Submitted by EyeOS has released version 2.0 Beta. “After several months of hard work we’re happy to announce the immediate availability of the official release of eyeOS 2.0 Beta. And even more: the new release doesn’t come alone but with the brand new eyeOS.org website, which has not ben redesigned for the last 2 years now. eyeOS 2.0 Beta can be downloaded from the new downloads page and tested from a Beta test server in eyeOS.info.”
Wow, I read EyeOS, but my brain interpreted as SkyOS. It was a sudden sensation of positive surprise, then a feeling of “damn, my mind is playing tricks on me”
Desktop environment for a web browser != Operating System
I would call it an “Operating Environment”, kind of like Windows 3.x relative to DOS, but accessible from anywhere you have a browser and broadband internet. Actually a powerful tool from what I’ve seen of it.
I thought exactly the same yesterday when watching the slides from the “Open Source Innovations on the Cutting Edge” article.
As I intended to post a comment, I wrote a few notes down in a notebook at work… I wrote:
– Alchemy, debatable
– Bespin, definitely
– Bitcoin, ?? didn’t understand
– EyeOS, is anything an OS now ?
– KSplice, wow!
– KDE Social Desktop, useless
Given the level of the “innovations”, most probably, I didn’t see the seventh item/slide/innovative product.
Those who are all about social networks may be shocked by my “useless” grading of KDE SD: it’s because I’m all against social networks; I have a youtube account and a myspace account because I needed one to follow some people’s channels, that’s about as far as I’m willing to go wrt “social”.
I have posted EyeOS related articles for months and none of them ever made it to even page 2!
If you haven’t tried EyeOS it is incredibly advanced and very very good. The EyeOS team works hard and it really shows. Great job guys, keep up the good work.
We generally don’t report on websites.
So why report on it now, if not in the past? I’m genuinely curious, Thom: What is it about EyeOS that makes it worthy of even a sidebar article when in the past, it’s been denied coverage at all because it’s “just a website”?
For the same reason donkeys move sideways when put on the moon by giant space crabs: no reason.
Indeed, my wife’s opinion on reading the comments here was that it is your site and you can post what you want, when you want. I was just curious if your attitude towards “cloud” services (sorry, I know you loathe that term) had become more positive of late.
Has anyone used it? The demo seemed very slow yesterday when I tried it.
I uploaded it to my web server (LAMP based) and it’s a bit buggy and slow. I have a fairly fast shared-hosting service from 1&1, and other webapps like WordPress are very fast and stable on it.
I’m not going to keep it on there very long; if I need a service like this in the future I’ll probably go with Horde.
Why exactly would EyeOS not be considered an operating system? What is EyeOS missing that ChromeOS possesses? In fact I would say that EyeOS is more feature complete in some ways than ChromeOS is from a more conventional line of thinking as to what an OS should be.
Is there any particular reason that you couldn’t just run this as your base operating system? I mean it is running on top of a LAMP stack like other operating systems do. I don’t see why someone couldn’t make this boot up as their primary OS with a little work. You might not want to do so, but if it can be done with ChromeOS then surely it could also be done with this system.
Edited for grammar
Edited 2010-05-26 04:46 UTC
Because if you set this to boot in a simular way to ChromeOS, then just like ChromeOS, it would be a Linux-based OS with a non-Linux user space tools.
Much like Android and webOS are too.
Call me anal, but for me the OS is the actual underlying foundations. Everything bolted on top for usability (et al) is user space thus not the OS. Sure, a good number of user space tools are critical to make the machine in any way functional in the real world. But they’re still not the OS itself.
So EyeOS is no more an operating system than KDE4 or Metacity/GNOME is.
The interface IS the OS! Take a course! please!
To separate the tactile and perceptible level from the routines and processes does not make sense when talking of an OS! This is ooold news! the CLI/shell/whatever of a barebones linux system is also a interface! If you can’t communicate with a system through an interface, how would you know it is there?
Keeping a web-based OS or a cloudOS or whatever you want to call it, is the same as having a severe restriction on what could be called an OS, worthy of being mentioned and referred to regularly here on OSNEWS. Considering the recent mega-rants on video-codecs (since WHEN did they qualify for being directly OS-relevant – Yes, I read the argument for why, Thom!) this seems to be a huge shot-in-your-foot, OSNEWS editors!
[ontopic] Very interesting! I might try this out! Any one having opinions on whether this is a viable (niche) OS for the future, or just a we-do-it-because-we-can experiment?
Edited 2010-05-26 08:29 UTC
Wow, you’ve really taken this issue to heart. I really don’t mean this to be a flamewar or to seem like a personal attack – I just can’t class graphical shell as an entire OS. So let me address some of your points:
You’d better inform teh KDE team that their flagship product is an operating system and not just a Desktop Envronment then.
