SkyOS creator reviews Ubuntu

[Polygon]

A lot of people here react in a quite agressive way, something you can't say about the skyos community.

that a developer of an os who should know, especially since his distro definitely looks like its at least based on some form on linux bashes ubuntu when all of his problems essentially are down to driver support, which he should know as a DEVELOPER of an os is not perfect even in windows, and even less on linux

he even makes the bold comment saying that linux hasnt improved since he used it in like the 1990's, which is obviously not true.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

I feel like I'm being trolled by Ubuntu users here. I felt like quoting a few posts and pointing out some really stupid things people have written. To be honest, Ubuntu users kind of scare me with their zealotry so I think I'll pass.

The best concentration of sane people is in the mailing lists and Launchpad. Don't tell anyone, though; it's a secret

[tuebinger]

I think the SkyOS developer's blog post is a smart move from a business perpective. (He has something to sell and Ubuntu is free, therefore a threat to his business. As others have said, why wouldn't he trash Ubuntu?)

What is not so smart from a business or marketing angle, and incomprehensible to me, is that he doesn't bother to edit his posts for grammar or clarity.

I wouldn't buy a product from someone who can't author a grammatically correct blog post, full stop. It's a sign of laziness, and I would guess indicative of this product's quality.

[phrostbyte]

I think the Ubuntu community needs to work on not getting so receptive to trolls and idiots come in and try to cause problems. As Ubuntu gets more popular there is going to more and more moron trolls trying to talk smack in an effort to derail Ubuntu and it's philosophy. A thread like this should be ignored or locked early on. It's just of waste of energy.

In that vein I'm not going to reply to this thread anymore and you shouldn't either.

[SomeGuyDude]

Was that 2008, or before? Anything prior to 2008, I would agree, but the latest Mandrivas are smooth like butter. The good French butter.

It was 2008. And it WAS smooth like butter, but for some reason the system locked up every time I tried to log out. Ah well. I still recommend it.

[SomeGuyDude]

This thread is a ****-poor attempt at spamming. Ubuntu sucks come use my OS instead! Pathetic.

I didn't see it that way. I saw it as someone going "look what this nutball wrote about Ubuntu." Why everyone's flaming the OP, I don't get.

[Saint Angeles]

it took me more than 7 hours to install a windows XP partition on my HD last week.

I needed it for turbotax, and I havent used it since.

ubuntu takes less than an hour on my custom built PC (with atheros wireless and ATI video!!!!)

so XP must not be ready for peoples' computers because it was dificult to install on mine.

[djbsteart1]

It was 2008. And it WAS smooth like butter, but for some reason the system locked up every time I tried to log out. Ah well. I still recommend it.

2008 is not without its issues, but 2008.1 even at beta was like creamed French butter, purely for lack of something smoother than French butter.

[compiledkernel]

to the OP,

SkyOS has about as much appeal to me as Zeta, Aros, or ArosMAX, ReactOS, or MenuetOS, or any other for that matter -- OS release that falls out of the normal linux/bsd release flavor . The only thing that seperates SkyOS from the above list (aside from MenuetOS, which was written purely in Assembler) is that the others were based on some other form of code prior. Still, for the developer of a Non-linux based release to gripe about what a linux based OS release does is no more valid than Microsoft doing the same thing. Everyone however is entitiled to their opinion, and I would no more supress that right for someone to say it, than I would suppress my own ability to express my own opinion.

SkyOS is an admireable project, and as a developer myself, I can honestly say his work is quite amazing, having gone from the ground up in the manner he has.

Ill never touch it however, its not free software, and much as it might be viable, it wont touch my hands.

It is interesting to note however that it seems that SkyOS is the more popular and used of the above listed OS's, so maybe it has a chance.

[kutjara]

It makes me laugh when I hear people criticise Linux for not playing nicely with hardware. Nobody says the same about Windows, yet with my mobo and XP almost nothing works out of the box. If it weren't for all the Windows drivers the manufacturer fills the box with you'd be in a world of trouble. Yet Linux is slated for not including support for every piece of hardware under the sun on one disk?

I'd wager that, if you use only the install disk, most modern Linux distros would install better on more hardware than any other OS.

Exactly. That's what a lot of people fail to understand: when they buy a Windows PC, the OS has already been installed and configured for them. Typically, they just have to go through a "post-installation" process (setting the time zone, username, network, etc), and they're good to go. If they need to reinstall the OS, they do it using (typically) "rescue disks" that contain everything needed for that particular machine.

The average Linux user installs the OS themselves, and has to make many of the configuration decisions a Windows user never encounters. For those who don't think very deeply about the issue (or who have an axe to grind), this can look as if Linux is "less polished" than Windows, when in fact it merely supports a much broader range of hardware.

Just to show the silliness of this argument, now that I've got Hardy working beautifully on my little Acer notebook, I can burn a disk that will install Ubuntu on any similar notebook flawlessly. The user would just have to boot the CD, click install, and within 30 minutes have a fully functioning OS. As long as they're using an Acer Aspire 4300 series, their installation experience would be excellent. No configuration necessary.

How does that differ from what Sony, HP, or indeed Acer do with their installations of XP or Vista? Where you really see the reality of how unfriendly Windows can be to install, just try installing a 64 bit version of Vista on a laptop that came preinstalled with 32 bit. You could spend a lifetime hunting down all the drivers.