Talk:SkyOS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Archiving

Archive of debate about SkyOS page

Where did the orignal talk go to? --Anonymous
It's archived. Follow the link above. --Dr Zen 06:29, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No it isn't, Its been deleted from here. I'm going to stick it back up here. --Anonymous
Here is the original talk.


(begin quote) "Please be realistic about SkyOS. This is not the right place for marketing.

Why's that?

because it's not. SkyOS is a beta OS that few people have heard of. This article is almost pure spam, and it'll get deleted if it's not toned down.

I don't see any marketing going on here.
If so then the linux, microsoft windows, and BEos pages are to. Kiand, would you stop redoing the article, this is a Encylopedia and the more information the better. All you're doing is making a smaller version of ths skyos article.
True, but when the info is advertising, marketing bumf, it isn't better.
If Skyos is advertising then so is Linux, Microsoft Windows, BeOS, etc
just to tell you; your edit isn't completely true! go nag somebody else."

(end quote)


[edit] Ending the Edit War

Note that this talk page is not protected, so you can discuss here.

Reccomended reading: Wikipedia:Staying_cool_when_the_editing_gets_hot

Kim Bruning 23:51, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Excellent idea! I actually like the page the way it is now. It strikes a nice balance. --Anonymous
How can you say that SkyOS has few applications? Gaim, Gimp, Abiword, Media Center, Blender3D, Links, Quake I, Quake II, Foobilliard, Skirc, a number of small games, developer's suite, simple text editor, image viewer, Canvas (native image editor), graphical-FTP application...the list goes on. How do you define "few" applications? This is not a factual statement, but rather, an opinion, which (supposedly) does not belong on Wikipedia, since you're all so interested in simply listing the facts. Additionally, describe "poor hardware support". SkyOS supports every piece of hardware on my system: Nvidia graphics card (2D-acceleration), sound card, network card, mouse, keyboard...in MY opinion SkyOS has good hardware support, so I think you should take out "poor hardware support" and replace it with "excellent hardware support" because it works great for me. See where I am going with this? The entire paragraph is filled with opinions, and not facts. For some people, Linux has poor hardware support. Does that mean Linux has poor hardware support? Why is this paragraph even listed on the SkyOS Wikipedia entry? It is at best misleading, and at worst, a flat out falsification. It has no place in this Wikipedia entry. To say otherwise shows an agenda against SkyOS (which should be obvious by now). --Anonymous
We can say it because SkyOS does- it has nowhere near the umpteen-thousand suites/programs that distros such as Debian, Gentoo, or other OSs like the Mac's or Windows- and that is not counting emulators and such which allow one OS to steal another's libraries (I'm thinking WINE here...). I haven't checked recently but i think there are somewhere over 9000 programs readily available through apt or portage. I don't think SkyOS can compete with that. You are, of course, at liberty to prove me wrong. -- Maru Dubshinki


[edit] I like it

I like the entry the way it is now. Strikes a nice balance. --Anonymous

I don't agree entirely with it as it is now, but I can live with it. However, I somehow worry that on unprotection it'll be reverted by those from within SkyOS again. --Kiand 23:43, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This looks to me like a good compromise. It's a pity that the SkyOS guys and their shills are so keen on using Wikipedia as an advertising tool but isn't that the way of things? You can't blame them for wanting to be reported in a positive light. I'm completely neutral. I use Windows! and I don't know a GNU from a wARtHoG, but I do know bias when I see it. This isn't too bad either way. --Dr Zen 00:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Far better than it was. I'm fine without any reference to GPL complaining, a google search doesn't turn up any evidence, just accusations. I'll even say that 'relatively poor hardware support' could be replaced by 'limited' or 'growing'. Take note SkyOS folks! As an intelligent consumer, I saw throught the market speak right away. Your product is better shown by unbiased coverage. --Jericho 4.0 01:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'd settle for the term "limited" if it'd keep Hexdyres from complaining about it. --Kiand 01:52, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree limited is a better term. Poor could imply that of the hardware it does support, it does so poorly. Limited suggests it doesn't support many varieties of hardware, which is accurate. --Shane King 01:58, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
I agree. Change the line from poor to limited and I think we're good to go. --Zizban
We'd better leave it a day or two to see what Hexydes and Thom have to say on it as we don't want a revert war as soon as its unprotected. --Kiand 02:28, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please re-word the part about very little software support. SkyOS currently supports many applications, with just about every normal use covered by the applications available. "Limited" might be better again, but with a mention that this is constantly improving. --Anonymous