Yes it does because the two are supposed to be interchangeable (to a degree).
e.g. you can run several desktops on Linux (KDE, GNOME, XFCE, etc) but you can also run the same desktops on other operating systems (FreeBSD, OpenSolaris, Linux, etc).
The same is said for CLI shells (BASH, SH, ZSH, and so on).
So if the shell “IS” the OS, then that would make BASH, SH, ZSH, KDE, GNOME, XFCE all OSs. That would make Ubuntu and Xbuntu completely separate OSs. And that would make EXPLORER.EXE a separate OS that runs on top of NT (as you can run Windows with different shells, desktops and file managers from windows by changing the ‘SHELL’ path in -IIRC- WIN.INI from EXPLORER.EXE to your own customer shell).
So I’m sorry if you disagree with me, but your definition is too broad to be of any practical use.
Well obviously. I never stated otherwise.
APIs, kernel, etc.
Let’s also not forget the number of OSs that run headless (sure they have shells for set up and configuration, but must of the time you shouldn’t need them yet you still “know it’s there” on a distributed file system node (for example).
You have to remember that there are several layers to an OS. Now while shells are usually critical to make an OS useable to 90% of the real world, so are web browsers, text editors and disk examiners / file explorers – yet they’re not “the OS” either.
where did I say that this shouldn’t be mentioned on here?
Now you’re just ranting for the sake of ranting.
I’m really not sure what your point is anymore.
Nobody (as far as I can see) is stating that this shouldn’t be included in OS News. I just stated that it’s not technically an OS. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a project of interest – technical classifications aside.
Wow, you’ve really taken this issue to heart. I really don’t mean this to be a flamewar or to seem like a personal attack – I just can’t class graphical shell as an entire OS. So let me address some of your points:
The interface IS the OS! Take a course! please!
You’d better inform teh KDE team that their flagship product is an operating system and not just a Desktop Envronment then.
Hmmm – Then Windows is not an OS because it is just a layer on top of what boots up the computer. Yes, technically you CAN boot up Windows without the GUI which means that Windows is not an OS.
Oh. And neither is Mac OS X (it’s BSD underneath).
Yes. I’m being sarcastic.
Edited 2010-05-26 14:57 UTC
No, you’re being confused.
OS X’s kernel (which is what you’re referring to) is Darwin – a unique kernel designed for OS X.
Darwin is Mach based, not BSD. There is BSD code in Darwin, but that doesn’t make Darwin an out and out BSD kernel.
Furthermore, OS X is a product name (not an individual software component) which includes:
* Darwin (the aforementioned kernel),
* Aqua (OS X’s user interface),
* Cocoa (which is OS X APIs and widgets),
* and numerous other tools (eg CLI shells), applications (eg Safari) and so forth.
Each on their own is not an OS, but OS X as a product /IS/ an operating system.
[quote]Oh. And neither is Mac OS X (it’s BSD underneath).
Yes. I’m being sarcastic.[/quote]
[quote]No, you’re being confused.
OS X’s kernel (which is what you’re referring to) is Darwin – a unique kernel designed for OS X.
Darwin is Mach based, not BSD. There is BSD code in Darwin, but that doesn’t make Darwin an out and out BSD kernel.
Furthermore, OS X is a product name (not an individual software component) which includes:
* Darwin (the aforementioned kernel),
* Aqua (OS X’s user interface),
* Cocoa (which is OS X APIs and widgets),
* and numerous other tools (eg CLI shells), applications (eg Safari) and so forth.
Each on their own is not an OS, but OS X as a product /IS/ an operating system.[end quote]
Which part of I was being sarcastic didn’t you get?
Edited 2010-05-26 21:53 UTC
The part where you made exactly the same point about Windows but non-sarcastically – thus bringing doubt on just how “sarcastic” you were intending to be with your addition.
Plus, sarcastic or not, you still got your technology completely wrong (re BSD, Darwin and what exactly OS X is).
If you were intending to write a nonsense point that was completely inaccurate (why anyone would want to is beyond me), then why make it twice?
*sign* I’ve already addressed this point in the very post you were addressing, but let me reiterate:
Windows is the product name.
EXPLORER.EXE is Windows’ shell
NT is Windows’ kernel.
So yes, you can boot Windows without EXPLORER.EXE and no, EXPLORER.EXE is not an OS (though it’s part of the Windows OS).
Also, to further complicate matters, there are GUI parts in the NT kernel. So you can’t entirely separate the GUI entirely from NT – though you can change the desktop, file manager and other shell components as well as the themes and stylings (as explained several times above).
So to summarise, Windows /IS/ an OS. NT is the kernel layer of Windows and EXPLORER.EXE is the shell part of Windows. Neither is an OS on it’s own, but both are parts of the OS product.
