OSDev.org

I really do mind when people post comments like Bender points out. First of all, they are spreading lies and potentially damaging the project reputation. Secondly, it is very insulting, especially if they refuse to change their mind after having the truth pointed out.

I agree with Sortie, having a comment about the project being a Linux clone being the top comment can be really bad. And as for what Rusky have said about showing them the source code, I think the guy who commented about PonyOS said he even saw the source code and said it was similar to Linux (I wonder what source code was he even looking at). I think some people are just out there to troll (I was talking about this thing with my friend and he mentioned some people, him included, like to see people rage.)

I may be a noob at osdev for now, but I think having a negative comment to your project (especially when its early) can be harmful to some extent as you may lose some supporters (or people that might have the skills to help you but turns away when they see that someone said its a Linux clone). And those are my opinions so feel free to disagree with em.

There is a big difference between a Linux fork and a Linux clone. The former uses the actual Linux as a base of the project. If a project does not contain any Linux code, it is not a project fork. It is very bad for the project if someone claims that but saying that an OS is a Linux clone is very different to that. It is not automatically a serious insult.

I appreciate an OS like ToaruOS. However, I would not judge people saying that it is a Linux clone. Although might not be a very valid statement technically, it was not very far-fetched. Remember that people use the term 'Linux' quite loosely. Saying that "it is GNU/Linux" is incorrect and that needs to be corrected. Saying that "it is a Linux clone" is not very polite but still valid as an opinion.

Obviously a troll. Anyway, what we all share is that we write kernels. The term operating system is much to vague because that could include things like userspace where I know some people port already existing code. However, If you dont port applications you can safely say you are writing your own os. But it all depends on definition.

He thinks he found some Linux source code in the kernel/ directory.

OK, if it is like that, why isn't there any networking, USB or sound support? Or ports to other architectures? He's simply a stupid troll (a typical Target 3, see the 3rd post of the topic). I haven't seen any code that klange hasn't written by himself, except for the CPUID code by brynet (klange, correct me if I'm wrong).

Kernel's all mine, every last broken, shitty piece of it.

(I still have brynet's cpuid app in userspace, but there's also some other stuff that isn't mine in there, like Curses demos and a third-party SHA library)

@Jezze: can't agree more.

My suggestion is:

if the man you are arguing with is a troll:

I was only refering to kernel-space, not user-space. Of course you ported some user-space stuff (vim, SDL, freetype2 etc.).

Keep that good work up, it's great

I don't recall if I've ever posted this on the forums, but I have what I call the Lange Theory of Hobby Operating System Development, or Lange's Law which states:

We should have a page specially dedicated for such laws made by users. Does the Lange's Law come with a formula?

Well, you can always create an user interface with no likely comparison to Linux, so I think the following would be a more appropriate version:

Hi,

We're all familiar with the "GNU/Linux" naming convention, where "GNU" is the user-land and "Linux" is the kernel. I don't like the "GNU/Linux" naming convention, as it gives GNU credit for a lot of open source projects that have little to do with GNU. A better naming convention would be "open source chaos soup" (or OSCS) to indicate the typical mix of open source projects designed for "*nix-like" systems; and "OSCS/Linux", "OSCS/kFreeBsd", "OSCS/Solaris", etc.

Of course users use applications - they don't use the kernel directly. From a user's perspective, the kernel is mostly an irrelevant thing hidden away behind the scenes, and the OS is just "OSCS" regardless of whether the kernel is Linux or FreeBSD or something else.

For a crude formula:

p = o / (y + o)

Where:

p = the probability that your OS is OSCS (and therefore mistaken for "GNU/Linux", "GNU/kFreeBSD", "OSCS/Solaris" or whatever else people associate the "open source chaos soup" user-land with)
o = the number of lines of other people's code ported from the land of chaos soup
y = the number of lines of code written specifically for your OS

Cheers,

Brendan

There is also an easy way to detect whether an OSCS is likely to be mistaken for a Linux distribution or not: could you replace your kernel with Linux and still have "the same" system? Unfortunately, a lot of OSCSs would be much better if they were using Linux. What that tells us?

Unix clones are boring.

*ducks and runs*

*Follows Combuster and reaches his bunker, U.S.S. *NIX is on the way*
As for the GNU/Linux controversy, just because GNU owns some of the userspace programs doesn't mean they can change the name. In fact I feel proud when I use clang instead of GCC. For GNU Group the only thing open source is GNU User space and Linux. Just look at this: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html
And then I've also seen them ranting about UDI. To balance the situation, I would say they've done a good job, but they should be tolerant enough to the non-GNUish part of the software industry.
*Gets out of bunker, and boards U.S.S *BSD, maybe I boarded the wrong Space Ship *