Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SkyOS Now Runs Linux Binaries Natively

timothy posted about 13 years ago | from the emulation-is-sincere-flattery dept.

News 293

Gunder123 writes: "A new (open source in the past, but not anymore) operating system, SkyOS, in its latest version can run Linux binaries unmodified, without the need of a recompilation, enriching its own application base this way. Their Linux emulation layer lies inside the SkyOS kernel, I wonder if there are any GPL violations going on here. Their future plans involve also an emulation layer for Windows applications, pretty much what ReactOS tries to do for the last few years for the WindowsNT model."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Lucy (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2448898)

in the sky with diamonds

Re:Lucy (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2448914)

drugs are bad, mmmkay??

Re:Lucy (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2448938)

yer p0sts are really bad, mmmkay?

Re:Lucy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2448955)

almost as bad as this damn article! "Hello World" indeed.

Re:Lucy (-1)

Fecal Troll Matter (445929) | about 13 years ago | (#2449011)

My penis fits snugly in this here watermelon.

Re:Lucy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2449026)

Too bad it's the smallest penis on this thread.

Re:Lucy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2449190)

Too bad watermelons are out of season.

Why isn't it open source anymore? (2, Interesting)

pgpckt (312866) | about 13 years ago | (#2448903)

Just wondering why this OS isn't open source anymore...

Re:Why isn't it open source anymore? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2448961)

Open source business plan:

1. Write free software.
2. ???
3. Profit!

Re:Why isn't it open source anymore? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2448975)

1. Gather underwear

2. ???

3. Profit!

Bah, heathen (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2449029)

1. Collect underpants.

...

Re:Why isn't it open source anymore? (1)

carpe_noctem (457178) | about 13 years ago | (#2448979)

I would suspect that it may have a little something to do with their mention of incorporating Windows emulation in future releases...and Microsoft *does* have a track record of pushing companies around like this, IIRC...

Re:Why isn't it open source anymore? (4, Informative)

albat0r (526414) | about 13 years ago | (#2449048)

Taken from and interview on OSnews ( www.osnews.com [osnews.com] ), here's the answer to your question:

Robert Szeleney: Until version 3.0, SkyOS was open source. But now, I don`t want SkyOS to be open source. I put so many work into this project, that I don`t want to give to source away. But I accept project members. If someone want to code for SkyOS he can have source. Also, I accept source codes and bugfixes for SkyOS. I don`t put restrictions for coding style. If someone coded for example a new driver, I will change the code to fit into the whole SkyOS coding style.

For those who doesn't know, Robert Szeleney is the man behind SkyOS.

Re:Why isn't it open source anymore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2449076)

We're all karma whores.

But some of us are more karma whorish than others.

Do what is right! (3, Insightful)

kjj (32549) | about 13 years ago | (#2449087)

Fork the code. Reimplement new fetures. That is what should be done. When people asked about Mozilla reay being open source the response was that you are always able to "do what is right, fork the code" This is the best thing anytime someone trys to take source away mid project. It would be one thing if this was closed from the beginning, but making major license changes like this is asking for trouble and upset developers. OpenSSH vs SHH anyone? Yes thats BSD. People say GPL projects can't be forked but they certainly can be and there are some examples of that as well. I believe OpenRacer vs Tux Racer is one. There was another having to do with file systems. Anyone remember what that one was called?

From the horses mouth... (2, Informative)

gosand (234100) | about 13 years ago | (#2449145)

From the author himself, in an interview:

5. Do you accept help and source code or bug fixes from third parties? Do you put restrictions to third parties regarding coding style etc?

Robert Szeleney: Until version 3.0, SkyOS was open source. But now, I don`t want SkyOS to be open source. I put so many work into this project, that I don`t want to give to source away. But I accept project members. If someone want to code for SkyOS he can have source. Also, I accept source codes and bugfixes for SkyOS. I don`t put restrictions for coding style. If someone coded for example a new driver, I will change the code to fit into the whole SkyOS coding style.

gosand [poundingsand.com] (bracing for the "all your base" comments)

but will it run... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2448907)

...this [goatse.cx] ?

Re:but will it run... (1, Offtopic)

QuantumG (50515) | about 13 years ago | (#2448983)

...this [goatse.cx]? Guess the joke is over, wow, it only took 6 years for Slashdot to figure out that if you write the hostname after the url you can prevent people from clicking on stuff they dont wanna see.

