Poll: why are you making an os?

[dozniak]

If you have a commercial product as your aim perhaps people should start charging you for advice given here?

Good idea.

[Mikemk]

If you have a commercial product as your aim perhaps people should start charging you for advice given here?

I do not expect to make any money of this product, and money is not my goal. However, the vast majority of consumers either don't take a product seriously or think it is a virus if provided for free.

[iansjack]

I do not expect to make any money of this product, and money is not my goal.

In that case, it doesn't fit my definition of "commercial".

However, the vast majority of consumers either don't take a product seriously or think it is a virus if provided for free.

I guess that explains why no-one takes Linux or FreeBSD seriously.

I'm afraid that charging for your operating system is not going to make people take it more seriously than Linux even if you make the (unrealistic) assumption that you can produce a better OS on your own than has been achieved by all those man hours from all those programmers. But it will certainly impose upon you responsibilities that those producing Linux don't have to worry about.

[gravaera]

Yo:

I have every intention of selling my kernel if I manage to complete it to my satisfaction. Get at me bro.

--Peace out,
gravaera

[iansjack]

Get at me bro.

Don't be so sensitive. No-one is getting at anyone.

[XanClic]

Because I can.

[Antti]

I guess that explains why no-one takes Linux or FreeBSD seriously.

If we had a small commercial product and a small "open source/gpl/free" product, then it would be fair to make "seriousness comparison". If those products are technically equally good, the commercial one could be taken more seriously.

[sortie]

Eh? Free software can be commercial as well.

[iansjack]

I guess that explains why no-one takes Linux or FreeBSD seriously.

If we had a small commercial product and a small "open source/gpl/free" product, then it would be fair to make "seriousness comparison". If those products are technically equally good, the commercial one could be taken more seriously.

If we are talking about operating systems, then I think that it is a very fair comparison. Unless you are producing an OS for a very specialized setup then you are competing with Linux (and/or FreeBSD); even for specialized setups Linux is a good choice (look at all those NAS drives, routers, and set-top boxes that run Linux).

There would have to be a very good reason for me to choose to pay for a one-man OS when such a good, scalable alternative is available. I think it's a very fair comparison when the point has been made that people don't take an OS seriously unless they have paid for it.

To reverse your statement, would the same hold true for large systems? Does the existence of Windows and OS X mean that people don't take Linux or FreeBSD seriously? (I was going to say Solaris, but it's difficult to know whether that falls into the "commercial" or "free" camp.) If the only reason to charge for an OS is to make people take it seriously, I think that is a mistake.

[Mikemk]

I do not expect to make any money of this product, and money is not my goal.

In that case, it doesn't fit my definition of "commercial".

I consider commercial to be anything which satisfies a personal, individual goal which has little to no benefit, but also no harm, for the rest of society.

However, the vast majority of consumers either don't take a product seriously or think it is a virus if provided for free.

I guess that explains why no-one takes Linux or FreeBSD seriously.

I'm afraid that charging for your operating system is not going to make people take it more seriously than Linux even if you make the (unrealistic) assumption that you can produce a better OS on your own than has been achieved by all those man hours from all those programmers. But it will certainly impose upon you responsibilities that those producing Linux don't have to worry about.

[iansjack]

I consider commercial to be anything which satisfies a personal, individual goal which has little to no benefit, but also no harm, for the rest of society.

That's a very strange definition of the word "commercial". It seems that just about everything I do on my computer is commercial.

[Mikemk]

I consider commercial to be anything which satisfies a personal, individual goal which has little to no benefit, but also no harm, for the rest of society.

That's a very strange definition of the word "commercial". It seems that just about everything I do on my computer is commercial.

Good point, perhaps it should be expanded to,
anything involving medium to large amounts of human interaction which satisfies a personal, individual goal for the initiating person, which has little to no benefit, but also no harm, for the rest of society.

Also, on money-commercial terms, there are free, open source projects that were written for the purpose of profit (e.g. Android, Chromium, various linux distros)

[Zondartul]

Not-made-in-here syndrome :P

[arseniuss]

Why not?

At begging I wanted to recreate my embedded devices (music player, tablet) then I got excited. Mostly for educational purposes.

[greyOne]

I honestly have nothing better to do;
I need a challenge.