How about "limited when compared to mainstream operating systems such as Windows or MacOS". This wording at least states what benchmark "limited" is used in comparison to. --Shane King 03:18, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
It's limited in comparison to the "Big Five" - Windows, Linux, *BSD, MacOS and BeOS. If we use Limited it has to have a qualification like that. (Yes, BeOS has more software than SkyOS...) --Kiand 03:23, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I got the impression "limited" was just a polite way of saying "poor" though. It's not just "limited" compared with mainstream OSes, is it? It's limited in an absolute sense because it doesn't support much. And, anonymous dude, "many applications" is thousands, not a couple of dozen. --Anonymous
It doesn't make sense to talk about limited in the absolute sense. In the absolute sense, Windows has a limited number of applications (ie it doesn't have an unlimited number of applications). --Shane King 03:36, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
It's an idiom, Shane. If you insist that the article doesn't use idiomatic language, we'll have to go with "poor", because, in fact, you are using it as a synonym for "poor" too. You can't limit something by comparison with something else. That's nonsense. How does comparing it with Windows limit it in any way? --Anonymous
Windows has a limited number of applications only in the sense that physically and technically there will be limits to what it can do (for instance, an application for doing the hoovering is likely going to be beyond it because it doesn't have a physical presence). --Anonymous
In this instance, the software support can be said to be limited by how few people work on the system, how little time they have had to work on applications, etc etc. Yes, Windows etc don't have the same limits. They've been around longer and have spent more money. But to say so is to make the article an apologia rather than a description. --Dr Zen 03:45, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
True, hence my analogy about being limited compared to the big five OS's - each of those have well over 2,000 different applications available for them. --Kiand 03:39, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How about "as yet limited"? That conveys the notion that it is increasing and being worked on. --Dr Zen 03:26, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As Yet Limited, with no "but its getting this/that/the other" stuff tacked on will do, I suppose. Wikipedia isn't a press release, hence no forward-looking-statements... Oh, and I agree that good software support is a thousand plus applications, covering all categories. SkyOS has probably a hundred apps, maybe. --Kiand 03:34, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How about:
"There is currently only a limited amount of applications available for the system, in comparison to other commercial operating systems. The most notable current exclusions are a full office suite and a modern web browser" ::--Kiand 03:43, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Why don't you also mention that SkyOS doesn't have CAD software, doesn't have tax-computation software, and doesn't have 1,000 other niche applications? Why are you so hell-bent on pointing out what SkyOS doesn't have? Why can't you just leave it at "As is to be expected of a new operating system, SkyOS has a limited amount of software available. A number of applications have been ported in the last year, and the SkyOS team has stated that they are currently working on a more usable web browser as of this writing."? What is false about that sentence? SkyOS IS a newer operating system. Newer operating systems OF COURSE have less software available. A number of applications HAVE been ported or written in the past year. We currently ARE working on a usable web browser. If you want this part of the entry to be neutral, you will have to do one of two things: 1) make both cases, which would be (negative) that there are fewer applications when compared to the alternatives, but that (positive) many major applications have been ported or written, and work continues on to keep bridging the gap, or 2) do not include this section at all. People come to Wikipedia for information, for the FULL story. If you say SkyOS is incomplete, how is that the full story? You are saying SkyOS is incomplete, without letting the reader know all that is being done to make SkyOS become complete. That isn't the full story, that is misinformation, used to push your opinion on someone. You're intentionally leaving out a part of the story. By giving them the full story (you: SkyOS CURRENTLY lacks / us: but here is ALL that we are doing to make it complete), you let the reader decide how to interpret the situation.
So my suggestion is "As is to be expected of a new operating system, SkyOS has a limited amount of software available. A number of applications have been ported in the last year, and the SkyOS team has stated that they are currently working on a more usable web browser as of this writing.", which makes it known that things are missing, but makes sure to let the reader know that work continues on. That way, both sides get their say. You're welcome to simply post your opinion, but just know that you've made the entry untruthful and incomplete. -- Hexydes 06:08, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This is not an ad for SkyOS, Hexydes. You are indulging in spin. Your suggestion is not NPOV. I suggest we stick to changing "poor" to "limited".
As for "leaving out a part of the story". It's not a story. It's an entry in an encyclopaedia about an operating system of very little application and with very little support, it seems, in the wider community. What it isn't is a soapbox for its proponents. But clearly the proSkyOS crew oppose any attempt at writing a neutral article. They're not here for that, are they? --Dr Zen 06:16, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've already said what this entry becomes if you leave out part of the facts. If you're comfortable with lying, then by all means, go for the gusto. I would like to point out that you most likely have never used SkyOS, so in all reality, you should probably not be commenting on it at all. But again, if you're creating an article with half-truth's and incomplete ideas, don't let the fact that you have never used SkyOS before stand in your way of contributing to a Wikipedia entry about it. --Hexydes 07:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Last time I checked, an office suite and a web browser were not nice apps. We don't need to know there's more apps being ported, this is not a PR statement. The first line of your suggestion could be used, but no more of it. --Anonymous

