“SkyOS is aimed at the desktop user, the SkyOS team has always stated that SkyOS 5.0 is aimed at the desktop user, but what is a desktop user? In my opinion a desktop user is someone who doesn’t know how the kernel interacts with the graphical interface or how the kernel loads modules. The average desktop user is just that… Average.” Read the rest of this editoral here.
Overview: Where Does SkyOS Fit?
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
You should also mention the software installer and software store. Installing applications is as easy as right-clicking on the install file and choosing “Install”. The program automatically installs in the default location, and creates an entry in the applications menu.
The software store works the same, except the users don’t even need to download files. They just load up the store, choose a program they want, and click “install”. The application then downloads and installs (as mentioned above).
*waiting patiently for release* – This OS looks to be a superb hobby.
Clean and consistent. That is what i liked about beos
this may b the next beos. small, fast, easy to use, cult-like followers…hopefully this one doesnt fall to the same fate.
I think that linux users ought to be worried. SkyOS is on it’s way to pass them up. Just a ton of great work on that project.
<p>I think that linux users ought to be worried. SkyOS is on it’s way to pass them up. Just a ton of great work on that project.</P>
No, Linux users have no reason to be worried. SkyOS isn’t aiming at the Linux user, but the Windows user, basically. Linux is a whole different ballgame.
It’s like saying: Mac OS X users should be worried: the new HP-UX is comming!
Well, Linux users are looking for a certain something, and I really think Linux pretty much provides what they’re looking for pretty well. The big discrepancy is with the “average” desktop user. Linux really wasn’t made with the desktop user in mind. The Linux community is really pushing Linux as a desktop OS, but its like pushing a boulder uphill. Things have been made to make it more…useable. But it just really isn’t a desktop OS. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Linux is really making inroads in the server world, and that is something to be really proud of.
Personal opinion: Linux developers should just concentrate on making the best server environment possible, focusing less on the desktop user. Going back to the boulder analogy for a second. Its like the boulder (Linux) is 1/3rd of the way up a hill. A person (Linux developers) are holding it there, and there are two ways to go, up the hill (desktop system), or down the hill (server system). This person is trying to push the boulder up the hill, just to say that they did, when it would be much easier to let it just roll down the hill, which would be just as impressive and useful.
I don’t even know if that makes sense anymore. It sounded good when I started typing it.
i should have really mentioned it, ill update the article asap and include about the software store. in terms of SkyOS over taking Linux, skyOS and Linux are intended for different audiences, Linux originally designed for the Computer Geek, who likes to tweak and tinker under the hood, skyOS is aimed at like i said the Average User.
I’ll tell you where – in beos’ old place – users that aren’t afraid to try cheap (as in price) proprietary operating systems that fill a niche. And this is a good thing.
I think it fits right next to where syllable will be – Syllable for the OSS desktop folks, SkyOS for the proprietary ones.
spikeb
Well, it’s a shame SkyOS is proprietary. I know, Robert works hard, and it’s the product of his work after all. But if it were open-source, I guess a security audit and if it were at no cost, this would give SkyOS a boost.
People would rush to try it. It looks great BTW.
I would install it on a partition, personnally, just to try it.
We’ve had no shortage of people lining up to join the beta team.
Good luck guys, I think if you’ve done so much in just several years, your project is quite promissing.
Ohhh… Now you’ve done it… You’re going to anger the anti-oss zealots that peruse these threads…
“Ohhh… Now you’ve done it… You’re going to anger the anti-oss zealots that peruse these threads…
”
lol. what i think it is, is that people tend to get fed up of the whole OSS vs Proprietry Software
“what i think it is, is that people tend to get fed up of the whole OSS vs Proprietry Software”
It depends. I think when it comes to an operating system, it’s ok to pay a fee. But it’s very important that the code is open-source for security reasons. Some companies succeed in making money out of FOSS. I think this is where we’ll tend to go.
the whole thing about what licence, and that the skyOS team doesnt want forks / distro’s to appear, as then you get fragmentation of the system standards.
It depends. I think when it comes to an operating system, it’s ok to pay a fee. But it’s very important that the code is open-source for security reasons.
Agreed. But more important, in my opinion, is a fact that many have brought out before me: An open source OS never dies because the developers grow tired of the project or they run out of funds.
The AtheOS system would probably be conscidered very dead, if it hadn’t been for the Syllable fork. Some people might complain not much is happening, but at least something is going on.
You might also think about where Haiku/Zeta could have been today, had the sources been released right after the fall of Be.
He’s describing a Workstation user, not a desktop user. I know plenty of people who could be considered “power users” who care nothing of kernal to device driver interactions, etc. A workstation user is someone who wants a dumb terminal with a set number of software installed to get a limited amount of tasks completed; This is what (in my opinion 😉 ) he is describing…
What was the purpose of this article? The author didn’t need to waste a whole page just to say “I think SkyOS is cool and fills the niche between XP and Linux” Any resonably smart person can figure that out. Why not write about why SkyOS is superior to linux mainly because it is closed source with very few fingers in the pot. Once SkyOS reaches a maturity level that is acceptable i will definitely line up to pay for good quality work mainly so that the developers earn something other than a pat on the back for their tireless effort.
Of course I don’t agree with your analysis that Linux doesn’t make or can’t make a good desktop OS: SuSE has been my main desktop OS since 9.0 and I have found very few shortcomings. I am pretty sure that Mandrake, Libranet, Linspire users, just to mention a few, will tell you the same.
My problems began when I took my very Windows oriented laptop abroad with me and tried to connect Suse to dial-up internet. I don’t believe Linux can be blamed in this case: SkyOS can’t possibly have drivers for all Windows oriented devices either.
I didn’t say Linux CAN’T work as a desktop system. Anything can work as a desktop system. It just doesn’t work well for the AVERAGE desktop user. So much effort goes into trying to make it what it isn’t, with very little to show (in comparison to work put in). On the other hand, Linux is a force to recon with in the server world.
SkyOS has been designed from the ground up with the desktop in mind. Every aspect of design is working towards making a better experience for the average desktop user.
I HONESTLY think that Linux users want so much to beat Windows on the desktop that they sort of become blind to the real-world situation. Linux just wasn’t designed to be a desktop operating system for the average user. Trying to keep up with Windows is a losing battle on the desktop. This is not true in the server world. Linux really stands to take Microsoft down in that arena.
I would really like to see a time when SkyOS (and whoever else may come along) is a true desktop force, and Linux is a true server force. Unlike Microsoft, we are not trying to lock out anyone else who wants to be a desktop operating system. Microsoft does NOT want another operating system to be a viable option. They want to be the only ones. We don’t really care. If someone else comes along, we’ll do our best to interoperate with them, and hopefully they will do the same with us. That is the only way to stay around. The only reason Microsoft has been able to maintain their monopoly is because there has been no other competition (0S/2 d.o.a. because of IBM, BeOS’s focus shift/anticompetitiveness from MS). As soon as real alternatives begin to show up, they will have no other choice but to work with others, or disappear.
Sorry for the rant.
“Unlike Microsoft, we are not trying to lock out anyone else who wants to be a desktop operating system. Microsoft does NOT want another operating system to be a viable option. They want to be the only ones. We don’t really care. If someone else comes along, we’ll do our best to interoperate with them, and hopefully they will do the same with us.”
I know all that and of course I don’t disagree.
I sincerely want SkyOS to succeed. I only hope it doesn’t go down the same way as BeOS, which I liked very much.
The major advantage forks have is that they lead to a more secure base installation of distributions. See the difference between the different versions of WindowsNT and *nix. A base install for *nix is much saver because security is only a feature you notice when systems are kindred distributions
No way, it just isn’t going to happen. Be couldn’t do, IBM couldn’t do it, and SkyOS isn’t going to do it.
Why?
1. Proprietary – Why trade one master in for another?
2. Lack of OEM support – I haven’t seen any support from any OEMs, and that is how you get people using your system.
3. Software and ISVs – Number of third party developers? 2? There won’t be any until there is a significant number of users, and there won’t be any users until there is a significant amount of software. The chicken and egg.
4. GNU/Linux – GNU/Linux is the new force in computing. It isn’t proprietary, OEM support is building, there is plenty of software and ISV support is growing and it has the buzz, the media’s and the people’s attention. More developers, more users and a price you just can’t beat, for the home at least.
You can’t beat Microsoft with closed software, it’s been proven over and over. The way to win is to redefine the game and hit them where it hurts most: price and freedom.
I normally don’t troll, and I respect the whole alternative OS movement… But I’m really getting tired of these insignificant articles. What is the point of this article besides advertising? Hasn’t this been re-written enough times about Sky-OS? I thought this was called OSNEWS.com… a site that reported news and progress on OS’s….
This seems like soemthing that should be listed on their site under “ABOUT”.
difference of opinion I guess.
Well put.
You cannot be a better Microsoft than Microsoft. You cannot beat them at their game. They are too big and too powerful, with too big a base. The way to beat them is to change the computing paradigm and to return power back to users. Users that taste power never go back.
I almost fit a twinge of pity for these proprietary OS developers. I think they would do much better if they were to use their talent to write innovative proprietary apps on top of Linux, OS X. Those may stand a chance, but a proprietary OS driven by one guy. Yeah, sure.
“The way to beat them is to change the computing paradigm and to return power back to users. Users that taste power never go back.”
But define power? Is power being able to recompile a kernel? Is power installing drivers from the command line? Or is power having a system that just works, and works well.
OS/2 died because IBM never took it seriously. BeOS died mainly because they lost focus of their OS and moved towards the Internet Appliance market.
It gets rather tiring hearing some factions of the Linux community repeating the broken record speech of “Free software or die!” OSS works great for some things, closed-source works great for some things too. And sometimes, both methods can have success. Why do you continue to wish ill upon projects that choose to do things differently than yourselves, or at the very least continuously predicting gloom and doom because they choose not to use OSS? At least with Microsoft, its just business. With OSS, it’s an ideology. And it’s getting old.
He didn’t wish ill at all, and neither do I.
I believe Eu and I are realists; you cannot beat Microsoft at their own game, history has proven that.
People, please. Linux is no serious threat to Microsoft. In 13 years of Linux, it was never a threat, and it never will be, for numerous reasons I cannot name here, I don’t want to go off-topic.
1. Proprietary – Why trade one master in for another?
Well, I prefer a master above “anarchy”, and seeing that the rest of the computing world also seems to prefer the latter, I don’t think any open source OS will displace Microsoft on the desktop.
2. Lack of OEM support – I haven’t seen any support from any OEMs, and that is how you get people using your system.
I don’t see an awful lot of OEM support for Linux systems either… And yet you say Linux will be the new force– enlighten me, please.
3. Software and ISVs – Number of third party developers? 2? There won’t be any until there is a significant number of users, and there won’t be any users until there is a significant amount of software. The chicken and egg.
Y’all gotta start somewhere. All this really shows you don’t pay any attention to what’s going on. If you were to follow http://www.skyos.org#skyos or http://expert-zone.vze.com/ you’d know there are actually already a few 3rd party developpers. Okay, not the amount of dev’s for windows or so, but hey, it’s a start.
4. GNU/Linux – GNU/Linux is the new force in computing. It isn’t proprietary, OEM support is building, there is plenty of software and ISV support is growing and it has the buzz, the media’s and the people’s attention. More developers, more users and a price you just can’t beat, for the home at least.
