Developing an operating system from scratch.

[Deleted member 108694]

I don't understand your context

All Linux desktops work basically the same - click the menu icon then open an application - download updates trough the terminal - click the Libre Writer icon to open that or the calculator and the like - each basic function is the same or very similar - so in that respect there is no choice - the illusion is how it looks whether it is Mate, Cinnamon, KDE, Xfce or whatever else is out there - Icons and the like that is just window dressing the illusion that you changed something when in fact you changed nothing, you did not change the "guts" only the outside bits

 

[sphen]

All Linux desktops work basically the same - click the menu icon then open an application - download updates trough the terminal - click the Libre Writer icon to open that or the calculator and the like - each basic function is the same or very similar - so in that respect there is no choice - the illusion is how it looks whether it is Mate, Cinnamon, KDE, Xfce or whatever else is out there - Icons and the like that is just window dressing the illusion that you changed something when in fact you changed nothing, you did not change the "guts" only the outside bits

Well said.

This matches my view of operating systems in general. In other words, "Seen one, seen 'em all."

 

[abyoffical]

How can I make an operating system using the Linux kernel, what should I pay attention to when making an operating system?

What I plan to do is actually not going to depend on any resources and I plan to do everything from scratch.
Package manager,
Desktop Environment,
System applications,
The kernel structure will still be Linux Kernel, but the user version of the operating system will not be completely open source, only a certain part of it will be open source.
The areas where the operating system will be used will be quite wide, there will be an ecosystem of products, they will be in communication among themselves (Factory products, home appliances.).

 

[Terminal Velocity]

Why would I want to change my open source OS with something partially open source? And If I want that why wouldn't use Windows instead?

 

[abyoffical]

Why would I want to change my open source OS with something partially open source? And If I want that why wouldn't use Windows instead?

Except for the systemic tools, the remaining applications and software will be open source anyway, you can do everything exactly what you do in linux distributions, but some software needs to be licensed, for example, the communication infrastructure of IoT tools will be closed source, if I were to make it completely open source, it would be an operating system. I wouldn't need to develop the system, I would buy the operating system that is ready, make patches etc., and publish it again, I don't want to be like the others, I have my own ideas and thoughts, and I think I want to market them under the name of licensed products because they are valuable, I would never recommend you to use Windows, frankly, Microsoft is keeping your information in the background. Windows is slow and slow in its work, and besides, almost all programs running on Windows are closed source, MacOS, Windows are referred to as half-open or fully-closed operating systems, but as a result, does it make your work easier, so most software It is semi open source.
My opinion and thoughts want it to be like this , no one can interfere and object to it , as a result you are not a god .

 

[sphen]

Except for the systemic tools, the remaining applications and software will be open source anyway, you can do everything exactly what you do in linux distributions, but some software needs to be licensed, for example, the communication infrastructure of IoT tools will be closed source, if I were to make it completely open source, it would be an operating system. I wouldn't need to develop the system, I would buy the operating system that is ready, make patches etc., and publish it again, I don't want to be like the others, I have my own ideas and thoughts, and I think I want to market them under the name of licensed products because they are valuable, I would never recommend you to use Windows, frankly, Microsoft is keeping your information in the background. Windows is slow and slow in its work, and besides, almost all programs running on Windows are closed source, MacOS, Windows are referred to as half-open or fully-closed operating systems, but as a result, does it make your work easier, so most software It is semi open source.
My opinion and thoughts want it to be like this , no one can interfere and object to it , as a result you are not a god .

I can't speak about "interfere", but anyone can object to it. It appears that you want to attach your own closed source proprietary software to an open source base and sell it as a combined proprietary product. Many people recognize the monetary value of their proprietary software and want to keep it closed source while still relying on open source. They try to think of ways to get around the open source licenses, but their approaches are not always legally valid.

Open source people will point out that what you want to do is the very antithesis of the open source philosophy and open source software. Open source people want you to use their open source software, but the price is that you must release your software as open source too.

Beware of GPL licensing entanglements with what you propose. Apple appears to have run into the same issues with their software. Apple released macOS 10.15 "Catalina" in 2019. They switched terminal defaults from bash to zsh, removed emacs, and made other changes. It appears to be their attempt to avoid issues around GPL v3 versus GPL v2. Although Apple never admitted it publicly, the consensus is that Apple was forced to make the changes to avoid software license legal issues.

 

[f33dm3bits]

I can't speak about "interfere", but anyone can object to it. It appears that you want to attach your own closed source proprietary software to an open source base and sell it as a combined proprietary product. Many people recognize the monetary value of their proprietary software and want to keep it closed source while still relying on open source. They try to think of ways to get around the open source licenses, but their approaches are not always legally valid.

It might be better than to have a BSD base then since it's then possible to use the BSD license which is less restricting than GPL or other similar licenses.

 

[KGIII]

And, be sure to consult a lawyer versed in software licensing.

Make sure you have all your ducks in a row. Many lawyers will have a free initial consultation and may give you some suggestions at that point. Then, you're not looking at a lot of money after that. You only need them to verify what you're doing isn't violating any licenses. They'll have an aide go through your software manifest before signing off on it.

As @f33dm3bits said, BSD is probably a better choice. The BSD license is much more permissive.