Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Operating Systems Software

Syllable's Kristian Van Der Vliet Interview 123

Posted by Hemos from the write-your-own dept.
Andreas Louca writes "OSNews.com has a nice interview with Syllable's Project Leader, Kristian Van Der Vliet. Syllable is one of the teams that raised off the ashes of AtheOS. They talk about the future of Syllable and the current status. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Syllable's Kristian Van Der Vliet Interview More

Syllable's Kristian Van Der Vliet Interview

Comments Filter:

  • It... (Score:2, Funny)

    by BiteMeFanboy ( 680905 )
    They talk about the feature

    It only has one... somehow I don't think that's going to cut it. ;) THppppppppt.

    • 'whoami' has only one feature, but somehow it's managed to stay in *nix for sometime. ;)
      • I can think of at least two features that are a requirement for any OS that I'm going to use. If it doesn't have them, it is not going to stay on my computer very long. Programs however, I like as feature-bare as possible. There is a difference.
        • Only two? Heck, MS-DOS has at least 2 features. ;)

        • Re:It... (Score:3, Funny)

          by yomegaman ( 516565 )
          1. Tabbed browsing
          2. Play Ogg files

          I'm right, aren't I?
          • Most OSes can do most of those. Mozilla runs on a mind-numbing amount of platforms, and Ogg, well, if it's not on your OS, there's source code, so port it! ;)

          • Re:It... (Score:2, Interesting)

            by jared_hanson ( 514797 )
            Well, I was thinking more along the lines of protected memory and capable of running multiple processes. Your thinking of programs again. People should really learn the distinction between an operating system and the programs that run on top of it.
          • If thats all it takes then Syllable can ship now :). ABrowse has tabs and ColdFish plays Ogg files.

  • Kristian Van Der Vliet (Score:5, Funny)

    by GMontag ( 42283 ) <gmontag@guymontag. c o m> on Monday June 16, 2003 @10:45AM (#6212977) Homepage Journal
    With all those syllables, this sounds like a good fit.

  • AtheOS is dead? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 16, 2003 @11:03AM (#6213189)
    No, really. I must have missed this. What happened to AtheOS? When did it die? Why? When was this?

    Wasn't AtheOS the OS that was all being done by that one guy and had the amiga-like GUI with the nice c++ API? If that's the one i'm thinking of, is this a big mark against the single-benevolent-dictator software development model that AtheOS was the shining example of, or a mark for because the project got so far before the guy wandered off for whatever reason?

    Well, at the least, this explains why I suddenly stopped hearing about AtheOS after so much noise was made about it..

    Does AtheOS's previous developer still use it on his home machine?

    -super ugly ultraman

    • Re:AtheOS is dead? (Score:5, Informative)

      by d-Orb ( 551682 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @11:13AM (#6213295) Homepage
      Wasn't AtheOS the OS that was all being done by that one guy and had the amiga-like GUI with the nice c++ API?

      Yes, the same. The main developer stopped working on the project (at least, stopped posting to mailing-lists and the such), and after some time, people decided to fork Atheos to make syllable. It seems most of the former atheos community has moved over to Syllable. Another similar project used the Linux kernel with a BeOS like interface on top, this is Cosmoe [cosmoe.com]. I am not familiar with the latter, though.

    • Re:AtheOS is dead? (Score:3, Informative)

      by BigFootApe ( 264256 )
      I think it is/was on hiatus for a while.
      Does AtheOS's previous developer still use it on his home machine?


      As the news [atheos.cx] says, his dev box broke down and hasn't been replaced (yet) 'cuz he bought an airplane. I think the site server is run at his employer's or something.

  • Phew (Score:5, Funny)

    by HopeUnknown ( 668633 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @11:07AM (#6213227) Homepage Journal
    I saw the name "Kristian", and for a second there I thought they were talking about a girl! On Slashdot!

    • In other news, world-class journalistChristiane Amanpour [cnn.com] has announced a new SourceForge project, AmanpourOS. It will include a realtime kernel, POSIX and Win32 compatability, a full suite of GNU tools, and of course a Journalling File System called CNNFS (CNNFS is Not aNother File System).