Ah, GNU/Linux has the buzz and the people’s attention. Does that mean anything? No, it doesn’t. And dude, GNU/Linux is *far* from new. Oh, and on pricing: nonsense. Boxed versions cost money, much much more than the 30$/25E that yu pay for SkyOS. Of course, most GNU/Linux distributions can be downloaded for free, but will the average user do that? No, they won’t.
As Kelly said, Linux is a great kernel, great for servers, and apperantly also for the embedded market. It also holds a place on the geek’s desktop. but not in the average home.
Also, SkyOS and Linux aren’t competitors. They aim at completely different markets.
Opa said: “He didn’t wish ill at all, and neither do I.”
Kelly said: “Why do you continue to wish ill upon projects that choose to do things differently than yourselves, or at the very least continuously predicting gloom and doom because they choose not to use OSS?”
That is why I added that part (sorry about the bold Eugenia). This is the problem with the Linux community (generalizing of course, I have had a different experience from some of the Gentoo community). You think if it isn’t OSS, it is going to fail. There is very little “history” to prove your point here. You have OS/2, which isn’t even an example because it was dead before it arrived. IBM never took it seriously, never really pushed it, and therefore, it was never really a competitor to Windows. So the only real example you have left is BeOS, and Microsoft only played into a small part of that outcome. At any rate, one example hardly sets historical precedence.
“As Kelly said, Linux is a great kernel, great for servers, and apperantly also for the embedded market. It also holds a place on the geek’s desktop. but not in the average home.
Also, SkyOS and Linux aren’t competitors. They aim at completely different markets.”
Linux is a good (I wouldn’t go quite as far as “great”) kernel, and there is nothing stopping it from being a good kernel to base a desktop operating system on. Apple have proven UNIX and desktop operating systems can mix.
“Also, SkyOS and Linux aren’t competitors. They aim at completely different markets.”
Are you sure Lycoris, Linspire, Mepis and Xandros agree?
Also look at it from this perspective. Behind GNU/Linux there is IBM, Sun, Red Hat, Novell and many more plus an army of developers.
Behind SkyOS we have… well, to be honest, I looked over your site and their site and the sum total 3rd party support was Tic Tac Toe and a few other hames made by community members. XGI “talks” seems to really consist of a letter-writing campaign. But I’m sure when XGI get all 10 letters from all 10 SkyOS users, they’ll make it a top priority.
Look, technologically SkyOS looks good. It seems to be modern, attractive and have a sane API. The GNU/Linux desktop is currently less than ideal, and SkyOS may even surpass it, but that isn’t the argument. The fact is, long term sustainability, I have a pretty good idea who is going to come out on top, despite of it’s deficencies. And it isn’t SkyOS. Look at Be, their system was markedly superior to Windows, and it didn’t help them at all.
On a final note, I’d like to point out that without free software, this great OS of yours would be missing a word processor, a web browser, a filesystem, a instant messaging client and a graphics tool (among other things). Consider that.
the double quoting… apple + v ran away on me.
“People, please. Linux is no serious threat to Microsoft. In 13 years of Linux, it was never a threat, and it never will be, for numerous reasons I cannot name here, I don’t want to go off-topic.”
So why does Ballmer even mention it then? Does he think it needs the publicity, does it like to give it some face time? No – he’s scared. How much of the server market does GNU/Linux own again? How many desktops based on GNU/Linux did Sun win in China again?
“Ah, GNU/Linux has the buzz and the people’s attention. Does that mean anything? No, it doesn’t.”
I disagree. Linux brings up 102,000,000 hits in Google. SkyOS brings up 15,500. Mindshare is very important, and GNU/Linux has it.
“I don’t see an awful lot of OEM support for Linux systems either… And yet you say Linux will be the new force– enlighten me, please.”
Linspire on (is it Seagate?) hard drives, HP (http://www.hp.com/go/linux, they even do notebooks now), Dell in Europe, Wal-mart – there’s probably more too and that’s just the desktop.
I HONESTLY think that Linux users want so much to beat Windows on the desktop that they sort of become blind to the real-world situation.
And i honestly think you are generalizing. Do you really think corporate executives care so much about this? I think what matters much more is price and for some (especially governments) freedom/independence/security. Why on earth would a corporate environment chose for SkyOS?
As for home users, i really wouldn’t know what’s up though i’d say compatibility is extremely important. So if you’re not able to run important applications on an OS (e.g. SkyOS) you’re fried if you want serious adoptance. Even Linux has this problem which e.g. WINE and native apps try to mitigate; then how big is this problem for SkyOS?
I see it just as a toy, not anything serious at all.
Linux just wasn’t designed to be a desktop operating system for the average user.
Sure, but its getting there more and more. Linux 2.6 had imporovements on this fielde and KDE, GNOME are getting more mature. Sure, a lot needs to be done, but its getting better. Compare it with a few years ago when Linux only had Lynx and Netscape 4 for example. What a horror…
“People, please. Linux is no serious threat to Microsoft. In 13 years of Linux, it was never a threat, and it never will be, for numerous reasons I cannot name here, I don’t want to go off-topic.”
Once again, you do not know what you are talking about. On the server side, Linux brought Sun Microsystems on its knees; e.g. Sun had to change drastically (also because of .NET). IBM, Novell and many more companies are serious on it.
On the desktop-side, we have companies aiming for a Linux desktop as replacement in corporate environments. Being a network OS from the ground, it has advantages on these fields. Now think Novell. This has been started only recently as chain reaction, but with things such as OO.o, Evolution, Open-Xchange, you get yourself production-ready applications. What does SkyOS provide here? What corporate entities are behind it? Hello earth, support contract?
In case you thought oh “but its not there because you can’t play games blabla”. Do you really think you’re so important for say Novell? I guess they don’t care for people like you, because the money is to be earned in corporate envs. The home-user environment just ain’t the place to earn the grand prize (but even there its getting better, too and i think it’ll take a lot of time till SkyOS catches up to get even near that
.
how do you define power.
Being able to see the source of the kernel/library/application and fix a bug myself (even if that would be a workaround only) instead of waiting for you or Robert to do it and release it within a planned release cycle. That’s one of my interpretations of “power” as in “power user”.
Also, access to source and being able to learn is a Good Thing.
SkyOS is no threat to linux. If you want the home desktop market, though, you need to get support from the video game developers. Beos never had this, and that is one (of many) reasons it was such an abject failure. Normal people don’t care about operating systems, they care about functionality. The whole idea of a hobby OS that is not for computer geeks is flawed…only a geek would use a hobby OS. Shoot for the bigtime or just give it up. Me, personally, I would find a SkyOS/Linux dual boot much more palatable than a XP/Linux dual boot. You need big developer support.
was to show, where i thought SkyOS fit, no other purpose to it, why do people write 100’s of Linux Reviews? because they want to, i wanted to say where i thought SkyOS stood in the OS market.
and you say what about Lycoris, Xandros… remember Linux is a kernel! nothing else, the kernel and the GNU tools form a good base for a Server OS, Lycoris, and xandros are just redecorating the OS to make it more appealing, its like adding a Mustang Engine to a Mini Cooper, does it change what the Mini is intended for? no it just means its a bit more appealing to some other users.
“Even Linux has this problem which e.g. WINE and native apps try to mitigate; then how big is this problem for SkyOS? ”
SkyGI is in design similar to Win32, it has been proven that skyGI applications can be “wrapped” to win32, so in theory Win32 apps can be “wrapped” to SkyGI, meaning that in theory SkyOS can run win32 applications, without the need for WINE. but as i said this is “in theory”
When Youlle looks at SkyOS, he see more that just a screenshot of SkyOS5.
A long time ago, when I was interested in SkyOS, back in the days of 3.9.x (I think it was) Youlle was already around, so when he see the future of SkyOS, he don’t see a screenshot, and the lack of enduser applications, he see what has happened, and from that he see a possible future.
That might not be the actual future, cause it’s based on what has happened, and what he hope will happen. But just because it MIGHT NOT be the future, it doesn’t mean that it WILL NOT be.
If everybody always say; That can’t be done, because (insert reason), then nothing will ever happen.
Take Linux, if nobody had believed that it might be something, it never would have, and all through it isn’t the most popular on the desktop, I think most here will agree that Linux is something after all. Why should that not be possible for systems like SkyOS? Because of lack of applications? There wasn’t a lot apps for Linux in 1991! SkyOS might get a future, if people believe in it. If no one does, it will just be another V2OS.
BurningShadow – A Syllable user.
yeah i’ve been around since before 3.9.X lol, i remember seeing you around a bit too, like you’ve said i’ve seen skyOS change dramatically since the old days of 3.9.X to become something that is usable, stable, and fast
i also follow syllable, okay not as much as i follow skyOS but i still pop over to http://syllable.net a couple times a week to see whats happening
but as burningshadow said, you have to get past where SkyOS is now and think what it can be, the same with Syllable which has similar goals to SkyOS, but is OSS compared to SkyOS’s Proprietory Nature.
And ReactOS gets 70,900 vs 15,500 for SkyOS. I would say ReactOS stands a better shot.
“And ReactOS gets 70,900 vs 15,500 for SkyOS. I would say ReactOS stands a better shot.”
google links arent an indicator of how sucessful an OS can become, its just how many pages have been spidered by Google, i could setup a site with 200,000 pages just saying SkyOS 5.0 google would spider them as individual entries and print back 215,000 pages. so its no indicator at all
searh results for skyOS:
Yahoo: 86,200
google: 15,500
alltheweb: 76,000
msn: 3449
so google isnt really a good representer on its own you see. okay msn results are pretty poor
one BIG reason that Linux will NEVER EVER become a major player in the desktop world: the OSS heart of it.
THe different distros confuse people. Because it is open source, it allows for distros(obviously) guess what? this confuses people as well.. the senario(usually gone over and over and over..) goes something like this: I want to try linux what distrobution should I use? Theres so many… I dont have time for this… Im gunna stick with Windows, or maby buy a Mac. And finally everyone I talk to has this wierd idea that you have to program to run it… oh wait its true. If you dont have a modual that you want you get to recompile the Kernel(fun fun).
And now, on to SkyOS: clean, fun, powerful. Its proprietary so
1.) theres no forks so all applicatoins built for use on the platform will work on the platform (not the case with linux)
2.) theres no confusion about which distro is better
3.) you dont have to worry about programming
And about the OEM thing, dont get your heart set on having to many companies put Linux on their systems, atleast in the US. I hate to say this but people here flat out dont like linux.* So theres no profit to be found. Now see, the difference with SkyOS is people dont know about. When people get to hear about SkyOS, they tend to want to try it out. Expect to see SkyOS a bigger, better, OS in the future. As for linux i agree with Kelly, stick with servers.
And finally everyone I talk to has this wierd idea that you have to program to run it… oh wait its true.
Using Linux as a desktop for the last 5 years, the only programming I did were school assignments (I don’t consider compiling a kernel or an application programming). Most of my friends use Linux as a desktop too and max. the half of them does real programming. So strictly speaking, what you said is wrong.
Okay, i used linux before. I’d like to make that perfectly clear. I did have to program. And if you really dont, try explaing that to the dozens, more like, thousands or people who have that idea.