Re:but will it run... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2449005)

wow, it only took you several months to figure out that [slashdot.org] now adds the hostname to urls

Re:but will it run... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2449010)

What? You don't view all of your pages in native HTML?

Re:but will it run... (2, Interesting)

ralmeida (106461) | about 13 years ago | (#2449050)

If you think that you're really safe, click here [altavista.com] . (Better not)

not all syscalls implemented (5, Interesting)

kbroom (258296) | about 13 years ago | (#2448925)

from the SkyOS website:

>Emulation layers
>
>Linux
> 6% of all linux syscalls implemented
> Support for static linked ELF i386 binaries only

Well I guess any binary using any of the remaining
94% system calls will not work... hmmm....

gotta love hello world! (5, Funny)

soboroff (91667) | about 13 years ago | (#2448930)

"It's already possible to execute linux/i386 compiled programms. Simple linux-native applications like 'Hello World!!!' are running now on SkyOS without compiling!"


I wonder if it's the spiffy GNU hello.c which includes its own email client.



Seriously, they only support a very small subset of calls thus far.

Say WHAT? (4, Insightful)

supabeast! (84658) | about 13 years ago | (#2448936)

"Their Linux emulation layer lies inside the SkyOS kernel, I wonder if there are any GPL violations going on here."

That has to be one of the rudest things that I have seen on Slashdot in years. To suggest that just because some Linux binaries can run on another OS with no evidence is absolutely disgusting.

Of course, even more disgusting is that Timothy posted it, but I think everyone realizes Slashdot has a pretty fucked up editorial policy so I shall not continue.

Re:Say WHAT? (0, Troll)

Gleep (1840) | about 13 years ago | (#2448953)

it seems like a perfectly reasonable assumption to me... if they can run linux binaries unmodified do to some code in their kernel and the linux kernel source is available to anyone who wants it, then it follows that perhaps they might have borrowed from it!

Re:Say WHAT? (3, Redundant)

supabeast! (84658) | about 13 years ago | (#2448972)

Actually SkyOS intercepts Linux system calls (Of the 6% ot them that it can handle, anyway.) and passes them to its own API. Assuming that stolen code is involved is simply a) Paranoid and B) Rude!

Re:Say WHAT? (3, Informative)

ijx (66809) | about 13 years ago | (#2449061)

Exactly. The *BSD's do exactly the same thing with their Linux compatibility layers. All the code behind that is BSD-licensed, not GPL'd.

There's an excellent set of articles at the O'Reilly Network [oreillynet.com] on just how they accomplish this [onlamp.com] .

Re:Say WHAT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2448976)

Isn't this the same line of reasoning that the MPAA use? That the RIAA use? That Microsoft use?

[Hint: the answer is "yes"]

Re:Say WHAT? (3, Flamebait)

BasharTeg (71923) | about 13 years ago | (#2449126)

Yeah, and I suppose FreeBSD's Linux emulation is a GPL violation too right ? You've got it backwards kid, the IP theft goes INTO Linux, not out of Linux.

Besides, this is exactly why the GPL is stupid in the first place. It supports Open Source like the holy jihad, but does it support open standards ? Well, if a non-open source OS wants to be Linux compatible, I guess they're theives right ? Nice open standards.

Gee, Linux's TCP/IP stack is based on the BSD TCP/IP stack. I wonder if there's any IP theft going on there. Oh wait, the BSD licence supports sharing rather than screaming violation.

Re:Say WHAT? (2)

interiot (50685) | about 13 years ago | (#2448969)

Hear hear. GPL covers the specific code and binaries; it doesn't cover the ideas or the specific interfaces involved.

For example, if I write a GPL'd grep with a spiffy new regular expression syntax, that does not in any way preclude someone else from writing the same utilitiy under a closed-source license.

Re:Say WHAT? (1)

mubes (115026) | about 13 years ago | (#2448970)

Sorry, but I'm forced to agree with this. As far as I can tell this is totally unfounded speculation and very very inappropriate. I'd like to see a retraction of this comment, but I don't expect to...

Ooh... They "wondered". (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2448984)

"I wonder". Worst insult I've heard all year. Slashdot should be barred from all mild speculation.