      When asked how much code she had available on her project site presently, she replied "Code? Oh, I haven't written any code, really. All I did was get a sourceforge project up and secured an OSNews interview with Euge [osnews.com]

  • Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 16, 2003 @11:08AM (#6213237)
    A nitpick:

    This OS looks really cool, but I just want to know: years and years since LiteStep or AfterStep or Windowmaker or whatever the first attempt to make "a NextStep-like window manager", and the "open source community" still can't seem to produce a GUI that doesn't look exactly like a less-stylish version of NeXTStep.

    I guess that isn't *bad*.. it's just funny.

    Besides this, though.. I am firmly convinced that "open source" is going to go nowhere until the Community realizes that everyone except you absolutely HATES the way that Motif looks. No, saying "it has skins" is *never* an acceptable answer. If your product, out of the box, has that faux-3D, Motif/NextStep/Netscape 4 look to it *anywhere*, people will not want to use it.
    • I happen to like the NextStep look -- it was well thought out (a 2nd revision of MacOS, more or less).


      HOWEVER, let's remember that most NeXT boxes were black and white... maybe they couldn't afford the license fees for color?


      Motif looks like a windows 3.0 knockoff, but designed by a committee.

      • Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)

        by RevAaron ( 125240 )
        NeXTSTEP looks quite nice to me as well. A helluva lot different than Motif.

        Plenty of newer NeXT boxes and white hardware running NeXTSTEP or OpenStep were color. Even for copies of NS/OS on b/w machines, NeXT still paid the Pantone color licenses. NeXT was a platform that did many things very well. And when your display is greyscale, you better have accurate colors when you're going to be printing. Heck, back then, a Pantone license was a good idea on a color monitor. Apple's ColorSync existed before

        • Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)

          by edwdig ( 47888 )
          Motif is older than Windows 3.x. PCGEOS was developed at the same time as Windows 3.x, and shipped around the same time. It licensed Motif for its interface, which means Motif had to have already existed before Windows 3.x.
          • But Windows 3.x is a polished version of the Windows 2.x/OS/2 1.1 interface. (1.2/1.3 were copies of the Windows 3.x interface)
    • getting away with this comment and score +2 insightful... you should run for president!

      NextStep has nothing to do with Motif has nothing to do with this. Off topic.

  • Commodity Hardware (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kalidasa ( 577403 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @11:10AM (#6213264) Journal
    The most interesting part to the interview is where he starts talking about the difficulty in coding for modern hardware interfaces; he suggests that as easier-to-code interfaces like PS/2 and the floppy are rplaced with harder-to-code interfaces like USB, the end of the hobby OS may be at hand. As the barrier-to-entry for coding OSes for commodity hardware grows larger, doesn't that suggest that the opportunity for new robust OSes to evolve to compete with the established players (not only Windows, but OS X, the other BSDs, and Linux) may not exist in the future? Is it possible that the evolution of the OS may be choked by the evolution of the hardware?

    • Re:Commodity Hardware (Score:4, Informative)

      by travail_jgd ( 80602 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @11:53AM (#6213743)
      "...he suggests that as easier-to-code interfaces like PS/2 and the floppy are rplaced with harder-to-code interfaces like USB, the end of the hobby OS may be at hand."

      Why? At the very least, developers can use freely code from the BSDs with no strings attached. If the OS developers are planning on GPLing their code, they can pull code directly from Linux.

      If using code from either of those OS's is unacceptable (say, the new OS is being written in a different language), the developers could actually read the BSD or Linux routines and use that as a starting point.

    • Re:Commodity Hardware (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The great thing about open source is variety and legacy. OSS remembers its roots and keeps archives. Projects may die out, but it is truly hard (dare I say impossible?) to loose anything of value.

      I think there are many people who believe that if the OSS community wants to make something, nothing will really stop it.

      Looking over /., there is a new, incredibly complex and even (sometimes, yes) meaningless project every other day. I personally believe we are only limited by how we limit ourselves.

      Look at
    • Nope.

      In another word: POSIX.
      • What's in a word [reference.com]? What does POSIX have to do with this? POSIX is a set of functions with set behavior which can be called from programs, mostly C programs, though there are various ways to call POSIX functions from other languages.

        So what the hell does that have to do with supporting supposedly more difficult to support devices like USB? (Okay, yes, it's harder to support by far, because you can't just do IN and OUT. But as others have said, you can "steal" code from BSD.)

    • Re:Commodity Hardware (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Deusy ( 455433 )
      If it was only the hardware that was evolving, then yes this would be the case.