Okay, heres the deal. Technically compiling is part of programming. So maby a bad choice of words there by me. However, people that I talk to about linux, at one point I was trying to get them to convert, always say you have to program to run it. That is what they say.
Sorry bout the confusion
If you ask me, i really don’t see how SkyOs will get a large enough audience to survive, people are much more likely to choose WinXP as their desktop environment, mostly because they’re familiar with, or go with Mac or a Linux Os then to buy something they’ve hardly heard of, and especially, they do not know.
Trust me, i’ve seen older people who for example are CAD wizards, but when you take them out of that, and switch them from win98 to winXp they’re lost.
And on the server front it stands no chance to do anything, though it’s true it wasn’t designed for that. I don’t see how it will be comercially viable. I don’t see why i should pay for a different graphical environment, which doesn’t seem to offer much improvements regarding the aesthethics and i’m not sure just how good the kernel is, but on the app front you’re getting the apps from Linux/Bsd world, so i just don’t see it succeeding
Definitely a bad choice of words.
Programming ~ creating software. Just compiling it is closer to using software.
Where’s the conceptual difference between clicking on “install.exe” and typing “install.exe”. And where’s the difference between typing “install.exe” and typing “./configure ; make ; make install” or just “./install.sh”?
Right now, you don’t even have to do that. Just recently, I tried Xandros 2.0 Open Circulation Edition on a computer I have never seen before. After answering a few questions like computer name, network type, agreeing to a default install and 20 minutes of waiting, I was ready to browse the web, send email, listen to music.
Using/installing Linux is not hard at all anymore. The only thing needed is to abstract a bit from the Windows experience. What I mean is: to browse the web, one needs a browser, not Internet Explorer. To read mail, you need a mail client, not Outlook. A start button with a different picture is still a start button.
“If you ask me, i really don’t see how SkyOs will get a large enough audience to survive…”
I suppose I don’t understand. SkyOS was started in 1997, so it has “survived” already for almost 5 years. Saying SkyOS can’t survive is nonsense.
“I suppose I don’t understand. SkyOS was started in 1997, so it has “survived” already for almost 5 years. Saying SkyOS can’t survive is nonsense.”
erm u mean 7yrs kelly also skyos was started in 1996 the first release was in 1997
Yes, sorry, meant 7, typed 5. Go figure.
lol, typo’s dont you just love them lol
“If you ask me, i really don’t see how SkyOs will get a large enough audience to survive, people are much more likely to choose WinXP as their desktop environment”
This mindset is another unfortunate effect of having a monopoly in the computer industry. It essentially says, ‘Microsoft has dominated, does dominate and always will.’ We are so used to there being only 1 big one on the desktop (forget this Big 3 talk, there ain’t no big 3, just a big one and a few midgets), we’ve taken it for granted for so long, most people can’t imagine things being any different. We have to hope all the alternate OSes from OS X to Linux to BSD to SkyOS to the rest of them will save us from the fatalistic viewpoint which has been instilled in computer users over the last decade. The developers don’t just have to create the OSes, they have to change the way people think.
I for one am glad that it is closed. A UNIFIED method that isn’t fragmentated. A consistant and unified API will allow software developers to have some confidence that it will not break with every release. There can only be one CEO to make the decisions. Not everyone always agrees though.
Maybe later, Skyos will have a liberal license that allows people to view the code, and make contributions/learn from it. I think a single release point is a huge difference. Linux sort of has this with the Linux kernel, but after that there are a forks and the nightmares begin. Why develop for a moving target (OSS Linux) ???
kelly learn to type
nxt: Okay, so I am a computer programmer. What would Ido with out compilers? I cant exactaly give out proprietary source code. So compiling is part of programming.
Dont go ou on a rant about how I could give out OSS source code. Its just not the way business works.
GregC: I couldn’t agree with you more, except with the liberal license.
What i meant by surviving is about it’s commercial future, i doubt it will ever achieve that critical mass needed to really be taken into account.
And i’m not convinced why i should pay for SkyOS, when i can simply download a Linux/bsd which is supperior on both the technical side and the graphical one as well. The truth is that i think many users are saying, why should i use SkyOS when i can either try *nix flavours or go with windows.
The software is pretty much the same as is the one on Bsd, Linux, plus that only the most important aps are ported, drivers aren’t nowhere near the ones in linux (putting win aside) and the graphical interface didn’t really whoo me.
That’s how i believe the problem should be put : Why spend money on SkyOS when i can get Windows, or i can buy a good linux distro with support included, or if i know my way around the config files, i can simply download a linux flavour that doesn’t have support (the howtos are more than enough) and be done with.
you dont understand what market skyOS is aimed at, the desktop user who is fed up with MS and windows but doesnt have the technical know how or the inclination to try Linux. even though xandros, lycoris and linsipre try to make linux more desktop friendly it doesnt help as linux will always be first and foremost a Desktop OS for the Tech Saavy, can you imagine the support from Distro’s when it gets to the desktop:
[example support phone call]
customer: “hi i have a problem Linux says i dont have permission to install an RPM”
Support: “first Run BASH…”
customer: “erm… whats BASH”
support: “its the CLI for Linux”
customer: “CLI?”
support: “well load BASH then type “su” followed by your root password”
customer: “i cant find BASH”
support: “hmm this could take a while”
Anyone know if theres a way to use Wireless B/G with SkyOS? I know you can do it in BeOS, but from the forums it sounds like they’re planning on leaving it until at least version 6.0, in 2006?
I’d try it out, but it would be on a Laptop, and wireless is ESSENTIAL.
Thanks!
There was an article by Eugenia a little while ago which presented some really argumented reasons as to why SkyOS will not achieve anything significant.
The average John Doe who hardly can use Windows if you take him out of whatever program he uses, won’t use SkyOS, because it would mean a far too big a change for him, the interface, the apps, everything, it’s the more tech savy user who would, and that user i doubt would choose SkyOS.
“And i’m not convinced why i should pay for SkyOS, when i can simply download a Linux/bsd which is supperior on both the technical side and the graphical one as well.”
Because most people can’t handle what Linux requires, in terms of technical knowledge. When SkyOS has its final installer implemented, installing SkyOS will be 1,000 times easier than it is on either Linux or Windows. Installing software on Linux is awful, just awful (please do not mention apt-get or anything, I’m tired of hearing that that is an easy thing for the average user to understand. Its not.). Installing software on SkyOS is as easy as right-clicking on a file and choosing “Install”. Changing settings on SkyOS is easier. Installing hardware and drivers is easier. Really, everything about SkyOS is better suited for the average computer user than Linux.
As far as graphics. If you don’t like WindUI, that’s up to you. Of course, once SkyOS is released, many themes will be released, so really, that is a moot point. Except for the fact that it will be easier to install and change themes on SkyOS compared to Linux.
“The average John Doe who hardly can use Windows if you take him out of whatever program he uses, won’t use SkyOS, because it would mean a far too big a change for him, the interface, the apps, everything, it’s the more tech savy user who would, and that user i doubt would choose SkyOS.”
This is just simply not true. Installing SkyOS 5.0 will consist of the following:
1. Put CD in drive.
2. Restart computer.
3. Click “Install SkyOS”.
4. Use SkyOS.
This is all that consists of the standard install mode. No questions, no partitioning. It just installs. There is of course an advanced installation that will let you tweak things like Linux or Windows. But when SkyOS 5.0 is released, it is our goal to make it the easiest to install operating system in the world.
Getting around SkyOS is very similar to Windows. There is very little learning curve, probably similar to switching from Windows XP to MacOS X (probably even less dramatic than that).
why in the hell are people trying to get SkyOS Open sourced? It’s not an Open Source OS. It’s a small commercial OS now that’s what it is why are you trying to make it something it isnt? I’m sure if you had this valuable OS to yourself you would try to make some money on it rather than open source it. Linus never thought he’d make money on linux, etc. Most companies do not *completely* open source software programs that are profitable.
Why is this even brought up? Why can’t you darn people just accept that the OWNERS do not want to do that and if you have a problem with it go write your own damn OS or use something else.
What are you talking about now??
Programming ~ writing a cooking recipe
Compiling ~ cooking the food according the recipe.
There are cases, in which you’d rather not give me the recipe, just the finished food. Fine, but it still does not make cooking (compiling) the creative discipline which programming is.
I can compile a program written in Ada, even though I know nothing about that languague.
So even though you might need to compile something to run Linux (which you don’t!), it is something completely different than needing to program. If your friends don’t know the difference between these two words, educate them. I can’t. I don’t even know who they are.
Kelly
You keep hammering how difficult linux is.
What is so difficult about installing Linspire and installing more software with C&R? Even a retarded monkey could do it.
Besides it has been proven time and again that if you put two groups of people who know absolutely nothing about computers in front of a Microsoft PC the one group, and in front of a Linux loaded PC the other, they will find absolutely the same degree of difficulty in learning.
As for Linux not having been created as a desktop OS, I want to stress once again that neither BSDs were, and yet Apple created from a BSD what arguably is one of the best desktop OSes ever.
“What is so difficult about installing Linspire and installing more software with C&R? Even a retarded monkey could do it. ”
firstly Linsipre gets rid of all the security advantages Linux has over windows… reason it runs you as ROOT!
C&R? why pay a subscription when you may never use it, you should either pay for what you want on a “per app” basis or try installing *.DEB files (iirc linsipre is based on debian or atleast uses the debian installer system)
“firstly Linsipre gets rid of all the security advantages Linux has over windows… reason it runs you as ROOT!”
Nope, it doesn’t. Changed like, well, a lot of time ago.
And your Bash statement is quite astonishing too. How about a graphical utility? Oh, that. Yep exists too. Even in Debian!
I suggest you really just talk about something else. Something where you know what you’re talking about.
(In the meanwhile Linux for the desktop gets more and more friendly while you don’t even have an application base. HOw is that ‘user friendly’? And theories don’t count either ofcourse
goes both ways ehm?)
“(In the meanwhile Linux for the desktop gets more and more friendly while you don’t even have an application base. HOw is that ‘user friendly’? And theories don’t count either ofcourse
goes both ways ehm?)”
only desktop friendly distro i’ve seen is “Cobind Desktop” and its a really good distro, just i prefer my SuSE setup for my linux desktop, but i still dont think *nix is ready for the desktop yet
“only desktop friendly distro i’ve seen is “Cobind Desktop” and its a really good distro, just i prefer my SuSE setup for my linux desktop, but i still dont think *nix is ready for the desktop yet”
Misses info.
1) What’s ‘desktop friendly’?
2) How many (and which) distributions have you seen?
3) What’s ‘seen’. What does it cover?
And then some additional comments.
1) Do you forget UNIX has been in use as desktop for years? Just not for the home-end-user.
2) Which GUI projects of ‘Linux’ do you actually know? I’m not asking you to name them but there are some obviously user-friendly projects on the way and i’m wondering if you’re aware of that.
3) Do you disagree the ‘Linux desktop’ has greatly improved and became much more user-friendly in the past 2, 3 years? Please elleborate.