To be totally accurate, this has to be written about 4.0a anyway, which was dire, as 5.0 doesn't exist publicly. Hence we're being very generous in letting a lot of stuff about 5.0's improvements be left in. --Kiand 13:27, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks so much, we're so grateful for the generosity you've shown us. It means the world to us. Seriously. Thanks. So much. Seriously. --Hexydes 15:13, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Considering I doubt anyone involved in a commercial OS would find themselves resorting to sarcasm, I think we can take that as an approvaly for just changing Poor to Limited. --Kiand 15:41, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If people can come to arraignment about the skyos wikipedia page I guarantee that I will not change it (since the question has been raised whether people will revert once it is unprotected). I just wanted an equal, fair, true, representation of the OS... one that doesn't mention any theories on whether or not it is GPL compliant (because it is and that would be false advertising if it was left up :) ) --Anonymous


[edit] Continuing, hardware support

Wow, I can edit again. The joy.

I am still not happy with the poor hw support thing, since it simply is a blatant lie. Other than that, I am getting tired of this. It's not as if an unbalanced wikipedia article will ruin SkyOS. -- Thom Holwerda

Okay, Thom. I think there is consensus that it should not say "poor". Can you live with "as yet limited hardware support relative to that offered by the commercial OSs"? I think this does encompass both POVs.
Now, I'm an editor not a computer whatsit, so help me out here. I can recognise a biased piece of writing but I can't quite grasp what the issue is here. If you say it has very good hardware support, I'm at a bit of a loss. If it doesn't work a printer, how is that good? I use a printer every day. If I read this article and it tells me it has great hardware support, I'm left thinking, how come it won't work my printer though? How come it won't work my Firewire devices? What if I don't use the graphics card your system supports? I have to go out and buy a new card? I don't have to do that with Windows. So, look, that's relatively poor. I can see that it's an achievement for Robert to have made it but he's not a giant corporation, so he has to put the work in still. That's why we say "as yet limited". --Anonymous
If you don't like this solution, suggest something better. You know that simply saying you're working on a web browser doesn't work. That's just advertising, dude. I think we're quite close to consensus. Tinker with the suggestion I've made rather than try to spin it into something that is unrealistically positive and I think we're there and everyone can be at least content.
And please, Thom, sign up with Wikipedia. Contribute in other areas. Your expertise would be very welcome. One of the things that we're advised to do is to try not to work on things that involve our own POV. You can't possibly distance yourself from this subject and you're stuck pushing an agenda. But on others, you will much more easily find neutrality and be a great contributor. --Dr Zen 01:30, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
But it has got poor hardware support - two major graphics vendors and VESA, etc.
I doubt I could get it to hit a GUI with sound and networking on my laptop - something Windows, Linux, BeOS and all the BSD's can. There's no printer support, and I presume wireless and firewire are unsupported as well. Hence it HAS got poor support relative to the commercial OS's, and even to the major OSS ones. --Kiand 00:28, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
My point is the fact that stating "relatively poor hardware support" is an empty statement-- it does not make clear what exactly is unsupported. People could indeed read it as a lack of printing support, firewire, or whatever. But, I'm pretty confident that people will think that the chance that it will not run on their computers is bigger than the chance it will run, and that is simply untrue and therefore unfair.
Maybe it's a better idea to add what exactly lacks in hardware support -- i.e. FireWire, printing, burning -- so that people know what is supported and what isn't. Fact is SkyOS will run on most systems, and therefore stating "relatively poor hardware support" send out the wrong message.
Oh and Dr. Zen, if you think I'm biased in favor of SkyOS, than you really have no idea. I have written several articles for OSNews.com, and I never make SkyOS look better than it is. In fact, in my review of beta 7.9, the critisizm was in the majority. Not in any of my 15+ articles I've written, on various subjects, have I ever showed any unfounded preference for any piece of software or operating system. --Thom Holwerda 12:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, Thom, I do think you're biased. I think you want an article that will spin SkyOS the right way. That's okay though! We just need a way to incorporate all POVs. I don't think there's any need for the article to be ultracritical and I think Kiand has backed down from his position and been very fair about it. However, there is a need not to twist the truth too far the other way. --Dr Zen 01:17, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There's "running" and then there's running. Correct me if I'm wrong, but SkyOS will not do accelerated 3D graphics on any modern graphics card. Now, you can spin that to say that SkyOS supports the geforce and radeon range of cards. However, that's misleading: it will run on them, but with much reduced capabilities than running Windows or Linux on the same machine. --Anonymous
I think something needs to be said to reflect this. We can argue over the wording, but the fact remains that a fair and balanced article about SkyOS must mention that the number of devices supported, and the quality of that support, is inferior to Linux and Windows. While SkyOS may boot on most machines, it will certainly not allow you to make full use of your hardware on almost any machine manufactured in the last 4 or 5 years. --Shane King 00:46, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] BeOS

