Prometheus98876 Posted September 11, 2005 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2005 Are you talking about making a custom distro of Solaris or writing your own OS? I am not completely certain at the moment, and i will have to look more into the legal aspects here of course. At this stage, I intend to make something that is sufficently different to the "base OS" (be it Solaris, multiple Linux distros .... etc) that it can be said too be a different OS. But the version version of the OS may be more of a custom distro than anything else, it really depends on many possible constraints such as time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skap35 Posted September 12, 2005 Report Share Posted September 12, 2005 I am not completely certain at the moment, and i will have to look more into the legal aspects here of course. At this stage, I intend to make something that is sufficently different to the "base OS" (be it Solaris, multiple Linux distros .... etc) that it can be said too be a different OS. But the version version of the OS may be more of a custom distro than anything else, it really depends on many possible constraints such as time. If you want to base it off a Linux distribution, I'd suggest Slackware. It's already pretty much a bare bones system. There are very few features beyond the basic operating system. You could start off with that and just add all your custom stuff to the base OS. Also, out of curiosity, are you doing this for any specific purpose, or just for fun? Is there any specific use you are targeting with it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted September 13, 2005 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2005 If you want to base it off a Linux distribution, I'd suggest Slackware. It's already pretty much a bare bones system. There are very few features beyond the basic operating system. You could start off with that and just add all your custom stuff to the base OS. Also, out of curiosity, are you doing this for any specific purpose, or just for fun? Is there any specific use you are targeting with it? I doubt I will start with something like Slackware, as it is too barebones for my liking. I want to take something like Fedora Core and use that as a model/base for an OS. Although as I am considering creating a very low-spec version of the OS, then Slackware could be a good basis for that variation of the OS. The reasons I am doing this are varied. It is largely because it will be an interesting, complicated and long project, and I like a challenge. One day I should get it good enough so that I can distrubute it as a viable OS, although if I charge for it, it might only be for the physical medium the OS comes on (maybe up to $NZ 10 a DVD or something small like that). It is not really meant to be particulary commercially succesful though, but if I do distrubute it, I would like to make as much profit as I can obviously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schefflera Arboricola Posted September 13, 2005 Report Share Posted September 13, 2005 OK, I am curious to see which Operating Systems you people prefer. If you would would you please give the version of the Operating System(s) you are using. If you are using Linux, what flavour of Linux (Fedora Core, Mandriva or whatever). And why do you prefer that OS? I've built all the computers I've owned, and I use Linux because it's free. I'd have to pay for Windows. I use Slackware, because it was the first distribution I got my hands on. Also, I had heard it was the most "difficult" of all the distributions, and usually the things that people call "difficult" are the things I find easy. --Schefflera Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted September 13, 2005 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2005 I've built all the computers I've owned, and I use Linux because it's free. I'd have to pay for Windows. I use Slackware, because it was the first distribution I got my hands on. Also, I had heard it was the most "difficult" of all the distributions, and usually the things that people call "difficult" are the things I find easy. --Schefflera Good on you. I also like to tackle those things that are 'difficult'. I usually find that they are alot easier than is indicated. Sadly though if I do want to distrubute my OS to anyone but reasonably competent users, I probably should not make the OS too difficult. ...Mind you, I could 'hide' the difficult stuff I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 For softwre compatability: Windows. For ease of use: Windows For power: Linux Fedora Core 3. For sofware packages included: Fedora Core 3. Ovrall: Linux Fedora Core 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted October 3, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 For softwre compatability: Windows. For ease of use: Windows For power: Linux Fedora Core 3. For sofware packages included: Fedora Core 3. Ovrall: Linux Fedora Core 3. Sadly, he is right to chose Fedora Core 3 over 4. Four took out alot of good packages, or hid them. Also it is slower, for reasons I cannot ascertain as of yet. And, this is a minor issue I know, but it takes alot longer to install. Kane, we must try Debian, at 14 discs, it might well be better overall, at least in package selection...unless it is bloated with crap of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 Sadly, he is right to chose Fedora Core 3 over 4. Four took out alot of good packages, or hid them. Also it is slower, for reasons I cannot ascertain as of yet. And, this is a minor issue I know, but it takes alot longer to install. Kane, we must try Debian, at 14 discs, it might well be better overall, at least in package selection...unless it is bloated with crap of course. Yes we should try it. But with that many