Anyway, SkyOS has not a dime of a change on the corporate desktop. I bett 1000/1 Linux is more succesful there the upcomming years. Home user is something different, but 1) compatibility is necessary in any case 2) it has to be better on some points than the competitor. Being less good on 1000 points and better on 10 just won’t cut it (for most). 3) The AmigaOS/BeOS saga continues on right now with MorphOS, AmigaOS4. So it has competition. Not a bad thing though.
Linspire was just an example. Nobody buys the old excuses any longer: you DON’T have to run as root and $49 a year for C&R membership won’t break any bank. And if you are able to install from Debian.org, who keeps you from doing so? You can use Mepis instead, which is totally free and Debian compatible. You can’t have your cake nd eat it: if you want extras you can pay a (very) reasonable amount. After all I buy SuSE Pro twice a year and it costs me more than $49.
I am also a Linspire lifetime member: for a one off $99 I can download what I want for the rest of my life: let me see Microsoft or SkyOS beat that.
1) desktop friendly in my opinion is something that looks good, is simple to use, and doesnt take ages to setup and does most of the setting up on its own.
2) I’ve used:
SuSE 8.2,9.0,9.1
RedHat 5.0, 5.2
Cobind Desktop 0.1, 0.2
Slax (cant remember which version)
Stampede Linux
3) Seen as in setup, configured for use over windows network, played with system settings re-compiled my kernel to optimise for my hardware (never tried gentoo thou mind).
4) desktop tends to mean “Home user desktop” not the corperate workstation, also Linux isnt a UNIX, its a UNIX Like System.
5) i personally prefer KDE as my DE but XFCE on cobind is pretty interesting to me, i dont like the feel of full blown GNOME.
6) no linux has made huge moves towards the desktop in the past few years its just that its still more orienated towards the techy user rather than the average home user. im not sure about other countries but i’ve never seen a top distro like SuSE, Red Hat or Mandrake do adverts on TV to get users attention to them and to make them seem more user friendly.
but in my opinion it is still more orientated towards the tech user, mind Xandros and other “easy” to use distro’s are trying to change that but sometimes at the cost of security comprimises (i wasnt aware that linspire no longer auto booted to ROOT anymore and i withdraw that comment).
1) desktop friendly in my opinion is something that looks good, is simple to use, and doesnt take ages to setup and does most of the setting up on its own.
[That’s GNOME 2.6.2 for me
also, i’ve had success with XFce 4.x to users who never used Linux some of who even never used a computer.]
Moreover when you look at one of those threads here where people say what Linux misses you almost never see them talking about KDE or GNOME. Because they’re “there”. The point is rather the applications, the new learning curve for different applications. WINE doesn’t always cut it or the set-up is too hard (there are distributions which sell you CrossOver with it). If you want market-share with SkyOS you’ll have to focus on this. You need some unique programs too (BeOS had a few).
2) I’ve used:
SuSE 8.2,9.0,9.1
RedHat 5.0, 5.2
Cobind Desktop 0.1, 0.2
Slax (cant remember which version)
Stampede Linux
Well, RedHat is out of date and doesn’t target the home-end-user anymore. Sorry to say, but i think SUSE doesn’t really care much for these either (well yeah okay its nice and its less Windows machines but aim for corporate environments). Slax is based on Slackware hence more of a geek (or DIY) distribution. Can’t comment on the other 2, but i’d like to say Xandros, Linspire et al are aiming for the home-end-user and most likely prefer constructive criticism. So if you’d try one of these …
desktop tends to mean “Home user desktop” not the corperate workstation, also Linux isnt a UNIX, its a UNIX Like System.
No, desktop IS not home user desktop. For one, this is a fallacy. For two, see above and you see some distributors simply don’t care for the home user desktop. I already said earlier: ‘its not the grand prize’. For three, what also matters here is that corporations (and governments, academics) know or heard about UNIX.
So please if you refer to the ‘home user desktop’, please please specify that as ‘home user desktop’ instead of merely ‘desktop’. It really blurs the point and the discussion.
5) i personally prefer KDE as my DE but XFCE on cobind is pretty interesting to me, i dont like the feel of full blown GNOME.
I was more referring to actual projects which are currently being improved. Think about KDE 3.4/4.0 and GNOME 2.8 and specific point ssuch as GVM, GNOME Storage, KDE/GNOME Accesibility, GNOME-DB (not for home users though).
Regarding point 6, i though i read somewhere Lindows was starting advertising on TV in USA though i can’t verify that from here. We agree on the last, that the ‘desktop’ is more oriented to techy (and corporate) environments but it seems me, unlike you, are looking with insurrance to the future of Linux (and with that i don’t mean X% market share, but higher user-friendliness which counts for both corporate, scientific, tech, academics and home users. And well, there’s Longhorn which is gonna blow mouths open i suppose).
“You keep hammering how difficult linux is.”
I’m just re-iterating what I have heard voiced from our (SkyOS) community, other places, and my own personal experiences.
“What is so difficult about installing Linspire and installing more software with C&R? Even a retarded monkey could do it.”
Well first of all, you are limited (as far as I know) to whatever gets put into the Click ‘n’ Run database. Click ‘n’ Run is just a workaround for the pathetic lack of a unified method of software installation in Linux. Not that it is a bad system, it just should not be the only (easy to use) method of software installation. Indeed, our own “Software Store” is much like the Click ‘n’ Run system, but we also provide an easy system for installing software from a file, if the user would rather do it that way, like how you would in Windows (but easier). And all of this is free, unlike Click ‘n’ Run.
“Besides it has been proven time and again that if you put two groups of people who know absolutely nothing about computers in front of a Microsoft PC the one group, and in front of a Linux loaded PC the other, they will find absolutely the same degree of difficulty in learning.”
Please present some compelling proof to back this statement up. From my own personal experience, the only way the average user will find success on Linux is if they never have to adjust anything. If they don’t have to install the OS, don’t have to install software, don’t have to install drivers, then of course Linux will be easy for them to use, they’re not really doing anything. But once you get into changing system settings, installing software (and please don’t use Click ‘n’ Run as an example, you shouldn’t have to pay for the function of installing software on your operating system), installing drivers, or fixing any odd problems that pop up, the average user is out of luck.
But if you have some concise study comparisons of Linux and Windows in relation to the average user, by all means, post them.
“As for Linux not having been created as a desktop OS, I want to stress once again that neither BSDs were, and yet Apple created from a BSD what arguably is one of the best desktop OSes ever.”
With the help of millions of dollars of R&D to work against the fact that *nix was not designed to be an operating system for the average user. You show me one distro that is as easy to use as OS X, and I’ll tell you Linux is ready for the desktop (here’s a hint: not one distro can currently claim this).
ill give lycoris, xandros or linspire a go, i have a free linspire copy somewhere from when they changed from lindows to linspire i got one of their free download voucher things.
“From my own personal experience, the only way the average user will find success on Linux is if they never have to adjust anything. If they don’t have to install the OS, don’t have to install software, don’t have to install drivers, then of course Linux will be easy for them to use, they’re not really doing anything. But once you get into changing system settings, installing software (and please don’t use Click ‘n’ Run as an example, you shouldn’t have to pay for the function of installing software on your operating system), installing drivers, or fixing any odd problems that pop up, the average user is out of luck. ”
try Cobind Desktop 0.2 http://cobind.com its a really easy to use distro, lays things out in a way thats easy to follow and use, software installing is simple via YUMIG (YUM GUI application) just type a key phrase into the search box and it will search various RPM repositories for RPM’s with a matching description or name, and YUM will also sort out dependancies, also YUMIG acts as the installer, updater and un-installer like SkyOS 5.0-BETA’s Software Store.
I’m just re-iterating what I have heard voiced from our (SkyOS) community, other places, and my own personal experiences.
I think you’re exaggerating the difficulty of Linux in order to provide some theoretical market for SkyOS when there is none.
In the area of hardware usage, DBUS and HAL are maturing quite nicely, and already end user tools that integrate with them are maturing. In the area of desktop experience, have you tried Gnome or KDE lately? Ignoring software installation for a moment, they are quite advanced application frameworks with a plethora of bindings for different languages, and both have massive developer bases with folks eager to teach newcomers.
Well first of all, you are limited (as far as I know) to whatever gets put into the Click ‘n’ Run database. Click ‘n’ Run is just a workaround for the pathetic lack of a unified method of software installation in Linux. Not that it is a bad system, it just should not be the only (easy to use) method of software installation. Indeed, our own “Software Store” is much like the Click ‘n’ Run system, but we also provide an easy system for installing software from a file, if the user would rather do it that way, like how you would in Windows (but easier). And all of this is free, unlike Click ‘n’ Run.
Software installation in Linux is not a big deal anymore. Apt, yum, portage, ports, etc. all deal with dependencies. The only problem is that automatic dependency resolution leads to much of the bloat on your system that, for example, Windows gives you by default. I’m assuming SkyOS provides a core set of libraries that applications can expect to be present, and assumes applications will link statically to any other libraries. This is not a bad solution, but technically inferior to package management, and altogether incompatible with the FHS standard.
I’m sorry if I got this bit of information wrong, it’s just that there’s no way I can test SkyOS out and see how it works.
One of the big problems with closed source OSes is just that: how it works isn’t as important as how easy it is to use it. Linux has the underpinnings of a really advanced system, with the ‘hooks’ for userland software to make it simple and consistent. Now that groups like Gnome have emerged which aim to make the desktop experience secure and user friendly, expect Linux only to get better.
I am starting the design phase of a whole new package management system that will give all of the advantages of portage in binary format (basically by building the package with every single combination of dependencies and storing the differences between each build). At that point, any distribution that uses this system as it’s package manager will have a technically superior software installation mechanism. Combine that with software repositories and a clean PyGTK frontend, and you have a system that can beats any other in terms of package management.
You might still get me for ‘requiring’ that the software be in the repository–try and find a piece of software that isn’t in portage. Besides, I’m coming up with a package management system where you could build a binary package for one architecture and have it work for any setup on the final system.
A more intelligent package management system makes Linux far more dynamic and flexible than SkyOS, Windows, or OS X. In just a few commands, your computer can go from being a router to a workstation to an email server. Or, it can go from a fullblown KDE environment, to a trim fluxbox/aterm setup, back to the latest Gnome.
This means that even newbies will be able to expirement with the myriad of software available for Linux, find what suits them best, and keep running it, knowing that all that cruft left behind is gone forever.
Please present some compelling proof to back this statement up. From my own personal experience, the only way the average user will find success on Linux is if they never have to adjust anything.
And what is your own personal experience?
If they don’t have to install the OS, don’t have to install software, don’t have to install drivers, then of course Linux will be easy for them to use, they’re not really doing anything.
Drivers are automatically detected at installation time for modern desktop distributions. Besides, they may be actually getting work done…
But once you get into changing system settings, installing software (and please don’t use Click ‘n’ Run as an example, you shouldn’t have to pay for the function of installing software on your operating system), installing drivers, or fixing any odd problems that pop up, the average user is out of luck.
I don’t think you understand CNR–you don’t pay for the installation of software, you pay for a graphical frontend that installs software. Other (free) software provides the same functionality.
Besides, if people theoretically migrated from Linux to SkyOS simply for the ease of package management (that’s about all I’ve heard so far, other than driver installation, which is a non-issue for any modern distribution), then are they not paying to install software more easily?
But if you have some concise study comparisons of Linux and Windows in relation to the average user, by all means, post them.
