Slashdot Mirror
The Open Windows Project
kuros writes: "Apparently,
these guys feel the time has come for a MS Windows clone.
The Open Windows Project aim is to create a 100% Microsoft Windows compatible operating system that is totally "free" of Microsoft proprietary code. As its name implies, O.W. will be completly open source and freely re-distributable.
Open Windows will draw from current open source projects to expedite its production. These include: GXExplorer, FreeDOS, ReactOS and WinE. You may have seen similar projects that intend to use a modified version of Linux, etc. Open Windows will not be a Linux distribution; it will be written Windows compatible from the ground up." Without all the APIs, is this even feasible? (And after that, is it desirable?)
Shouldn't It be called "Open Doors" as in "breakin on through to the other side"
How much effort would you put in to clone something that's cheaper than a tank of gas?
;)
I dunno...gas is getting pretty expensive these days
And I don't think a competent programmer would mouth off and make promises that big without having a product on the table.
A competent hacker would, though. It's all about ego.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
If the designers of this new OS can take some liberties and leave out support for Win16 stuff, then the whole thing can a true, non-bloated OS capable of running Win32 applications (which btw. are the only ones worth running and ...
The windows OS's are riddled with a ton of 16bit code. I read about it in an article about the Crusoe processor. They originally optimized it for 32bit code. They found it performed very poorly because of the unexpected amount of 16bit code and had to redesign the chip.
KidSock
If they were to gratuitously change the API enough to break a clone, they would also break apps. Do that, and no one will be able to think of a reason for using Windows.
Sadly, this isn't true, either. Can we say Windows 2000? What is it, really, but NT w/a gratuitously altered API? MANY apps that work under NT or 9x don't work under 2K (including a number of MS's...). They can get away with this, quite simply, because they have the dominant market share. They can pressure acceptance by comp. manufacturers, which leads to the average consumer buying into it, and then buying new software. Those of us in the know...well, we don't use Windows anyway, so we have effectively no inpact.
I don't have a Windows license because I have three Macs of varying ages and I'm about to install Yellow Dog on one of my more ancient PPC's so that it can be a rudimentary Apache server.
Pooty tweet
Yeah, I know what I am talking about. I have written an emulator for a cpu. I have also cloned an OS for an embedded system via reversing engineering. I didn't emulate the OS, I simulated it well enough that the apps written for the original could run on top of mine tho the internals were different.
Time does not wait.
also not that important. Why? Because Windows users are not server
operators. Uptime is not nearly as important for the typical PC user.
Also, most Windows users turn their boxes on and off regularly
anyway.
Whoa! Hold on a mo. For Win 3.1/95/98 this might be a fair defence,
but it is not OK for Win NT which was always meant to be a server OS.
The early NT boxes were egregiously missold as being something they
were not.
Hey? What's wrong with the OtakuWars!? We like our acronym just fine, thank you. ^_^ (And yes, you're supposed to use the superfluous exlamation point, as patented by Pook! Waffle.)
Has anyone considered that this may just be vaporware FROM microsoft? This would look really good in their anti-trust appeals. "Look, someone is trying to make a completely free and open version of us! We DO have competition." Any little thing could help them. tp
It is possible for these guys to design a windows clone. The kernel will be simulated not emulated, the advantage is that they will skip design flaws, and use new techniques which they can borrow from the BSD's and Linux. As far as users are concerned. If the applications work fine, they will call it windows irrelevant of how the kernel works.
Time does not wait.
I know, but if you leave it out, you should be able to run Win32 applications perfectly. Windows NT, for example, runs most mainstream Windows applications, but is 100% 32bit code. The 16bit code you're talking about is in Windows 9x, where major portions of the OS (like the GDI) are simply cut-and-pasted Win 3.1 code. NT does't have any of this code, but still can run Windows applications, which means that a new OS without any 16bit code or support for 16bit apps should still be able to run Win32 applications.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Running a lot of stuff and trying to push it to do more when it's low on resources is not a good idea :)
I tried installing Windows 98 today. I failed. Windows is the most backwards, messed up operating system I've ever used. Someone cloning it for "user friendliness" reasons really needs a clue. Go use a Mac some time. Macs crash far too much but they are extremely consistant and very simple. I've moved on from using such a simple operating system but I have no respect for Windows since MacOS has always passed it when it comes to user friendliness and Linux is quite a workhorse.
.DLL, .INI, .EXE files in all sorts of weird places. On the mac, it was usually just one file.
Want me to back up my accusations? Windows is still based on a command line. It has a very poor desktop metaphor. It is VERY hard to install, an act which requires DOS use and FDISK (yuck). Windows is also based on the DOSism of filename extensions, and though it tries to hide them, they are still there and are as annoying as ever. Don't even get me started on the backslash. Each application leaves behind stacks of
I am not a Mac zealot. I use Linux and a relitively hackish X desktop, along with Emacs and other cool stuff. I don't think this setup is very user friendly. It's not meant to be. But Windows is just such total CRAP when it comes to being simple that it's not worth cloning. Put your time into making friendly applications for Linux, or writing an operating system that's actually usable (and while you're at it, make it technically good too).
Yeah, what's up with that? I find that there are literally hundreds (if not more) tricks and shortcuts built into Windows, with no documentation whatsoever. On the one hand, it does impress the uninformed when I shift click on a Close box and a bunch of Explorer windows close all at once, but on the other hand, it would be nice to have a list of all these things that can be done. Maybe some of these "features" are just afterthoughts by some member of the Windows team: "Hey, I should add a /r to the VER command!" - what was the point of that, anyway? I could never figure it out. And last time I checked, /MBR wasn't even listed as an FDISK switch, though of course it is.
"Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try."
Whether or not anyone can actually accomplish this wacky feat is a much stickier topic. I choose to cling to my optimism on this unless/until the developers prove they're not up to the task. Not that long ago, most people would have doubted the feasibility of creating a workable opensource Unix-style OS from scratch.
xyzzy
1. Drop all attemps to clone the current state of windows
2. Start cloneing the current state of the MacOS
3. Take 10 years to complete the job
4. Change the look and feel of your new os to the look and feel of the current version of windows (windows 2010)
5. You now have a perfet clone of the current microsoft windows
http://Lenny.com
I quit too. I mean yeah, yeah, "Hello World" and all, but then what? All these people where I work, using Windows, and all I do all day (when I'm not making a nuisance of myself around here) is hold their hands while they reboot. Now here's *nix, and I install it on my computer, and it's fun, and I tweak this file and this happens, then I tweak that file and that happens, and then I think, "Ooh, if only I could install this on all my users machines, I could spend the rest of my life tweaking stupid text files." I can hear it now: "I want samba so I can share my Britney fucking Spears CDs with the whole office!" "Ooh let's hire more people and pack 'em in six high and ten across, you can get machines for them if they start Monday, right?"
Sorry, looks like I went off there. Excuse: I just found out they're selling my apartment and I have to find a new one. New school year's not the best time to look in Boston. Again, sorry.
-jpowers
-jpowers
But why bother forking off on another project? Why not join forces with the WINE project, or something like that? Take SOME exisitng work and expand it into the full desktop system?
It just seems more and more, to me, the O.W. group doesn't have a realistic goal. Its not like this is the first time someone has tried to clone Windows. I don't see them creating a "100% clone" that is any closer to what any of the other projects of this type. Defiantly not in a reasonable amount of time.
---
The thing to realize is that probably 2/3's of the work is done. Wine has gotten very good lately. Add a boot loader, a native filesystem handler, a scheduler, and I'm sure a couple of other things I'm forgetting to Wine, and you are /very close/ to a Windows clone. Most of the missing pieces could probably be got very quickly and simply by grafting Wine ontop of a bare Linux kernel.
Now, I suspect that, like Wine, it will tend to have a lot of bugs and be really slow. But the project is really quite doable.
(Just for the record: it is a complete and total waste of time. But a doable waste of time.)
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
> My biggest problem I have with GNU/Linux culture is that 90% of its devotees...
> Get a clue, you l337 bastards.
In the sig:
> All generalizations are false.
Just had to point that out. No offense intended, old-school Solaris user; that just struck me as funny.
xyzzy
...or were they even trying to get the look & feel of the Microsoft WEB site, as well?
.net/sites/about.shtml
Open each of these sites in a separate browser window, and flip between them:
http://openwindows.sourceforge
and
http://www.microsoft.com
Even the two graphics, while unrelated (Windows Media Player 7, and the OpenWindows question mark icon) seem oddly similar...
M$: "We're #2!"
First off, Microsoft Windows has at least 3 layers legacy cruft that are all messed together. DOS, Win16 and Win32 etc. The OpenWindows project would not fix Windows itself as it has already been Broker By Design. Then there are the numerous undocumented areas of the windows kernel which would need to be mapped out and documented. Also you would need a good amount of kernel tallent to pump out the nessessary code. Last that I'd heard windows95 was something like 10 million lines of code or more. OpwnWindows would definitely be a long term project. An open source windows clone is not impossible but would be a labor of blood, sweat and tears to produce. Never the less if the project gained momentum I would contribute as the goal is admirable.
---------
---------
This space for rent. Call 1-800-SIGADVT to place your ad.
An open-source micro kernel that can load drivers written for WIN32 would no doubt be a wonderful thing and circumvent the main hassle running 'alternative' desktop OSes, hardware support. Leveraging the driver support for WIN32 is the only meaningful reason to pursue a project like this in my view. WIN32 drivers essentially the same as user mode Dlls but are given a .sys extension. This means you are talking about loading WIN32 PE files and executing them. Optimized GDI drivers, D3D/OpenGL, DirectSound etc... all tie into the OS differently, i.e DirectX is COM based and OpenGL uses a cleaner C interface with 2nd level Dll dependency. GDI drivers are geared to using the hardware blitter for the Windows desktop and apps like Word... Each driver model has its own development story and over time has invariably changed. This project (or hoax) stands no chance, I doubt MS could do this project as specified! I would be interested in a project to build a Linux desktop that could efficiently use WIN32 GDI/OpenGL drivers. That alone is a project so huge I cannot imagine where to begin.
have a MacOS clone (for the x86) or the AMIGA OS (for x86).
MS-Windows is like the Titanic - it will sink.
But you overlook one little thing:
That Other System is run by about 95% of the rest of the world.
I don't much like Windows either, guys -- I agree that there are much better desktop operating systems. But the sheer size of Windows is a card it can play against all others. If someone managed to come up with a decent clone of it, and one that was reasonably stable and fast, then as an aside -- with no work on their part -- they'd also get a universe of applications to run on it, and hundreds of millions of users that already know how to use it.
Would it be sub-optimal? Sure. Would hardcore geeks like us prefer it to Linux? Doubtful -- maybe as a games platform or as something to make the Gnu/Linux weenies happy ;) -- but it's something those hundreds of millions of others might appreciate way more than Linux.
Further, I thought one of the better possible outcomes of the anti-trust trial would be an open API and possible clones. Hey presto, looks like people have gotten started already. Why do you have a problem with that? Even if it can't make a perfect & enhanced & stabilized version of Windows -- which, I admit, is a long shot -- it would have a possibly much greater side effect: it would be competition for Microsoft . Isn't that supposed to be a good thing? What are you all complaining about, anyway?
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
Exactly what I am getting at. The regular users needs solutions not systems. We geeks who use and develop systems are to take it further and simplify those systems and take advantage of those systems and turn them into specific solutions to the individual.
For this purpose I believe the unixes are the best systems to use. They are generally open and pretty stable. And there is a large community behind them to deliver the needed support and ongoing developments.