discs there is a real good chance of crappy packages. Though there is also a good chance that the core isb the better than what we've seen since there is also potentially more disc space to fit it on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted October 3, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 Yes we should try it. But with that many discs there is a real good chance of crappy packages. Though there is also a good chance that the core isb the better than what we've seen since there is also potentially more disc space to fit it on. Im sure that with so many discs (14 i think, although you can get 'lighter' versions of the distro), that there is alot of rubbish, or at least relatively inferior stuff. But from looking at some of the packages, there does seem to be alot of good stuff. On average, it seems better than the Fedora stuff, and even better than even the Knopixx stuff. Of course, to install even a smaller proportion of the OS you would need a biggish Linux partition.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted October 3, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 I have just looked into Damn Small Linux, a Linux distrubition that is only about 50 MBs yet comes with some games, Firefox, XMMS and more. It can run off a LiveCD, a USB key, IDE Compact Flash Drive, or you can apparently run it from inside Windows (which is great for those Windows users whom want to try Linux, although they could also try a LiveCD like Knoppix or Morphix). I was thinking, maybe I should consider releasing a really small version of PheonixOS, that is similar to DSLinux (Im not going to abbreviate it as DSL ). This would make it more appealing as a test platform, or as a really portable distrubution. That and it can run quite happily on systems with 128 RAM or less ('fully' on 128 RAM), so it would be good for legacy systems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DArcMatter Posted October 4, 2005 Report Share Posted October 4, 2005 That and it can run quite happily on systems with 128 RAM or less ('fully' on 128 RAM), so it would be good for legacy systems. Have you also looked into QNX? It is a realtime POSIX-compliant operating system (that means it works like Unix). It's a great fit for the embedded market, which means it will fit comfortably on a 'small' machine. There's also NetBSD which can run on your toaster: http://www.embeddedarm.com/news/netbsd_toaster.htm. (as the old joke goes) Before you go and pour your intellect and effort into a software project with some history, please do some research about the licensing issues and the ideas behind them. Linux is released under the General Public License, which masquerades as a free license, but it's a matter of dropping context. Richard M. Stallman (RMS), who wrote the GPL, has many a rant about how 'intellectual property' is a false concept. In this particular matter, RMS equivocates some poorly-implemented patent laws with the proper use of the law in order to rightfully secure the fruits of your creative labors. A quick trip to the fsf.org website, and some philosophical detection will reveal that RMS is a collectivist. The GPL is his tool to bring about collectivism in software. All the big software companies love the GPL pragmatically, because for them, it means that any competitor can't sell products with their code without giving away their enhancements, and there's a free labor force out there, but RMS has a surprise waiting for them with the new revision of the GPL. He's dropped some pretty ominous hints about how companies who implement technologies that enforce copyright protection, and those who use their patent portfolio for the protection of their intellectual property (no matter how sound or unsound the patent is) will be penalized under the new regime. Linus Torvalds has often been described by the computer press as 'pragmatistic'. They don't know how right they are. Linus chose the GPL for Linux because he thought it would be good enough to keep his project out in the open. In fact, there's a recent news bit on kerneltrap.org about how Linus doesn't like to use specification documents for his coding. One of the first posts in his 'defense' said that Linus is an engineer, and doesn't care about theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted October 4, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2005 Before you go and pour your intellect and effort into a software project with some history, please do some research about the licensing issues and the ideas behind them. Linux is released under the General Public License, which masquerades as a free license, but it's a matter of dropping context. Richard M. Stallman (RMS), who wrote the GPL, has many a rant about how 'intellectual property' is a false concept. In this particular matter, RMS equivocates some poorly-implemented patent laws with the proper use of the law in order to rightfully secure the fruits of your creative labors. A quick trip to the fsf.org website, and some philosophical detection will reveal that RMS is a collectivist. The GPL is his tool to bring about collectivism in software. All the big software companies love the GPL pragmatically, because for them, it means that any competitor can't sell products with their code without giving away their enhancements, and there's a free labor force out there, but RMS has a surprise waiting for them with the new revision of the GPL. He's dropped some pretty ominous hints about how companies who implement technologies that enforce copyright protection, and those who use their patent portfolio for the protection of their intellectual property (no matter how sound or unsound the patent is) will be penalized under the new regime. Linus Torvalds has often been described by the computer press as 'pragmatistic'. They