OSDev.org

It has come the time to announce officially that I am indeed working on an OS called D.i.N.S. (Drop-in Network Security). The project is proprietary, closed-source, and has no intention of ever being freely distributed or GPL'd.

With that said, I do not disagree with the open-source movement in any way and it has helped me greatly in understanding difficult concepts. But I have no obligation to make my OS open-source just because I plan on someday selling this and it has (an will be checked by a technical lawyer) no GPL'd or copyrighted materials in it.

Currently I am working on getting a state grant for the project as I already have a working beta and some ISP's have shown growing interest in the project.

More details about the OS core functionality will be released after the LLP passes the first few phases.

Most coder's find out too late, that small and open source do not work.

Dex wrote:Most coder's find out too late, that small and open source do not work.

Your flamebait will not work here, good sir!

I don't believe he is 'flamebaiting'. Most free or opensource OS's don't go very far, and the ones that do (ie: Linux/BSD's) get far less recognition then that of their closed-source relatives (ie: Windows/MAC/IOS). Not bashing on Linux, it has its purposes that do indeed matter, but it is far less recognized than the others.

Now SMALL and open-source has almost never made it mainstream just because 'Small" usually means "less-functionality". I wouldnt buy a small closed-source OS either so its a lose lose situation with that one. Even the dedicated OS's aren't "small" in the scheme of things, They have crazy functionality and user-end support.

I don't see what the problem is with closed-source OS's.

01000101 wrote:I don't believe he is 'flamebaiting'. Most free or opensource OS's don't go very far, and the ones that do (ie: Linux/BSD's) get far less recognition then that of their closed-source relatives (ie: Windows/MAC/IOS). Not bashing on Linux, it has its purposes that do indeed matter, but it is far less recognized than the others.

I've never heard of 'IOS', so I'm thinking that Linux gets a little more recognition. Moreover, I'm inclined to say that the fact that they're open source or not has no effect on their recognition. Not many people use QNX (Compared to other OS's), and it was until recently closed source. SkyOS is closed source, and if anything, I think it's almost working against it in some ways. (There's question to the validity of some of the source code not being GPL.) These are both closed sourced largish OS's and they are no where near the popularity of Linux.

One of the larger reasons Windows and Apple are popular, are because they have hardware. Microsoft was lucky enough to get Windows defaulted on PC's back in the 80's, and has held control of the market ever since. Apple has it's own brand of computers to sell it's system. I think to compare the popularity of an OS to Windows\Apple is somewhat misleading.

01000101 wrote:I don't see what the problem is with closed-source OS's.

There is no problem, except that Dex started this flame before in his own thread.

Apple OS X may have several proprietary components, but the kernel and many userland utilities are open source.

I have no problem with closed source software, but personally I like being able to extend and modify things..

An example being, 01000101 seems to be developing a type of network security platform?.. I'd still trust the security of my networks with OpenBSD/pf over his product any day.

Indeed, the expandability of open-source OS's is unlimited. The OS I am making is a dedicated OS running on proprietary hardware, therefore in my situation, expandability is of no concern and the need for 'utilities' from other people is equally unimportant to the overall OS goal.

Microsoft is (now that i think about it) unique in its "source" status. It has such a large community workforce that there are enough eyes looking at the source and changing it constantly that it is self sufficient in its work needs.

Theres no flaming meant, I was just pointing out that i agree with him on the point of keeping his source closed.
Now its up to the person who coded it, to release it under his licence, and not to be pressed into release it under open source.
I can only say from my point of view, that it does not work. Although i have never open sourced my OS, i did let people down load the source code, and in all cases the coders that added to the code, did so without the source code. Those that ask for the source just wanted to rip the code, in 99% of cases.

Take the case of QNX, this CO did and still does make money and employs lots of coders. It is used alot in RTOS, now it thinks it would do better by going open source, in other words maybe it can employ less people, only time will tell if it will work or not.
But if they was a small CO, less known, they would just have no business model, to offer there customer's.

But no flame war, just think hard about it and if you decide to go open source that's fine.

Yep, still not seeing the flamebaiting.

anyways, I'm starting to get the impression that people think my OS is going to turn into 'smoothwall' or some other generic content filter. Those assumptions are just flat-out wrong. I haven't revealed its purpose yet and some members here are already deciding to reveal it for me under a false pretense.

As the name states, it DOES have something to do with security. Like I mentioned before, I will release more information when the LLP has completed more of its steps.

My OS too is closed source, and I don't want to say right now what it can do because of some reasons. I kind of admire 01000101 for his entrepreneurship, it's something I would like to do with my OS too someday. Putting one's energies and creativity into a project like a computer program where everyone can copy it any given number of time they want is not easy, and if a level of protection like having source code obfuscation into compiled form, then there's is. One has to respect himself/herself, and respect his work. Putting everytihing open source just because Richard Stallman got frustrated some particular day he didn't got the piece of code he was entitled to is no reason you should freely give the fruit of your creation. Respect is also not insulting the intelingence of your "clients", clients being your users. Do you really think the average user really give a *** about you giving the source away? Most of them don't even know what is "source code"! Really, giving source code away is really great for us, coders, because we can rip.

People were giving away source code long before RMS formed his religion...

But there is nothing wrong with open source, It works for some people.. others dislike the idea.

jerryleecooper wrote:and if a level of protection like having source code obfuscation into compiled form, then there's is.

Y...e....a...h...'obfuscation', huh?.........Hm...........So, how's that going for the DVD Copy Control Association? Microsoft? Y...e...a...h...

jerryleecooper wrote:Really, giving source code away is really great for us, coders, because we can rip.

What's with people and 'ripping'? I couldn't care less if someone came and used my code. I know it's still mine. ... Wait, is this one of those ego things, like trucks?

1. I believe open source is great.
2. I would never start a open source project my self.

The reasons are many and you allready know them, but basicly, if i am to spend the best years of my life on some huge project, fx. an OS, i dont intend to give it away for free.

So, what will your os actually do? More specifically, as a networking guy myself, why would I want to buy it?

Alboin wrote:

jerryleecooper wrote:Really, giving source code away is really great for us, coders, because we can rip.

What's with people and 'ripping'? I couldn't care less if someone came and used my code. I know it's still mine. ... Wait, is this one of those ego things, like trucks?

Some people's ego's are messaged with look at my source code, other's look at my OS, whats the difference.