We take those unixes as systems and make solutions of various kinds that suits the users individual needs. While doing so, we also improve the level of compatibility of all unixes. So we stand as one force without being cribbled by internal agendas.
What is important is that it is based on open community commitments. Where the individual are being served. That way we geeks who like both complex systems and real solutions can do our job and make the real solutions that are powerful, simple in construction, logical in use and surprisingly well featured with creative openings, for everyone. Doing it right, doing it with honour.
Come on, now. What's Microsoft going to do, let them? They may not have a legal foot to stand on in shutting th eproject down, but all MS has to do is change their API's and not tell anyone. I garantee the next version of Office after OW is release will say, "Microsoft Office requires Microsoft Windows to run . . ." just as Win31 did during the DOS wars.
Head to Head:
You: Using the mouse, find and open a file in an arbitrary directory while at the root of you file system -- the desktop in Windows.
Me: /servers/conf/httpd.conf
bash$ vi
Faster no matter what trick you try.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
Read my other comments in relation to this article. Especially the one Where I replied to the other reply of my original comment.
It is very logical to me and time will show you.
With an open sourced platform such as the ones available on the unixes, Operative Systems can be tweaked from complex systems into real solutions tailored to individual needs in a much higher extent than what is possible on the windows platform. Users will know quality and make use of it when its presented before their eyes in an orderly fashion that immideately shows a purpose. And then the product will speak for itself.
note.. If a product needs multiple billions of dollars in marketing, the product is not worth the release.
Real quality can speak on its own, its just a matter of opening your eyes and you will see.
SON, thanks for not reading what I said. I appreciate it.
The point I was getting at is not that the entire WINE project is a failure, as I said in my post, WINE still can not get to be 100% compatible without microsoft code. So what I was saying was I'm sure there are ares were WINE has failed (maybe just for the moment), and may not ever get around them. So why don't you take a minute and get a clue yourself.
---
Ah wrong again, every comment I've sent, I've previewed and it looked fine. It is the text box to the right of the preview button. When the slashdot page down loaded, the text box to the right of the preview button was defaulted to html not plain old text. Why does HTML look wrong your end?
Pete
It's called an elephant's trunk whereas it is in fact, an elephant's nose, a nose by any other name would smell as sweet
>Bugs come from open windows.
That's why your computer has a screen.
Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
Take off the "_NOSPAM" to eMail me
/. is complaining about "Invalid Form Keys", but my username is daedalus587 and you can eMail me here (take off the "_NOSPAM"!): daedalus587@crosswinds.net_NOSPAM
At first, I liked the idea of this non-Sun OpenWindows, but if you think about it, it's probably simply a waste of their time. Of course, I am referring to the non-Sun OpenWindows in this post.
I can see the benefits of WINE. Then you could run a few Windows games on your Linux box, without having to put up with memory-hogging commercial (more importantly, Microsoft) bloatware. There is a large base of potential WINE users. But, who would want to use OpenWindows?
There is exactly one distinct market for OpenWindows: Windows lusers (oops, I mean users) who are sick of the Microsoft bloatware and upgrade cycle, but are not intelligent enought to see through the FUD, so they are "afraid" to use GNU/Linux.
Other than that, you really have to ask, who needs to use it? All you can run are Windows apps! So, instead of using proprietary Windows, you get to use an alternative! And, of course, there is no way that any alternative can completely reproduce M$'s brain-dead API, so it (due to gaps in the API) doesn't work as well as the Windows you got (free) with your computer!
I could see uses for this, if only WINE didn't exist. But, it does, which is good. Anyway, why use a Windows clone? When you can use WINE software, running under GNU/Linux, that lets you run Windows apps under GNU/Linux! IMHO, the OpenWindows team should collaborate with the WINE team, rather than using up valuable hacking time writing an OS with no future.
To summarize, normal users will want to stay with the M$ bloatware (M$ Windows 9x/2000/NT), for "stability, security, and compatibility" (the compatibility may be a valid point; how can you make something "more compatible" than the product you're trying to clone?). GNU/Linux users, on the other hand, will use WINE software, so they don't have to exit Linux and boot another OS. Therefore, there is basically no future for this product. Plus, the name "OpenWindows" is already taken by Sun Microsystems, although that product is only Windows 3.x compatible.
This isn't a flame. Good luck to the OpenWindows team, but I really hope they consider collaborating with the WINE project team, so they can spend their valuable time working towards a more valid goal: making M$ Windows apps run under GNU/Linux.
.net_NOSPAM is not a valid domain suffix. (take off the "_NOSPAM" when you eMail me...)
--- BPT Suits are for suits.
It seems to me that by the time they can finish it, enough people would have already switched to other OSs to make it unworthwhile (is that a word) any longer.
How about turning wine into a kernel module?
Or doing something with Windows drivers in Linux?
Just my 0.02 USD
0.03 CAD
0.08 Polish Zloty
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
--
I like to watch.
Sounds like a contradiction to me. A OS that resembles Windows [95] cannot be truly stable, because of its design flaws. If they go for NT compatibility then it might be possible.
However, if I understand these guys correctly, their motivation in cloning Windows lies in Windows' "user-friendlyness" and not in the application support. Why don't they put their time and energy into researching and developing a user-friendly interface without using a crappy OS from Microsoft?
Free Manning, jail Obama.
And I didn't mean that OpenWindows looks "worse" than FVWM; I meant that it's the only thing I've seen that has FVWM beat in the default config's sparseness.
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
--
I like to watch.
Good luck. I used to have the kind of conversations that start these projects...when I was high.
Yeah, yeah, it'll be just like Windows, but, y'know, good...
Yeah, we'll write in Haskell so there'll be no errors...
And my personal favorite:
Fuck Astrophysics, I don't need a science degree to get a fun job!
-jpowers
-jpowers
Some facts:
Software-wise, Windows 2000 is 80% compatible with Windows 9x (drivers doesn't count).
Yet, their kernels are not very similar - one based on DOS, another on VMS.
In fact, Windows NT was originally a concept of putting Win32 API on top of a VMS-based kernel, and it works (sort of).
So, WINE is already doing what's done by NT. At best, it will achieve NT-like compatibility with Windows apps. So WHY, would we want to rebuild the wheel if there's tons of them out there that's good? (are you sure you can make better kernels than FreeBSD's?)
If Microsoft can wrap a Win32 API on top of a VMS-like kernel, and Apple can wrap a MacOS API on top of a BSD kernel, why can't we wrap a Win32 API on top of our Linux kernel?
Better put the otherwise-wasted effort to improve WINE. That day will arrive.
If they can get the support and people working on it then this may turn out quite interesting. After all, Linux was written as a unix clone/expansion/whatever, so i cant really see why there isnt at least the possiblity that they will succed. I sense that there may be trademark trouble though. If it works, then thats great, but i wouldnt open the champagne yet. Good luck!
Right, and I don't want more Windows. What I want is an OS, any OS, with the GUI from the old Thinking Machines. Someone told me there's a port of it around, but I can't find it anywhere. The one where the filesystem is a 3D city, directories are buildings, etc. I wanna program a little sudo chopper to blow up deleted users' files...
-jpowers
-jpowers
Lucky them, openwindows was/is terrible. It is so bad, CDE is a vast improvement.
The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
I seriously doubt they'll make a go of it, but I wish them the best. Wonder what slick willy will think of this....
"If you love someone, set them free. If they come home, set them on fire." - George Carlin
Hello, I'm new to slashdot, so you will have realise, I'm not fully up to speed in terms of how slashdot really works. But some of what I see turns me on. I'm probably a fair bit older than most of the users of slashdot,to give you an idea of my pedigree, I first got deep into the bowels of a computer hand coding assembler into a TRS80, it had four K of memory can you imagine that. A lot of what is going on in computers these days goes right over my head, most people these days are suffering with acronyms desease, well I ask you, an acronim, if you don't know what the letters mean, is about as much use as a choclate fireguard. Well rant out of the way, down to brass tacks. I don't know the legality of running windows apps in the way I'm going to suggest, I more wonder wether anyone has thought of it. Why dosen't Saint Linus build a machine code module, tacked on to the main linux kernel that emulates another pentium, a virtual pentium if you like. I know you can emulate other kinds of cpu with m/code why not another pentium. Yes it would slow things down somewhat, but computers are running that fast these days, it would still make windows apps useable, there are many decent windows programs out their, it seems a shame that they are denied to many linux users. The funny part would happen when the windows app crashed, instead of getting the dreaded blue death, you could get a really sarcastic message saying something like 'Its all right my darling linux will save you, some people write stable code at least.
It's called an elephant's trunk whereas it is in fact, an elephant's nose, a nose by any other name would smell as sweet
True to form for Microsoft. They can't make the system stable, but they can make it crash in the color of your choice.
Doesn't that sound more like Apple?
- Isaac =)
What's the point of improving Windows? I checked out their website (which was hilariously Microsoftesque, BTW) and they mentioned this. As someone mentioned above, the BSOD actually does come in different colors already. I use WindowBlinds and IconPackager to change the look of my Windows desktop. And as I mentioned in my earlier post, even rewriting the underlying code is practically useless because we would still be running Microsoft applications such as Office and IE (which have their own fair share of bugs and annoyances) on top of it all.
On the other hand, this is a hoax, isn't it? After reading everyone else's posts and considering the foolishness of attempting this, it really has to be. If it's not, may God have mercy on us all.
"Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try."
What if they did sperate the OS from the GUI?
/*
Like im sure someone can think of a way to do it.
What if they could make windows apps more stable(i.e. a crash wont take the entire system)?
im sure they could(again more minds == better results)
What if they made a windows were chaning the IP didnt require a reboot?
I dont think they should try to aim to make windows over again, i think they should try to make somthing thats a lot like windows, but better. Sort of a little bit of OS glue behind WINE.
*Not a Sermon, Just a Thought
*/
*Not a Sermon, Just a Thought
*/
I think what you're describing is MacOS X Server. I ran it for awhile, and found it pretty flawed in that respect. For example, users created with the built-in GUI did not show up in /etc/passwd. Unix is not a simple OS by today's standards. So don't use Unix if you want something simple.
It would be intresting to see how they'd develop it, and it being open source it would definately be helping out the WINE project in a few ways.. I'm curious as to how much of WINE they'll be looking over and using in their own project itself in the first place. I would be much prouder and happier to have these guys working with WINE itself much more then a reinventing a broken wheel...
Who's the black private dick, who's a sex machine for all the chicks?
IMO, the efforts of these guys should be directed in helping out the Wine folks. Make an "Openwindows" Linux distribution which is super small, and at the most write a GUI which matches WinXX, then run Wine to give you the applications support.
----------------
Programming, is like sex.
and it was only possible because it implemented a well-known, standardized API (POSIX)
And furthermore, UNIX used to be very expensive and the better versions only ran on proprietary hardware. It was nearly impossible in the old days for a casual user to get root access to a system. That was a huge incentive for people to work on a PC clone version.
How much did eMachines give back during the big Windows Refund thing? Something like $29, I think. How much effort would you put in to clone something that's cheaper than a tank of gas?
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
I've seen that API documentation. It sucks.
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe Better a smartass than a dumbass.
I'm not sure--i've never needed to.
--
Max V.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
What you (and seemingly everyone else who replied to my post) seem to have missed is the whole point of what I said. I did not say that this was targeted at "true geeks," nor did I say that no "true geeks" would be interested in it.