      This is unlikely to be the case. Should it get to the point where the hardware is too many and too complicated for everybody to program for, you'll find generic interfaces to the hardware being implemented in generic assembly languages like table assembly [penguin.cz].

      Or perhaps firmware will develop further to ease driver creation.

      There are many areas in which layers can develop to keep developing drivers possible for mortals. The

  • Sounds cool, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by the morgawr ( 670303 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @11:10AM (#6213265) Homepage Journal
    So we have yet another hobby OS with some very good ideas that will never end up going mainstream. After checking the site out, nothing they're doing couldn't be done on top of a BSD or Linux based kernel (with modification ofcourse). This would have solved their hardware problems, and given them a fully working OS to start from, progams and all.

    For Open Source and Free Software to succeed people need to stop making "yet another peice of software written from scratch". The strength of having the source is that you can modify it for your own use (like syllable is doing with the GNU tool chain) and not have to re-invent the wheel. The argument of "what's out there isn't good enough" doesn't fly either. You have the source to fix it and make it better!

    While this seems like a cool project, it is taking away developers who could be adding the same great features and abilities to our current systems. Then again, maybe I don't understand what they are trying to do.

    • Re:Sounds cool, but... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jabbadabbadoo ( 599681 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @11:17AM (#6213343)
      "So we have yet another hobby OS with some very good ideas that will never end up going mainstream. After checking the site out, nothing they're doing couldn't be done on top of a BSD or Linux based kernel (with modification ofcourse). This would have solved their hardware problems, and given them a fully working OS to start from, progams and all."

      What's the fun in that?

    • Re:Sounds cool, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kalidasa ( 577403 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @11:18AM (#6213360) Journal

      For Open Source and Free Software to succeed people need to stop making "yet another peice of software written from scratch". The strength of having the source is that you can modify it for your own use (like syllable is doing with the GNU tool chain) and not have to re-invent the wheel.

      So in other words, Linus working on his own operating system kernel was just taking good developers away from HURD, right?

      If we follow your logic, we'll be stuck with Linux and BSD forever. Not that Linux and BSD aren't great, but they are not perfect, and at some point "making them better" won't be enough anymore. You need to have constant experimentation with OSes or you'll never know what's possible (and you'll never replace all those OS programmers with a new generation).

    • First off, there is always the experience from coding from the group up. Second, Linux isn't a hotbed of good GUI. Most new GUIs worth looking at are comming from outside the Linux relm.
    • According to your logic, there shouldn't be a linux, because Linus should have worked on *BSD, or Hurd, or patches for minix, right?

      Just because they "could" be working on linux doesn't mean they "would" be, if not for Syllable.

      • Well, Linus himself says that if he had known about the BSDs then that's what he would have worked on. So I guess, yes, there shouldn't be a Linux. I personally am happy that there is, because I think the GPL is a good device to ensure that business' relationship with free software isn't a one-way street. But that's my opinion, not Linus'.

    • Re:Sounds cool, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by powerlinekid ( 442532 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @11:40AM (#6213595)
      Fair enough.
      Well I am one of the developers from Syllable (Syllable-Net team leader to be exact) so maybe I can answer your question.

      The argument of "what's out there isn't good enough" doesn't fly either. You have the source to fix it and make it better!

      Have you ever played with the linux internals? Or hacked on X or KDE? If you have, you know its a mess. Syllable is a consistent system built on modern ideas. We don't have 20 years of cruft to fight with everytime we need to make a change or add a feature. This alone is worth the effort.

      Now most importantly: Our main developers code on Syllable because its fun. I have a blast throwing ideas back and forth between Vanders, Rick, Kaj, and all the others. If someone has a problem with some specific widget (recently the tab issue in our terminal), we work together to fix it. I don't think any of us are working on this to get rich. For the most part its also the whole "scratch an itch" philosophy. Just because we work on this OS, doesn't mean we'd work on another one. Thats like saying that just because I pirated a copy of Windows that I cost MS $200 because I would of bought it anyway. The world doesn't work like that.

      We have a great community, a great project manager in Vanders and great developers. All of us keep our eyes on the user's needs, not on what we as developers want. As time goes on and more infrastructure is laid down, you'll see Syllable become more mature. Simple things that can be a hassle on Linux (gui consistancy, simple application notification through a central Registra, etc) will be in place.

