Unix and BSD are right there work with. Doesn't have to be open source, but it ought to be babby-mode enough for the masses to use it. And it should run on everything.
normies wouldn't touch a computer that came without windows or osx
OP is too stupid to realize that he just described OS X
>>54663628
If it was easy someone would have done it.
You're asking for millions of combined man hours for a project that there is no incentive to embark upon.
>>54663649
>it should run on everything
>>54663649
OS X doesn't run on everything unless you hackintosh it and that's not babby-mode.
>>54663652
I think beating Microsoft at the OS game is a lofty, but noble goal. They've not been this weak in a long time. The opportunity may not come again.
The big issue is software compatibility
>>54663688
i had this idea for a full botnet OS that companies like facebook and google could take advantage of
a tiny kernel and drivers for ports and a GPU and wifi/ethernet, and a window browser, but thats it. then you turn it on, connect to the internet, and it'd automatically connect to google or whatever and load up JS for whatever task it is you're trying to do
it would be lightweight as hell, and most people only want a facebook machine that can use microsoft office and it would basically never go out of date (the OS not the hardware)
The market wouldn't support it. There is almost no demand for such an OS. The majority of people are happy enough with Windows.
>>54663768
so almost what android is?
>>54663628
This is a perfect example of how markets fail.
High barriers to entry (development and deployment costs) and market dominance by a single player prevents new companies entering the market place.
Only action by Government can unseat Microsoft from the top of the OS market; no other company has stepped upto the plate in over 30 years.
>>54663768
This is the ancient "dumb terminal" concept.
>>54663628
ReactOS?
>>54663893
It's trying to be binary compatible with Windows. I wouldn't be worried about that.
>>54663888
Skylake is bringing the dumb terminal back
>>54663628
>ReactOS
>Longene
>FenOS
They exist, the problem is they're shit.
Remix OS aims for that
The problem OP is that Windows/Linux/OSX have been there for long in the market. Nobody can expect to fight years of compatibility with older hardware and software and bring many companies over to a new field just because.
So you have:
1. A gaming OS
2. A thing that you can tinker with
3. A walled garden of creativity
But you will not have all unless Microsoft decides to release the source code for Windows 10. I think they'd rather cease to exist in the market.
Android is a replacement for basic shit, watching videos, playing -some- games or music and such is not going to be an issue but of course don't expect in less than half a decade to have a functional operating system that has tools like Photoshop or games like Assassin's Crap 41 that is not Windows.
>>54663628
OSX is BSD Unix.
>>54663628
BeOS/Haiku
>>54663628
>Mac OS and Linux have been around for more than 20 years
>barely have any market share and vastly inferior software ecosystem
>Why doesn't somebody make a completely new OS which will have zero apps and no driver support?
>>54665840
>macshit
>unix
gr8 b8 m8 i r8 8/8
>>54669667
It's POSIX UNIX, something that can't be said about Linux.
>>54670157
>mactoddler doesn't understand the difference between posix certification and actually being unix
>>54670186
POSIX certification has been UNIX since 1992. Get with the times gramps. Either that or you're talking about shit that happened before you were born.
/g/OS when?
>>54670216
>mactoddler thinks 5billion lines of spaghetti emulation code that runs at 1/100 the speed of native unix and a piece of paper makes his toyOS unix
lmao@urlyfe
>>54663628
b-but anon it is coming. Chrome os that is. It will no only run Linux native applications (snap packages and such) it will also run over a million different Android apps.
This is over for Microsoft and Apple.
Chrome os is light and have millions of normies apps. If more developers start porting games to Linux we wont need Windows anymore.
>>54668346
Chrome os will run Linux and Android apps.
check m8 m8
>>54663688
Sure for shits and giggles, but theres no money in OSes anymore like there was in the 80s/90s.
So no, you're not getting millions of man hours working on a pointless os unless you find some michevious billionair whos bored out of his mind and has nothing to spend on.
>>54663628
>Why doesn't someone just make a competitor to Windows that isn't Linux or OS X?