What I did say was that it was a pointless project. Even if it were ever completed (which doesn't seem likely) it would be functionally exactly the same as Windows, so it's not really an "alternative OS that can run DirectX" - just Windows with different code underneath.
And even worse - just as there is no market for a free version of Windows 3.1, there will be no market in ten years (assuming they can get it done in that short amount of time) for a free version of Windows ME, which this will be based on. How would newbies get it? Not from OEM's, certainly, and not from the store, since they'd already have their OEM copy of Windows 2010, which will be based on NT anyway!
Would even geeks be interested in ten-year-old technology? (Yes, I realize Unix is much older than that but do you want to be running a 2.2.x kernel ten years from now?)
Of course Linux is not ready for the desktop, but full Windows binary support would definitely help push it along. These guys are pushing in the wrong direction.
"Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try."
Grow up, graymalkin, grow up. Any sane guy who uses winbloze software will agree with what I've said. If they all felt like you, they'd write something, but less childish that your obtuse comments. Still, I'll give you an example. Check IE5.0Beta. I wouldnt believe that they did it from scratch. And any thing so Huge would definitely end up as cluttercode, with all the MS customs that we read about in articles. Like you dont see no GIF files or JPEGs for the icons. nor any ico or any hidden files. then where are they? inside the DLLs and EXEs. Dont tell me that is nice. It's the easiest way to get slapped in the face. PS. Grow up.
Ha! I was right! The yahoo message board they setup says the following:
SPullum
(16/male/Poquoson, VA, USA)
This is the kernel coordinator!
Just a bunch of kids with nothing better to do. Go watch some pokemon.
BTW, they are shooting to reproduce the Win9x/ME line. Maybe someone should tell them that this is being discontinued as Microsoft migrates over to the NT kernel.
first off, let me say this, yes i am 17 years old, and i'm sorry, but i don't watch pokemon. i came up with the idea for owp, and no i wasn't drunk/stoned whatever. i thought i was a good idea, and apprently a lot of others do too. owp is _not_ a hoax, and there are many people of different ages working on this project who can't believe the kind of comments the hypocritical linux community puts out. also, i am not the kernel coordinator, so get your facts straight. it makes me sad to think that the community that spawned gnu and linux can be so down on us, but it really doesn't matter, because if we do succeed you guys will eat a large amount of crow. owp is not targetted just towards power users, which is apparently what most of you slashdotters think, it will be targetted for home users, the "real" _users_ who use ms works, aol and windows 98. windows nt is not for home users/general public anyway, so i don't know what microsoft thinks it is trying to do with whistler or win2k. you can get over it, because we are here to stay. by the way, my developers range in ages from 15 to 40 and are from more than 5 different countries, just to let you know. i am sorry to target you in this way, but i just felt that your comment went below the belt; i mean how old was bill gates when he founded microsoft? thank you for your comments and your continuing support. Shawn Pullum OWP Project Co-Coordinator spullum@users.sourceforge.net
What is your point? 90% isn't a generalizations. It's not like he said: "All GNU/Linux devotees are 1337 bastards ignorant of Unix history."
Well, I don't have that much of a point either -- just felt like bitching around a little.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
well, basically, if you don't agree with the manifesto, you won't be let in. the deal here is that while the manifesto can change, all changes will be submitted to developers, and these changes will only be made on a majority vote. read the manifesto a little more carefully next time. if a developer violates the rules of the manifesto, they, and their contributions are thrown out, so there aren't any problems later. it would really take a lot, and a majority vote, to remove any developer anyway, it is in there just in case. that was the originally intention. thank you for your support. Shawn Pullum OWP Co-Coordinator spullum@users.sourceforge.net
My opinion? This is an even bigger ask than that Mozilla thing, but maybe... Welcome to the brave new world.
Dan
WinE has the support for all of those dlls built in, so we will have o-s versions of those. also, we are not ignorant enough to believe we could ever get anywhere near 100% (100% is thinking positively, something a lot of slashdotters seemingly forgot how to do), but hopefully we can get as close as possible (99.99%).
You're a brave man to post this on slash dot. You probably had a pretty good idea to the response you would get. So I'll be brave too. :)
I happen to agree with what you're saying. In the same way that we don't have one model of car that's right for everyone, we don't have one operating system that fills all niches. Different systems have been created with different design goals in mind.
Anyone who reads slashdot probably spends at least 60 hours a week in front of a computer, and has good working knowlege as to how one works. We build or manage systems (whether they be web sites, applications, databases, or networks). To do our jobs efficiently we need to be able to automate the work whereever possible, e.g.
find . -name "*html" -exec grep "badaddress" {} \; -exec perl -p -i -e "s/baddress/goodaddress/g;" {} \;
Unix makes it easy to automate the complex tasks that we do every day. In addition, Unix was built from the ground up to be a multi-user OS, and has many network centric features that make it a pleasure to use as a server.
For better or worse, most of the world doesn't (and shouldn't) care. They use a computer for ad hoc projects. They keep an address book, write letters and proposals, surf the web, email, and play Diablo II (Well, I know we do that too).
Windows was designed with a clean, consistent user interface. Everything (including the applications written for it) is graphics centric. This makes doing one off operations a breeze, but makes it much more difficult to automate. So we hate it. But Microsoft can live with that.
As far as stability goes, it's all relative. I use Windows NT as a client at work, and I find that it rarely crashes. I typically power it down about once a week. If things start to act a little funky then I'll shut it down and restart. I've lost more work from power outages than I have from lockups.
All that said, Windows is a bad fit as a server operating system. To extent the car metaphore, it's like taking your Honda Accord offroading. Wrong tool for the job.
# (/.);;
- : float -> float -> float =
I wouldn't say the Wine team is having much trouble with Win32. You really should check out the newer releases. Wine gets better literally every single day.
Also, I would definitely suggest grabbing the CVS version of Wine. Very few new bugs are introduced, and if so they are fixed quickly. Most patches that make it past Alexandre actually fix a problem, not introduce a new one
I still think trying to make an exact clone of Windows is a bad idea. It'd be better/easier just to use an existing UNIX kernel and Wine.
1) There is no security model, but one IS needed. With a proper OS kernel security model, you would not have trojans, nor would you have viruses spreading so easily. It's surely not that hard to require user authorization to perform certain priveliged tasks, and to have that authorization checked by OS, not program?
;)
2) Windows usability has been discussed thoroughly in the past.
3) There's no requirement that you run a shell, or even a getty. I've done embedded projects with Linux, and I didn't run a getty. I included a shell so the techies could telnet to the box, but the OS runs happily with no shell running in the field. I didn't even need to modify the kernel to do it.
Evolved is too kind a word. Mutated, perhaps. DOS was a poor kludge. FAT should have been left behind when hard disks became popular; it was never designed for anything more, and is woefully inadequate. But backwards compatibility we must have. Hooray for the x86 instruction set. Bring on the sort opcode. VAX forever.
Your comment on crashing is vaguely worrying. So I'm not using my car often, I just drive from home to work and back again. So it doesn't matter if the engine stalls once or twice a day, or if the steering wheel stops turning the car once a month. Of course, as someone else said, this is because 3rd party drivers are abysimal.
Windows is a successful idea, but not necessarily a good one. It is so common due to illegal monopolistic tactics. Don't believe me? Ask the US courts. It is "popular" because it has no competition. That said, I'm not one who calls for replacing Windows with Linux. I'd much prefer to see a reasonably high volume of OSes available, and vendors to use open standards, but I'd also like to get laid tonight, and that's not going to happen, either.
At least everyone agrees attempting to reimplement it is a bad idea.
--
Boycott MPAA movies. You may not make them care, but don't let them make you NOT care.
The event log showed teh name fo the workstation and the user name but it would not show me the IP address of the attempt nor the password.
Keeping a log of failed passwords around is not a good idea. If someone were to look at the log, they might easily figure out passwords if come of the failures were simple typos (if the passwords were plain words, not random characters). True, getting at this file would require Adminstrator/root access and anyone looking at would probably be able to do more than steal user passwords. However, it's not exactly a good idea to keep information like this around because no one will probably see it. If it isn't there, it can't be seen.
hell ya.
-=(V)0(V)0cr0(V)3=-
OK, this thread is really old, so no-one will probably read this. Oh well. :^(
> fuck you're dumb
Swearing and bold statements are usually the hallmarks of stupidity.
> a) you and all the people who think Win9x runs over DOS, or is a shell/GUI on top of DOS have absolutely no clue how DOS works,
and how it's different from every other OS. You also have no idea what the definition of an Operating System is.
Partially true. Win9x replaces (for themost part) DOS calls (although not always! You're too absolute here!). Also, by some definitions of what an Operating System is (there's more than one) DOS is not an operating system. Neither is Windows (despite its 99.9% OS status.)
Also, I'm sure you have your DOS and Win32 API manuals handy (I have the former somewhere or other...:^)
>b) wtf do you think NT/W2K are? Lots of things I'm sure, but one thing the NT kernel isn't is DOS based.
NT/W2K are from a different source tree. NT was originally intended to run on several different pieces of hardware; not just x86, but, originally, also Alpha, MIPS, and when it was announced, PPC. (gasp!) So, no, NT most definitely is *not* DOS-based. Win9x DOES require DOS to boot, though.
>c) Win32 originated on NT. Win9x runs Win32c, and Win3.x runs Win32s - both are subsets of Win32. To implement Win32 would require emulating NT.
Yeah, and Win3.x originated with OS/2, also. You don't have to emulate OS/2 to emulate Win32, though. Win32s was just a kludge to run 32-bit apps under 16-bit DOS-based Windows.
OK, the best way to think of it is that Win16 and the Win9x/ME branch of Windows is a 32-bit DOS extender with a built-in GUI. It needs DOS to start up; sometimes it uses DOS drivers (I used to have to do this with an old CD-ROM drive. That sucks...) It takes the lead, and has little in common with DOS, but it still has DOS there.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Might I suggest CoriolisOpen Press' SAMBA Black Book? One of the best books I've found for SAMBA. Something was definitely mistuned on you server, as no way should SAMBA be using that much resources. In particular, chck out pages 439 - 442 (Configuring Samba for Optimal Performance)
Also, try the resources available from samba (www.samba.org), including subscribing to the mailing lists.
In terms of your problems with the Linux LUG, I can suggest the Greater New Hampshire Linux Users Group as an excellent one for answering questions. Feel free to subscribe to their mailing list (directions on their home page), we do serve the "Greater" New Hampshire.
jeff
Its called contracting.
Lars -
Didn't one of the Win2k developers call the Win9x line "toy operating systems" ?
Lars -
So far, I've seen no mention of Linux' KDE Desktop. It works like windows enough that you have the essence of the contribution windows made. Seems to me that's enough....
-rsh
Try Mandrake :)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I have conclusive evidence that the man on the grassy knoll was in fact Signal 11!
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
--
I like to watch.
I'm currently interning at a company that is almost exclusively WinNT based. Between commercial apps and in-house tools, each workstation has several dozen Win apps installed.
To move to Linux/Wine, hundreds of workstations will need a Linux install, which will mean repartitioning, installing the new OS, and maybe reinstalling some apps depending on how smoothly everything moves over. Hundreds of times. As for VMWare, you could install with NT as the host, but you still need the NT license and now you've paid for VMWare too, so there's no convincing financial reason for them to switch over.
Assuming OpenWindows were to ever reach the point of being a drop-in replacement for MSWindows (a long shot at best, I realize), the migration path could simply be an installation. No more buying NT licenses. Poof, you're saving money with no impact on productivity.