      Anyway, don't give up on Syllable yet. In the future it will be much different from Linux, BSD, Windows or anything else. Remember we're not even a year old yet (although AtheOS has been around for a while).
      • Have you ever played with the linux internals? Or hacked on X or KDE? If you have, you know its a mess. Syllable is a consistent system built on modern ideas. We don't have 20 years of cruft to fight with everytime we need to make a change or add a feature. This alone is worth the effort.

        Wasn't that the whole point of BeOS? To make a unix-like system that was great for multimedia and not full of cruft from the last 30 years of unix development.

        If you're starting your own project just because you reject l
        • Kurt started developing AtheOS before the first BeBoxes shipped. AtheOS was already a lively project before OpenBeOS (& B.E.O.S and all the other BeOS clones) started. Syllable is simply a continution of AtheOS.

          So its the other way around I'm afraid :)
      • Fair enough, I hope you guys are having fun and do well. I've got some question's if you'd bother to answer them.

        Linux internals are very messy. BSD is a lot cleaner, clean enough that researchers chop it up for use in experimental OSes. Why not start from something that works and has solid hardware support? Was it just more fun to do it from scratch or was there a design reson why reworking an existing system or just using large chunks of code wasn't an option?

        I'm no UI expert but the code for X, KDE,

        • Re:Sounds cool, but... (Score:4, Informative)

          by powerlinekid ( 442532 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @01:27PM (#6214716)
          Well its not really from scratch. We already had AtheOS which most of us were already part of. I didn't do too much back then, more of just a lurker.
          However, once Kurt abandoned AtheOS it seemed a shame to waste such a promising system.

          From my own experience, I'm the manager of ABrowse our web browser. ABrowse is based off of KHTML which is a nightmare. I'm currently thinking of some drastic changes because I can't keep up with porting the new versions. I don't want to write a html render engine from scratch, but I am seriously thinking of stripping just about all the none render code out of it. So yeah, there is a point where sometimes it is better to start from scratch.

          Well we don't have remote displays yet. However it is rather trivial to add that. As for right now, there are no great advantages over Linux or any of the BSDs. The the other hand, all of our developers listen to the users so any input is appreciated and noted.
          We support just about everything that is posix compliant, so that pretty much covers the GNU tools.
          As for building a system on top of already existant kernel, well thats what cosmoe is. Its the atheos api tuned to run beos apps, running on a linux kernel. Its kind of a kludge if you ask me. Our kernel while rather immature has some nice features. Its SMP friendly and is completely pre-emptive, the former not done by *BSD until recently and the latter being something Linux doesn't truly have.
          • Not really replying to you, but your comment just clears one point very well.

            I'm currently thinking of some drastic changes because I can't keep up with porting the new versions.

            I think this is exactly the thing which most of the people saying "why didn't you use the code from project Y?" don't understand. If you use someone elses code you have to maintain a fork of that code. That means syncing with new versions to fix bugs etc. Now this will not be trivial since it is someone elses code, and probably
        • I'm no UI expert but the code for X, KDE, and GNOME isn't pretty (and from a user's stand point, the UI isn't friendly). I'm sure that you guys can do a better job.

          I hope these guys can to a better job, but I am not at all "sure" of it. The people who work on X, KDE and GNOME aren't newbies who just learned C yesterday. They are excellent developers. I've looked at the code for all three projects, and it is all of high quality.

          There is of course, some cruft in all three of those projects. But that cruft

    • Re:Sounds cool, but... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by syle ( 638903 ) * <syle.waygate@org> on Monday June 16, 2003 @11:48AM (#6213686) Homepage
      While this seems like a cool project, it is taking away developers who could be adding the same great features and abilities to our current systems.
      I hate this type of arrogant mentality. The whole point of the open source community is that everyone should be able to work on whatever they want, NOT that everyone should be working on Linux.

      Yeah, I know Linux and BSD are great and all, but who the hell are you to judge what these guys should or shouldn't be spending their time on? Maybe you've read too many articles about the RIAA/MPAA, "For every CD copied, we lose a sale," -- "For every developer working on non-Linux systems, we lose a Linux developer." I'm afraid it doesn't work like that.

      I'm not going to bother arguing whether your assertation that they could use a Linux kernel is valid or not, because it's completely irrelevant. If the developers wanted to use Linux, they would. They chose not to. Do you imagine the thought just never crossed their mind?

      We may all be a team in the sense that most open source developers have similar goals, but not in the sense that you can refer to "our current systems" in any meaningful context.