Because they could just improve Linux instead
>>54670280
lol
>>54663688
I think beating internet explorer and mozilla
Firefox is a lofty but noble goal. Lets give a try to this Chrome Project and see what happens.
I think beating yahoo mail and hotmail
is a lofty but noble goal. Lets give a try to this Gmail Project and see what happens.
I think beating blockbuster and tv cable companies is a lofty but noble goal. Lets give a try to this netflix Project and see what happens.
>>54670186
OS X is based on NeXTSTEP, which is based on BSD 4.3 and updated to BSD 4.4 during Rhapsody, then FreeBSD components were added along with some proprietary Apple stuff and OS X became a thing. How you can say this is not BSD based is just baffling. Enjoy your blind Apple hatred.
>>54663671
Windows doesn't "run on everything" either
Ubuntu
>>54663628
WHat someone should do I give away some cheap desktop and have the os boot over lan then you own their computer and can serve them every ad and affiliate link they click.
>>54663628
There's absolutely no reason to not go with linux. Anyways it has kinda been done with chrome OS.
Anyways, this is pointless, since:
THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE IS EVERYTHING
>>54670243
I make the logo.
>>54670814
>Anyways it has kinda been done with chrome OS
Chrome OS is Linux.
>>54670893
Yeah. But like I said, there's no point not to use linux.
OS2/Warp, NEXT, BeOS, QNX, there are/were other operating systems out there, but they were bought out or are aimed at completely different markets.
>>54670243
I would use this, whatever form it takes.
It's entirely possible to create a new OS based on a BSD. Sony has done it: both the PS3 and PS4 run an OS derived from FreeBSD.
The biggest problem is attracting third-party application developers. If you can bring on third-party devs to create a cornucopia of high quality software for your platform, you can probably get end users to follow, but why would anybody want to develop for an unproven, untested, unrefined new platform when OS X, Linux, and Windows provide literally anything a third-party dev could ever want?
>>54671146
Step 1: Create a Communist dictatorship or take control of one.
Step 2: Train and then force developers and designers to develop your applications.
Step 3: Profit.
>>54671178
Or take over Microsoft, make new Windows based off XYZ, force everyone on it through recommended updates.
Why dozen MS just make a new OS and make all old stuff run through WINE?
>>54671178
North Korea has an official Linux distro. It's called Red Star OS. It's loaded with spying tools so the government can monitor users.
>>54671589
Linux confirmed for
>botnet
>>54663768
Isn't this just chrome OS?
>>54670319
>working on a pointless os unless you find some michevious billionair whos bored out of his mind and has nothing to spend on.
isn't that how ubuntu started?
>>54663628
ReactOS are doing it, however it remains shit from this day.
>>54663874
That's like saying the zipper market is doomed because one company makes nearly all the zippers in the world.
When you have something that's is used by almost everyone, and competition cannot compare, it's not going to change anything soon.
This isn't like blenders or cars where competition is needed.
>>54663628
UNIX and BSD were modelled for network business computing 60 years ago as opposed to Windows, which was built on DOS, and geared toward the home computing user and small business office.
Although *nix has their market share, it won't in the near future take the helm that Windows OS's have taken within the business sector. Face it, Windows 3.1 was a major release ontop of MSDOS, which already had simplicity with it's business products. With the start of Multimedia and home networking, Microsoft nailed it.
These products back then, were relatively easy for a layman to understand and learn in what was, way back then, a world for Solaris and *nix technicians, with backgrounds in science, maths, engineering and electronics. Businesses took to Microsoft, because of their products.
Microsoft's OS's supported small business software, which was actually stable, modern and offered decent functionality at an affordable price. Today, the New York Stock exchange actually runs on MS SQL Server, whereas originally it's digital background, born in the late 70's through academic research in the 60's, was primarily coded for UNIX.
Today, there are other OS's born within the open source community that are trying to take markets away from Windows OS's, and there are decent open source business software suits that run on them quite well and are used in small businesses, because they can reduce running costs and have good interfaces and file exchange formats.