"and a number of features reminiscent of BeOS"

Skyos has a number of features that reminiscent of alot of that OS's. --Anonymous

It has more BeOS like features than other OS's, although it does use a Windows/DOS/OS2 style disk lettering system. That proposed rewrite isn't even in real English, so I don't see how or why it could be put in. --Kiand 14:30, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
SkyOS does NOT have reduced performance on Nvidia and ATI hardware, as far as the desktop is concerned. The only limitation it has is modern gaming. For ANYTHING you are doing on the desktop, SkyOS runs extremely well. The fact is, you're trying to add things in to the SkyOS article that you have absolutely zero experience with. You've never used SkyOS, so how would you know how well it supports hardware? You say Thom's opinion is biased? At least he has USED SkyOS. --Hexydes 01:07, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hey, man, easy now. NPOV means including *every* point of view. And writing an encyclopaedia means writing articles for *everyone* who might read them. Not everyone has a technical appreciation. Now, if SkyOS doesn't do 3D graphics, it won't even work some of the programs I use. I don't need to use it to know that, I just need to know that the programs I use need it. I'm not actually trying to add anything in to the article. I think it's fine as it is. It seems to cover the OS very reasonably. However, you think it is not positive enough, so we are trying to find a way to accommodate your POV. I don't need to have used it to know that you have a POV, or to agree that it should be included, etc. --Dr Zen 01:17, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"The only limitation it has is modern gaming. For ANYTHING you are doing on the desktop"...
Gee well, guess all my fond memories of 'modern gaming' on my desktop never actually happened, because we all know nobody games on the desktop. *rolls eyes*. 'Anything' means 'Anything', Hexydes. -- Maru Dubshinki
I was responding to Shane King. --Hexydes 01:38, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This is an open discussion, not a private conversation. If you want to speak to Shane particularly, you can use his talk page or, if you want to continue to attack him personally, perhaps he'll give you his email addy and you can take it there. --Dr Zen 01:42, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I do not need to have experience with SkyOS, in fact that's not even helpful. Wikipedia is not the place for original research! I read sites such as OS news, and so I am aware of the state of SkyOS. Do you deny it's true that SkyOS lacks 3D acceleration for modern graphics cards? Or that some classes of hardware have little or no support? Because unless everything I've read about SkyOS is untrue, that is the case. I don't doubt that SkyOS runs well, I have not claimed it doesn't. However, it's downright misleading to leave out the fact that SkyOS's hardware support is limited compared to other more popular operating systems. To justify leaving the fact out because "ANYTHING you do on the desktop" runs fine isn't a NPOV statement: your opinion on what people do and don't need on the desktop is not relevant. --Anonymous
I have nothing against SkyOS, I think it's an amazing effort for such a small group of people to build something that can even be mentioned in the same breath as Windows, which was created by one of the biggest and richest companies on Earth. I sympathise with the problems smaller developers face when trying to get hardware drivers written, or even specs to write those drivers. I wish the situation was better than it is, and SkyOS (and other alternate operating systems) were able to write full drivers for such hardware. However, I'm not going to let that sentimentality slip into an article about it, I'll stick to the facts. --Shane King 05:39, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think there would be any problem with a short discussion of those problems even, Shane, would there? If there is a POV that these difficulties create frustration for smaller-OS developers, this is something that could be covered. BTW, was Microsoft big and rich when it first wrote Windows? Presumably it grew from small beginnings too. --Dr Zen 06:29, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