This would certainly be nice. I don't see it happening, but if it ever reaches the point of code that I could work on (not really an OS writer personally) I would help them out.
xyzzy
That's because they, obviously, don't have access to any. If they did, the project would be MUCH easier.
That means keeping it efficient, not having to deal with old code that you'd rather keep, etc
The amount of optimizations they can do while still keep it completely Windows compatible will be very limited. Chances are, if there was any 'old code' in Win9x that was poorly designed and could be removed/re-written without damaging backwards compatibility, it would have been done already (IIRC, MS has 30,000 plus programmers - that's what they're supposed to do). If this project is ever finished (ha!), it will probably be a slower and at best at par with Win98 performance.
We should be saluting these guys
Except, they're obviously smoking crack. I don't mind - let them go and try to write Win9x clone; but it will never, ever work.
it could be forged into something that is the best of both Windows and Linux - an OS that is truly accessible to the masses, very easy to use, very powerful, and very stable.
Again, if you're going to clone Win9x, you CANNOT create a stable, or powerful OS - the limitations of the Win9x architecture prevent that.
Where are the people who usually complain that all open source software lacks innovation? This is one project that, IMHO, just doesn't make any sense. They are trying to reverse engineer an entire operating system - and a bad one at that.
Keep your fingers crossed...I will for a few years.
Just don't hold your breath. I'll bet 20-1 that this project never has a working prototype.
They're using the FAT filesystem? Why? I believe that M$ is either switching to NTFS or merging them after Win ME right? I hope they wait for the 9x/NT hybrid before getting in too deep. It's risky to bet all this work on something that M$ could make obsolete by next year.
I like to be able to use windows drivers when I so wish, especially graphic card one's... X doesnt use half the potential of graphic cards.
Also DX is rushing ahead at mad cap speeds leaving Linux behind IMO, if you had an open source OS which could just use windows drivers to get acceleration to the DX API it would be a real alternative to windows for game porting. Unlike now where its becoming increasingly difficult for 3D game clients to be ported to Linux.
I haven't run or studied up on WINE, but how would the proposed OS react when system files and reg entries are overwritten with new dlls and nonesuch?
Like mfc, msvcrt, comctl, etc. I know some of these are runtime libraries and breakwares, but I assume it's okay for the os to intermingle with these? Are there any legal or practical difficulties with the mixture?
Would it need to be able to use MS upgrades, security fixes?
IE 4 raises a whole 'nother crapload of potential problems--active desktop and all that. A bunch of progs won't install without insisting that those components are there, and if not, gladly offering to place it for you. More potential security and instability...
Like I said, I haven't studied WINE, so I don't know how it handles these probs.
Anyway, DirectX should be a real hoot to reprogram--unless the MS version runs without mods.
__
Scarce, scared, scarred, sacred... -Col. Bruce Hampton
I don't think so. As far as I know, you can license your software under the GPL but maintain copyright. You can however assign your copyright to the FSF if you choose to. In this case, the FSF can fight off any copyright infringements/GPL violations for you since they hold the copyright. However, if you choose to maintain copyright, you have to do things like that yourself.
I think to be considered GNU software, you have to assign copyrights to the FSF, but you can still have your own copyrighted software licensed under the GNU GPL.
I wonder if it is possible to create a stable OS while remaining 100% compatible with windows.
Aren't there applications that actually depend on e.g. Dangerous Memory Management or other 'features' that cause instability ?
In other words: isn't win32 design so flawed you can't actually make a stable OS based on that design.
---
A long, long time ago, Microsoft shipped MS-DOS. A separate company, Digital Research, created another operating system called 'DR-DOS'.
Now, DR-DOS was completely 100% compatible with MS-DOS, it was faster than MS-DOS, and it was cheaper. Hardware companies were starting to look at DR-DOS as a replacement for MS-DOS.
Microsoft saw a potential loss of revenue, so it posted its latest Beta of Windows 3.1 with special code: if it was running under DR-DOS, rather than MS-DOS, it would start with an error screen.
Reviewers of the time saw the error message, and strongly advised against running Windows 3.1 under DR-DOS. Hardware companies decided not to purchase DR-DOS. And, in the end, DR-DOS became nothing more than a footnote in history.
One part of the court case documentation can be found here , and the parent directory contains links to more documentation.
What does this mean to Open Windows? Simple. If they succeed in creating a system that -is- 100% Microsoft-compatible, so that people can run, say, Microsoft products... Microsoft will change the products on them, so that they are no longer compatible.
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn. Or a juggernaut.
What ever happened to "get some basics working, THEN announce to the world"? It seems like a lot of would-be free software programmers are doing fancy web pages and such up front without any real code base behind them.
Speaking from recent experience, I offer the following advice:
First find something you want to do. Start scratching the itch. When there's enough functionality to be interesting and somewhat usable, give it a web page. Keep the web page current even though nobody visits. Submit the URL to a search engine or link to it from a known page so people start finding it via search queries.
If you have something worthwhile on your hands, the rest will take care of itself. Your users will spread the URL around for you. Watch the referrer logs and see.
Once in awhile, sit down and document all those things you've been meaning to. Make it possible for other people to understand how it works. Then you'll start drawing in fellow developer-minded people, and it will grow.
Note - nowhere in here did I say "make a fancy web page and then hype it like crazy"... that should happen when you get to 1.0 after all the other stuff has been accomplished.
Oh, and read esr's CatB paper. It worked for me.
Excellent point. Although the microsoft development team is slow, they have a lot of money, a lot of resources and one main advantage - they're making it up as they go along and writing original code. While OpenWindows would be good, i really dont think it can keep moving fast enough while copying code accurately enough
I'm puzzled. The phrase "Application Programming Interface" is businesseze for making a program call. Writing something saying "int fudget(foo, bar)" is fundemental to coding. An API is nothing more that a doc set describing what is actually available, correct? The Mac toolbox and libc is mostly what I'm familiar with in terms of terminology. A draw() function is provided by MacOS, a malloc() by whichever libc you use.
Windows can be reverse-engineered, and it should be possible to clean room all the functionality. The APIs are an extension of that. Aside from the base question of "why", the issue will be time and interest. The other question is "which windows?" NT is one hell of a lot harder that 95/98/whatever.
Thinking out loud,
prong
Some Rimshots:
- I take it you're not a Mac person?
- Because it's there!
- The Open Source model assumes you make all your profits on support contracts. What better way to generate support contracts
.... - All of which assumes that Windows actually is an OS. Some of us consider it a sort of bloated program loader...
Anyway, the participants in this discussion need to lighten up. Hasn't anybody noticed how many lame Open Source projects there are? Not to mention how many software projects have been undertaken by people who have no idea of the scale of what they propose to do?!They can call it the "begin" button...
yes, lots of learning and lots of work, but in the end if all goes well they'll have... windows. i know it goes against billions of dollars worth of snazzy ads, but windows is an ancient, crappy, kludge.
take the fs for example. fat. go look at how it works on a technical level - and just skip bemoaning the 8.3 thing, it has a more fundamental flaw then that. look at the name - it uses a *table*!
a totally forked codebase. which windows - 95, 98, me, ce, nt, 2k? all of which have subtly (and not so subtly) different api's (and on a driver level, who boy!)
here's a few facts: the open windows project Is A Waste Of Time. the open windows project Will Not Succeed, in fact it's doubtful if it will Ever Boot.
i mean just think: it's taken linux 9 years to even come close to challenging it's competitors: other unicies. in that time the posix spec has been pretty constant. what's a place that's lagging? drivers. they're changing swiftly and they're not well documented.
now what is open windows trying to do? oh, that's right, implement an os that isn't documented, changes rapidly/randomly, that uses hardware that isn't documented and that changes rapidly. dumb, dumb, dumb.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
It's still available in newer Solaris releases, but it's pretty obvious that Sun is pushing people toward dtwm.
I've always liked AfterStep on Sun boxen... and yes, it is configurable to work with CDE. I even have cute customised login graphics. :)
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
--
I like to watch.
Unfortunately, Wine is forced to make the Win32 api interface with X11, which is just gross. Native truetype fonts anyone?
Lars -
I'm glad Microsoft has fixed this and now embeds your Windows ID# and your Pentium 2,3 (a real fast 386) serial number in every Microsoft Office document you create. Innovation at its finest.
Lars -
I honestly don't see how this project could possibly succeed. In order to be completely compatible with Windows, they would have to write their own implementation of the Windows Application Programming Interface (API), the set of functions Windows programmers use to interface with Windows' system functions. Microsoft would no doubt sue the pants off anyone trying to rewrite these.
And I don't see how they can get around using the APIs -- how would programs that use Windows API calls operate in this system? Even renaming the function names would require major modifications to all existing source code, and that's still a copyright violation.
So I think this is another case where we will see that Microsoft's claim that they "encourage innovation" is just a load of bunk -- Big Gates will never let anyone "innovate" him out of his prized operating system.
kugano
... If the company used BSD or Linux as a core and simply created a GUI that they felt helped the needs of Windows users, the project would probably get farther in a lot less time. BSD and Linux are proven to be rock solid and stable so why start from scratch???? I'm sure the people who program this new "OS" are going to have a difficult time getting all of the Viruses and stuff to work properly. I am certainly not going to use this and I think the vast majority of us our happy with our *NIX systems. Look where WINE is today, It's been years and they still haven't got that far! By the time they have the Windows 98 API's completed, Microsoft will have Windows 2015 on the shelves.
www.alienhosting.com --- $9.00 a month webhosting.
Right
but even that's a real bitch
What do you use for Secure Shell?
The free programs that are available don't seem to work very well if at all.
I'm certainly not going to *buy* Secure Shell
I must admit that I really don't see the point of this project, since it seems to me that it would be both easier and more desirable to put these efforts into A) improving WINE and B) improving the user-friendliness and feature sets of KDE, GNOME, et al. By focusing on these two areas, one can implement all the significant Windows functionality (and even look-and-feel if one desired) with a lot less effort, and in the process create what is arguably a technically superior solution. Of course, the one remaining issue is driver compatibility, but the list of Linux drivers is growing rapidly, so that may not be too much of a problem.
That said, I don't think that their choice of FAT as the filesystem is necessarily a bad idea. If one is going to reimplement Windows for whatever reason, it may be useful to use the same filesystem; even if only for the sake of users being able to use the same utility programs with the M$ and free versions. This may outweigh the negatives relating to not using a technically superior filesystem.
Because, um, saying that 90% of the GNU/Linux people are a bunch of 1337 bastards sounded like a bit of a generalization. I see your point, it's just that the contrast of those two statements that close together was interesting.
You're right, that is insightful. So insightful, that you decided to post this exact same comment here, here, here, here, here, here, and who knows how many other places, no matter how much or how little it actually had to do with the story.
You're probably conducting some sort of sociological experiment. See how people will moderate up what they don't understand, as long as you sound like you know what you're talking about.
I guess you win.
--
Yep, they're already doing a great job of emulating Microsoft by choosing a name that is already trademarked.
OpenWindows is a trademark of Sun Microsystems.
I like the idea! And what's more, they can utilize the superior Linux OS to cause a GUI that can crash 75% more efficiently, with an OpenGL-animated icon of a hard drive plunging into a bucket of boiling fat, as the windowing environment somehow repartitions your hard drive into 30 million 1-kilobyte drives. Impossible, you say? Bring Linux that close to Windows, and we just may see these things within our lifetimes...
i mler-Palmolive-OmniCorp computing environments which were the standards for so long. As has probably aleady been mentioned, if you want to use a Windows clone, you may as well just get Windows.