Re:Say WHAT? (0)

justletmeinnow (315504) | about 13 years ago | (#2449013)

Remember the old phraze... "Assumption is the mother of all f**ck ups." You owe them an apology!

Re:Say WHAT? (3, Insightful)

Stephen Samuel (106962) | about 13 years ago | (#2449120)

The QUESTION is completely appropriate. He didn't say that there IS a GPL violation. He hust wondered if there is one.

Stealing GPL code is one way to accomplish Linux compatability quickly and painlessly (until you get found out). Hopefully they didn't do it that way, but some businesses have done worse.

Asking the question may push someone to come up with a way to test the emulation code with reasonable certainty (i.e. testing for a couple of unusual quirks in the GPL code). I think that it's far better to know, one way or the other, than to be wilfully blind to the issue.

Re:Say WHAT? (1)

Vagary (21383) | about 13 years ago | (#2449164)

Testing for quirks is testing how thorough the implementation is. If you used the same metric on WINE you'd be convinced that they had stolen Windows code and it just took them years to get it working. :)

Re:Say WHAT? (1)

Innominandum (453982) | about 13 years ago | (#2449150)

I second that. Any person who would make an accusation like that has very little experience programming. SkyOS probably catches Linux kernel calls and redirects them to the SkyOS kernel. I think the SkyOS team deserves an apology.

Reading Slashdot articles 101 (4, Informative)

gblues (90260) | about 13 years ago | (#2449167)

Even though editors approve stories, people seem to forget that the part in italics is the words of the submission, not the editor. Yes, the suggestion was rude, but the suggestion came from a slashdot reader, not from the editor(s)!

Nathan

Re:Reading Slashdot comments 101 (1)

_Bean_ (128235) | about 13 years ago | (#2449189)

At least to me it reads like he's upset with the submitter for writing it and with Tim for posting it.

You're right. (1)

eAndroid (71215) | about 13 years ago | (#2449170)

But just like most of life's injustices it isn't likely to get better any time soon.

Re:Say WHAT? (2)

bwt (68845) | about 13 years ago | (#2449173)

I wonder if there are any GPL violations going on here.

It seems like a fair question. "I wonder if ..." is a far cry from a "suggest[ion] that...".

To completely implement a system capable of behaving like Linux without violating the licence would take an enormous amount of work. It certainly IS possible and could be done with a determined effort, but if somebody shows up out of the blue claiming they've done it, I think it is a fair question to wonder if they did it fairly, and if so, how.

I didn't interpret his statement as alleging a GPL violation. It just does seem surprising that one could do it without an open source licence as a force multiplier. Sometimes things are surprising because they are really high quality work and sometimes they are surprising because they ripped somebody off. It's healthy skepticism to probe which.

Re:Say WHAT? (1)

jallen02 (124384) | about 13 years ago | (#2449194)

Its a good thing hes only implemented 6% of linux syscalls then

Jeremy

Yeah, like WINE runs all windows binaries... (3, Informative)

rvaniwaa (136502) | about 13 years ago | (#2448946)

From the status page [skyos.org] , it says only 6% of all linux syscalls are implemented...

GPL violation (1)

Stackster (454159) | about 13 years ago | (#2448948)

I wonder how it's possible to write a "Linux Emulation Layer" without using the Linux source in a way that violates the GPL.
It has to have some stuff behave exactly the same, or just wouldn't work. And how do you figure this out without looking at the original source?

Re:GPL violation (5, Interesting)

TheMMaster (527904) | about 13 years ago | (#2448971)

one of the freedoms is the "freedom to read/modify and learn" from the source. If he is just learning from the source and reimplementing it, there is no problem.
Is wine in violation with microsoft copyright?

Re:GPL violation (2)

kilgore_47 (262118) | about 13 years ago | (#2449111)

Wine was written by people without access to windows source code. SkyOS's linux-emulation layer was written by people with access to linux source code. Therefore, it is far more likely that code was 'borrowed' in writing this emulation layer. Since it's closed source now, and nobody can check for simmilarities, speculation (like "I wonder if..." type statements) about GPL violations is entirely reasonable.

Re:GPL violation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2448990)

If it's not possible to duplicate calls just from the api documentation and running test cases, the software is probably a disaster to begin with. Even Windows has been copied in this fashion.