When Microsoft wrote Windows, they weren't exactly 'small'. --Maru Dubshinki


I have no problem covering that side of things, so long as it can be done in a neutral way. I'm happy to explain the reasons why SkyOS has limited driver support, so long as the statement is made that is does indeed have limited support, and the reasons why that is so remain non-emotively stated so they don't read like a rant against nVidia (which has legitimate business reasons for not releasing specs).
As far as Microsoft goes, it was a bigger company in 1981 when the first version of DOS shipped than SkyOS is now. Also, it's completely impossible to compare the small size of the personal computer market then to what it is now. SkyOS is also much more complicated a piece of software than DOS was. The computer industry moves so fast it's futile to try to compare the circumstances of today with those of over 20 years ago. It's also not really relevant to the article (I only mentioned it in passing because I wanted to say I'm not anti-SkyOS, just looking to keep the article neutral). --Shane King 06:39, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I wasn't suggesting we compare the circumstances of the two at all. I was asking you to clarify that for me. The very complexity of the industry now and how it is not a failing of the smaller company not to be entirely competitive with the giants are definitely the balancing up sides of mentioning the down sides of the limited driver support. Would you perhaps undertake to write the section on driver support and post it here on the talk page, so that the interested parties can say yea or nay and move on? I like your idea of giving a broader context for the statement. Perhaps that will be satisfactory to Thom and Hexydes? --Dr Zen 06:45, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] My attempt at redoing the software/driver bit

This is just a suggestion as I was asked to try to write it, don't take it as finished, as I know I can tend to waffle a bit when I write. I also haven't bothered to wikify this text yet.


"As of 2004, SkyOS has drivers for a wide enough range of hardware to run on most PCs. Some types of devices are not supported, such as printers, CD burners and firewire devices. Although SkyOS has good support for most graphics cards in 2D mode, it lacks the ability to take advantage of the 3D hardware found on modern graphics cards like nVidia's GeForce and ATI's Radeon range. The SkyOS developers have asked these companies to consider writing drivers or releasing specifications so that drivers may be written; but at this stage neither company considers SkyOS to have enough marketshare for that to be financially viable."

"SkyOS has applications for most common desktop computing tasks, with a modern graphical web browser and a full office suite being notable exceptions. The availability of niche applications is limited in comparison to other operating systems such as Windows or Linux."


Hopefully that's neutral enough to satisfy everyone, or at least be a workable compromise. I've spent a fair amount of time on it (30 minutes for two paragraphs), so please don't accuse me of deliberate bias, I've really tried my best to come up with something workable. If it's still not satisfactory, please suggest how it can be improved! --Shane King 10:38, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

I hope the disputing parties will at least thank you, Shane, for the effort. I know I do. I think it's very fair. It's not exactly what either side wanted but it does strike a balance. --Dr Zen 11:18, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. This is a fair piece, and I have no objections to this at all-- in fact, it was what I had in mind in my last reply.
Oh and Dr. Zen, I really take it personal that you dare to call me biased. It obviously shows that you have never read any of my articles. Because if you did, you'd know I'm one of the few unbiased operating system enthousiasts still out there. Reconsider your statement, please. --Thom Holwerda 13:02, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I call it as I see it, Thom. All I've seen from you is what you've written here. We are having this discussion because some people wish there to be a bias in the article. You're not alone in it but I do feel it's something you should accept. I've suggested to you that you should contribute to other articles that you're not so close to and I think you should strongly consider that. --Dr Zen 00:30, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I do not find what I have said here to be biased. Maybe you should look the word up in a dictionary :). And maybe I will contribute to other articles-- especially ones that have to do with The Netherlands. But, I am not willing to contribute here, if the people around here dare to call me biased-- if you think I am, don't let me edit at all. Which has already happened anyway. --Thom Holwerda 14:04, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Excellent, hopefully we're nearing a resolution here so the page will be unprotected soon and this change will be able to be made. --Shane King 13:50, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
Hrm. I'll accept ShaneKings rewrite assuming we don't take the unsigned, anonymous, pidgin-English suggestion above for changing the line about what OS's its like. --Kiand 14:30, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I can accept this paragraph (even though financial motivations is NOT the reason why Nvidia and ATI refused to support us. It would cost them NOTHING to let us use their code to write drivers). However, I do ask that the page be reverted to one of the previous versions that had quite a lot of relevant information about SkyOS (such as the list of what each beta included, etc.). --Hexydes 16:31, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It would have meant them giving trade secrets to a third party, which ultimately comes down to a financial concern, as those trade secrets are considered to be worth money by nVidia and ATI. Whether or not the worry is legitimate or not, is not my concern. I'm merely reporting on it, the reader can decide for themselves whether nVidia and ATI are right to worry or not. Wikipedia is not the place for me to editorialise.
--Shane King 01:12, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
Those sections were cut for the reason that they're not needed and not encyclopaedic. The betas aren't public and hence there is no point saying what's in them. They are not relevant. --Kiand 17:15, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It is relevant, factual information about SkyOS. People that follow SkyOS are always interested in what has been included in the betas, and what will be in the next betas. Once again, you're not interested in meeting halfway on this, you want it your way. We are discussing this in order to come to an agreement, and you're simply negating anything that doesn't fall into your critical view of SkyOS. --Anonymous

