The Difference Between "What is" and "Why is" when it involves operating systems.

I wanted to share something being done intentionally for Potabi, the providing of what, but being quiet of why.

"Why an operating system?" and "What an operating system?" are two VERY different things that distributions don't do well in distinguishing. Here are a few examples of clear "What an operating system?" type situations.

- "A Linux distribution"
- "For an easy system"
- "For a privacy focused system"

But why is a whole lot more complicated, and usually ends up being a "what". Like "To give people choice/freedom/ease/etc", "To give an alternative to using <insert software here>", and even "Just as something I can do as a hobby." These are whats, not whys. What is the reason, why is the passion, which a lot of distributions do not have.

People keep asking me why, and I didn't want to give more what. That is why I was not really providing a why, because I knew a why was there, but it was hard to describe. Then, I looked at elementaryOS, FerenOS, Drauger OS, and other operating systems I know and love and asked "but why." I have finally come to the answer to WHY I am making Potabi.

Every why includes the what, so what really is Potabi? Potabi is firstly, not the following:

  • A desktop FreeBSD derivative. We are planning to add tons to our kernel from other OS's, other BSDs (like Dragonfly, Net, Open, maybe helloSystem and Airyx), Illumos (OpenIndiana), and other misc (ReactOS, Haiku, etc).
  •  An alternative to Linux, for Linux users. Our target demographic are Windows and Mac users, which is why we are not...
  • An operating system to purely support open-source. We support open-source, and promise to have purely open-source versions, but we also do have interest with distributing proprietary software in the downloads.
    • This will possibly include browsers - as Firefox is definitely something we don't want to include because of how Mozilla likes to behave.
    • Hardware drivers - As if we can natively support NVIDIA, with drivers they developed, that would be best for the user, especially one coming from Windows. This can also apply to hardware companies don't want to support natively on Linux due to the GPL's infection clauses and how it discourages making proprietary drivers on the Linux kernel, etc.
  •  An operating system to show how good BSD is. BSD was the best place for us to start, and that was circumstance.

So what is Potabi? It's an alternative to all operating system, built on FOSS, not for profit - as money removes the soul of an operating system, but is to purely help expand options for users. There is even a chance we move from a BSD core, to a Fuchsia-BSD hybrid.

But why? Why did I want an operating system to do this? My reason is because I genuinely feel no one else is really doing it right. It's hard to see an operating system and say "They are doing what needs to be done", as all of them really seem to ignore what is needed for the new users, for the ecosystem to grow, and what is wanted by the system users. I wanted to make an operating system that wasn't BSD, wasn't Linux, wasn't anything but itself. To have the potential to do the job people require it to do, the potential to inspire, the potential to innovate. A system with the ability to say it had what it takes, it had what new users wanted, it has reason to be liked by anyone looking for a simple third solution to a mobile OS, or a desktop OS, with the ability to run their servers.

One thing I did one day was go to r/LinuxSucks, and read what they had to say. Their rules state that you can't report Linux users who post/comment because "boo hoo, butt hurt", because they didn't want an echo chamber.

We are taking the approach I feel like Apple should have, and technically kinda does. Will everyone love Potabi? No. But that isn't why I make Potabi. I make it because I want to give an option that is open-source, not because it is better, but because it's easier for everyone to improve and check. It's the main reason I chose the BSD kernel, I didn't want to waste time building a kernel that is poorly supported in hardware and software, but also didn't want to pick a kernel with a highly abusive, anti-freedom, gnukkit-type license like Linux.

I know for a fact I will get criticized for a lot of things, but I want to share three quotes which I know will make many people groan but this will best explain why my decisions for Potabi are being made. Why FOSS-only versions are alternative, but not the norm. Why I make Potabi, and named it for potential and ability. The potential to change. The ability to make the changes.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fufils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things" 

    - Winston Churchil

 

 "If you're not open to constructive criticism, then you're not open to truly growing as a person."
    - Multiple people

 

 "A healthy person can accept criticism"

    - Adrian Rogers

 

I will be finishing the beta release, and will be announcing our quarterly report - Under the name The Quarterly - September 29th to donors, and October 1st for everyone else. Thank you.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Where BSD Fails, and Potabi Aims to Succeed: Websites

Image
Welcome to a new series of articles I will aim to support called "Were <thing> Fails, and Potabi Aims to Succeed", where I mention specific issues plaguing Linux, BSD, etc. With Potabi and CoreNGS being replacements to BSD and Linux, read Potabi's Biggest Misconception: It isn't BSD. if you haven't because it explains that we are not a BSD, just BSD-derived. When we say websites, I mean ALL websites. I will only be doing active-development BSD-branded operating system websites for most of the big name BSDs, meaning not HelloSystem, AiryxOS, TrueNAS, TrueOS, FuryBSD, etc. Specifically we will critique DragonFlyBSD, NomadBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD, HardenedBSD, and GhostBSD. SoloBSD uses a blogspot for the main website, so I will ignore it. I want to explain why web-design is so important, and how it is often done wrong by the BSDs, and even many Linux distros. And what Potabi does to try and fix it. I am not trying to harass these operating systems, even...
Read more

Potabi 1.0 Dev Log: The Final Tasks

With the recent release of Beta-4 1.0A, Potabi is well on its way to being ready to release to the public. Beta-4 was a very difficult release to manage, especially with the concerns of our new ports system. What's in store for Potabi 1.0? What else is left to do? What are the last 3 betas? When are we dropping the A? What will be the final preparations for 1.0? What is Potabi 2.0 going to look like? Potabi 1.0 will essentially be very minimally different to our model: FuryBSD. I wanted to clarify something. No, Potabi is not "based on GhostBSD" as people like RoboNuggie in his 2-for-1 video you should 100% watch, even with this small mistake. That doesn't mean GhostBSD should gain no credit, since its builder is so similar to FuryBSD's, we actually did use some code and files from their project to fix certain issues we were having with FuryBSD's builder. Potabi 1.0's goal in release, as development continued, became less about "getting something per...
Read more

Potabi's Biggest Misconception: It isn't BSD.

As the lead developer of Potabi, I take full responsibility for fucking this one up. However, we are actually not a BSD system, it's supposed to be (long-term) a new UNIX branch all together, away from any BSD's. Potabi will later include bits and pieces from all sorts of operating systems, including (but not limited to) ReactOS, Illumos, Linux (clones of what they do at least, because of Linux's borderline-abusive license), HaikuOS, Minix, SerenityOS, and others. So Potabi plans to basically rework everything in FreeBSD long-term? Why? Instead of taking the SerenityOS route and doing it 100% from scratch, we are going to utilize open-source software that already exists to give us a short term boost.  But wait, isn't Potabi a "better FreeBSD for desktop and mobile"? Wasn't it a mobile OS? Yes, yes, but also, it's complicated. Potabi was originally just a way for me to get a better mobile OS , then it became bigger and bigger. It has long since not be...
Read more