How about concise studies of SkyOS and Windows? SkyOS and Linux? You’re the one who will have to target a market and convince them to buy your software. Windows users are not as dissatisfied with Windows as they used to be in the 95/98/Me days. Linux users are not as dissatisfied as they were in the Redhat 7/Debian 2.x days.
By choosing to go closed source, SkyOS has lost all hacker appeal, and in so doing, has pretty much closed off most of the Linux market. Which leaves it with semi-techie users that are tired of Windows and want to give something else a try. Linspire, Mandrake, Lycoris, Xandros, etc. all can suit their needs just fine now, and when all of these new technologies mature in the next six months, Linux will even be much better than Windows.
I believe you may be exaggerating people’s dissatisfaction in order to justify that a market for SkyOS even exists.
With the help of millions of dollars of R&D to work against the fact that *nix was not designed to be an operating system for the average user. You show me one distro that is as easy to use as OS X, and I’ll tell you Linux is ready for the desktop (here’s a hint: not one distro can currently claim this).
This is something you have to understand if you want SkyOS to work–right now, companies are spending millions of dollars on the Linux desktop. Which means, even though Linux is FOSS, it has more money backing it than you do. Gnome is progressing quite rapidly, and it is turning into a viable option somewhere between Windows and OS X. I’m talking more about look and feel as well as functionality, and not ease of use. DBUS and HAL are providing the kernel hooks and userland daemons to consistently and cleany interface hardware from within the desktop environment in a cross-platform, non-interventitive manner.
By the way, there is nothing about the design of UNIX that makes it non-viable for desktop use. This shows a startling lack of understanding of both UNIX and Linux, which I would recommend you correct if you want to take some of our marketshare.
In the area of hardware usage, DBUS and HAL are maturing quite nicely, and already end user tools that integrate with them are maturing. In the area of desktop experience, have you tried Gnome or KDE lately?
Exactly my point.
Btw, who says MacOSX is user-friendly? For who? What aspects? That’s what matters. Just claiming it is user-friendly is just some kind of authority argument much alike of “not ready for ‘the desktop'” whatever ‘the desktop’ exactly means is not specified. I hear different opinions about it, not 1 or so.
The overal point is though, that you do not see ‘Linux’ as a competitor to SkyOS on the home user desktop whereas i believe it’ll become more and more a competitor (not necessarily a great one or so). There are improvements under the hood (FD.o is one big organisation aiming for these) and they’re coming no matter what you scream about the ‘Linux desktop’.
And please also define the differences existing for desktop usage. A (prof) CAD user cares rat for the underlying DE or OS. He wants his application working and stable and perhaps wishes some features such as cooperative CAD (which the app and the OS have to support with good performance). A home user who wants to play games is afaict automagically excluded on SkyOS. Etcetera. You really have to go in-depth and frankly i find even my earlier statement of home-end user versus corporate/commercial environment far too general, but its getting somewhere…
PS: Youlle have fun trying out Lindows.
“I think you’re exaggerating the difficulty of Linux in order to provide some theoretical market for SkyOS when there is none.”
Like I said, I’m going on what I’ve read on the Internet, what I’ve gathered from friends I’ve talked to, what has been said in the SkyOS community, and my own personal experiences.
“In just a few commands, your computer can go from being a router to a workstation to an email server. Or, it can go from a fullblown KDE environment, to a trim fluxbox/aterm setup, back to the latest Gnome.”
Definitely things the average user would be interested in.
“Software installation in Linux is not a big deal anymore. Apt, yum, portage, ports, etc. all deal with dependencies.”
Just look at what you listed. Apt, Yum, Portage…all of that stuff is confusing to users. There is no unified way to install software in Linux. It doesn’t matter if there is a decent method, because there are 15 different methods of installation. Its a giant mess.
“Now that groups like Gnome have emerged which aim to make the desktop experience secure and user friendly, expect Linux only to get better.”
I’ve heard this since that late ’90s. At what point does it become untrue?
“And what is your own personal experience?”
The poster said that it had been “proved” time and again that Linux is just as easy as Windows. I asked for proof. I already stated my personal experiences.
“Drivers are automatically detected at installation time for modern desktop distributions. Besides, they may be actually getting work done…”
They’d better hope it is anyway, because if its not, and they have to install a driver….not fun on Linux.
“I don’t think you understand CNR–you don’t pay for the installation of software, you pay for a graphical frontend that installs software. Other (free) software provides the same functionality.”
Please don’t use semantics to twist around what I said. You pay for the ability to easily install software. Its just a workaround for a crippled function in Linux, and its stupid.
“Besides, if people theoretically migrated from Linux to SkyOS…”
That is not our goal. People use Linux for different reasons than people would use SkyOS. People use Linux because they want to be able to tinker around with every aspect of their system. People use SkyOS because they want to easily use their computer and applications.
“This shows a startling lack of understanding of both UNIX and Linux, which I would recommend you correct if you want to take some of our marketshare.”
Thanks for the snide comment….yet another problem with the Linux community. You’re your own worst enemy.
I didn’t mean to be snide–only critical. I believe criticism is only helpful, especially for people looking to make money off of something.
Like I said, I’m going on what I’ve read on the Internet, what I’ve gathered from friends I’ve talked to, what has been said in the SkyOS community, and my own personal experiences.
You’ve been reading a different internet than I have…these criticisms were applicable in like 2001. It’s almost Q4 of 2004, and big companies like IBM and Novell are, or rather have been, pumping millions of dollars into making Linux capable of doing exactly what SkyOS is trying to do.
Definitely things the average user would be interested in.
The average user may or may not be interested in them, but people that want to design different distributions that specifically cater to a target audience, like 3d graphics designers, newbies, etc., would be very much interested in them.
Linux is turning into more of a platform than an operating system.
Just look at what you listed. Apt, Yum, Portage…all of that stuff is confusing to users. There is no unified way to install software in Linux. It doesn’t matter if there is a decent method, because there are 15 different methods of installation. Its a giant mess.
They don’t have to know the anything about them, or even their existence. Do you have to know the difference between InstallShield, NullSoft’s installation program, .MSI files, Add/Remove software, etc. in Windows to install software?
It’s a ‘mess’ between distributions only because Linux is, as I just said, a platform. Software management is not a mess in any one distribution.
The poster said that it had been “proved” time and again that Linux is just as easy as Windows. I asked for proof. I already stated my personal experiences.
I agree that the original poster made a really bold claim. However, I wanted to demonstrate that it would be far more important for you to understand the market and the users that you are targeting than him.
They’d better hope it is anyway, because if its not, and they have to install a driver….not fun on Linux.
Drivers aren’t implemented in Linux the way they do in other systems. They’re modules that get inserted directly in to the running kernel. Almost every hardware supported in Linux is supported in the default kernel, with the exception of binary only drivers, which will never make it in the default kernel, because of both idealogical and practical reasons. It’s not very fair to ask volunteers to help debug your kernel if you’re running code they can’t see inside of it.
The exception is graphics drivers, which work pretty easily now from what I can recall.
Pretty soon you’ll be able to plug in a USB camera and a dialog box will popup telling you that it has just loaded the driver and it’s ready to be used. Even if no module for the camera existed, it will tell you that it couldn’t find a driver and very likely will go looking for one for you.
Please don’t use semantics to twist around what I said. You pay for the ability to easily install software. Its just a workaround for a crippled function in Linux, and its stupid.
It’s not ‘crippled’–your claim is unsubstantiated. As far as twisting words around, I’d say calling the various choices distributions have for how they package the software they distribute a “huge mess” and “crippled” qualifies.
Package management can do much more than .MSI files. Much more.
That is not our goal. People use Linux for different reasons than people would use SkyOS. People use Linux because they want to be able to tinker around with every aspect of their system. People use SkyOS because they want to easily use their computer and applications.
Some people use Linux to tinker, many others use Linux to easily use their computer and applications.
Thanks for the snide comment….yet another problem with the Linux community. You’re your own worst enemy.
Well, you really don’t seem to understand how much of Linux works, and yet you’re calling many aspects of it ‘crippled’ when their interface lacks polish. This focus on interface over implementation may be your worst enemy.
Knowing all of the money being pumped into Linux for the desktop, I would think it unlikely that Linux does not and will never compete with SkyOS.
Package management is not broken. And it will get better. In the mean time, what about Unix makes it require ‘hacks’ to become a viable desktop?
I would think that people trying do develop an operating system would understand other operating systems better. It sounds like you don’t even want to understand–you’d rather stick to your antiquated views of early desktop Linux prototypes and think that Linux won’t be competition for SkyOS.
In so doing, you may find your efforts at an alternative desktop OS somewhat ‘crippled.’
Again, please don’t take my comment as being malignant–I’m trying to provide you things to think about that need to be addressed before the market makes it’s final decision. It’s quite a bit more ‘snide’ than me.
Just look at what you listed. Apt, Yum, Portage…all of that stuff is confusing to users. There is no unified way to install software in Linux. It doesn’t matter if there is a decent method, because there are 15 different methods of installation. Its a giant mess.
Nope. You fail to grok how it’ll (commonly) work in practice and you put all which runs the Linux kernel into one giant definition. A giant mess it is then.
Mouth-to-mouth marketing or TV ads work like this: You hear about a product. Not about a competitor, except when they state it is better. You are encouraged to ‘learn’ more about the subject, try a demo out, etc. If you’ve chosen for the product it is not meant to be that you’re gonna try out a competitor. The key point is to make the customer satisfacted.
Hence, when you state the different utilities existing a problem whereas the average customer on which the marketing succeeded has no need to learn about these, is plain inaccurate and wrong. Indeed it DOES matter if the choice the distributor provided is good enough on an individual basis. It ain’t geek’s paradise with too much time where everyone tries out zillions of OSes. Also, be aware this is exactly CNRs (and APT’s, and Portage’s, and YUM’s, etc.) purpose in contrast to e.g. RedHat, IBM who sell support contracts for a total different market. Else, it wouldn’t work for commercial purposes.
I’ve heard this since that late ’90s. At what point does it become untrue?
Do you agree it has become much better?
People use Linux because they want to be able to tinker around with every aspect of their system.
Again you fail to grok what Linux is used for. Hint: its not the kid’s basement OS of the 90’s anymore. It’s used in commercial, scientific, manufacturer and some home user environments to get work done.
In contrast, somehow i’m not able to see how SkyOS is gonna be a competitor to get work done like Windows, UNIX, ‘Linux’ and many more OSes are able to. Only for doing some fun or unserious geekness whereas a geek ain’t able to see the source cause its protected.
We speak again in a few years when SkyOS uses its proprietary aspect to raise money for its commercial effort. Let’s see if you still are so anti-capitalism as you appear to be with your denigrating CNR comments. Lindows has got to earn some money instead of this non-commercial SkyOS effort. It’s a commercial OS. If you have some better alternative for them to capitalize then shoot. I’m quite sure they’ll love constructive criticism (I sure would).
“Well, you really don’t seem to understand how much of Linux works, and yet you’re calling many aspects of it ‘crippled’ when their interface lacks polish. This focus on interface over implementation may be your worst enemy.”