It depends what you call an interface. But if we’re talking about operating for computers, and not for computers + windows + IE (replace by your combo of choice), then EyeOS is not an operating system.
Again, you’re being imprecise. It depends what is your point of view. For an user, it does not. For the developper of the operating system, it didn’t until… say… the Amiga days maybe ? All modern operating systems are made of several parts that are developped separately, because it allows work paralelization and much, much better debugging and bug tracking.
Yes it is. And it is part of the OS. But it’s not a computer OS.
For the third time, aren’t we talking about computer operating systems here ? Duh, even if Microsoft would like to, Windows is not part of the computer at the moment. Only apple manages to do the trick by calling the computer+OS bundle a Macintosh and suing everyone trying to use a legally bought copy of their computer OS on other computers, but the distinction is pure marketting.
It’s highly debatable. Both are, from a computer OS point of view, just some user application… That’s where the editor’s opinion becomes useful
Edited 2010-05-26 09:59 UTC
I agree that EyeOS is not really an Operating System because it needs an Operating System and a Browser to access it. Granted, there are efforts to bolt EyeOS on top of a Linux distro to act like a Window Manger/Desktop Environment, but it lacks the important task of being an interface between a user and the hardware. (kernel, drivers, etc.)
On the other hand…. OSNews posts KDE and Gnome releases, as well as news about MS Office, and other applications….so EyeOS does deserve a place amongst OSNews because it’s the type of thing that OS Enthusiasts want to hear about.
[Edit: Crappy spelling]
Edited 2010-05-26 10:14 UTC
You make a fair point.
I know, CS people always complain about the abuse of the “operating system” concept, but I think the strictest definition (as seen in Tanenbaum books, for instance), which basically restricts the operating system to the kernel, is not particularly useful these days. For instance, there are microkernels, nanokernels, exokernels, hypervisors and whatnot, which signal a clear trend towards getting as many things as possible outside of the kernel, and I’ve even read discussions about what a kernel really is.
But if you stop and think why you should care at all about what operating system you are using, it turns that you care because developers write applications on top of it. If your operating system has no applications, it’s useless. So, let’s suppose that most developers decide to just write Firefox plugins; then Firefox (particularly its API) would be, for all practical purposes, the OS. But, you may object, Firefox needs to run on top of, say, GNU/Linux. Fair enough, then the OS is Firefox+GNU/Linux, but the main layer is still Firefox, because it’s where the action is, where all user applications are built. You could replace the underlying GNU/Linux with, say, FreeBSD, Haiku or your pet kernel that only supports your own hardware and can only run Firefox, and then you would get all the applications for free.
I picked the Firefox plugin example precisely because it’s NOT really what is happening now.
Instead, I think a good summary is, in Gilad Bracha’s words, “Javascript is the assembly language of the internet platform (and the browser is the OS)”. I would add that W3C’s standards like HTML, and WaSP tests like Acid3 are then the rough equivalent of POSIX.
But it’s not about how you name it, be it an OS, a desktop, a platform or whatever. The main point is that the “OS battles” are about what developers will take as a basis to build ever more complex applications on top, not about the details of hardware drivers which are functionally identical from the user’s point of view, and which, by their nature, can only have a limited complexity.
I have to disagree. It *is* important how we name different concepts because otherwise everything gets confusing quickly.
The appropriate term is “software platform” or just “platform”. The latter is already getting confusing because we also have “hardware platform”, but you can understand which one was meant from context so it’s usually ok to use the shorter form.
Firefox is a platform, eyeOS is a platform, Ruby on Rails is a platform, KDE is a platform, Emacs is a platform, and even Vim is a platform.
None of them are operating systems because they don’t control the hardware. These are all layers on top of the operating system to provide a high level platform for people to develop software on.
Well, I agree it is important to call different things differently, and also to use the same name when two things are essentially the same. What I meant is that it doesn’t really matter *which* name you use (or which name is adopted by convention) as long as you are clear and consistent about it.
I see a lot of arguments about whether something is or is not an OS, as if it made some crucial practical difference. But the textbook definition is increasingly irrelevant, I think, for the reasons I outlined. So, you can either keep that textbook definition and start to talk more often about “platforms” rather than “operating systems”, or you can change the definition of “OS” so that you can go on using the term.
Back to the concept of the OS as what “controls the hardware”, we should remember that it doesn’t do that directly; it only tells the CPU how to do it. You may also see a blank computer as having such a crude operating system that you can only run one program at a time, and you have to reboot to switch to another program. This program then would be the “platform”, which manages the resources given by the underlying OS. In a similar way, KDE is actually controlling the hardware, by telling the underlying layer what to do.
