years before that the scientists invented something we now radio. It was also, and continues to be free, and many people seem to love it and see value in it. Something like 400 years ago there was a thing called Public Education that was offered for free. People seem to continue to see value in it despite its free status even today! More recently we've invented internet websites, which are largely free.
People readily accept products that are free as having value, and have for literally hundreds of years. The problem that open source faces isn't that the software has no cost, it's simply that the current software is in an entrenched position. For the majority of people, the costs really isn't about the actual software itself. That's fairly trivial. The costs come in learning how to use new software, OS, etc. For a business that means retraining employees, or re-writing software. For individuals that means wasting your time re-learning to do something you already know how to do.
Re:Why? (Score:2, Interesting)
You, my dear naieve friend, need to realize that until the Open Source movement, few things remained free after a) its value was recognised by business and b) a viable model to charge for it was developed. The Open Source com
Re:Why? (Score:2)
In fact, in Norway, this is not quite true. The public, state-owned broadcasting in both television and radio is widely regarded as the highest-quality broadcasting there is. They outnumber any private televison and radio
Re:Why? (Score:2)
The public broadcasting here is actually pretty damn good (to to mpr.org and find the streaming version of 89.3 The Current) but outside of exceptions like the aforementioned station, nobody listens to it compared to commercial radio or commercial broadcast/cable TV. For education...there are a ton of state owned schools and community colleges...most of them suck. The good ones are actually quite good (a lot of the flagship state universities in the m
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Well, actually, on a general basis, Norway don't. But quite a few things is kind of different to the better.
While I am at it, let me just give you a link to The Current because it is simply amazing.
I'm listening to it right now, and I am truly amazed. Suddenly, they now play a tune by Kings of Convenience (a Röyksopp remix of I don't know what I can save you from). Kings of Convenience and Röyksopp (being somewhat better known) are band
Re:Why? (Score:2)
I really would love to go to norway sometime...I spent some time in denmark a few years ago (I'm half danish so there are lots of relatives and the such) and had a great time.
Re:Why? (Score:1)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
I don't think I want to go into the other ones, but do you really think public education is for free ? Do you think internet websites are for free ?
For individuals that means wasting your time re-learning to do something you already know how to do.
No, they don't. They only know how to do it one way on one OS, with one software. And it's not re-learning, it simply learning. And yes, today's people - most of them - are just too lazy to learn, they don't want t
Re:Why? (Score:2)
I don't think I want to go into the other ones, but do you really think public education is for free ? Do you think internet websites are for free ?
They're free in the same way software is free, that is "I didn't pay anything for it". That's what we're talking about here, so that's the operative definition of free. If you're trying to argue the "there's no such thing as free lunch" point, I think that makes a good speech to grade school kids but everyone else knows that, thanks.
And yes, today's people - m
Television isn't free in the UK (Score:4, Interesting)
For a long time, the UK TV license also covered radio as well, but I'm not sure that's the case now (i.e. if you have a radio, but no TV, you no longer need a license). So that's not always been free either. If you really must go on about "free television and radio", please qualify it with the country you're talking about and, of course, feel free to ignore how they aren't actually free anyway (advertisements/sponsors fund them, which ultimate comes out of the public's pocket).
Irrelevant to the argument. (Score:2)
Re:Television isn't free in the UK (Score:2)
Well there is always NPR and PBS which are closer to free by your definition the do get some tax money but if you are poor enough or young enough to not pay federal taxes then it is free.
Dude Slashdot is owned by a US company, run buy US citizens, and is in English. The vast majority of people on this board are from the US.
Getting bent of Slashdot posts being US cen
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Radio isn't free -- they also sell commercials
Public education isn't free -- they use our tax money to support it
Even PBS and NPR require donations.
OSS is actually free. The programmers may get a bit of extra experience that they can leverage into a job. Some even spin their software into a business. However, OSS is essentially free. Truthfully, most of the internet is free because it has deep roots in academia. Scientists and engineers (to a lesser extent)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:1)
In the US; TV, Radio, and Education has never been free. Each product is funded through every person in the form of taxes.