I look at it from the perspective of an average desktop user, not a developer. In my eyes, it doesn’t look good. I don’t honestly care how Linux works, that is for Linux developers. I care about how Linux (distros) interact with me as a user, and as of my last experience (about 4-5 months ago), it was not good. Better than 1999? Sure. But not good, and certainly far shorter of what I would expect after 5 years of development. If SkyOS only progressed as much as Linux has (in regards to the average desktop user) in 5 years time, I would be VERY disappointed.
“Knowing all of the money being pumped into Linux for the desktop, I would think it unlikely that Linux does not and will never compete with SkyOS.”
What does money have to do with it? The Linux community has said that it is the community that makes Linux better, not companies and money. Now you say that it is the other way around. Which is it?
For what its worth, I don’t think that money or company backing necessarily makes a product better. The most important things are love of the work and the know-how, something that we are very “rich” with at SkyOS. Microsoft started as a five-man company operating out of a small apartment. Apple started out of a garage. Money doesn’t always make something successful.
“Package management is not broken. And it will get better. In the mean time, what about Unix makes it require ‘hacks’ to become a viable desktop?”
Again, we’ve heard “it will get better” for almost 7 years now. It gets better at a speed that even a snail wouldn’t be jealous of. Nothing is really stopping Linux from being a good desktop OS except that it just isn’t. Your example of OS X is perfect. *nix systems can be used to build good desktop operating systems for average users. It just hasn’t happened with Linux. Why? I don’t know.
“I would think that people trying do develop an operating system would understand other operating systems better. It sounds like you don’t even want to understand–you’d rather stick to your antiquated views of early desktop Linux prototypes and think that Linux won’t be competition for SkyOS.”
As I said, I am an average user. I don’t know about the internals of how Linux works as that would put me at a disadvantage. I want to continue to see it from the “average” user perspective, as I always have. I’ve used Linux off and on over the course of five years. I used it for about a month in 1999. I used it for about 3 months in 2000. Same in 2001. I used it for almost a year in 2002. I used it for 6 months in 2003. I now try to boot up the “average user” distros when time allows, just to see where things are. I just don’t see the speed of progression that would ever make Linux a viable desktop option for all users.
“Again, please don’t take my comment as being malignant–I’m trying to provide you things to think about that need to be addressed before the market makes it’s final decision. It’s quite a bit more ‘snide’ than me.”
And again, our market is not the people that currently use Linux. Linux has 2-3% of the desktop market, and almost all of these people are not the “average” desktop user, which again, is what we are aiming at. Only a tiny, tiny fraction of current Linux users will ever consider switching to SkyOS. Its just two different mindsets of what an “operating system” should be. And that is fine. But they are not our market. Our market is currently using Windows, wondering why an alternative has not appeared for them.
“Do you agree it has become much better?”
No, I think it has become slightly better…something that should be considered disappointing in five years time.
“Let’s see if you still are so anti-capitalism as you appear to be with your denigrating CNR comments. Lindows has got to earn some money instead of this non-commercial SkyOS effort. It’s a commercial OS. If you have some better alternative for them to capitalize then shoot. I’m quite sure they’ll love constructive criticism (I sure would).”
What are you talking about? SkyOS is commercial as well. I just said I don’t think they should charge for something that should be considered a core-function of the operating system. An idea for how to make money? How about selling the operating system? That is what we’re doing to make money.
What does money have to do with it? The Linux community has said that it is the community that makes Linux better, not companies and money. Now you say that it is the other way around. Which is it?
Fallacy. The Linux comminity is not some kind of group which agrees on everything. That’s obvious. The opinions on this differ. Facts are: from ’91 till ’99 there was (almost) no commercial effort behind it. RedHat started in ’95 as one of the pioneers in this regard. From ’99, companies like Oracle and IBM standed behind the effort with various other corporations following which increases even these days (recently Novell). If you go more in-depth you’ll find out various other (perhaps interesting) facts after which you can draw some conclusion but that’s not rocket science.
Again, we’ve heard “it will get better” for almost 7 years now.
And it got better. I wouldn’t say the ‘its ready for the desktop’ hype really started in 1997 though. Its hard to state such in any case. I think it started to get serious around the time of KDE2 (not to dismiss GNOME or so) but its a personal opinion ofcourse.
Nothing is really stopping Linux from being a good desktop OS except that it just isn’t.
(Again you make the mistake to generalize the desktop.)
Weird sentences are nothing next to the perception of complex problems stated in weird sentences.
It just hasn’t happened with Linux. Why? I don’t know.
If you don’t understand this then how can you reasonably be so sure your SkyOS will succeed? If you aren’t able to learn from (what you see as) mistakes from one or another then how can you be so sure you won’t make the same mistake?
Our market is currently using Windows, wondering why an alternative has not appeared for them.
A sentence like this has a high geek portion. It’s not as if “hey lets run something different than Windows!” Those are the geeks, the experimenters, the computer-lovers, the people with too much time, the more-than-average users. The average user wants work done or entertainment. This means that if SkyOS can’t run Photoshop, Doom3, or OpenOffice/MS Office (examples) it won’t be seriously used. Not as main OS in any case. Rather as alternative to play with. Okay, enter the geek world.
No, I think it has become slightly better…something that should be considered disappointing in five years time.
Earlier you said it was 7 years. What is it according to you? If you compare XFree86 3.3.x to XFree86 4.3 or X.Org or FVWM to GNOME 2.6/2.8 or KDE 3.3 that is no big improvement? All the games available for Linux? All the GUI programs? Mozilla, OpenOffice, etc although i’m not really defining a difference between home and commercial/scientific/academics usage here.
A real nice thing is though that OSes such as Haiku, *BSD, SkyOS, MorphOS and many others are able to use these very same applications as basis too. So its contributing to the overal alternatives whereas its part of commercial efforts you’re so happily cracking down.
An idea for how to make money? How about selling the operating system? That is what we’re doing to make money.
Heh and you’re talking about innovation… not an innovative commercial effort. Btw, its also not possible with the GPL.
should charge for something that should be considered a core-function of the operating system.
Your alternative is […]. (The above you describe is similar and also has the ‘drug dealer’ scheme.)
Package management is not broken. And it will get better.
When a developper has to create multiple different packages (one for each format, one for each distro, and sometimes even for each distro version), I find that a broken way of installing software.
In just a few commands, your computer can go from being a router to a workstation to an email server. Or, it can go from a fullblown KDE environment, to a trim fluxbox/aterm setup, back to the latest Gnome.”
Well, Kelly said it already, as if my dad cares about that. That’s also a common error among part of the linux crowd: “you can do everything with Linux!” Yes, of course you can, and that’s definitely worth praise and admiration. but for the average user it don’t mean jack! The more complicated something gets, the less people will like it. The more different things get, the less people will like it.
SkyOS tries to bring the good parts of Windows, and combine them with their own ideas. This created an OS that’s extremely easy to use (and I can know, I’m on the beta team, obviously dpi & co aren’t) and very reliable. And with networking being re-enabled and re-worked for beta8, the fun will really start.
I, myself, prefer simplicity. Why do something the hard way, if it can be done easier? Therefore, I’m an avid supporter of BeOS, my x86 is completely dedicated to BeOS (and SkyOS, of course), and now way that any Linux Desktop can ever beat the speed and simplicity of BeOS at this point. And with the speed desktoplinux is developping, I don’t see a very bright future in mass adoption of desktoplinux by people like my mother, my computer-illetrate friends and my grandma.
This, however, doe snot mean Linux is a bad system. quite the contrary, actually. The Linux kernel is so scalable, even my Watch could probably hold it. And KDE for instance, I love it. I’ve used KDE for years, and I liked the extreme control I had. It’s just too bad the desktoplinux as a whole cannot compete to Windows and Mac OS X (Mac OS X might be overtaken by Linux, but ot because it’s a better system; it’s only because og the hardware OS X runs on, of course). Feature wise, it did surpass BeOS. Speedwise and simplicity-wise it didn’t, and I don’t see that happen in the near future.
My point with people like dpi is that they say I have no right to critisize desktoplinux. I can get very much pissed off when I read that. I was an avid Linux user, enjoyed it, but it also irritated me. The arrogance inside part of the community, the slowness with which desktoplinux progressed, the utter complxity of a whole desktoplinux distro, etc, etc, it pushed me away. dpi, on the other hand, has never used SkyOS probably didn’t really use BeOS (as in, relying on it as your main OS for weeks, as I forced myself to do with lots of Linux distro’s, Windows, BeOS Mac OS X, QNX Neutrino RTOS 6.x, FreeBSD w/ KDE, …), and still he thinks he knows all.
Go perform some scientific research on BeOS or SkyOS before saying DesktopLinux is better, dude. I have used them all for months, and still you say I have no right to comment on all this.
The utter arrogance…
You’re back! I’m still waiting for your scientific research on X. Where is it?
When a developper has to create multiple different packages (one for each format, one for each distro, and sometimes even for each distro version), I find that a broken way of installing software.
1) That’s upstream’s problem.
2) A good distribution makes it unnecessary for the user to deal with this just like e.g. OS/2 did/tried and Windows did/tried.
Well, Kelly said it already, as if my dad cares about that. That’s also a common error among part of the linux crowd: “you can do everything with Linux!” Yes, of course you can, and that’s definitely worth praise and admiration. but for the average user it don’t mean jack! The more complicated something gets, the less people will like it. The more different things get, the less people will like it.
Which is why in the end several of the commercial Linux distributions will die. The market will decide. However, as i said already, the point is the user doesn’t have to deal with this.
I, myself, prefer simplicity. Why do something the hard way, if it can be done easier? Therefore, I’m an avid supporter of BeOS, my x86 is completely dedicated to BeOS (and SkyOS, of course), and now way that any Linux Desktop can ever beat the speed and simplicity of BeOS at this point.
Which is all a personal point of view (i prefer GNOME as simplicity DE and modified XFce4 for simple & speedy mass deployment on slow hardware). Some non-geeks already use Linux. In commercial environments the Linux desktop has been succesful afaik; in contrast to e.g. BeOS, QNX (which doesn’t even aim for home users IDIOT), and SkyOS/Syllable/[fill in your hobby OS here].
My point with people like dpi is that they say I have no right to critisize desktoplinux.
My point has always been you make some vague statements which don’t hold water after a while or you’re not able to back them up with hard facts (but with e.g. ‘your personal view’ or ‘your personal experience’) and that you lack repeatetly sufficient knowledge which make you unable to develop constructive criticism.
dpi, on the other hand, has never used SkyOS probably didn’t really use BeOS (as in, relying on it as your main OS for weeks, as I forced myself to do with lots of Linux distro’s, Windows, BeOS Mac OS X, QNX Neutrino RTOS 6.x, FreeBSD w/ KDE, …), and still he thinks he knows all.
(“Forced”?)
I don’t have to use something in order to draw some basic conclusions based on other information available. I’ve used AmigaOS 3.1, 3.9, BeOS 5.0 and QNX RTOS 4.x and 6.x and if you really must know FreeBSD 3.4, 4.0-4.2 with KDE 1.3 (all when i had far too much time). Note that ‘used’ here means basic usage (install programs, use these, porting applications over, use it as an alternative to my main OS; Windows at that time).