I like Linux. A lot. I even like the emergence of desktop environments, such as KDE and Gnome (although AfterStep was fun for a while). I think Linux is steadily "coming of age" in the desktop market. The reason for that, in my opinion, is that it offers an alternative to the Apple/Microsoft-Intel-AOL-Time-Warner-Chrysler-Da
I don't think there's anything more that I can say that hasn't already been said...
/* TNW */
"Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders what the part that isn't thinking isn't thinking of"-TMBG
> Actually, you can make the Windows BSOD other colors.
True to form for Microsoft. They can't make the system stable, but they can make it crash in the color of your choice.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
But that can all be fixed, since the source code for everything you mentioned above are open sourced. Linux can support windows binaries. WINE will become better than Windows. It's just a matter of time.
/* c. hs laviola
claviola@rj.sol.com.br, uin# 55799523 */
From reading their manifesto, it looks like they are trying to clone Windows 9x, not Windows NT. They talk about FAT, FAT32, real-mode drivers, and MS-DOS. There is no mention of NTFS, UNICODE, security, or WDM protected-mode drivers.
If this is true, the mind boggles. Let me see if I understand this. They want to clone an OS that has no security, no crash protection, and which (after Windows ME) Microsoft has declared there will be no follow-on versions. Is this right?
And they're throwing in a clone NDIS/TCP/Winsock stack, and OLE (the whole graphical nightmare, not just COM), and DOS support. Hey it's just an all-nighter right? Have they seen Ralf Brown's INT 21 list for DOS? It is the size of a phone book. And that's just for DOS. In short they aim to clone $10+ billion of bug-compatible legacy software created over 15+ years, basically from scratch.
Compare this to WINE, a serious emulation project with modest goals to emulate the Win32 API over Unix. They are working on the GDI, DirectX, DLL interception, security, etc. These people are working on genuine technical issues related to Windows compatiblity. Meanwhile the Open Windows guys are soliciting for snapshots of screen layouts that look cool.
It's like your kids building a sand castle and they say "this is going to be as big as your house Daddy!". You just have to smile and wish them luck.
just out of curiosity, I decided to examine the source for the front page...
/ index.pl,"); d ex.pl,");
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0">
<meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
<TITLE>Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgcolor="#000000" text="#000000" link="#006666" vlink="#000000">
<center>
<TABLE BORDER=0 CELLPADDING=0 CELLSPACING=0><TR><TD WIDTH=2><SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JAVASCRIPT">
<!--
now = new Date();
tail = now.getTime();
document.write("<IMG SRC='http://images2.slashdot.org/Slashdot/pc.gif?
document.write(tail);
document.write("' WIDTH=1 HEIGHT=1>");
document.write("<IMG SRC='http://images.slashdot.org/pagecount.gif?/in
document.write(tail);
document.write("' WIDTH=1 HEIGHT=1><BR>");
//-->
If you decided to create a Windows clone, what would be the first thing you'd do? Maybe some general architecture specs? Maybe start on some code? Well, according to their page, the first thing that these guys are doing is working on the startup and shutdown screens!
Attention would-be artists.
OW is looking for artwork. We want your ideas for startup/shudown and off screens. We will accept submissions until 15 August. At that time the public will vote on the winning screens.
Aren't we getting just a wee bit ahead of ourselves here? To top it all off, their website has already been redesigned with "a cleaner look and a greater public face for the project".
Yeah, great work, guys!
Apparently, these fellows haven't been around long enough to have heard of the real OpenWindows -- either that, or they want to attract a lot of former Sun users to M$, a la UNIX Review's transmogrification into "Performance Computing."
~wog
Quit acting like you're cock of the walk. Nobody is. And I've had enough of your God-damned arrogance and trying to make me look like a retard. So FUCK OFF.
...they did it. On a CMOS chip.
ENIAC-on-a-chip
I salute their magnificent insanity!
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
Announcing GNU Gestapo
Now, an oppressive para-military force is available from the Free Software Foundation that will change software development forever.
GNU Gestapo shows up at software companies and enforces the development of good programs for free Operating Systems like GNU/Linux, GNU/Hurd, and FreeBSD.
*cough* X-Box *cough*
:)
Oh wait, you want it for *free*. Sorry, can't help you there
ShoutingMan.com
I don't know if it is or not, but thats a damn good explanation for what could be behind it. Question: what is the drug? I'm sure we've all heard about how Berkeley created LSD and Unix, so what does Redmond create in conjunction with Windows?
Seriously though, I think that this is a good idea. They may never finish, (although I don't know if MS has any way to stop them) but hopefully they can get organized and produce some useful code, even if it is only picked up by another Open Source project.
I have never heard so much bullshit in my whole life.
Stop making up crap.
At most, Windows is $100. That's chicken scratch for anyone with a full-time job in the industrialized world. If you can't muster together $100US, steal the damn thing - we won't tell.
Windows is a dumb, bad OS that we're in the unfortunate position being saddled with. If anyone wants to improve the world's "Windows" problem, they should invnet cool new technologies that make Windows irrelevant - not simply reimplement the damn thing.
Besides, they'll never get it off the ground anyway.
Um, no, I don't think so.
After all, Win2K is pretty darn stable. Memory is locked down tight (no 'dangerous memory management' there).
I believe the instability in Win9x comes from two places in general: legacy support (DOS and 16 bit underpinnings that still exist), and sloppy coding.
WinNT/Win2K don't have so much of the legacy underpinning (though they do have a lot of stuff for compatibility with 'older' windows apps and games and such). And the systems are markedly more stable.
- Spryguy
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
I actually think it will be a good idea. Not easy though. It is going to take alot of effort to get this going.
I have always liked Windows, but I use mostly linux because of its stability. Windows isn't nearly as stable as I'd like it to be, but it has alot of good stuff in it, clean interface, software support, etc. I just don't like the BSOD's.
I think it will be a very good alternative to windows if it works and if its stable.
I also wonder if any of the code used in WINE will be helpful, they have done alot with the windows API...
-Brandon
MS put this up in hopes of distracting some talent from the linux/*bsd front. Not likely, but they're probably desperate.
Seriously, though, for all the reasons the poster stated, it's a lousy idea, plus, it's a known fact that there are secret API calls the MS apps use that aren't documented and therefore the MS aps would never work on the clone.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
Not really - it will suck money from the developers to pay for their lawyers. The legal-fees : cash-available ratio for MS is essentially zero while for spare-time developers, it's essentially infinite.
Non-profit small guys getting sued by MS will almost certainly not phase MS and put the other guys out of business.
It'd be like punching a brick wall - the wall won't notice, and you'll have a broken hand.
ShoutingMan.com
For a game system running nothing important for a single user, a well executed version of windows which would run the games and the associated Windows drivers without paying tribute to Redmond seems like a Good Thing. Impossible, perhaps, but it _would_ be nice.
I agree with some of your points about Windows being ill thought-out for anything I would want to use a computer for. But the part about the OS assuming it's smarter than the users? Well, for some folks that's true. I've reached the point I can keep my linux box running fairly well. Some folks are willing to give up a lot of flexibility and convenience to avoid having to learn.
I guess my point is that there _is_ a place for this sort of operating system, though it's no place I'd like to be. Whether they can pull it off and duplicate Windows I have no clue, but I think that a lot of manufacturers would be happy to bundle a fully functional, free Win98 clone with their cheap pc's this year. Next year, of course, the trendy, buzz-word-compliant software from Microsoft won't run on Win98, if these guys have succeded. I think _that's_ the weakest point of the whole plan: If their effort succeds, it will be like CPM: an anachronism. Microsoft will see to that.
Two final thoughts: First, Microsoft has been able to keep its users on the upgrade treadmill by not supporting the old versions, discouraging hardware manufacturers from building drivers for the old versions, and so on. If this were ready _now_, I think that a lot of people might see this as a way to step off the upgrade path, and stick with a familiar evil. You could still get bugfixes for GNU-Win98 after "WinMillenium" comes out, at least.
Second, I have to wonder: how many of the technically sophisticated people who program at these very low levels for fun will _really_ want to spend their hobby hours slavishly imitating Windows? Will this ever attract a critical mass of programmers?
I certainly wish them luck.
Nels
See what I've been reading.
Hey folks,
I first must commend these guys on a truly incredible feat that they are attempting to perform. I would tell them to disregard all of these people who say "quit wasting your time" or "why not just use linux if you want an alternative." I am an avid linux user and I remember when many said these very things to me when I started using linux. People would say "linux is going to go nowhere" or "who will develop for it... just use windows." etc...etc...etc...
Many of us who use linux quickly forget that we used to hear those things and it is a shame when people try to stump your efforts with "why don't you just use XXXX instead". Linux became what it is today because of people who stood by their OS and didn't care what the status quo OS was. They did it because they believed in something and developers the world over joined in the effort. They coded despite the overwhelming odds against them. Now, they must do the same. The support and developers that they need will come in good time and join in their efforts.
I hope to not be dependent on MS Windows for some of the things I do on a daily basis. Their project, will allow many of us to run windows programs on a compatible OS without all the restrictions MS puts on us. I love linux, however, I enjoy BeOS and Mac's as well. I like variety, and I like to see MS scared out of their pants because of projects like linux and projects like this. If nothing else, open source will allow us to share. We will be able to take their api's and use them with wine or use whatever they develop and port some of the functionality to linux. We will all benefit if they succeed.
Finally, I want to say a few things about open source. Open source is about freedom, not control. Open source means nobody can tell me how to run my system. Open source means choice. It's about the little guy... it's about the proverbial "David" slaying "Goliath." Big corporations like MS will realize that we won't take their strong-armed tactics or anti-competetive practices.
I could go on and on... you get the picture. I will probably stick to unix/linux no matter what but, I know many who would drop MS windows if something compatible were available. I say these guys should keep up the good work and push forward no matter what the odds.
best of luck openwin team!!
since it's doubtful microsoft will be broken up, maybe they will be forced to open up APIs and such enough that this could work.
I've often wished that wine would take the next step and implement an explorer-type option when run in desktop mode.
didn't any of you ever play with "executor", the mac OS "clone" wouldn't seem to be too hard to take that to the next level and make it standalone.
I'm all for it, even though I like linux a lot, I'd still love to see an opensource windows, though there is no way Microsoft wouldn't do everything in their power (which is absolute) to crush it.
________
I dunno about you, but I interpreted that as "The Open Windows Project and Developers" hold the copyright, but license it under the GNU GPL. Kinda like how GNU software is copyright-owned by the GNU Project, isn't it?
the real at&t mix
I came across a really great update on the whole freedows thing. Just monday I saw a new "FAT FREE" version at the local 7-11. The bag looked pretty appetizing.
Your Momma's so fat she makes emacs look like nano!
No, Linus is quite clear why Linux was written. It was because DOS was a POS that didnt take advantage of the 386.
Well, it certainly seems THAT motivation has long since disappeared...
- Spryguy
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
I don't think that this would be as hard as everyone is making it out to be, I realize that this will take many years to accomplish, but if they include what we know from freedows and wine, i'm sure it would be a lot easier.
I just saw Enter Sandman on MuchMusic, and now I am humming the tune and recalling the images in my head. Did I just "steal" thier ip? Am I pirating enjoyment because I didn't pay for it twice?
You can listen to complete CD's at most CD stores without paying for them too! Better call the Gestapo.