You may not be supporting the local TV or Radio stations with the latest music, but your federal tax money is being used to support these products. Even the main stream TV and Radio is paid for through advertising. Is it free to joe bloe public? Not really, because if you didn't buy the items being advertised, then that funding would go away
Re:Why? (Score:2)
I've read the replies below your message. They point out things like taxes, advertising, pai
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Kind of wrong... (Score:2)
I am not sure if Vogue readers are hardened Capitalists, but I doubt that -- for the real ones, "ability and capability" is determined by profit, which is related to price in an (almost) linear way, but with a negative-sign coefficient...
Paul B.
The A is the C (Score:3, Interesting)
In lifestyle magazines, the ads are often the content. The odd column or feature are nice extras, but fluff.
J
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
For instance, take a look at a typical edition of Cosmopolitan magazine . . . The publishing house makes so much money off the advertisements, that they could pay people just to accept the magazine yet, it still has a price tag . . . The Advertisement Firms insist they maintain a cover price, becuase they feel people will not take the publication seriously
There is a counter-example, though.
Many metro areas have a free newspaper. In Rochester, NY, it's City; in Albany, NY, it's Metroland; in Toronto,
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
I totally agree, I absolutely love Cosmo for these reasons.
I am so tempted to go out and get a subscription.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
If you really wanted to impress w
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:1)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
No one seems to know what it is that it does so well.
I have been reading through the SkyOS website and various other SkyOS related sites, and I have yet to find what its killer features are. The closest I could find was automatic indexing of file metadata in a SQL database. Very neat, but surely that functionality could be added to established OSes?
A couple of nice ideas: (Score:3, Informative)
1) An automatic media playback/manipulation framework. Nothing new here (see DirectShow, gstreamer, Quicktime) but it's more transparent, easier to configure they way you want to, it's an OS-level service, and it comes with lots of filters and encoders/decoders out of the box.
2) SQL metabase for your files. Very similar to WinFS or beagle/inotify in style. You write plugins to extract metadata and it indexes it when you make FS changes. And s
Re:Why? (Score:2)
The tour showed some nice functionality, but nothing you can already find on other OS's.
This OS has very few productivity applications with the only excuse sounding like "You can do some work and port applications which already work perfectly fine on Linux".
Interesting, anyone have experience? (Score:2)
It says the it's not a *nix, which is interesting. Nowadays you only have *nix or Windows for desktop OSes, you hardly see any other types. Does anyone with experience on the OS care to tell just how the system design and philosophy is d
Re:Interesting, anyone have experience? (Score:1)
Re:Interesting, anyone have experience? (Score:2)
Maybe they'll get a clue and open source it when they're trying to divest themselves of all their assets when they go bankrupt...but I doubt it.
It's too bad though, it would be interesting to have multiple open source OSes which had radically different theories about the underlying design of the system. Right now, we're basically in a situation where OSS==Posix. (Or, I suppose, Reac
OS is nothing without Apps (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:OS is nothing without Apps (Score:1)
Wow. You sir, have blown my mind. Kuddos.
Re:OS is nothing without Apps (Score:2)
On the other hand, Ubuntu would be as well, provided I set it up beforehand.
How so? (Score:2)
I'm really looking for a reason to like SkyOS, not trolling...what is it that you think that it has, which is in any way superior to other OS' offerings, in a way that would be relevant to actual users?
Re:OS is nothing without Apps (Score:2)
Like java, but with native x86 code running at full speed on the hardware.
There is a project underway called X86ABI [x86abi.org], but it's in a very early stage.
What for? (Score:4, Interesting)
From a Sky OS Beta user... (Score:5, Interesting)
That having been said, it doesn't run on a lot of hardware, and it doesn't run a lot of applications. Their best bet is either selling it En masse to computer manufacturers as an alternative to linux, or putting it on well-designed hardware as an elite os. Maybe work their way in with specialized hardware makers, like Car manufacturers, to build up a following.
I'd also recommend pre-loading it on USB thumb drives, for those who can boot from a USB thumb, to help people get experience with the OS.
Re:From a Sky OS Beta user... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:From a Sky OS Beta user... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:From a Sky OS Beta user... (Score:1)
Then RTFF(FAQ) [skyos.org]!
While you're correct that there are no easy links to detailed hardware compatibility, this alone should tell you that your G5 can't run it, unless you have Bochs or do they still make Virtual PC?