I'm fine with the re-written paragraph, but I want the more complete version of the article that appeared before, with the addition/replacement of the new paragraph, because it contains interesting, factual information about SkyOS. If you can't accept those terms, then just keep the article locked, because we will continue to edit it back to what we feel is appropriate. --Hexydes 17:54, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your older version was an advert. It will never be brought back. --Anonymous
We've almost reached a concensus on what is to be done to this version. If you keep editing or reverting, you will be blocked. Simple as that. --Anonymous
If you want a pro-SkyOS Wiki article, with a full list of apps ported, whats in each beta, etc, set a Wiki up on your own webserver. The Wikipedia is not for that kind of self-promotion. --Kiand 18:01, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Please explain how listing what applications are available, and what has been included in each beta, is self-promotion. It is factual information about SkyOS that we are often asked about. Obviously, people want to know about that information, or they would not ask about it. It is factual, we're not making it up. It should be included. I've now said I am willing to accept the re-write above in regards to hardware. You speak about a consensus, defined as "An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole". I am working towards that goal, by allowing concessions to what I think should be written in parts of the atricle. You, however, are not interested in coming to a consensus. You are only interested in having included what you want included, and nothing more. This is just another shining example of the bias you are attempting to introduce into this article. --Hexydes 18:41, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Check the "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is" and "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" articles. You'll find that listing what apps an OS has and what was in each closed beta is not covered in What the Wikipedia Is. --Kiand 19:02, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've read these before. I asked YOU to tell me how you think the above is self-promotion, as you so said. Please elaborate why you believe that the posting of factual, relevant information is, in your mind, self-promotion. --Hexydes 19:29, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This is preposterous, Hexydes. We are having this discussion to end an edit war. We have bashed out a consensus between the two sides and your suggestion to implement that consensus is to revert to your edit? You just aren't getting into the spirit, man. Yes, the listing of what was in each beta is "factual", but it is also "factual" that Bill Gates wore nappies as a baby, that there are leaves on the pavements of London right now and that three and three is six. Factuality alone cannot be a criterion for inclusion. Relevance and notability are how we distinguish a fact to be included from one that should not. What is the relevance of listing what was in each beta? Purely to advertise the capabilities of the OS. You have an external link to a place where you can advertise to your heart's content. I agree totally with Kiand on this issue. I think we have made a good compromise and I also think that because Kiand and Shane gave a lot more ground than you did, you think that you can get all you want by simply refusing to negotiate it. --Dr Zen 00:30, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It is relevant because it tells about the history of what has been done in developing the most recent version of SkyOS. I'm so tired of hearing that you think I am advertising SkyOS on Wikipedia. We literally get about 3 hits a week from Wikipedia. I couldn't honestly care less if we receive any traffic from Wikipedia or not, we receive more than enough traffic from other venues. Saying that I am trying to advertise SkyOS makes absolutely no sense. Not to mention, if I WAS trying to advertise SkyOS, don't you think I would find a bit more interesting or effective means of doing it than by listing changes in a beta? I am simply trying to include factually important and relevant information that might be of interest to someone trying to learn more about SkyOS.
I really would like you to explain why you believe listing beta changes is advertising for SkyOS. I really can't figure out your frame of thought on that at all. It makes no sense. --Hexydes 02:12, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think you should step away from editing this article. You are far too close to it. Why not work on something else? You might be tired of hearing that it's self-promotion, but your closeness to it makes it very hard to believe that you are taking a neutral look at it. See, I am, and it looks like blatant self-promotion to me. You haven't even begun to convince me otherwise. --Anonymous