Lars -
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I really like this idea, and hope it works, with every bone in my body I do. But we have to admit, MS's advertising expenses could probably fund several major companies, so I doubt it will go away so quick. Alas, it will end up first being used by the Ubergeek Slashdot-like crowd, then once it gains a decent sized following MS will sue for a number of lame reasons.. "It says START on it" "Its called Open Window, the word Window, as well as the letters W, I , N , D, O ,S are copywritten by Microsoft" etc etc.
But what the hell, Im still looking forward to it. Plus they are looking for some artists fot the startup/shutdown/off screens. So thats another plus
----------------------------------
Looking for hardware (Currently need: Large Etch-a-Sketch) Have one? See my journal!
...but not likely to happen. Let's see what I mean:
Ugh. For the record, I hate being this negative. But if a Windows clone is such a popular idea, why hasn't a major corporation stepped in to support one? I'm thinking that Sun or Oracle or another along those lines could throw a few billion in resources at it and have a fairly good Winclone in a year. I can only guess that the reason no one big has stepped up to the plate is because the OS is a dead-end market. Look at the "upgrade" from Windows 98 vs. 98 SE. SE?! Even Microsoft couldn't give it a new number in good conscience! There is only so much so-called functionality that can be thrown at an OS before users are no longer inclined to upgrade to the latest version. (For related proof, look at Netscape 4.sux, with its wonderful Shop button... oooh, just what I needed.)
The Operating System will go the way of the basic text editor and become an interchangable module, albeit a necessary one that allows your file/web browser to access information and data.
But that's just my opinion; I could be wrong.
"I came here to kick ass and chew bubblegum. I'm all out of bubblegum." MSE USC APX AIA CSI CASp
The fine people of Freedows are already trying something along this line. The project seems to be stalled, though..
If they can get far enough then they could probably get sponsored by Gateway or Dell. It can't be pleasant having your business being totally subject to the mercies of MS.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
what Outlook bug?
Last I checked, there were more bugs in Outlook than lines of code in Mozilla Mail
Samba is coded to be a "bug for bug" clone of what Microsoft now calls CIFS
OpenWindows will probably only clone bugs that are necessary for application compatibility.
When they break up microsoft, and Bill Gates goes on to lead the applications company, I bet this project will be getting a huge investment, from Bill Gates himself.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Windows is *not* a bad idea.
1. There is no security model because we don't need one. What?! Well, I'm sitting here in a house, anybody who walks by is a relative, so I've got nothing to worry about there. I don't have a static IP or run a server. The network is read-only. I am both user and admin. A security model integrated into the OS would just be cruft. We don't need no steenking chmod.
2. The designers of Windows didn't sit around making assumptions about the intelligence of users. They simply set out to make things easy. There is a subtle distinction there.
3. I'm not aware of any OS that can be separated from the UI. Exactly what would *NIX without a shell look like? :)
OK, enough rebuttals to your arguments, here are some of my own: *NIX people often fail to understand the circumstances underwhich Windows evolved. In fact, the keyword here is *evolved*. Windows evolved from DOS, which was originally designed to run on woefully underpowered PCs. *NIX had the luxury of running on some pretty powerful hardware right from the start. It wasn't until the 386 that *NIX on a PC even began to be practical.
DOS/Win is the real hobbiest OS. When MS was serving the PC community, *NIX was still just for business.
The fact that Windows crashes as often as it does is, surprisingly, also not that important. Why? Because Windows users are not server operators. Uptime is not nearly as important for the typical PC user. Also, most Windows users turn their boxes on and off regularly anyway.
In other words, 90% of the PC users are not using Windows because they are "brainwashed". Windows is a *good* idea.
That said, I agree that attempts to duplicate Windows are misguided. Because it is an evolved system, they are doomed right from the start, not having participated in the last 20 years of evolution. They can also never overcome the fact that Windows is a de-facto standard. Also, the Free Software philosophy is either unimportant or at odds with many Windows developers, who like the MS bu$iness model very much.
Or, to paraphrase a quotation that the *NIX community loves to cite: Those who fail to understand Windows are condemned to reinvent it--poorly.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
There are probably a lot of people who have heard of linux and want to try it out but its too complicated. I think that is this goes well this group of people will be able to use an easier OS. I also hope it's open source so it is as good a linux.
Idle hands are the devil's workshop, but idle minds are much worse
Yes. And the Legal Department is the most innovative part of Sun Microsystems these days.
Just when the world is starting to be weened off microsoft do some people in the open source community decide to REcode windows. There's already plenty duplication of effort out there and this is IMHO almost silly!
It's like trying to make a top fuel funny car out of a Ford Festiva. I'm sure it can be done but why?
If a group is going to do a new OS do a REAL NEW OS. Not the same old crap that has been shoved down our throats. Be had a good idea, and had even better ideas beofre they started (read the BeOS bible). Do something revolutionary, NOT over again. I don't want my computer to act like a file cabinet or have a "desktop." I've never used file cabinets or desks for productivity in the traditional sense. I grew up in the 80's and came of age in the 90's, computers are productive to me. However the current form with it's 1950's metaphors is slow and tired.
I'm sure that these are talented programmers to even attempt a project like this, and while this could seem like a good idea i have to disagree.
If it has taken M$ a decade to get this far, anf they pick their direction. How long will it take a group to complete a moving target where they have to reverse engineer the stuff ???
Is that means they are also going to clone that M$ Outlook bug and the everyone's favorite Blue Screen of Death?
I don't see how volunteers could possibly finish something this big. It's true a lot of the stuff is done with other projects, but it's still big. Look how many people Microsoft has working on Windows, isn't it in the 1000s? Microsoft uses a lot of old code too. I am convinced the project isn't worthwhile, people's efforts should be sent porting stuff to open source OSes, not trying to clone a crappy OS.
An open-source OS to support a closed-source array of software. I don't see any benefits in this, other than easier bug-fixing.
/why/ someone'd want to copy Windows.
Even this may be a moot point, if MS does stupid things to fix their bugs like patching their API for some reason.
Other than the 'we have the source' view, I still don't see
First off, for those who have a dual boot set up to play Windoze games, this is a great chance to purge MS from our systems. A Windows compatable operating system is not completely without merit... here's a chance to write an OS that doesn't crash 2 or 3 times a day, and have REAL protected memory so crashes only happen at the application level. Giving control of more processes to the user would be nice. The fact that it's free will piss off M$ - how can you not smile thinking about that? Wine benifits from the technology, so another plus there.
Can they build this thing and have it done before Windows Millenium is an antique?
My one real reservation is the legal hammer of M$ coming down on this project and crushing Wine is the process.
I hope they do something 'cool' -- maybe the blue screen of death could be red or green or something. That is assuming they will have blue screens of death (to stay fully microsoft compatible of course...)
:)
I for one can think of _nothing_ better to do with my time than to try to reverse engineer an inferior OS, only to 'finish' it just as windows dominance starts to fade.
Not that I'm negative by nature, but cm'on!
"But actually trying to use m4 as a general-purpose langage would be deeply perverse" --ESR
I'd be pleasently surprised if they actually wrote enough code to result in a nontrivial bug !!! Sorry for being so cynical. But I'm sceptical of "projects" that begin with "announcements", "mailing lists", "websites" and the like, as opposed to code.
This project will die a slow and painful death, because it shoots at a moving target. In the spirit of "it ain't a bug, it's a feature", Microsoft can add subtle changes to APIs, add things that seem like bugs but are needed to support functionality, and otherwise force users of Real Windows[tm] to upgrade to the point that all the apps everyone is using are incompatible with wine, openwindows, or any other code that has to play catch up.
Case in point: Does WINE run Office2K? Now, WINE might run Office N where N is old, and some people will try to convince you thats all you need (or that you can use a Corel, Applix, or Sun product instead of Word). But if most of the files you need to read are in Office2K (or some later, purposefully incompatible MS format) then you are screwed. Even if you use linux for scientific computing or a webserver, you are going to be forced back to the MS Windows/Office paradigm to do collaborative writing (or reading) with the majority of folks who don't want to try anything new with their computers.
I'm not happy with this situation, but I don't see much that can be done about it. It is like when you try out an alternative (like Applix or Wordperfect) and notice that the file converters only really do a good job on text. Why aren't formulas, graphics, and formatting converted, too? It is not just diminishing dollar returns from buyers to getting the converter perfect, there are also vastly increasing costs in terms of programmer time -- and a open source project will feel these even if it doesn't care about the dollars. Add to this the disconcerting knowledge that in 2 years, almost surely Microsoft will change the file formats again -- to give you "features" or maybe give their competitors bugs, and the task of an independent windows (or even office suite) seems like a lost cause.
Finally, you see, the lawyers will be unnecessary. Since the project will either fail under the weight of the already huge and buggy windows API, or under the game of catchup trying to follow purposeful, proprietary Microsoft changes, it is best for Microsoft not to call the lawyers out of their hole.
Instead, you'll see "another silent victory for innovation". And more hyped ads about Microsoft having the more reliable, faster, easier to use product.
All trademarks used on this page are owned by their owners.
rm /bin/sh and find out for yourself. My point, actually, is that you can have one, some, or none of a number of available interfaces. With winDOS that is not the case.
In fact, the keyword here is *evolved*.
You don't have to tell me twice. It's obvious that there was no actual design effort put into that pile of crap.
In other words, 90% of the PC users are not using Windows because they are "brainwashed".
That's right. They're using it because it came with their computer and either they're unaware of alternatives or installing software - any software - is too difficult for them. So they use the OS that came with their computer until it breaks, then they get a new computer.
DOS/Win is the real hobbiest OS.
Nonsense. It's clearly targeted at business and the ignorant. Hobbyists are well aware of, and often make use of, various alternatives.
Windows evolved from DOS, which was originally designed to run on woefully underpowered PCs.
Most of the underpowered aspect came from limitations of DOS itself. By 1986 or so DOS, not the hardware, was the limiting factor. That was only about 25% of the way into the history of this "OS." The true hardware limitations of the architecture are still in place thanks to Intel's worship of backwards-compatibility. So you end up with an underpowered OS trying to work around archaic bits of hardware. Both were designed in the early 80s, and neither has ever left that era. Yet that same misdesigned hardware now can run several OS's originally designed for more powerful hardware. Why has Microsoft failed to catch up?
Your point about evolution is well taken. There are known disadvantages to evolution of, for the prime example, life. Much of the human brain, for example, is wasted space. It holds the R-complex and limbic systems, which are really just reptile and mammalian brains, respectively. They hold no knowledge or useful information, but are still there because of evolution. If you want a sillier example, think about the appendix and tailbone. As humans, thinking beings, we have the luxury of tearing down existing designs when improving them. Nature does not have this luxury, which is why we are stuck with vestigial parts and primitive brains. We should take advantage of this opportunity to actually design our creations, several times if necessary, and get them right as much as possible from the start. Evolved software always ends up with the distinctly bad odour of cruft and backwards-compatibility with hardware and other software that should have died out aeons ago. Why apologize for those who make that mistake?
Hmmm, one/two years ago i heard of a project called freedows that had similar ideas. But as far as i can remember they never really coded something useful. Does anyone know where freedows is now? (if it's still alive ;))
With response to is it desirable...
I wonder if their intentions are to just see if it can be done. If you think about it, what is the point of making a free Windows clone? So you can run Microsoft Office? If attempts like Wine can't get the APIs perfect, then is a project like this going to succeed? I think if we look at it from the point of view, "where can we get with it," then yes, a project like this is worthwhile. It seems to me it would be a mistake to have hopes of a high amount of usability.
BTW, I like how they even went so far as to make their page look my Microsoft's homepages...
---
But sue for what? Seriously, I'm asking. Most of the reasons that I can think of have been at least partially shot down already.