Re:GPL violation (1)

benwb (96829) | about 13 years ago | (#2449000)

I wish I had access to the MS source like the WINE guys do.

Re:GPL violation (2, Informative)

dzeuthen (246536) | about 13 years ago | (#2449033)

Well, in fact a number of companies reverse engineered the IBM BIOS in the eighties and thus created the PC clone industry. Reverse engineering on the grounds of interoperability is actually allowed, even though some orgs do not like it.

Re:GPL violation (3, Informative)

shepd (155729) | about 13 years ago | (#2449038)

>I wonder how it's possible to write a "Linux Emulation Layer" without using the Linux source in a way that violates the GPL.

Same way as Compaq did it to "clone" the IBM BIOS. Poke stuff in, see what happens. Read technical manuals deviod of code. Get engineers in that haven't already written GPL code (untainted).

Running (basic) Linux binaries will be easy in comparison to hacking a copy of a BIOS without any idea of what it does -- or so I'm thinking.

The same way it's possible to build (2)

mindstrm (20013) | about 13 years ago | (#2449121)

WINE for christ's sake. But easier, because you don't have to reverse-engineer the APIs.

All they have to do is implement the proper syscalls, which are documented in the linux source code. They don't even need source to do this.

What do you mean 'without looking at the original source'. Anyone is free to look at the linux kernel source, for any reason.
ANd learn what syscalls are...

Re:GPL violation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2449122)

(-20, Asinine)


(have you ever coded anything in your life?)

Why SkyOS? (3, Insightful)

cDarwin (161053) | about 13 years ago | (#2448954)

I already have an open source OS that runs Linux binaries. I have no interest in another closed source OS that runs windoze binaries. As far as I can tell, the SkyOS web site presents no justification for this OS.


I'm having a hard enough time getting our office staff to switch to KDE. Why would I want to mess about with SkyOS? Does anyone know?

Re:Why SkyOS? (2)

sporty (27564) | about 13 years ago | (#2449051)

FreeBSD [freebsd.org] ? :) [/joke]

Re:Why SkyOS? (2, Insightful)

Innominandum (453982) | about 13 years ago | (#2449107)

I find the attitude of Slashdot readers perplexing, especially their attitudes toward operating systems that are not Linux. Linux fails as an operating system on many levels. It is open source and free, but its implementation and architecture are very mediocre.

As long as there is room for a better operating system, people should be making a better operating system.

Re:Why SkyOS? (2)

geekd (14774) | about 13 years ago | (#2449134)

I have zero interest in or use for an OS that is not Free as in speech. And I suspect that many /. users feel the same.

It's not "attitudes toward operating systems that are not Linux", it's attitudes toward operating systems that are not Free as in speech.

If you don't like it, don't hang out at a web site that pushes Open Source.

Re:Why SkyOS? (0, Flamebait)

wholesomegrits (155981) | about 13 years ago | (#2449171)

If you don't like it, don't hang out at a web site that pushes Open Source.


The website itself doesn't *push* open source...nancyboy Linux zealots push the open source. If you don't like divergent opinions, maybe move to Central Afghanistan?

opensource = substandard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2449174)

Well if you like substandard operating systems, go hard. Linux couldn't hold a candle to BeOS or QNX (Neutrino) and they have been in development for a fraction of the time.

Re:Why SkyOS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2449186)

You are dumb as in idiot :)

How is it different... (5, Interesting)

NinjaPablo (246765) | about 13 years ago | (#2448956)

than any other emulation (other than this is integrated in the kernel)? WINE runs Windows apps and I don't hear many complaints about license violations there.

Re:How is it different... (2)

thefogger (455551) | about 13 years ago | (#2448995)

Because with WINE, its developers just CAN'T have borrowed implementation details, since they're not available. Windows is closed source, remember? So, all they have is the various specifications of the API and implementing the Win32 spec is not illegal.

Re:How is it different... (1)

bkhl (189311) | about 13 years ago | (#2449008)

That is because in that case, the developers haven't had the chance to even look at Microsofts implenentation.

In the case of Linux, it might be tempting to use what is already there, instead of reverse engineering.

Re:How is it different... (1)

Gummbah (72706) | about 13 years ago | (#2449108)

Sure there are license isseus where WINE is concerned. You actually need to have a valid and legal Microsoft license for the software you are running in it (i.e. you must have "purchased" the software) If you don't, you are clearly pirating their software.
Not that I care, mind you..