    • I understand your point, but people are going to code what they want to code. Lots of people don't care about "going mainstream" or "succeeding." A lot of coders are just having fun, and want to have something he/she created entirely from scratch.
    • It seems a lot of people misunderstood what I was saying (and like I said I could be wrong): Syllable needs to have a terminal emulator, a text editor, a web browser, etc. and a bunch of other generic apps which are basically the same as the stuff that's out there with any given linux distro or a BSD. For their kernel they have to have a scheduler, a VM system, drivers, file systems, etc. 99% of this code could be take from something already out there - leaving the developers to focus on what they seem to

      • Re:Sounds cool, but... (Score:3, Informative)

        by Vanders ( 110092 )
        Ah. Your perception of Syllable is incorrect I'm glad to report.

        While a large part of the kernel has been written from scratch, there is nothing wrong with that. For the effort Kurt put into writing it, we have a kernel with a kernel space ELF loader and runtime linker, written with SMP support from day one, with an efficient micro kernel IPC mechanism. At the same time, he used code from Linux were it was beneficial. The allocator is essentially from Linux for example.

        The terminal emulator (ATerm)
    • The argument of "what's out there isn't good enough" doesn't fly either. You have the source to fix it and make it better!

      Quick show of hands please: How many people have tried to "fix" the X Window System? [x.org]

      Many [catalog.com] people [cbbrowne.com] feel [slashdot.org] that X11 is a bloated, unmaintainable hack. It is absolutely full of cruft.

      My hope is that this effort gains enough of a foothold that it attracts developers that can put a WINE-like layer on it to translate KDE or QT calls. Then, as people migrate from lower-level toolkit lib
    • I wish someone would craft a better desktop system for linux, but I can't do it because the project would be way over my head and I just don't want it bad enough to learn all the ins and outs of writing a UI shell.

      Now, here's someone who is motivated to learn how to write a "better" OS. And it's his time (and the others corresponding on the project) so how does this "take away" anything?

      Consider: the entertainment industry "loses" Billions of dollars each year to people who don't buy music and don't visit

  • Testing, testing, testing (Score:3, Funny)

    by jabbadabbadoo ( 599681 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @11:11AM (#6213270)
    "What we excel at though is that we are always designing Syllable with an eye towards the end user. "

    Why, then, is Syllable an ugly looking, instable OS?

    Oh, he explains that later on:

    "We are very poor at testing before we release things, [...]"

    So good luck with your OS, Mr. Van Der Vliet.

    • Re:Testing, testing, testing (Score:4, Informative)

      by Vanders ( 110092 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @11:49AM (#6213703) Homepage
      Why, then, is Syllable an ugly looking, instable OS?

      Because Syllable is a development, alpha version. Ugly can and will be fixed in time. We inherited the GUI from AtheOS and thats how it looks. Why spend time and effort changing the look of the GUI when the GUI isn't complete?

      Instability is inherent in the development process. Yes, we are very poor at testing before release, but that is because it is alpha quality. I don't have a release schedule, and there certainly are not enough users to form a FreeBSD style release team.

      Release testing generally consists of me trying out common actions for about half an hour after a build. As we finalise and stablise API's we can build automated test harnesses and formalise a testing plan for new releases.
  • Judging from the screenshots (isn't that the way we all review an OS?) this offers nothing new.

    50% troll,
    50% insightful.

    Honestly...if an OS looks THAT similar to the Linux, OSX, and Windows, can it really offer enough to justify its existence to anyone other than its developers?

    Give me something really new...Plan9 new...for a desktop OS, and I'll pay attention.
    • Judging from the screenshots (isn't that the way we all review an OS?)...

      Umm, no, that's not how we review an os. Maybe if we're on crack.

      The "look" is themeable (like everyone else). But if we use your conclusion, then Windows with litestep is THE SAME as linux.

      Sheesh.
      • The "Sheesh" is unnecessary, because the guy has a reasonable point here.

        If an OS behaves the same as e.g. Linux but is different internally, then yes, it IS "the same" as Linux. Look & feel is a big part of this. The internal differences only start to be interesting if you're a developer, or sometimes (when the API is the same) even only if you are into a specialized markted, like embedded or real-time software.

        For some of us, an ideal OS is one with an ideal user interaction. And sometimes when I ha
        • Screenshot reveal that this OS:

          a) has buttons
          b) has windows
          c) can draw them on a screen.