- Look and Feel - MS already came out on the winning side when Apple sued them for stealing their L&F.
- API's - As long as the API's are reproduced without looking at MS source, isn't this the same case that Sony isn't having much luck with against Connectix for reproducing the PSX API's?
- General binary compatibility (I can't think of a better term here) - If I'm not mistaken, courts tend to frown on selective enforcement of intellectual property rights. If MS lets WINE exist and then decides to sue the OpenWindows people, they've got a long case ahead of them.
I figure there's something I'm missing here, but maybe there would be enough holes in the case that they wouldn't sue.Sure.
xyzzy
Depends on which programmers the OpenSource project have and which programmers MS have. If the OS project had Alan Cox and Linus, sure it'd do well. But they don't. Until they can show us something more than big promises, I'm a tad sceptical. And I don't think a competent programmer would mouth off and make promises that big without having a product on the table.
Think about it though..
Is it Office and IE that have problems? Or is it the platform they are running on?
From exp Ive used IE5 on Solaris with nary a problem, so I begin to think its the Win9x architecture. I dont have any problems with IE or Office under Windows2000 either, which isnt based of that Win9x setup. Yes, IE still does crash, but much more gracefully and less often then before.
So really, I dont think its the apps with the problems, but the OS itself
----------------------------------
Looking for hardware (Currently need: Large Etch-a-Sketch) Have one? See my journal!
As I understand the situation, M$ has 'undocumented' calls that are considered 'well known'. Because these 'well known' calles are 'undocumented', M$ *CAN* change them at will, and has done this. It has not been proven that M$ makes these changes as the result of sloppy coding, mindless design changes, or a deliberate plan to break other companies software.
/. link about this very idea...that M$ is willing to break their own API to break others code.
It is alledged that Lotus 123 and RealPlayer/Quicktime had the API change "between releases". Or the quote about a MS-DOS version was "it don't ship 'till 123 don't run". Few seemed to be willing to suspend disbelieve that Micro$oft is willing to change parts of the API to break other people's code.
This is a
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
--
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
Um, one difference between the radio and Napster is that artists get paid when their music plays on the radio. Ever hear of ASCAP and BMI? These organizations license radio stations to play copyrighted music, and much of the fees paid go back to the artists. See http://www.ascap.com
--tim
Disclosure: I am the only remaining founder of the ReactOS (Formally FreeWin95, and WOS) from 1995, and the person who coined the name ReactOS. Take a look at the ReactOS project. www.reactos.com. We have been working on it for the last many years, and are not even close to finished, I believe we are the furthest along (cept for Wine, but thats not a OS project). Maybe we should consolidate the effort of all these others and focus on one projects. Things would get done faster. Currently we only have a few DEDICATED programmers and members of the project. I appreciate them. We always welcome more. http://www.reactos.com
Jeff Knox
Wow. Where have we heard that before? The "initial enthusiasm" is starting to wane before they even have a single release? Sounds like the legendary "Freedows project". If anything, these ambitious "I want to build an OS" projects prove that it is easy to emulate Microsoft in one regard: generation of vapor and hype.
These folks are looking to recruit programmers, but they don't have a project, a CVS repository, or even any code -- just an idea. That's really ridiculous.
It's as if these developers woke up one morning and thought "Hey, I've got a great idea! I can't implement it, but I can make web sites! I'll make a web site and programmers will flock to implement it for me for free!"
This is really no different than the "Hey, I've got a great idea! I have no product/profits, but I'll generate a lot of hype, IPO, and become rich" which caused the stock bubble to burst. It's really unfortunate that the community, so rich with good projects, has encouraged this sort of "crying 'wolf'" even with no profit motive.
~wog
Two things to say:
-David
I'm still waiting for the FreeDOS clone of plain and simple DOS. Just being able to fdisk and format a hard drive with free software would be of great use to the used PC people! Considering Microsofts creative licensing schemes. Many old hard drives need to be wipped clean before business will let them be carted off.
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
With regards to 'why hasn't someone thrown a lot of money at this?'; the words 'intellectual property', 'patent', 'copyright', and last but certainly not least 'sue the pants off of' come to mind. I'd be willing to bet I'm one of the most pro-MS Slashdot readers out there, but even I don't think MS is *THAT* nice to not raise serious hell.
Here's a quote from tom piwowar, the mac guy of computer guys radio show(http://www.wamu.org/computerguys/index.html). I like linux but this quote makes a very important point regarding OpenWindows " I made a very important discovery. There is a very important function for Linux. Linux dispells ignorance for windows users. All these years, windows users have been mystified at the reaction they get from mac users when they come over and talk about windows. The mac user looks at you like you just pooped on the floor! You go [imitating windows user] 'Hey, what did I just..Bill Gates is god..what do you mean, did I say something wrong?' [laughing] Well, now what windows users need to do is go over and look at the Linux X-windows, the GUI. And they've got office applications that run under that. And they need to use it for a while and see how they feel. And what they're going to feel like is that this is a very impoverished user interface, that everything is much slower, that there are more steps, and that it's much more complicated. They're going to feel just like a macintosh user feels when they see windows! So all you windows users, go out there and spend some time with Linux. And then you'll understand what where talking about!"--Tom Piwowar
I don't know what world you live in, but in mine, the majority of people are still using Windows. I wish it weren't true, but it is.
"It makes no sense to do this at all"
I bet you people were saying this about Linux not too many years ago. I bet people still say it today.
Why use FAT? It's a simple and easy to impliment filesystem, besides being the Windows standard. A well designed OS will be able to support multiple file systems, and they can move on in the future.
Is this effort doomed from the start (assuming it's not a hoax)? Quite probably, but I bet you they'll learn a lot in the process and have fun. That's what hackers do.
Besides the fact that everything you are saying is completely right, I still think they have a point. Their intention, if true, is amazingly good. Could you think of Linux like it is today, 10 years ago? Could you think of Windows 2000 when you look back at Windows 1.01? It's the crazy ideas that change the world. Contemplating is very easy, but realizing you need to do something hard and doing it, that's the hard part. And we all must go thru that part, whenever we need to choose...
/* c. hs laviola
claviola@rj.sol.com.br, uin# 55799523 */
I think we need to consider the notion that regular users will NEVER go to *NIX as it is now, they are not coders, and they don't want to be. They want something that is easy to use and works... I do suspect we'll end up with an OS that has some of the ideas of *NIX, but the usablity of Windows. Perhaps this project is it. Perhaps they will keep some *NIX concepts, like multi-user, and security, etc, and use an interface that boots and is easy to use, hopefully a lot more stable than MS's version. I hope they succeed.
--Joshua
I wonder how much time they're going to put into making is 100% compatible with all the virus code out there...
No, think about it. IE for Macintosh is well-known for being standards-compliant and relatively stable. IE for Windows is well-known for the exact opposite. Netscape runs fine for me under Windows but crashes constantly in Linux. So you can't compare IE/Windows with IE/Solaris either because they have different teams and codebases (I think, I could be wrong on this point).
Also - Windows 2000 is not based on Win9x, it's based on Windows NT - which explains why it's more stable, and again, not a fair comparison.
Besides, since Internet Explorer is so integrated into the OS that it won't even run properly without it, you better believe that Windows stability problems are caused (in part) by IE bugs.
"Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try."
What's the point of this. Isn't this why the Linux operating system exists. All this effort for a project which is already going strong (i.e. Linux.)
I am currently not obliged to divulge that information as it might compromise the agents in the field
Remember, the mouse was intended to slow a user down
Can you cite a source for that? Whether or not the mouse slows you down or speeds you up depends on how you use it.
Speed-up example: Double-clicking a program to launch it vs. actually typing in the command.
Slow-down example: del *.txt (when the directory has 1000 text files in it).
I've found there are some things the mouse does well, and some things the keyboard does better.
For example, when I need to highlight text, I do it with the mouse rather than moving the cursor with the keyboard and using shift-arrow. This is faster because the mouse can leap over text without any repeat-rate restrictions (and yes, my repeat rate is maxed out). But then when I copy the text, I ctrl-C ctrl-V, because that is plainly faster than the menu.
So, if the mouse was intended to slow users down, it was not successful.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
D'oh, I misunderstood what you were saying about Windows 2000. No, it's not based on Win9x, but OpenWindows will be, and that's what we're talking about. So what if it's a free implementation? The architecture will be the same regardless.
"Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try."
This is an interesting project, however, It does raise a few questions...
Which Windows flavor will they clone? NT4, 2000, ME, 98? As we know, there are quite a few differences in between each OS, and when writing software for cross-platform compatibility, you encouter weird stuff. I mean, It's about impossible to emulate all the versions at once since the apps that are out there do lot's of stuff that's non-portable between all the versions... (e.g. which version of TweakUI would function under such an OS)?
Also, will this Open Source OS behave like the real Windows, or will it work like the documentation says it should. Lots of API functions are poorly documented and this could be a huge obstacle in development, although the doc seems to get better with each release of MSDN.
Just wondering...
JP
--- Worst tagline ever.
No, their manifesto says the code will be GPL'ed and copyrighted to the Project instead of each developer helding their copyrights on things they write (the linux kernel, for example, does that, and then lists almost everybody in the CREDITS file and the proper source codes, which I think is what they're going to do).
/* c. hs laviola
claviola@rj.sol.com.br, uin# 55799523 */
well, seeing how many developers it took to architect and implement windows, don't you think this might be a tad misdirected. I mean, if you think the ms version of windows returns a lot of gpfs, what about an open source version that is hacked together. Without a very disciplined team developing the code, you'll have pointers flying all over the place. I had a hard enough time trying to keep nachos in check... Good Luck.
kick some CAD
If any of these projects actually produce a product that has a chance of switching current Windows users, how long do you think it would take for Microsoft to sue? I have strong doubts about it even being feasible though, considering many Windows standards are closed-source. Would reverse-compiling be involved to get needed info? If so, that is more than enough grounds for a winning lawsuit.
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
It isn't a bad idea; it's a bad implementation of an average idea by people beholden to Stockholders and the marketing dept.
1. There is no security model because we don't need one. What?! Well, I'm sitting here in a house, anybody who walks by is a relative, so I've got nothing to worry about there. I don't have a static IP or run a server. The network is read-only. I am both user and admin. A security model integrated into the OS would just be cruft. We don't need no steenking chmod.
One word:Viruses! Before you jump, the Morris worm was 12 years ago....
2. The designers of Windows didn't sit around making assumptions about the intelligence of users. They simply set out to make things easy. There is a subtle distinction there.
The intuitiveness of Windows is at best debatable. It is based on unclear metaphors and assumptions about what people want. Remember, the mouse was intended to slow a user down. Don't even mention the crufty kernel and really hamfisted device management. Remember trying to update a driver for a NIC in Win95a? It has only become more obvious, not any better.
3. I'm not aware of any OS that can be separated from the UI. Exactly what would *NIX without a shell look like?
Embedded devices.
Emoticons only tip off the sophistication of the TROLL.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
Is it really a great idea to name a windowing os the same thing as a well-known windowing environment?
--
That's because it uses NetInfo, I think. It's like Sun's YP. It's a managment database--the /etc/passwd file is just there for form.
--
Max V.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
Okay... dare I ask... do they dare to make it 100% compatible?
:)
"My open windows just blue screened on me!" would this be good?
hehe. hokay. seriously. this would be a neat idea. make it that much easier for people to port applications back and forth between all the different OSes out there, with this much more research into the windows structure, and all.
javajawa# sleep
Meh
Sometimes it's better to throw out the old version and start from scratch. That was the decision made with Mozilla, and it seems to have been a good one (though the jury's still out, I think).