What's the point... (1, Insightful)

justletmeinnow (315504) | about 13 years ago | (#2448959)

Why design a new OS if the whole goal is to run another OS's binaries. I hate to say it, but all these little projects like Sky and others will never have enough software developed for them to actually make them profitable. They're wasting their time, make the OS better and make applications for your OS before emulating everyone else's OS.

Re:What's the point... (1)

ZaneMcAuley (266747) | about 13 years ago | (#2448987)

It represents a migration path from the emulated OS to this OS.

Re:What's the point... (1)

vinnythenose (214595) | about 13 years ago | (#2449037)

Write great operating system (I don't know, I haven't used or looked at SkyOS). Gosh, you spent all that time on the OS you don't have development tools, graphics programs, games, office suites... hmm, no one will use the OS if you don't have a good base of those.

Where else can you get them from? Emulate until you have had time to build some native ones.

An OS is useless without the tools and it's pointless to make the tools without the OS. The easiest thing to do is make the OS and borrow tools for a short time, get a user base and build your own tools.

Re:What's the point... (1)

ZaneMcAuley (266747) | about 13 years ago | (#2449132)

Isnt it innovative ideas like Sky that helps bring new ideas into software?

Some people do this to get real world practice of things theyve read in books, and they keep at it and eventually it becomes something useful. Wasnt linux like that?

Re:What's the point... (1)

jallen02 (124384) | about 13 years ago | (#2449185)

Even the author admits there is nothing innovative about the operating system. He also admits he has no goals for the system.. just a project. The features are rather standard as far as OS' go. Nothing too exciting.. just a cool pet project.

Jeremy

Other Free OS alternatives (4, Informative)

ZaneMcAuley (266747) | about 13 years ago | (#2448968)

Solaris 9 (the beta is out) runs linux binaries.

Pros: its got good backing (who else puts the DOT in dotGone :) )

Cons: erm.. availability of code

Re:Other Free OS alternatives (1)

Mr. Piccolo (18045) | about 13 years ago | (#2449169)

Cons: erm.. availability of code


Hello, I guess you haven't looked here [sun.com] lately.

Now, if only someone would write the DRI drivers for Solaris, everything would be cool.

Poor imitation... (3, Funny)

gregwbrooks (512319) | about 13 years ago | (#2448974)

Just what we need: A geekier alternative to Linux.



Future conversation...


Geek acolyte: Whatcha runnin'?

Elder Geek:I've got SkyOS emulating Slackware, with WINE layered over that so I can use all my l00t wArEz.

Acolyte:Cool! How'z Mozilla run on it?

Elder: Still a little buggy -- but imagine a beowulf cluster of these...

Re:Poor imitation... (-1)

j0nkatz (315168) | about 13 years ago | (#2449057)

+5 Fucking Informative and Funny!

gpl violations? how would you know? (1)

sgtron (35704) | about 13 years ago | (#2448980)

since it's closed source they could be doing anything i guess.. i guess if they get away with it then next thing you know, microsoft will be running linux binaries as well.

Windows Unix Emulation by MS (2)

Scoria (264473) | about 13 years ago | (#2449124)

Enough said. [microsoft.com]

Re:gpl violations? how would you know? (1)

seann (307009) | about 13 years ago | (#2449175)

wow..
Just imagine if the next version of windows could run UNIX binaries?
Linux, FreeBSD, Macintosh (OSX, imagine the law suits), Beos.

Just imagine.

The fatal flaw. (1, Interesting)

eclectric (528520) | about 13 years ago | (#2449003)

Who do they possibly hope to attact with this product? There's nothing very useful about buying an OS that can only emulate your preferred platform unless you actually like the OS more. It's like installing win2000 on a box and then running only DOS programs on it. Why not just install a simple dos? In this case, why not simply install one of the many... many forms of linux and run all of these programs directly.

Buying an OS? (1)

albat0r (526414) | about 13 years ago | (#2449099)

I don't know where you've had this information about "buying an OS", but if you're talking about SkyOS (and I think it's the case since you're not "offtopic"), this OS isn't for sell, it's free! Because this OS isn't Open Source anymore, it doesn't means that it isn't free anymore... don't be confused by Open Source and Free , they aren't the same thing : one is about source code and the other is about an economic things that some people call "money"...