So here's what I suggest. You put in your list of betas and revisions and Kiand can add what the revision did not include. This will make the article NPOV. Also, to resolve the difficulties some have with what software is and isn't supported, if you will not get behind Shane's excellent compromise, you can have a list of the programs it does support, complemented by a very very long list of the programs it does not. I think the version Shane suggests very neatly balances the two views. If you insist on something more comprehensive, I think you should get it. You have fought very hard not to allow negative viewpoints to be expressed in this article but in fact Wikipedia is all about expressing every viewpoint. How it does it is a matter for discussion and debate, but it should do it.  ::--Dr Zen 03:23, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


[edit] The GPL Issue

Although SkyOS may or may not (I believe it doesn't) violate the GPL, should the article say that "some have suspected that SkyOS violates the GPL, although its author has repeatedly said it doesn't." Even if it is proven that SkyOS doesn't violate the GPL, that info should be in the article because it's part of the history of SkyOS.

This is what I tried to say, repeatedly, but we've got zealots who remove it constantly. Every article you see on OSNews or Slashdot has the same suspicions on it, it is a major subject.... but no, certain users just remove it every time its posted. --Kiand 08:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yeah. As long as it's worded so that it doesn't say that SkyOS does, but there is just a suspicion. I don't think that SkyOS uses GPL, but I think that Wikipedia needs to have a lot of accurate information.
Depends on how you look at it. If I accuse person X of being a racist, without any apiece of evidence, and I get a group of die-hard zealot followers who feel the same, should that be added to person X' Wikipedia entry? I think not. --Thom Holwerda
Hmm... Person A generates controversy around person B; Thom argues all mention of controversy should be excised from B's article, as being of absolutely no relevance or interest whatsoever to anyone. But of course! It's so simple and logical, why did I not see it earlier? --maru 22:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would agree if there was a reasonable cause behind the belief, but rather it was born by the ignorance of a /. poster's ignorance about how the linux binary interpreters work.
If there was actually one iota of evidence about possible GPL violations, it might be a valid point of discussion but all there is are rumors, unfounded rumors by people who do not know the history of SkyOS. SkyOS has been around since in 1997; it isn't some OS that just appeared fully formed.
The evidence is that POSIX compatible operating systems like FreeBSD and Linux contain millions of lines of code. Anyone who thinks Robert built a POSIX compatible OS from scratch knows nothing at all about programming. The fact that Robert also claims to have written over 1000 drivers makes it obvious that he is not being truthful. Beyond the fact that it is impossible for one person to write that many drivers, who supplied him with the hundreds of printers and network devices required to test them with? If that is not enough, look at the fact that SkyOS offers no real functional advantages over Linux or FreeBSD. I'm sure if you look you'll also find that SkyOS support little to no hardware beyond what is already supported in Linux and FreeBSD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.118.218.191 (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
What if he simply took FreeBSD drivers? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.92.7.69 (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] New Version

I have changed the entry for SkyOS to reflect the fact that SkyOS 5.0 has turned into a complete rewrite of the OS from the ground up. The tag 5.0 is set to be dropped and it will simply be SkyOS.

[edit] Updates

I don't usually make edits to pages so I'm gonna post here instead.

On SkyOS's website the current news articles and the screenshots that are in them show that they new have printing support using CUPS. It also showed Quake 3 (meaning it supports 3D graphics) And USB support.

If there's someone reading this who is in the beta and can confirm this to be fact (Not that I don't trust the website, just that I think we should have someone give a 2nd opinion) you might want to add that to the page (and remove the lines saying that It doesn't support USB, Printing and 3D)

Roger

I have updated the page. The 3D support is, for now, software only. Lord Chess 23:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SkyGI

SkyGI was up for deletion under prod, but I've opted to redirect it here, instead. If anybody wants to merge the old information, it's available in the page history. Cheers! Luna Santin 01:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/k/y/Talk%7ESkyOS_2d10.html"