LK
Re:From a Sky OS Beta user... (Score:3, Informative)
If you want an idea of why the parent's question is valid, downlo
Maybe someone will buy OUT SkyOS (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Maybe someone will buy OUT SkyOS (Score:2)
I mean you already have Linux and the embedded Linux derivatives, Windows CE, ultra-lights like vxWorks and eCos, even OS/2. There are probably dozens of others that I'm not even aware of.
It just seems like that's a pretty saturated market, and there really isn't a screaming demand for another embeddable OS. Maybe one of the big players (Wind River) would buy them just to take them off the table as possible competit
Right... (Score:4, Insightful)
What gets me about it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, if there's any "alternative" OS I hope takes off, it would have to be either Linux [insert obligatory reference to Ultima [ultimalinux.com] here], or one of my favorite "pet" projects, ReactOS [reactos.org]. The nice thing about the latter is that it (will eventually) support the same software running on Windows, so if not the most ideal system – obviously, if it runs the same software, a lot of vendors may not see any reason for an open-source, Linux-compatible, etc. version of their product – at least it (will be) a somewhat practical one than a Linux system. And OpenBSD [openbsd.org] is totally kick-ass, although honestly I'd say it's probably in exactly the right place right now; those who can understand it can use it, and everyone else can stick with something better suited for them.
DISCLAIMER: I will admit I'm a Linux dev / distro maintainer and there may be some bias here...
Re:What gets me about it... (Score:2)
I'm getting tired of this argument. There's not a lot of Linux-compatible, open-source, etc. versions of most software now. Do you really think there's about to be this massive amount of previously windows-only commercial software GPLd as long that darn ReactOS doesn't come around and screw things up?
Re:What gets me about it... (Score:2)
Re:What gets me about it... (Score:2)
I would have suggested using the Linux driver model, but the viral licensing issue would kill the company.
Sky-what? (Score:5, Funny)
charon
I don't think so - at least for now. (Score:2, Insightful)
As for the viability of the proje
Re:I don't think so - at least for now. (Score:3, Informative)
"...This is the Crystal icon pack created by the very talented Everaldo, used in SkyOS with his blessing. This icon set is also used by KDE for Linux, which is why the icon sets look similar."
Re:I don't think so - at least for now. (Score:5, Informative)
As another posted pointed out it was with the creators blessing, however even that wasn't needed.
The Crystal Icon Set is licensed under the LGPL, so basically, as long as the SkyOS team supply you with a copy of the LGPL license and a written offer of the "source" (e.g. original pngs) they can use them in a commercial application.
There is a common misconception with some people that (L)GPL=no commercial usage. If it's GPL you can still charge (however your clients can turn around and distribute your app for free, so you'll get further charging for support). If it's LGPL you can distribute the rest of your app as closed source, as long as you provide the LGPL license and provide the source of the LGPL'd component(s) in some way for at least three years (you're even allowed to charge a reasonable fee for providing it under the terms of the license).
Re:I don't think so - at least for now. (Score:2)
And you have to make it possible to link your commercial app to modified versions of the LGPL'd library. A dynamic linker usually takes care of that, although you have to be more careful in embedded systems where
Link and Pics Slashdotted (Score:1)
Alternative obscure OS? (Score:2)
How to get QNX (Score:2)
Yes, you can still get QNX from here. [slashdot.org]
The web page is kind of confusing. If you download "QNX Neutrino RTOS x86 host", you get an .ISO image of a bootable CD-ROM for installing QNX. There's a 30-day trial key, and when the trial runs out, you can't use some of the development tools, primarily the Eclipse IDE. But you still have GCC and all the usual command-line tools. If you download it and install it onto a PC, you get a desktop PC running QNX, with web browsers and the usual stuff. There's Firefox a
Whats SkyOS? (Score:1, Redundant)
BeOS was a superior O/S... (Score:3, Interesting)
I have no idea how SkyOS operates, but it seems like another O/S based on processes/scheduling/filesystem. Isn't it time to move beyond those? todays needs are much more dynamic than the current 40-year-old O/S model offers.
Re:BeOS was a superior O/S... (Score:2)
The process/scheduling/filesystem paradigm is essentially a conversion of the problem of running an arbitrary number of virtual Turing machines on a single Turing machine. It's a straightforward reduction from the simplest abstraction of a general computer. If you can come up with a better system, you'll get a PhD and a Turing prize pretty much immediately.
