[vletrmx]

> While it did have some recreational value, it did not provide a product that people could use that would enrich their lives.

Because providing a 'product' is the sole criterion for success? The author is missing the point and doesn't understand TempleOS.

[oneeyedpigeon]

It may sound like the writer is implying lack of financial success is bad, but I don't think that's their intention. I think the word "product" is just a filler here - it could equally be "something" or "an executable".

[AlecSchueler]

What's the recreational value without an executable? Just watching his videos? Then surely the videos are the product.

[rrssh]

That's probably what they mean, only the videos have any worth.

[AlecSchueler]

In that case the videos are the product. But the author has since clarified here in the comments that they did actually mean the commercial value of OS itself.

[skissane]

One thing that makes TempleOS less approachable is the extreme idiosyncrasy of some of its design decisions - e.g. limiting it to 640x480 with 16 colours even though supporting higher resolution and colour depth would have been little extra work, an intentionally very garish user interface, refusing to implement any networking support for ideological reasons. It was never going to be a mainstream OS, but it might have attracted a larger community of tinkerers if it were not for those decisions. (There are forks which improve some of these aspects, but a fork is never going to be as popular as the original.)

That said, extreme idiosyncrasy is relatively common in schizophrenia.

[kqr]

Well, that doesn't seem to stop users of fantasy consoles, so I'm not sure it's as a big problem for a userbase as you think.

[AlecSchueler]

It's the idiosyncrasies that make it notable surely.

[ahahahahah]

It's not notable.

[unixhero]

It is notable for its intended use of the random number generator - Terry envisioned that it was a number chosen by his God. If you follow that path and reasoning through, you see what he meant with the OS being a temple.

[AlecSchueler]

Then why is it frequently shared and discussed etc.? That is, frequently noted.

[wiseowise]

Because internet loves mystery and hype?

Ask your colleagues if they heard about, and if they heard about it what is noticeable about it.

Majority of internet see “Ooh, that’s not Linux, Windows, Mac and has a lot of custom things written from scratch”. And also funni racist genius schizo.

[AlecSchueler]

I'm pretty sure none of my colleagues have heard of the James Webb Space Telescope either but I'd still say it's a notable thing. You're conflating mainstream fame with notability. Honestly I doubt many of my colleagues are familiar with Linux either (I work in a supermarket).

[djaouen]

I am not saying that TempleOS wasn't a technical marvel. It was. I am merely stating the fact that its usage was (mainly) limited to recreation. Not that that's a bad thing, but my own ambition is to produce something with more than margi... small product-market fit.

Edit: I'm sorry if I come across as arrogant. I still have the "decoration" (programming-wise) of my elite education I am trying to trim. :(

[Gare]

> Where I disagree with him is in his insistence that there was a grand conspiracy to hold back his operating system, perhaps orchestrated by the CIA.

Sound like Terry himself wanted it to be successful?

[zoky]

I think the author is just trying to say that the reason TempleOS didn’t receive widespread—or virtually any—regular use has more to do with its lack of inherent utility to most people, rather than a conspiracy to suppress its adoption as Terry apparently believed.

[lukan]

"Because providing a 'product' is the sole criterion for success?"

Wasn't the OS made to be used by people for real and not just as a toy?

Could people use it for real? As a daily driver to get things done? (A real product)

I do not think so, so what do you think what was the point of TempleOS then?

[codetrotter]

> what was the point of TempleOS

From what I’ve seen from videos where Terry was talking about TempleOS, it seems that a large part of the point of the OS and the programs that shipped with it was as a way of “talking to god”. Where he’d run a program and it would generate some random output and he said that those were words from god. I have to assume that this was very much because of his condition. Either way, a temple to god is part of what this OS was. TempleOS.

Furthermore, TempleOS validated many of his ideas of how an OS could be built differently from how many other OSes are made.

TempleOS is like a modern day Amiga or Commodore 64 operating system.

And I could easily imagine a world in which TempleOS was distributed preinstalled on some kind of non-networked home computer that they could have in Sunday schools around the world, as a tool for bible study and as a way of learning about computers, engaging youth who are interested in technology.

[xanderlewis]

> he’d run a program and it would generate some random output and he said that those were words from god. I have to assume that this was very much because of his condition.

I actually think that seems perfectly internally consistent from the perspective of someone who seriously believes in a god. If (pseudo)random numbers and therefore the output of that program aren’t controlled by god, what is?

[jamesu]

It amazes me how much terry latched onto that idea, even binding the "god says" functionality to the F7 key in TempleOS. Sometimes I wonder how he would have reacted to ChatGPT and LLMs.

[whstl]

It's not that different from divination, lots of people latch into those ideas too.

In the end Terry just found a faster source of randomness.

Even as a non-religious person, I think that was one of the most relatable aspects of him. He really wanted to communicate.

[whstl]

> it seems that a large part of the point of the OS and the programs that shipped with it was as a way of “talking to god”

That was just a personal interest of him, and something that the rest of the internet latched into heavily.

I personally remember him preferring to talk about technical stuff whenever possible.

Unfortunately he failed to find communities that wanted to talk about his preferred flavor of tech with him. The more I type those messages the more I remember: he just wanted to chat and drive attention to his OS.

[graemep]

> And I could easily imagine a world in which TempleOS was distributed preinstalled on some kind of non-networked home computer that they could have in Sunday schools around the world, as a tool for bible study

Every religious group (Christian or otherwise) I know of uses the internet, and the web in particular, to spread and discuss their ideas. The Vatican has a website that has the catechism, encyclicals, documents of church councils etc. There is lots of material about things like the interpretation of the Bible. A Jehovah's Witness I know recently sent me links to pages on their website promoting creationism. I replied with links to biologos.org (a mainstream Christian website about evolution and science) debunking her claims.

I have also found websites about every variant of every religion I have wanted to know about. I could do with a good explanation of Sikh concepts of God though if anyone can point me to one - I am sure it exists though.

Why would a Sunday school want to cut themselves off from all this material? Within a high controlling cult maybe. Not in general.

I think a world in which TempleOS was widely used would require lots of people to share Terry's beliefs about what technology was desirable and what was not.

> a way of learning about computers, engaging youth who are interested in technology

I have not tried TempleOS but it seems to be made to be tinkered with so sounds promising for education.

[codetrotter]

> Why would a Sunday school want to cut themselves off from all this material?

They could still have their iPads and internet connected laptops and other computers.

I’m not saying they should use TempleOS and nothing else.

I’m just saying it could make for a fun additional curious thing that they could have there and which the kids could use both for bible things and for technological interest.

[graemep]

What I am saying is that it is inferior for "bible things". What could you do on it that you could not do better with something like Ubuntu Christian Edition?

> for technological interest.

As I said, I agree with that.

[AlecSchueler]

> Could people use it for real? As a daily driver to get things done?

It could be, but "getting things done" here means communicating with God, not taking zoom calls.