          Syllable offers a lot more than this, but the first poster's point was that nobody cares. That is very frustrating from a developer's standpoint, since you put a lot of effort into a kernel, display server, or filesystem, but cannot expect people to read the article and find out about this since there are pictures that look a lot like linux, or windows, or foo-os.

          I maintain my sheesh.
    • Judging from the way you look (isn't that the way we all review other people?) you offer nothing new.

      50% boring,
      50% interesting.

      Honestly... if you look THAT similar to lots of other people, can you really offer enough to justify your existence to anyone other than your parents?

      Give me something really new... Ossie Osbourne new... for a maturing person, and I'll pay attention.

  • Hmm. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by teamhasnoi ( 554944 ) <teamhasnoi@yahoo.cLIONom minus cat> on Monday June 16, 2003 @11:19AM (#6213371) Journal
    Forgive me for asking, but what does Syllable deliver (or propose to) that some other os doesn't? (say linux, openBeos, QNX or *gasp*, windows?)

    I would love it if all the 'hobby' oses, combined forces and worked on one thing, like openBeos (soon to be renamed ;)

    I am not biased, either.

    OpenBeos High School Football RULEZ!!!

    • Re:Hmm. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DrWhizBang ( 5333 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @11:54AM (#6213755) Homepage Journal
      Syllables featureset is not express in terms of what it can do, but what it will do ;-)

      Syllable does not use X or the linux kernel - it uses it's own SMP and fully preemptable kernel, it's own 64 bit filesyste (with attributes). and it's own alpha-channal-aware display server. It uses a C++ API that is similar to beos. And it is completely free.

      In the end, we expect syllable to be a os that is nice to work with - easy to use, easy to program. Since it does not use X as a display server, It provides its own toolkit. This will help applications maintain one look and feel. Although most posix apps can be ported (a la ./configure, make, make install), Syllable will be most powerful when native apps are written using the fs api's to store/index data, etc. It should compare more to beos and macos x than linux or qnx.

      There are other hobby OSes. Syllable just happens to be reasonably far along (thanks to Kurt Skauen) and seems to have a lot of momentum (thanks to Vanders.)

    • Re:Hmm. (Score:3, Informative)

      by Vanders ( 110092 )
      The Syllable API (And of course, the AtheOS API before that) was often compared to the BeOS API. It is not a clone and there are no plans to turn it into one, but it is certainly similiar. An application is built by deriving from a toolkit of C++ classes, which in turn talk to an application server.

      So it is a lot like OpenBeOS in that respect, except that Syllable has much more development behind it and works now. We are also not trying to clone BeOS API by API; if it suits our purpose we can and will

  • How do you maintain order and good design? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Nicolai Haehnle ( 609575 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @11:37AM (#6213565)
    I've been lurking on the AtheOS/Syllable mailing lists for a long time now. For a time I had the feeling that, given enough time, Syllable could really become a great operating system, because people were thinking in terms of clean design, looking at the big picture.

    In the last few days, there has been an explosion of activity on the mailing list, and maybe it's just my pessimistic self, but I think the focus has shifted away from clean design to features. If this trend continues, and Syllable falls victim to featuritis and coding without the big picture in mind, it'll simply end up as yet another operating system.

    Do you agree that this is a problem? If so, do you think it will be possible to keep this trend in check or even reverse it?
    • I don't follow Syllable development. I have looked at AtheOS before, but wasn't aware that it had been abandoned. I had similar feelings to you - AtheOS was worth watching as it offered a lot more potential that other homebrew OSs seen on slashdot.

      The key point in my mind that it was under the control of a single developer. Since it was his creation he had ultimate control. Even though a fork could be created it would be unlikely as the fork would be competing against the official code.

      With the official c
      • I understand what you're saying. Yes, over the last few releases bugs have crept in and have been left unfixed. This is partly because the codebase has grown, partly because we've all been very busing trying to fill in the gaps and partly because we're all limited in the amount of time we have to code. So now its time we started to focus on quality a little more, and that begins with making what we have stable. Most of these bugs are only an hour or so's work to fix, but they mount up! Syllable will be

  • Syllable overview (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    If you are interested in Syllable, here is an overview of Syllable 0.4.4 [beeblebrox.net].

Slashdot Top Deals

My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells down by the seashore.

Close