But let's look at this in more detail.
We have processes: that's what is current
Re:BeOS was a superior O/S... (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway, my proposal is:
1) replace processes with components.
2) replace the scheduler with parallelizing operators.
3) replace the filesystem with collections.
What are components? components are computational units that are maybe composed from other components and that accept an input and produce an output. The difference with processes is that components can be combined at run-time as the result of computa
Re:BeOS was a superior O/S... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds a lot like a Lisp environment to me... That means that the "components" are actually function references, which can do fairly much anything. The environment then consists of a set of object references, which is definitely like your notion of "collections."
I'm not so sure about the notion of "parallelizing operators;" concurrent progra
Re:BeOS was a superior O/S... (Score:2)
Re:BeOS was a superior O/S... (Score:2)
"The difference with processes is that components can be combined at run-time as the result of computation."
The components themselves can be combined, or their return values? The latter can be done simply in most shells; the former can be done simply in most shells. Unless you mean that I can combine functions of one program with functions of another without touching a compiler. Which I can already do with scripting languages, and don't want to do unless the
Re:BeOS was a superior O/S... (Score:2)
Running on von Neuman architecture hardware, which is 70 years old (based on Konrad Zuse's work).
Running a graphic interface with a mouse that is 38 years old (1968 was the mother of all demos year), developed by Douglas Engelbart.
Unix showed up in 1970, making it 36 years old. But it was modelled on Multics, which in turn was
Re:BeOS was a superior O/S... (Score:1)
Answer: Nobody! (Score:2)
If you don't know what Source Code is, and why it's so important that you should have access to it, then you probably will just use Windows and wallow in your own ignorance until you drown. If, on the other hand, you do know what Source Code is, then you almost certainly will want to be running an Operating System that includes the Source Code. If you buy an operating system knowing full well that you cannot repair
Re:Answer: Nobody! (Score:2)
No kidding. I might buy an obscure proprietary operating system for $30 if it came with source code. But without source code, why bother?
Of course, it wouldn't surprise me if they had someone in management who didn't understand the differences between "source-available" and "open-source" (since they seem to have confused "proprietary" vs. "commercial")
Re:Answer: Nobody! (Score:1)
No... The show-stopper is that the OS can't do the things that most users want to do. As others have pointed out, it is not a question of source code, it is a question of supporting hardware and running applications that people want and can get easily.
If you don't know what Source Code is, and why it's so important that you should have access to it, then you probably will just use Windows and wallow in your own ign
Re:Answer: Nobody! (Score:2)
OSX?
It's pretty easy to adapt an operating system to meet your needs without source. You don't want to go around forking things every time you need a design tweaked. 99.99% of users will never edit anything. And the ones that do will suddenly find themselves with a maintenence headache.
is there something about this operating system ? (Score:2, Interesting)
It has live queries, and meta data journaling. It also come with an mp3 by Kelly Rush.
Last time I checked it was Say It Ain't So as written by Weezer. I doubt they're paying the ASCAP performance fee.
We of haiku are happy to have SkyOS use our stuff.
This is a joke, right? (Score:4, Insightful)
USB Devices/Hosts are currently not supported.
Wireless Networking is currently not supported.
SATA drives are currently not supported (if you have such an option in BIOS, try using SATA->PATA emulation).
Printers, scanners, digital cameras and webcams are currently not supported.
Re:This is a joke, right? (Score:2)
I wish them luck (Score:1)
Hurd? (Score:2)
Wake me when it supports my USB mouse. Yes, I know, I'm picky.
BeOS'ish (Score:2)
Re:BeOS'ish (Score:1)
Main reason (Score:1)
Re:Steven King dead at 55 (Score:3, Funny)
LMFAO (Score:2)
s/fact/fate; (Score:2)
Re:More than expected, probably (Score:2)
Less exploited? Perhaps. Less exploitable? Not likely, unless it was designed by competent people to be that way. Security holes can exist and be exploitable whether or not people are aware of them.
Re:More than expected, probably (Score:2)
I've always tried each given distribution (via a free download) before i've given any money to them, and the same would apply to SkyOS... I`m not forking out any money on the off-chance it will be worth it.
What if it's useless, or incompatible with my hardware? I don't want to waste my money on something that's useless to me.