I’d say you people here draw some arrogance at least as well, capitalizing the hard work of free software / open source GUI and CLI applications in your hobby OS whereas stating such strong arguments against these same prgorams being part of that very so-called Linux desktop. Lets bett Mono is to be used for .NET soon in SkyOS, yes? Plus thinking your hobby OS will be popular or serious developers behind it in the next few years -nevermind what the current development in the actual field is- whereas such traditionally takes lots of time, is plain overzealous. Who’s gonna deliver all those commercial games for SkyOS? Who’s gonna code the compatibility layer? However if i take MorphOS as example they at least some in-depth plans which do show competence to get more market share (and not only for geeks, methinks). Where can i read about these plans for SkyOS?
Critizing and capitalizing just looks very stupid. Take SCO for example. Stating the GPL is not constitutional but at the same time using it. Ain’t that contradicting and funny? To me it certainly is although the reason for it being this way is pretty obvious in the cases here.
And Thom, my counter-question to you which you’ll most likely evade: have you used ‘the Linux desktop’ in a professional environment? Please ellobarate.
In commercial environments the Linux desktop has been succesful afaik; in contrast to e.g. BeOS, QNX (which doesn’t even aim for home users IDIOT), and SkyOS/Syllable/[fill in your hobby OS here]
Did I say QNX was aimed at the “home user”? Did I say BeOS was more succesfull in the home market than Linux? Please, point to where I said that, I’d really like to know. And calling me an idiot? Shows a lack of, err, nevermind. You know what I mean.
My point has always been you make some vague statements which don’t hold water after a while or you’re not able to back them up with hard facts (but with e.g. ‘your personal view’ or ‘your personal experience’) and that you lack repeatetly sufficient knowledge which make you unable to develop constructive criticism.
My statements are no less “vague” than yours. Where are your hard facts on Linux being completely useable for the home user? Please, present them.
When it comes to operating systems, I indeed rely on personal experience. Just like when I buy a car. I test drive it, ty out all the stuff that a car is supposed to do (ie. braking), and if that goes all well, I will be able to make an informed decision. Just as with OS’s. I’m an avid OS fan, try them all out, just to try to find out what fits me best. And I’m pretty sure that after using so many OS’s for extended periods of time, I think I can make a failry informed decision, not clouded by any love for open source software.
(“Forced”?)
Of course. Do you think it’s fun to install distro number 56? No, it isn’t. But maybe, just maybe, the 57th will be really great. So yes, I force myself to. Just as I force myself to go to Nissan dealer, the Mitshubishi dealer, the Seat dealer etc. Just try them out long enough; you might run into something good.
I don’t have to use something in order to draw some basic conclusions based on other information available.
In other words, you are just rephrasing what others have said before you, instead of forming your own opinion? Mmmmm right.
Oh, and by the way, SkyOS ain’t “my” hobby OS. I actually critizise Robert & Co quite often that I find they need to innovate a bit more, and move away from the Windows paradigm a little more. Also, if you would’ve read my 4 page article on beta7 here on osnews, you would’ve known I critisized SkyOS openly. Did anyone at SkyOS get mad? No they didn’t. They acknoweldged my problems with SkyOS, and tried to change SkyOS for the better.
That’s really something the desktoplinux world should do. Instead of getting all those panties in twists, and start saying “NAY” and putting earplugs in, just be open to critisizm from the user.
Did I say QNX was aimed at the “home user”? Did I say BeOS was more succesfull in the home market than Linux?
That is what i perceived they were about since 1) that is what you address constantly with your posts 2) since that’s what you are 3) since i have no indications you have the knowledge to discuss from it from other points of view. If that ain’t what you meant well sorry then.
Shows a lack of, err, nevermind. You know what I mean.
You’re right when you perceive i have little to no respect for people who make wild assertions (“X is 10 times slower than Y”) and when it comes down to proving the point they draw away the issue with wild fireworks ignoring the issue. Wankers. Braggers. Have the guts to put your money where your mouth is at.
My statements are no less “vague” than yours. Where are your hard facts on Linux being completely useable for the home user? Please, present them.
(…but i don’t claim “X is 10 times slower than Y” based on my feelings.)
That’s not what i’ve claimed; what i’ve claimed is that it is becoming more and more useful and that i’m confident it’ll become better. Usefulness can be benchmarked in a relation (ie. compared to what?) and as absolute (ie. what i can i do with it). In both areas has it improved. On which specific areas do you want me to proof this? I don’t have the time to address every aspect a modern Linux distribution includes.
When it comes to operating systems, I indeed rely on personal experience. [cars blabla]
1) I don’t. I mostly rely on facts.
2) Not everyone does either. Not everyone is a geek. Not everyone has piles of time available.
Of course. Do you think it’s fun to install distro number 56? No, it isn’t.
Then why do it? It’s stil your choice; you don’t have to but apparently you want to invest time in it.
In other words, you are just rephrasing what others have said before you, instead of forming your own opinion? Mmmmm right.
In other words i don’t waste my time doing something i don’t have time for and/or which others are able to do better. Instead i let other people do it for me. E.g. like a restaurant cooks and serves my food, like a house keeper cleans my house, like a software tester tests my software, like a car washer washes my car. And, i don’t rephrase opinions i rely mostly on hard facts, even stating them, on constructive well written opinions, or stating my opinion based on that or when i have the time research futher based on that.
No they didn’t. They acknoweldged my problems with SkyOS, and tried to change SkyOS for the better.
That’s all constructive. If you’d have read GNOME, X, or Mozilla threads you’d have noticed i do the same regarding these apps. In regard to one app, i do this daily in private with a core developer and when all goes fine i start developing on the app as well soon.
But all this ‘bigger penis’ cruft is getting old, i want benchmarks in regard of X. Which me to what i already assumed:
1) You don’t answer my request for hard numbers regarding X (e.g. no benchmarks).
2) You ignore my question in regard to wether you’ve used the ‘Linux desktop’ on professional fields.
3) You ignore various other questions.
(And no, you are not important for SUSE/RedHat. You don’t mean shit to them. Does that hurt? Doesn’t matter, you’re not a potential customer hence no money from you which you don’t appear to comprehend. If you were a HP customer and said: “X is slow. Here are the benchmarks. Make it faster. I pay you X” you better HP starts thinking to discuss the issues with Keith Packard.)
Because of this, i don’t see how our discussion is somehow constructive, i see it as a waste of time hence my last reply to you except on answers based on my questions or constructive questions you’ve asked. Cause all this ‘experience’ cruft is getting old…
You ignore my question in regard to wether you’ve used the ‘Linux desktop’ on professional fields.
As I said a million times before: I’ve used various incarnations of desktoplinux as my main operating system for years (especially Mandrake) doing all my work on it, ranging from my study at the university to writing articles for OSNews. No, not “professional” (I assume you ment “corporate”?), but we were discussing the home user here.
You don’t answer my request for hard numbers regarding X (e.g. no benchmarks).
Opening Mozilla on BeOS: two seconds. Opening Mozilla on MDK w/ KDE: 7 seconds. My system specs are…
Seriously dude, there is really something wrong with you if you believe the responsiveness of the current X implementations+windowmanagers is faster than BeOS+tracker/deskbar. They ain’t even near. I don’t need benhcmarks for that; if I had means of capturing my screen I’d do it. Really, dude, you really think current X+KDE/Gnome is faster than BeOS+tracker/deskbar?
“Of course. Do you think it’s fun to install distro number 56? No, it isn’t.”
Then why do it? It’s stil your choice; you don’t have to but apparently you want to invest time in it.
You again ripped that line out of context. Low.
In other words i don’t waste my time doing something i don’t have time for and/or which others are able to do better. Instead i let other people do it for me. E.g. like a restaurant cooks and serves my food, like a house keeper cleans my house, like a software tester tests my software, like a car washer washes my car. And, i don’t rephrase opinions i rely mostly on hard facts, even stating them, on constructive well written opinions, or stating my opinion based on that or when i have the time research futher based on that.
How in hell can you judge something you’ve never used before?? That’s complete nonsense. I can’t tell you what it’s like to drive a Ferarri, for the extremely simple reason that I’ve never used one.
____________________________________
My point: I find the current implementations of X+wm’s used by Linux slower than BeOS/Tracker+Deskbar, Windows+Explorer and OS X+Finder.Again, I don’t need benchmarks. It’s what I personally feel that matters to me. If someone from Mandrake tells me Mandrake is better then all other OS’s, then I do’t belive him. I’d try it out myself.
You, on the other hand, would believe him, or, you would rely on other people’s opinions because you don’t have the time to try it out for yourself.
No, not “professional” (I assume you ment “corporate”?), but we were discussing the home user here.
No, corporate is something different than professional.
Opening Mozilla on BeOS: two seconds. Opening Mozilla on MDK w/ KDE: 7 seconds. My system specs are…
Seriously dude, there is really something wrong with you if you believe the responsiveness of the current X implementations+windowmanagers is faster than BeOS+tracker/deskbar. They ain’t even near. I don’t need benhcmarks for that; if I had means of capturing my screen I’d do it. Really, dude, you really think current X+KDE/Gnome is faster than BeOS+tracker/deskbar?
(Can you put off the dude? Its ignorant. You don’t know my age or gender, or so, and the facts might surprise you but are none of your business.)
7 sec versus 2 sec is hardly “10 times as fast”. If you look back at that discussion you notice i never said “i don’t believe its slower” i just wanted to see proof it being 10 times as fast. But it is merely based on feelings, that’s quite apparent now.
I’m also interested in the versions you’ve used, indeed memory usage at the time of loading, what the compile options of the binaries were, and the hardware specifications. The systems were also exactly identical, yes? X version? BeOS version? Did you use any hdparm options? If you’d provide these, it only makes your argument more clear and scientific, but without such, it makes far less sense. Again perhaps not for you, but more than not for the sceptic people who you’re trying to convince. And, ofcourse Mozilla ain’t the only application to be benchmarked. I think, in order to benchmark XFree86, it is far more easier to benchmark it against alternatives such as DirectFB and other X solutions on exactly the same OS (e.g. exactly same testing circumstances). Because testing one particular X server doesn’t mean X itself is slow.
You again ripped that line out of context. Low.
Ever been on Usenet? Mailing lists. It’s normal to do this even while i replied to that whole alinea.
How in hell can you judge something you’ve never used before?? That’s complete nonsense.
Simple: by not basing myself on my experience because my experience is just one biased view under circumstances others most likely do not experience.
[..] It’s what I personally feel that matters to me. [..]
Good, then don’t expect technical-inclined people to give a rat about what you personally feel except when money is to be earned.
You, on the other hand, would believe him
No. I know he has interest in saying that, so i’d reside to a 3rd party review instead. If it is important, multiple. Using this form of outsourcing i have a higher chance i get a near-objective result. Especially when i reside to people who know what they’re talking about (e.g. C’T). You don’t try and check out what hardware is best for you either, do you? You aren’t doing news reports yourself (on non-tech related subjects) to research what’s happening do you? See, its a form of devotion, geekness.
Okay, this is from a while back, but I dont really care.
You said something to the extent of:
A sentence like this has a high geek portion. It’s not as if “hey lets run something different than Windows!” Those are the geeks, the experimenters, the computer-lovers, the people with too much time, the more-than-average users. The average user wants work done or entertainment. This means that if SkyOS can’t run Photoshop, Doom3, or OpenOffice/MS Office (examples) it won’t be seriously used. Not as main OS in any case. Rather as alternative to play with. Okay, enter the geek world.