License? What stinkin' license? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2449009)

Somebody care to point me to the place at SkyOS that actually talks about licensing? I've been looking for 20 minutes and have found not a single mention of a license agreement. How'd Timothy figure out it wasn't GPL'd?

Timmy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2449047)

is small troll doll that sits on your lap and talks with a lisp (not LISP).

Re:Timmy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2449154)

Let's not forget the cleft asshole....

Damn, dude, your post is the funniest ac of the day.

Heh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2449014)

ReactOS has been trying for the past few years to emulate Windows NT binaries? What's next, a DOS 6.22 emulator?

People are moving *away* from NT, why bother writing an emulator for it??

Probably not a violation (5, Informative)

CmdrTroll (412504) | about 13 years ago | (#2449018)

My friend worked on the Linux binary compatibility for SCO Unixware a little while back. I asked him about the licensing implications of the effort at the time, and he told me that there were a couple of main points that kept them out of trouble:

  • Limiting the emulation environment to Linux kernel syscalls was very safe legally and quite trivial. Why? You can't copyright or patent an interface. And the Linux syscall interface, while symantically slightly different from other Unices, does essentially the same thing as other Unices. Support for Linux sysctls and other oddball features was not considered, mostly because the only software that used Linux sysctls and other oddball features were the system startup scripts. For the most part, applications used the standard file, process control (fork, exec, getpid, ctime), and socket syscalls, and making a translation layer for those was cake.
  • libc posed a bit of a potential problem because it is GPL. Fortunately, there is nothing keeping SCO or anyone else from bundling GPL software with their product, as long as they ship the source too and don't like closed-source binaries against the GPL libraries. Sun ships 'less' and GNOME with Solaris now, and nobody's talked about suing them for it.
  • Statically linked binaries were ideal. They didn't need libc, the Linux loader, or any supporting files at all to run those things. All they needed was kernel support for Linux ELF files (which are a skewed version of standard ELF - check out the specs sometime). No problem there.

In all likelihood, the Linux ABI will become a standard for all non-Microsoft x86 operating systems. It is simple and legal to implement, and very robust and powerful.

-CT

Re:Probably not a violation (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2449080)

Actually, RMS&co did investigate the matter thoroughly prior to release. His conclusion (google cache version) is here [google.com] .

-Melvin

Re:Probably not a violation (3, Interesting)

All Dead Homiez (461966) | about 13 years ago | (#2449119)

In all likelihood, the Linux ABI will become a standard for all non-Microsoft x86 operating systems. It is simple and legal to implement, and very robust and powerful.

Things definitely are moving in this direction. I just read on the netbsd-discuss mailing list that those folks are considering abandoning the slow BSD-style stack-based kernel calls, in favor of the quick register-based kernel call syntax favored by Linux and Solaris. If they do that, most syscalls will differ only in call number from the ones in Linux.

-all dead homiez

Re:Probably not a violation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2449127)

When that "robust" API will stop using pointers by
value in ioctl's, for instance? This makes the
use of NVidia binary-only drivers pretty hard on non-Linux platforms. I would certainly hope Linux
will not use it's popularity to push _broken_ API design to become a standard.

Re:Probably not a violation (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2449140)

In all likelihood, the Linux ABI will become a standard for all non-Microsoft x86 operating systems. It is simple and legal to implement, and very robust and powerful.

Nice troll! And you managed to get moderated as +4 insightful, to boot. Of course, The linux ABI changes every 6 months, and isn't as well thought out as any other unix, but details like that don't matter on slashdot.

Re:Probably not a violation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2449165)

That's a complete lie. I have run Linux 1.2 binaries on my kernel 2.4.5 system before with no ill effects.


Maybe the interfaces for stat64() and the other "new additions" have changed a bit, but for the most part the user/kernel interface has been stable for years.

Windows emulation is waste of time... (1, Interesting)

Masa (74401) | about 13 years ago | (#2449025)

It's interesting to read this kind of announcements... people are talking about ability to run Windows binaries under different operating systems. But the fact is that the most noticable thing for small operating systems is the ability to run Linux binaries. With Linux support the OS has more credibility with smaller effort than with supporting proprietary binaries.