The issue is acceptance. Through cloud computing, and research indicating software is going to continue growing "online", which is distributed processing, Microsoft will always play a part because they are savvy. People say Windows isn't open sourced, but, there are placed where their source code can be legally bought, for business and Government reasons.
>>54663628
Nobody uses desktops anymore.
Tell me who do you know who isn't a professional developer or gaming fag that has a laptop or desktop still. Nobody. Everybody has a tablet or phone now. Desktop OS is dead.
It would be nice to get rid of Android however which is full cancer and replace with BSD (which can be abstracted easily for any noob to use) but if you're going to go to all that trouble might as well come up with a completely new OS that isn't from the 20th century. Another problem you will run into is every hardware manufacturer will not release documentation so you need to reverse their firmware APIs for your new OS unless you have billions to buy licensing from them and get the docs.
>>54672930
Note; exception is ChromeOS which is now outselling Macbooks (because nobody is buying Macbooks or other laptops anymore). So if you can produce a $199 netbook OS and compete with Chrome you have a chance but by the time you are finished laptops will be extinct and you'll have to rewrite your OS for mobile or brain implants or w/e we're using by then.
>>54672930
I know tons of people who arent any of those and have desktops. They're way cheaper than phones.
>>54672998
I don't even know where to buy a desktop anymore, I have to buy parts from newegg and assemble it myself.
Phones are cheap in North America as they are subsidized by contracts, anybody dirt poor can buy a new iThing on a 3yr contract and only need $0-100 up front cash.
>>54673031
>I don't even know where to buy a desktop anymore
Walmart, Target, Costco, Best Buy, etc
>>54673108
I have not seen a desktop PC in a Walmart in at least half a decade.
>>54672930
> Tell me who do you know who isn't a professional developer or gaming fag that has a laptop or desktop still
Office workers? Secretaries, HR people, etc.
And also some companies - especially in the government sector - still use Java applets, flash and IE6 legacy pages.
>>54673255
This. Consumer market means jack shit, it's all about selling business tools. That's why RHEL exist.
Ubuntu should get a cleaner and happier theme by default.
>>54663628
Retard, tons of them exist and they all suck dick.
If you're talking about making something Windows-like to the point where everything werks with the same level of ease and stability as Windows, you're talking about something that would take a *huge* company several years to slap together. Do you happen to be the CEO of a huge company with extensive experience in OS development? No? Damn, that sux bro.
These 'idea guys' and their delusions of nobility and grandeur, man, never gets old.
>>54673289
>Consumer market means jack shit
You've been out of the loop since the iphone haven't you? Businesses are now embracing the consumer market for its UX appeal.
Chromium OS?
>>54673365
You are not wrong.
>>54670280
So what you're saying is that OS X is emulated BSD? Is this actually what you're saying?
>>54673365
>If you're talking about making something Windows-like to the point where everything werks with the same level of ease and stability as Windows, you're talking about something that would take a *huge* company several years to slap together.
Windows was built by one or two guys in a garage actually
>>54673502
epic bro xDDD nice one
>>54663628
Because it's actually really fucking hard to do for so many reasons. ChromeOS kinda does this though.
>>54673515
Except that he's right. We just have to ignore the fact that this was in the late seventies, and they were writing an OS for computers that existed during that time.
>>54673531
you and he both know that the guy meant a modern iteration of Windows, ya buncha jackasses
>>54673531
>We just have to ignore the fact that this was in the late seventies, and they were writing an OS for computers that existed during that time.
Modern comptuers are much easier to develop for than those in the 70s
thanks in no small part to open source & free software, a huge collection of free literature on everything from computer architecture to user interface design, etc
it's much easier to develop a working bare metal OS (i.e. something that boots and handles user IO) than it was in the 70s.
>>54673557
Yeah, I knew that. Hence my disclaimer about the time period it took place in. (Although it was around 1981 and not the late seventies as I said earlier.)
>>54673572
Sure it is, if you don't mind it not actually being able to do anything but boot a machine.