don't know how right they are. Linus chose the GPL for Linux because he thought it would be good enough to keep his project out in the open. In fact, there's a recent news bit on kerneltrap.org about how Linus doesn't like to use specification documents for his coding. One of the first posts in his 'defense' said that Linus is an engineer, and doesn't care about theory. No, I have not looked into QNX...but I will do so now you remind me. I have been worrying about the legal issues of Linux and the GPL myself for a while, but I am still (by less and less every week) leaning towards favoring it. But I am starting to question the legitimacy of that...maybe I would be best to switch to something that is safe from the GPL and Linux propereity issues. Luckily I have not invested much intensive labour into this yet, it is still mainly in the planning stage, partially because I want to see how some of the legal issues turn out, and my not quite resolved discomfort with aspects of the Linux Opensource movement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted October 14, 2005 Report Share Posted October 14, 2005 No, I have not looked into QNX...but I will do so now you remind me. I have been worrying about the legal issues of Linux and the GPL myself for a while, but I am still (by less and less every week) leaning towards favoring it. But I am starting to question the legitimacy of that...maybe I would be best to switch to something that is safe from the GPL and Linux propereity issues. Luckily I have not invested much intensive labour into this yet, it is still mainly in the planning stage, partially because I want to see how some of the legal issues turn out, and my not quite resolved discomfort with aspects of the Linux Opensource movement Well you can use my FDCL when I have finished making it if you like. Consedring what the other this new development I might even wri9te it up very soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted October 14, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2005 Well you can use my FDCL when I have finished making it if you like. Consedring what the other this new development I might even wri9te it up very soon. Well, I will have to look into the legal issues as I said. I will certaintly take a good at your FDCL though, and at worst I might adopt certain bits of it in what will probably be a license of my own creation (if the current licenses turn out to be less than ideal). I assume that you too will be looking into the Linux legal issues at some depth, as for starters doing so would help you with the research needed for you FDCL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted October 14, 2005 Report Share Posted October 14, 2005 (edited) Well, I will have to look into the legal issues as I said. I will certaintly take a good at your FDCL though, and at worst I might adopt certain bits of it in what will probably be a license of my own creation (if the current licenses turn out to be less than ideal). I assume that you too will be looking into the Linux legal issues at some depth, as for starters doing so would help you with the research needed for you FDCL. Firstly I forsee no legal issue with my FDCL since will simply be a grant of rights in relation to the software and coding to which it applies. Secondly no research is neccessary since it will be my of my own making and based on no current licence. Edited October 14, 2005 by DragonMaci Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted October 14, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2005 Firstly I forsee no legal issue with my FDCL since will simply be a grant of rights in relation to the software and coding to which it applies. Secondly no research is neccessary since it will be my of my own making and based on no current licence. Yes, but if you want your FDCL to accuretley address the users legal concerns, you need to find out what those legal concerns are. You need to be able to answer many different legal questions potential users might have, because no matter how clear your documents are, there will be questions in the minds of some people at least. I doubt you would be able to think of all of the legal issues without researching into them, you are not a lawyer after all, neither do you really know much of the legal issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted October 14, 2005 Report Share Posted October 14, 2005 Yes, but if you want your FDCL to accuretley address the users legal concerns, you need to find out what those legal concerns are. You need to be able to answer many different legal questions potential users might have, because no matter how clear your documents are, there will be questions in the minds of some people at least. I doubt you would be able to think of all of the legal issues without researching into them, you are not a lawyer after all, neither do you really know much of the legal issues. I fail to see how there could be any issues with a full granting of rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravane Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 OK, I am curious to see which Operating Systems you people prefer. If you would would you please give the version of the Operating System(s) you are using. If you are using Linux, what flavour of Linux (Fedora Core, Mandriva or whatever). And why do you prefer that OS? I use Windows XP, but personally I prefer Knoppix Live. My Knoppix cd has saved me countless times, giving me access to my important files and allowing me to continue doing artwork via The Gimp when Windows utterly fails me. And I do love having multiple desktops (though I understand there are windows programs that do that). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted October 21, 2005 Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 (edited) OK, I am curious to see which Operating Systems you people prefer. If you would would you please give the version of the Operating System(s) you are using. If you are using Linux, what flavour of Linux (Fedora Core, Mandriva or whatever). And why do you prefer that OS? I use Windows XP, but personally I prefer Knoppix Live. My Knoppix cd has saved me countless times, giving me access to my important files and allowing me to continue doing artwork via The Gimp when Windows utterly fails me. And I do love having multiple desktops (though I understand there are windows programs that do that). Oh yes, I like having a copy of Knoppix. Personally I have my Linux distro on a seperate partition. I personally dont have much use for multiple desktops. Although I would if the ones that claimed they allowed different resolutions on them would actually allow me to do so (generally they dont seem to allow this). Edited October 21, 2005 by DragonMaci Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted October 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2005 (edited) OK, I am curious to see which Operating Systems you people prefer. If you would would you please give the version of the Operating System(s) you are using. If you are using Linux, what flavour of Linux (Fedora Core, Mandriva or whatever). And why do you prefer that OS? I use Windows XP, but personally I prefer Knoppix Live. My Knoppix cd has saved me countless times, giving me access to my important files and allowing me to continue doing artwork via The Gimp when Windows utterly fails me. And I do love having multiple desktops (though I understand there are windows programs that do that). As DragonMaci said about Knoppix. But really, all versions of Knoppix are Live (although you can install a copy of the OS on your HDD if you want), so saying you have a Live version of Knoppix is a bit redundant, it is like saying you have an installable version of XP . I generally keep my Linux installion on a seperate HDD, and I use a distro that can read Windows partitions so I can easily recover data from there at least (I wish Windows was better at reading Linux partitions). Personally I love having multiple destktops (usually about three or so). And in Windows I use the program that came with my graphics card to handle multiple desktops. Edited October 21, 2005 by Prometheus98876 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparhawk Posted November 1, 2005 Report Share Posted November 1, 2005 About a year ago I went to use Linux all the time at home as I grew tired of the clumsy and crappy Windows. For my needs Windows is not easy-to-use, I don't feel that I have any control at all over the system. I feel I have control over my computer with Mandriva Linux and Xfce as my window manager. One day I am gonna have the energy to install FreeBSD as I do like it even better then Linux mainly because of the package system, it rocks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted November 5, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2005 About a year ago I went to use Linux all the time at home as I grew tired of the clumsy and crappy Windows. For my needs Windows is not easy-to-use, I don't feel that I have any control at all over the system. I feel I have control over my computer with Mandriva Linux and Xfce as my window manager. One day I am gonna have the energy to install FreeBSD as I do like it even better then Linux mainly because of the package system, it rocks. Hmm, I have not tried Mandriva, and I have heard a lot of conflicting stories regarding it. Could you tell me what some of what you consider to be its strengths and weaknesses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olex Posted June 7, 2006 Report Share Posted June 7, 2006 I use Gentoo Linux. It does not have a version b/c you can update it to the latest version at any time, by letting the system download the latest packages online and install them for you. http://www.gentoo.org However, I don't think Gentoo is for everyone. If you don't know Linux or barely know much about it, other easier to install distributions will be greater for you so long as their initial configuration is not messed up. I used to use Fedora Linux (1-3), but its development packages were broken on many occasions and were hard to fix. That said Gentoo Linux offers the easiest way to install/update packages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted June 26, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 I use Gentoo Linux. It does not have a version b/c you can update it to the latest version at any time, by letting the system download the latest packages online and install them for you. http://www.gentoo.org As for Fedora Core, I have recently installed version 5, it seems to have less broken packages than 4 (or 3, which was better in my opinion as it included a better range of packages!), however I cannot say yet all the Development ones have been fixed. I think for ease of installation of packages, it is hard to beat Suse YAST system, which makes installing RPMS (Suse or otherwise) very simple. You might want to try Knoppix, it usually has a capable, fully comprehensive set of packages, including development ones, though of course, its a Live Distro... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaszloWalrus Posted June 26, 2006 Report Share Posted June 26, 2006 (edited) Easily, my favorite OS is Tiger for Mac, in terms of ease of use and lack of frustration (due to things like crashes and the like). I notice a HIGH number of Mac users at OCON 2004 among ARI staff (both Yaron Brook and Craig Biddle, I believe, used a Mac). Maybe that's because it's the most rational OS . Edited June 26, 2006 by LaszloWalrus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.