Okay, enter OSX. Obviously a geek operating system. Wow. I really didn’t nknow that.
YOu also said innovation is not possible with out GPL. Hmm. Okay. Where would be be right now with out Xerox. Last time checked GPL WASN”T EVEN AROUND!!! Okay, what about Microsoft. They dont use GPL. Borland. THey never used GPL. hell, the guy who invented the abacus. he didn’t use GPL. Stop saying GPL is some kind of perverbial God responsible for all good things on this earth.
Alright. One final comment. You would make a WONDERFUL tech support agent.
Okay, enter OSX. Obviously a geek operating system.
In a certain extent it is, but how does that make sense? The situations aren’t even remotely similar. Doom3, Photoshop and OO.o/MS Office all run fine on OSX.
YOu also said innovation is not possible with out GPL
Please quote me where i said that because that’s such a stupid remark… the computer industry even innovated before the GPL existed although one could argue the statement is stated as present time, not about the past.
Alright. One final comment. You would make a WONDERFUL tech support agent.
I’ve already been!
7 sec versus 2 sec is hardly “10 times as fast”. If you look back at that discussion you notice i never said “i don’t believe its slower” i just wanted to see proof it being 10 times as fast. But it is merely based on feelings, that’s quite apparent now.
First off, that line was a joke, but obviously you are unfamiliar with the concept. Secondly, I always said it was based on feelings, I never said otherwise.
(Can you put off the dude? Its ignorant. You don’t know my age or gender, or so, and the facts might surprise you but are none of your business.)
I refuse to show any sign of respect to people who call others “idiots” simply because they don’t agree with him. No matter how old you are, dude.
Simple: by not basing myself on my experience because my experience is just one biased view under circumstances others most likely do not experience.
So, let me get this straight: When a reviewer tells you product X is great, but you yourself don’t like it, you still keep it? That’s basicaly what you are saying with “by not basing (etc)”. You must be very influencable (if that’s a word, my native tongue ain’t English).
Good, then don’t expect technical-inclined people to give a rat about what you personally feel except when money is to be earned.
Mmmm then why do people like Robert Szeleney pay attention to what I say? Then why do people actually enjoy reading my reviews/articles on OSNews over the past year? I’ve been getting some good responses on my articles overall, so I must be doing something right.
You don’t try and check out what hardware is best for you either, do you?
Actually, I do. A good example is my trackball. Spent like 50E on it, and the first few days I was close to returning it to the shop, because my thumb was killing me. But, a few days later, that went by and now I prefer trackballs over mice. So, to answer your question: yes, I do try out hardware before deciding to keep it (if people wonder “how can you return opened boxes…?” I live in The Netherlands, we’re quite easy on that here).
Oh, well, this is a nice pile of rantings. (Dude and moron callings included) I’ve enjoyed the reading and I’ve stated one very remarkable thing:
ONe (dpi) relies on facts others – maybe professionals – provide for him, and checks out whether the product in question fits his needs. (the his is neutral in this context, so pls, dpi, don’t take offense). That’s a good way to check out expensive products you don’t want to buy – does something like “Die katze im Sack kaufen” exist in english? (to buy something without knowing what it is). I’m d’accord with it, as I understand it.
Thom on the other hand, relies on facts he collects by active falsification and empiry. He checks it out himself. That’s ok too. I’m ‘retarded'(english isn’t my native tongue, so I don’t know if that word has any negative impact- I use it to name a fact) in the sense that my hearing is damaged to a point that I don’t understand speech without hearing aid. But ere I actually buy a hearing aid, I try it out by myself instead of relying on what others tell me. It is a thing of personal/subjective and biased experience whether such an appliance fits my needs or not. One can’t decide such a thing the other way.
The both of them are right. You canna discuss about that. period.
But it is not right to show disrespect to the other one by calling names (idiots, morons …) What sort of offense the word dude implies I don’t know. I use it just like the words gosh, lad, man. We non-native-english-speakers are sometimes a bit ignorant concerning sensitive impacts on some words.
The point: Linux is not ready for the desktop. is simply false and not well proven.
I use Linux and windows as well and the both of them in professional range (3d design,programming etc – me is a power user so to say – a kernel and OS developer). Neither of the two has (in my opinion) any advantage over the other – besides the bigger market share of microsoft in the realm “desktop home user”.
Wanna know why this is so? Simple: there are way more windows users outta there.
In your common circle of friends, the possibility one has windows on his computer is far higher. Know ya? LInux isn’t that wide spread amongst home users, who usually care shit about operating systems: they don’t want to fiddle with configuration files, they want to have the computer do the alldays jobs. Linux can do it. Windows can do it too. But with windows more people know where to put the crucial settings.
with f. ex. SuSE’s Yast, finding an d putting crucial settings has become faaar easier than years ago.
Now, regarding Thom’s article: It’s ok to do some advertising all the while. It doesn’t cause my pants twist together in agony. Just don’t assume that because you get *some* good responses everything you say isn’t to be objected.
You will bash me for this: Some of the arguments are pure polemic. Don’t want to cite, but amongst them are falling statements like “ye are moron etc”
stay safe folks
distantvoices: one short note: this wasn’t my article, it’s Youlle’s, actually
My point: I find the current implementations of X+wm’s used by Linux slower than BeOS/Tracker+Deskbar, Windows+Explorer and OS X+Finder.
My points:
* Which of these have remote acces built-in (not counting add-ons such as RDP, VNC, etc)? This is important for both my work and home use of my computers, but I am willing to accept that it is not required for you typical “home user”.
* Which of these allow you to change the window manager (officialy, in a supported way) if you don’t like the behaviour of the default one? Don’t tell me, that the very same home users, who skin and choose their mp3 players and IM clients would not like the ability to change the wm.
good analysis, like thom said its my opinion piece lol, but a good analysis all the same.
Which of these allow you to change the window manager (officialy, in a supported way) if you don’t like the behaviour of the default one? Don’t tell me, that the very same home users, who skin and choose their mp3 players and IM clients would not like the ability to change the wm.
Ehum, when I look at my friends’ computers, my dad parents’ computers, my grandma’s computers– none of them are skinned in any way (only a different wallpaper).
Then again, installing a new WM on a desktoplinux machine is pure hell. I mean, I can do it, but sure as hell the people mentioned above can’t.
– A few notes:
1) Changing shells in windows is extremely easy. Look at Talisman, LiteStep, Astonshell etc (all Explorer replacements) They are just as easy to install as any other Windows application. And, in fact, they often use less resources than Explorer. Uninstalling? One double-click does the trick. Changing shells/WMs is far easier on Windows than on ANY desktoplinux system (that is, if they didn’t came pre-installed on your desktoplinux system. And seeing Xandros/Linspire etc, they won’t be). and the whole ObjectDesktop suite is an amazing piece of software (although it costs money, it’s a small fee for all you get).
Now you again.
2) BeOS is ofcourse a different story. But, then again, BeOS hasn’t been under active development for 3-4 years now, so that’s no suprise. It’s themebale (hell, Zeta has a number o themes available), but not as extensive as Windows/KDe/Gnome/etc.
3) I haven’t really dove into skinning OS X, seeing I just got my iMac like three weeks ago.
First off, that line was a joke, but obviously you are unfamiliar with the concept. Secondly, I always said it was based on feelings, I never said otherwise.
Strange you didn’t tell me that when we had the discussion for the first time (this is the 3rd or 4th time). Instead, you had some arguments that your experience is somehow more important than the approach of the scientific method. Hey, fine with me if that’s more worth for you, but a lot of readers -especially sceptical folks- disagree and will eventually ask for a more solid, unbiased research. You can’t expect one to care about biased research (or ‘research’, rather).
For example, imagine a Solaris fan stating how the SunOS kernel is so much more better and scalable than the FreeBSD and Linux kernel. It is possible, yes, but if he only provides some numbers without actual details of the testing circumstances his/her bias could have influenced his end conclusion. To verify wether that is true or false, we need the testing circumstances. Now, that’s not rocket science, is it?
Now, i wouldn’t be surprised if readers were sceptical because you tend to show a BeOS, SkyOS biased. Or, because i tend to show a UNIX, Linux bias. Hence, i expect one to be sceptical to doubtable, related statements.
So, let me get this straight: When a reviewer tells you product X is great, but you yourself don’t like it, you still keep it? That’s basicaly what you are saying with “by not basing (etc)”. You must be very influencable (if that’s a word, my native tongue ain’t English).
You just don’t get it Thom. When a reviewer tells you or me product X is great, he/she did research before he/she came to that conclusion. One who doesn’t ain’t a reviewer (i rather prefer the term researcher), that’s a marketing shill, idiot, zealot or whatever. Such research is based on e.g. facts, synthesis. The conclusion is mostly not “buy this”. It goes far more in depth than simply that because the reviewer doesn’t assume the reader only wants X, or Y. The reviewer therefore states what’s the best for what, relying on his research. If the conclusion ain’t based on solid grounds, the conclusion is obviously worthless, and that happens on some websites, magazines more often than others… its up to the reader to decide this though and its up to the reader to chose what he or she wishes to read.
Now, i can’t do that research, because for one it costs a lot of time and for two it costs a lot of energy, proofreading and research. I used to do it when i were younger though. Not anymore. That’s why i pay others to do it.
Buy a C’T (Dutch and German versions available) for the fun of it and read some of the articles. Then i beg you to find such quality articles on the Internet. Hint: they’re rare. That’s what you pay for when you buy C’T.
Actually, I do.
That’s not the point of that alinea. The point is rather that one cannot do this on every aspect in life because you don’t have infinite time and energy available to do so.
(Neither can i read researches from people who know what they speak about, ofcurse.)
“Die katze im Sack kaufen”
Yep. That’s the German version. Dutch version is: “Een kat in de zak kopen”. I’m not sure if the English version is “Buying a cat in the sack” but it means that you buy something without knowing if it fullfills your needs.
actually, it is “to buy a pig in a poke”. ‘ve done a quick lookup in dict.leo.org.
Now, i wouldn’t be surprised if readers were sceptical because you tend to show a BeOS, SkyOS biased.
That one was one to many.I’m in no way biased towards these. My article on SkyOS contained crititique, and I always acknowledge the weaknesses of the Be.
About the whole review thing: I prefer my own experiences with a product. What if my definitions of “weakness” and “strength” differs from that of the researcher? That’s why one should always use a product before making statements about it. For instance, when I comment on a thread about an OS I haven’t used extensively, I always make that clear. “I haven’t really used this OS before, but…” or “Judgeing by the screenshots…”.
You make claims about SkyOS without having actually used it. That’s what bothering me in most SkyOS threads: people who find SkyOS worthless simply because it isn’t open-source. Have they used it? No. It’s the same as you won’t see me commenting in MorphOS threads for example: I haven’t used MorphOS, and the only thing I can say about it is that judgeing by the screenshots, it looks good. Can I say more about MorphOS? No, I can’t, because I haven’t used it.
From your first comment in this thread:
I see it just as a toy, not anything serious at all.
I ask you to become a beta member, actually use SkyOS, and then refine your attitude towards the whole project. You cannot make a statement like the above without having used the “toy”.