>>54672547
More like, the zipper is patented, and anything even remotely like it can't exist for legal reasons. Buttons have 5% share (OSX). Velcro works better for everyone, but it works differently than zippers or buttons and the zipper company tries to scare people from using velcro.
Beyond that, I've been told that for something to be replaced, the alternative has to be around 10x better. For most people Linux = Windows, so there isn't incentive. For *me* it's 1000x better because I can do things on it I can't do with Windows. I don't game much either. It's not that Linux *can't* game, it's that games don't Linux.
>>54673572
>a working bare metal OS
"it ought to be babby-mode enough for the masses to use it"
>>54673502
On the most basic of terms yes, you're correct. But todays Windows was a collaboration of 4000 software engineers, over 7 years.
>>54673586
>>54673593
if its easier to make a trivial OS than the 70s, it follows that its also easier to make a fully-featured OS. Especially taking parts from modern OS like Unix.
common sense sure didn't arrive for you?
They have, it is called Android and iOS.
>>54673626
>it follows that its also easier to make a fully-featured OS.
No, it doesn't follow at all, actually. Not even remotely. Defend this position.
>Especially taking parts from modern OS like Unix.
>modern OS
>Unix
Ohhhhh, man...
>common sense sure didn't arrive for you?
Ignoring the fact that this sentence is barely English, right back at you.
>>54673626
Why do you keep posting blatantly obvious and irrelevant things? Yes, it is 'easier' to build an OS now than it was in the 70s. No, that does not mean it is *easy* to build a fully fledged OS now. Your posts have nothing to do with the topic.
>>54670157
Inspur K-UX is certified Unix and it was based off of Red Hat GNU/Linux.
>>54663628
>BSD
Aside from OS X, large private projects based on BSD licensed code (including *BSD OSs) usually fail. What happens is that a company takes the code, makes improvements, and doesn't contribute them back to the original project. Then the company, unable to sustain continued separate development themselves, dies and the original project is left in the same state it started in, ready for someone else to do all the same work and make all the same mistakes over again.
BSD is truly an awful license for OSS projects that intend to have a long development life.
>>54673646
>>54673651
is not very smart
you can make OS today, much easier than microsoft could make OS in the 70s.
This is strictly true. Computer architectures are easier. Documentation is better. Existing code you can draw from is lightyears better.
In France we have many students take OS class in undergrad, program an OS. This is a semester long project for one person. Imagine a multi-year long project for 5-10 people.
>Ignoring the fact that this sentence is barely English
forgive me my heritage, nazi
>>54673705
Hi, what SSH software do you use?
>>54673659
True, but it's heavily patched and if you want to run a chink version go right ahead. The LSB isn't POSIX and failed when they submitted it for 03 UNIX cert.
>>54673705
so full of shit it floats.
>>54673714
Why are you replying to >>54673651 and not arguing against any of the points in that post?
>>54663628
>>54673741
I know it's heavily patched: I myself don't use GNU/Linux. I just was surprised when I learnt K-UX was actually based off of GNU/Linux.
The way I see it, K-UX is to GNU/Linux as Mac OS X is to BSD: probably a pretty different experience.
>>54673714
Okay, so again you've just repeated the same thing you did before, only a bit more verbose this time. Not really making progress here.
>Imagine a multi-year long project for 5-10 people.
Yeah, imagine that. Yet another group of people who poured years and countless manhours into an OS that *still* won't even scratch the stranglehold Microsoft has on the OS market. Much like every other project before them, the best they can hope for is to be bought out and suppressed by MS themselves. At least then they'll walk away from all the work with some money to show for it.
>forgive me my heritage, nazi
Yeah, someone who didn't realize you're French is a Nazi. Try not to prove the stereotypes about your people.
>>54673754
more not very smart
1: students build OS in undergrad today, varying complexity
2: students did not build OS in undergrad, in the 70s, regardless of complexity
3: QED it is easier to build OS today.
>>54670302
Chrome OS is Linux. Not exactly new.
ITT people honestly think computers are more difficult to program in [current year] than 1981
>>54673800
You can stop samefagging now. No one has actually said, or even implied, this.