I'm waiting that day when people will realize that the point isn't Windows. It's Linux (for example *BSD know this and have binary support for Linux).

My point is that it is waste of resources to even try to create binary compatibility/emulation/support for Windows. Today it's more important to have Linux support because it's more realistic to have someting actually working.

So the path SkyOS is heading to is right, but the final goal is wrong.

It's a waste of time, but... (5, Interesting)

twilight30 (84644) | about 13 years ago | (#2449042)

the point is, it's *his* waste of time.

Regardless of the licensing terms, this guy seriously doesn't expect to do anything truly useful with this OS.

Remember that Torvalds initially didn't use the GPL for the kernel.

Also note that Caldera has a 'distribution' that doesn't even use the kernel but rather reimplements a 'personality' [caldera.com] -- I mean, even Unisys likes it !(I'm being sarcastic)

Understand, though, I am not criticising his intent -- he has an itch; he wants to scratch. At least he's pursuing his own muse.

running linux binaries on non-linux OSs (2, Interesting)

soboroff (91667) | about 13 years ago | (#2449046)

btw, if for some odd reason you have want to have a non-Linux OS but want to run Linux binaries on it, FreeBSD does a bang-up job.

ReactOS not just going for app compatibility (5, Interesting)

JasonFilby (100501) | about 13 years ago | (#2449053)

I just want to point out that ReactOS is NOT just aiming for application compatibility (as is suggested by the submitter). We're also looking to support NT/2K/XP drivers and we're modelling the entire kernel and subsystems around the way NT works. Sure we'll do things differently where there won't be a huge compromise in compatibility and we can make something better.

- Jason

Re:ReactOS not just going for app compatibility (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2449188)

>...and we can make something better.

Like not crash on me twice daily like NT does??

(Sorry, couldn't resist ;)

And a reason to run this OS is what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2449065)

Looking at the screenshots, I'd say this operating system looks more like a lousy combo of sucky Windows GUI and Unix CLI. It's pretty dang ugly. I pronouce it "AssOS"

Re:And a reason to run this OS is what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2449143)

That's not an acceptable name. It sounds to Usama like. Assos is far too Middle Eastern, and therefore manical and savage. How about RecumOS. It sounds more greek. And since the greeks were fond of the wild butt sex, it hold true.

In other news... (3, Funny)

woggo (11781) | about 13 years ago | (#2449081)

"Linux" now runs Linux binaries natively, without even a recompile! It seems that those wacky "Linux" kernel guys have managed to emulate 100% of Linux system calls. It's really slick -- they just run the user-level code in the binaries natively and then dispatch to the right part of the "Linux" kernel when a trap occurs, via an advanced mechanism called the "system call table" which maps Linux system call numbers to "Linux" system calls. Word on the street is that nerds everywhere are ecstatic at being able to run their Linux binaries on their favorite "Linux" system.

---

I guess that running Linux binaries is a pretty good way to get some applications on your hobbyist operating system, but does this young, closed-source OS have anything to offer us besides the retro Amiga-esque GUI and an emulation layer for 6% of Linux system calls?

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2449156)

well, linux distributions (rhat, debian, suse, etc) all do things as differently as possible, so unless you're running static-linked applications, binary compatability is abysmal.

GPL Violation??? (0, Redundant)

LazyDawg (519783) | about 13 years ago | (#2449109)

How is it a violation of the GPL being able to run arbitrary binaries from GPLed OSes? They're not stealing the GCC compiler, they've not stolen the kernel, just its personality, and they probably use different libraries... what is the problem?

Re:GPL Violation??? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2449135)

The problem is the typical FSF bullshit. If we didn't make it, they can go get fucked, it's shit.

There is money in Open sauce. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2449137)

I work for a very rich family, and am paid very well for my 'open sauce' efforts. OPening ketchup bottles is a real career option.

Fucking Retards (4, Insightful)

mosch (204) | about 13 years ago | (#2449146)

That's not only wrong and potentially actionable to suggest that SkyOS is a GPL violator, it's fucking stupid.

Think about how that kind of emulation works, you just do system call translation. What on earth code would you steal? This is code that, by design, HAS to be original.

Slashdot's editors truly need to be more careful, and they need to issue an apology to SkyOS for making such an irrational accusation.

Just think about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 13 years ago | (#2449158)

what you could do with a beowulf cluster of these!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?