Another thought experiment (or maybe not so much?); suppose you bake Linux and everything except the web browser into the hardware. Now, of course, the OS of this machine is the browser. But it’s the same browser you just dismissed as unworthy of that name.
The OS is not the only program which controls the hardware, it’s just the first layer of software on top of the hardware. But different people understand this “first layer” concept differently. For most people, the software that comes with the machine when you buy it is the first layer, but many textbooks focus on how “low level” the code involved is. I think that’s a pretty useless definition, because the boundary between software and hardware can move one way or the other with each generation of hardware, but the underlying architectural complexities are the same.
By the way, this reminds me of all the brouhaha about the changing definition of “planet”. Pluto is exactly as small and faraway as it was before. What I mean is, come one, it’s just a word. My contention is that the concept of OS is almost as blurry and pointless, and just as emotionally charged (for some), as that of “planet”.
You almost answered your own question there; EyeOS requires a LAMP stack to run.
The LAMP stack is the operating system.
EyeOS is a web application.
There’s a second level of confusion here because EyeOS runs on the server. The browser is not EyeOS, it’s just what you use to access it. Similar to rdesktop not being an operating system, just a unix tool you use to access your Windows 2003 Server operating system.
So, you need a basic operating system with a http server to run EyeOS on, and you need a basic operating system with a web browser to access it.
ChromeOS is a Linux distribution that has a web browser as the only available application.
You could use ChromeOS to access your EyeOS desktop!
From the project’s web page:
eyeOS 2.0 Released
2010-03-11 19:29:00
“If you want to use our trademark or develop eyeOS based solution keeping your Copy Right we offer to you Dual Licensing program, that allows you the commercial use of eyeOS.”
So basically, anybody that wants to develop an application has to transfer the copyright of their work to the eyeOS company unless they use the commercial license?
OS = Everything needed in order to make a computer usable by its average user.
OS != A graphical shell that require Linux/Windows/Mac OS X/Other to be run.
Chrome OS is an operating system because you can install it on a blank hard drive, plug said hard drive on a computer and use its function, in an auto-sufficient fashion.
EyeOS is not an operating system because it requires additional software to render a blank machine usable.
As someone said, it may be considered as an operating system layer. But being autosufficient is a necessary condition in order to be labeled an operating system.
Edited 2010-05-26 09:39 UTC
That’s a good description.
“I believe some books describe an OS as the software that allows other software to interface with the hardware” (or words to that effect) which echoes much of what you’ve described.
Now while I do believe that where an OS starts and where it stops is a somewhat blurry line these days – what with “integrated” web browsers and other applications, countless variations on a theme (as seen with Linux distros) and powerful graphical shells that are whole environments in themselves.
However that doesn’t mean that anything that can launch processes is an operating system.
So I think your post is an excellent description of why EyeOS is not an OS yet Linux is.
Well, the end line is very, very blurry (stricto senso, the OS could include every single app installed on top of it), but the start line is pretty clear : it’s an average computer, in the Mobo+RAM+CPU+IO sense.
(And again, we can argue about whether or not the BIOS/EFI is a part of the computer or not. In my opinion it is, since you can’t buy a BIOS or a non-BIOS computer separately.)
Edited 2010-05-26 10:02 UTC
Sorry, but I’m not sure why you’ve brought the BIOS and EFI into this as that’s not part of the OS. It’s part of the hardware itself (just as a DVD drives, HDDs adn key keyboards will all have firmware too).
No, but since some people tend to include Mac OS X in the “computer” system by telling that it’s part of the product just in the same way as the BIOS/EFI… One may say that the “what is a computer” point is still debatable.
Edited 2010-05-26 11:57 UTC
-No +Sure
Right, I see your point.
Personally I’d argue that the distinction between is clearly defined. Maybe when Apple release OS upgrades as SSDs that you replaced the old OS with the new (thus you physically replace a component when you upgrade your computer and software upgrades were only available on said media), then I’d me more inclined to agree with Apples definition.
But the fact that Macs can run any OS (subject to the obvious) and that OS X can run on non-Apple hardware, I think it’s a stretch to argue that OS X and the hardware are a single entity regardless of how well Apples flagship OS is built for the hardware.
However, I’m / we’re drifting off onto a whole other debate…..
I tend to agree with this sentiment. Another example would be embedded systems. There are some embedded platforms with the default OS written for that hardware, to the extent that it is difficult to fully port it to a similar platform. Despite being based on a common kernel (Linux, BSD, Mach, whatever) and common userland tools, the physical and logical services can be very platform-specific. This, however, makes it no less of a true operating system than something like GNU/Linux or NetBSD — both of which are far from being tied to a single platform.
Sorry Thom Holwerda-It does belong here. At least as much as audio codecs and KDE and …