>>54673777
Are you literally incapable of reading a 4chan post? >>54673651 literally agreed that it is easier to build an OS now than it was in the 70s. You're not arguing against the point regarding the relevance of your post in this thread.
Jesus Christ, how fucking slow are you?
>>54671515
Even easier, they could do what Apple did with their last major desktop OS transition: virtualize a stripped-down version of the old OS to run legacy shit, allowing "old world" software to seamlessly run on the same desktop until third-party devs make the transition. A stripped-down XP with its kernel patched up to the version of NT in Windows 7 would work perfectly for this.
Apple did this for moving from OS 9 -> OS X and it worked flawlessly.
>>54673807
>Jesus Christ, how fucking slow are you?
Imagine for a moment the usual little kid shitposter on /g/ who, after getting himself too deep into a conversation he knows nothing about, refuses to let it go because this is the Internet and he doesn't have to. That weird kid who just keeps repeating the same thing over and over again hoping to get the last word in and be "right" and "win" the nonexistent argument.
Now imagine that kid has a really poor grasp of English.
>>54663628
>Why doesn't someone just make a competitor to Windows that isn't Linux or OS X?
Why doesn't someone just make a competitor console to Nintendo that isn't Sony or Microsoft?
It will fail miserably because of the market share and lack of developer support.
>>54670884
Can somebody explain this meme?
>>54671589
Some guy had it up and running in a VM on here and took us along for quite a interesting journey
>>54673941
Whenever /g/ decides to collaborate on a software project they make the logo and nothing but the logo
>>54663628
Honestly it isnt a technical problem at all. "babby-mode" wouldn't require any of the modern features that make an OS difficult to program, like performance video drivers, virtualization, multicore, etc.
There are lots of fringe and hobby OSs, and student projects, and custom OSs used in academic research and for dedicated hardware. Some of these, given a good DE and windows manager, would absolutely satisfy OP's requirements.
The issue is rather you could never defeat the Microsoft/OSX marketing machine to sell your babby-mode OS because they already have it locked down.
>>54663628
Look up Lindows.
>>54663628
literally a good idea
>>54668346
>vastly inferior software ecosystem
This is a myth, Windows has fifteen thousand shitty versions of every possible application type but this doesn't mean the software ecosystem is superior.
>>54676636
and worse, only a fifth of those if that many try to be good citizens of the windows desktop. it's like it hurts windows developers to use native widgets and UI theme... so much wheel reinventing.
>>54676844
True. *nix has it even worse though. OS X's interface builder and widget set makes it easier than anything else for developers to make decent and natural looking applications and it shows.
I still use some shitty Windows apps in Wine (like ArrayForth) and some shitty straight GTK or non-native QT apps because people are too lazy to make a proper OS X port of some open source program.
Pic related.
>>54676886
At least VirtualBox bothers to make the toolbar look kinda native under OS X. Usually Qt toolbars look like total ass (see pic)
>>54663628
>babby
baby
>>54677943
>baby
babby
>>54670446
Yes, and?
>>54663628
FreeBSD + DE
>>54672547
>and competition cannot compare
That implies Windows is the best, when it's actually a pile of shit.
Also you are not considering mobile operating system, which is how most of the world uses the Internet these days.
It already exists anon.
It's called ubuntu.
>>54670446
Good job, you've determined that Windows isn't the Windows competitor that we're looking for.
>>54671146
I would give a Sony desktop OS a fair try. A real fair try.
>>54673161
I guess you are blind then.
http://www.walmart.com/cp/desktop-computers/132982
>>54673939
In a few years I can see Samsung becoming a viable competitor to the big three when Smart TV's start having good enough GPU performance to be able to play graphically impressive video games.
A low power quad core with intergrated GPU right now can play games that look as good as Xbox 360 and PS3 games.
>>54678681
You have a hard time coming to terms with this, but Ubuntu isn't babby-mode enough.
You can't kill Windows with a different OS. It can only be killed by popularizing a CPU architecture other than x86/amd64. Only ARM has a chance of doing that.
>>54663628
https://www.pcbsd.org/