Microsoft even did it to some extent with NT. Win2K (NT5) sucks a whole lot less than 98.
Which got me thinking, *NIX is evolved too, it's just a different branch. Remember what people were saying here about X being "crufty"?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
There is an NT cloning project called ReactOS already going on. These guys ought to join up with that effort.
You had me at "dicks fuck assholes".
But I'm happy to see that it doesn't seem like the team behind all this have managed to produce a single line of code yet. The biggest news on the page seems to be the great progress of the website!
Personally I don't think that there even is a need for a free windows clone. How many of you guys pay for windows anyway? Like mp3 I'll pay for it if i feel it's worth the money.
This probably won't get noticed, with the volume of posts this story is generated, but it never hurts to throw some ideas out there, does it? :-)
:-) I know nothing of the legal implications of this, so is it do-able from a legal standpoint? Would the DOJ ever in a million years go for it?
:-) One of two things will happen after I post this: it will either get lost in the sea of other posts and no one will see it, or someone else has all ready said this and I will be lambasted for my blantant lack of creativity. Oh well, I guess that's the price you pay for being a social animal. :-) :-))
Anyways, so I was going through the comments for this story, and an idea suddenly struck me from outta the greyish-pink: What if Microsoft undertook a project like this? What I mean is, suppose, as a settlement for the whole anti-trust issue perhaps, Microsoft created an open-sourced version of Windows, instead of releasing the source-code to Windows. Obviously, this presents a multitude of implementation problems: microsoft would have to devise ways to keep the software fully compatible with windows while writing it in sucha a way that "protects" whatever secrets they are wanting to preserve that is keeping them from just releasing windows source in the first place.
Of course, the chances of a project like this being undertaken by Microsoft are none to negative, but, suppose they did decide to get the government off their backs by providing their own free alternative to windows (I guess they would need to add extra "features" to get people to buy their not-nearly-free versions), would it be possible, even for microsoft? Or, do you think, Microsoft only knows one way to write Windows, so it's either the same code, or no code? Do you think consumers would still buy the not-so-cheap "Windows Deluxe"? (The average consumer doesn't care much for source code, but prices certainly get their attention) Ok, one last question.
All right, I think I'm done for now. That was quite a mouthfull (finger-full, I guess I should say).
(By the way, for those of you that happened to find it, and sat through my ravings, I humbly thank you for you time.
Take care!
--Ricky
-------------------------------------------
I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells.
-- Dr. Seuss
I'm gonna get modded down for this, but...
Is it even desirable? Are you on crack?
Fuck you. Just because you are too blinded by blatant zealotry to see what windows has to offer doesnt mean everyone is. Windows is a great platform where games and whatnot are concerned, and, dare I say, a good platform for beginning coders. Not everyone likes a shitty non-anti-aliased xterm or an outdated command line. Some people would appreciate a free alternative to a good product made by an evil company.
And whether you like win or not, it has some great software available.
I hope they remember to put in a bunch of code that makes it randomly crash and frequently displays a blue screen to the end user. This would mimic the look and feel and make it very familiar to the masses.
No thanks. I don't smoke anymore.
I agree with most of what you say, to coin a cliche, "Horses for courses".
However:
Uptime is not nearly as important for the typical PC user. Also, most Windows users turn their boxes on and off regularly anyway.
Pardon? I dont think so - ask any user who has to reboot their Windows box 2 or 3 times in a working day, and see what they think about uptime not being important.
Really though, everybody used to expect a certain standard from computers. These days, even Joe Blow Windows user is starting to lower these standards.
--- I hate my sig
It's the crazy ideas that change the world.
Yes, some crazy ideas change the world. Others simply fail miserably, as I predict this one will.
100% compatible? So I can crash it just as easily? Exactly what we need! 100% compatible BSODs! :-)
Seriously, this sounds like a waste of time. There's no way they are going to be able to implement all the APIs and drivers, etc. that microsoft has kept closed and proprietary. If they are really interesed in doing something useful like this, I'd expect that Wine could always use some help.
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
I remember when I first read about Freedows. They had such lofty goals, and being rather new to the open source community and seeing the success of Linux, Apache, Perl, and the other biggies, I believed them when they said "We're confident that we'll have this done before the end of 1998." And then it wasn't. And then the website started saying things like "everyone knows this is just a hobby, right? If you're stressing out about it, talk to me, we'll find someone to pick up your slack."
Then came along Alliance OS. Seems a lot of disgruntled Freedows developers migrated to that project after Freedows flopped. It was the same idea, based on the Stanford Cache Kernel paper, except it didn't seem so intent on emulating Windows (though it allowed for writing a layer of compatibility). It seemed really to be going somewhere, with regular status updates, a web page for every subteam, apparently they even had a 1MB source archive. Unfortunately, about half a year ago, the status updates just stopped. The page is still up, you can check it out, but I'm afraid we can consider that one RIP as well. How sad.
I can speak from personal experience when I say that it's easy to look at the success of major open source projects and forget that the authors of them weren't home-educated, CS degree-less adolescents like I am. They were serious computer programmers who knew their stuff before they began. These projects didn't happen by magic, and they weren't effortless fun. Success takes real work. No one will magically write the next vim in a weekend.
I hope that OS development based on the Stanford Cache Kernel comes to be one day. Though I don't know enough about OS internals to understand the merits of it, from the way the FAQs for these projects would talk about it it sounds like a great idea.
Perhaps OS innovation doesn't belong in the open source community. Linux wasn't innovation, it was re-implementation. Maybe writing an open source OS at all is too much. Linus just happened to pick the perfect time in history, where interest was high enough and communication easy enough that a vacuum was filled. No new OS project these days will ever attract the mindshare Linux did (and still does).
I'd almost suggest that if these guys want something to do, that they go and grab the Alliance tarball and start hacking away, but their FTP server seems to be indefinitely down. Ah well...
--
But it's gonna take so long that by the time they finish a decent clone compatible with, say Win98 or Win2000, Microsoft will be a couple versions ahead. That is, even if they succeed in creating software compatible with Windows, Microsft can easily make it uncompatible by releasing a version with new "features".
IMHO, It's a lose of time...
Why not enforce the development of emulators or good programs for good free OSes like GNULinux or FreeBSD?
- Ademar
http://www.inf.ufpr.br/~ademar
"Emacs is a nice OS - but it lacks a good text editor.. That's why I'm using VIM"
UNIX started out on a PDP-7, hardware that was less powerful than even the original IBM PC. BSD versions ran just fine on PDP-11 machines with 64k or 128k of RAM and fairly sluggish processors. Xerox PARC had also some version of Smalltalk on early PC hardware, including GUI. People had multitasking systems with hierarchical file systems even on 8bit processors.
In fact, it appears that even IBM had a good multitasking OS ready for the IBM PC. But they couldn't ship it because they had been under investigation by the justice department for tying software and hardware sales.
The limitations of the original PC hardware (which, themselves, were a result of IBM's greed unwillingness to cut into its own business) are no excuse for the lousy design of DOS or Windows.
That's because volume and marketing from IBM drove the cost down, not because of any technical features of DOS/Windows.
The story of Windows is similar. Systems like the Atari ST, the Macintosh, and the Amiga also showed that you could do a lot better than Windows when it came to designing a Windows-like OS (simple, no protection, etc.). Windows again was technically the bottom of the barrel and only caught on because of greed and strategic errors by their competitors, and aggressive marketing and cut-throat business tactics by Microsoft.
Nobody's yet 'designed' a good OS, and nobody's designing them anymore... just a little scary.
John
John_Chalisque
"You must agree to all terms stated in the manifesto in order to become an OWP Developer. Any violation of the terms stated in the manifesto will result in the termination of your membership in the Project and the disuse of any aspects of the Project you have participated in creating. "
If you violate the manifesto, your code will be removed from the project. A boys club, where if you don't play by the rules, you'll be kicked out. And what are the rules?
"This manifesto, and all other aspects of the Open Windows Project can change at any time, with no warning. "
So the manifesto can be changed retroactively, without warning. Retroactive modifications go completely against the spirit of free software.
And who has the authority to change the manifesto? Who is, this "Project"?
Not that it really matters. It looks like another lame brained project.
Bugs come from open windows.
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Son, Let me tell you that I have Corel Photo Paint for Linux ( the alpha ) and it runs under Linux with Wine that comes with it and it runs very well. So Wine is doing fine. I run many apps with the same one I used to run Photo Paint with. Get a clue.
http://www.freedows.org/ ... this really isn't a new idea ... freedows has had the idea for quite a while now ...
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
gotta love it when someone offers to take your credit cards...
and doesn't even have a website.
be afraid... be very afraid.
I would have to say that I am somewhat dissapointed in all the negativity surrounding this announcement. What is the worst that can happen? The project goes nowhere. So what? It's not your time, you don't have to participate. There are alot of other things that are worse uses of time I am sure.
There are incredible benifits if this turns out to be even moderatly succesful. First of all, it there was an open source OS that made windows irrelevant, then open source would go from being something on the fringe and an "upcoming trend in software" to the standard, and people would realize that they wouldn't have to settle for anything less.
I think that the thing that most people really don't like about Microsoft is their unethical and monopolistic buisness tactics. I think that both windows and linux (and I am sure other OS's which I haven't tried ) have some great features and things that need to be improved (windows more than most as far as anything under the covers). Something like this, if successful would really cause microsoft to take a hit, and maybe even make a better OS. One of the indirect benifits of Linux is that it is causing Micrsoft to actually compete with someone instead of going at their own pace, and giving people just enough to keep upgrading or using windows. Any competition is good competition, I imagine this could have the same effect.
As for the time it would take, I am sure it would be substantial, but the hardest part for me when writing a program is just being sure about exactly what I want. A benifit about this is that you know how everything should react and look, so all the design is already done.
I think it would be great if slashdot could get an interview with these guys.
(No I am not sticking up for windows, I like linux alot better, and am still trying to learn it well enough to use it exclusivly)
This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
Lurking in the shadows is a critical stumbling block for any attempt to make a "pure" emulator (100% non-Microsoft code): the redistributable DLLs that ship with applications. These include the C runtime sytem (MSVCRT.DLL), the Microsoft Foundation Classes (MFC42.DLL), and the OLE runtime system (OLE32.DLL, OLEAUT32.DLL). The license terms for these DLLs state explicitly that they may only be installed on Microsoft operating systems.
So any emulator has to reinvent these DLLs from scratch. And don't forget there are about 20+ versions of each one, and some apps run only with specific versions, i.e. DLL Hell.
This is why a pure emulator is never going to fly.
p.s. standard IANAL disclaimers.
This is what I find as far as stability goes:
Windows 98 is stable enough to go for hours without a restart
Win2k is stable enough to go for days without a restart
Linux is stable enough to go for months without a restart
One of the big reasons why windows is unstable and linux is very stable is that windows has a number of very bad third party binary only drivers, and linux has few if any.
Not necessarily. Most Win32 applications aren't hideously tied to the OS. Thus, you can implement the actual OS any way you want as long as you're complient with the API. NT is proof that the OS needn't look any particular way to work with Win32. As for Win32 itself, it isn't a turd. The OS that it's driving is a turd. (Though NT is a pretty damn good OS.) Win32 itself, coupled with DirectX and COM is actually a pretty good API, certainly one that is worth putting up with for the sake of compatability.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Redmond Linux made by an ex-Microsoft employee, aims to make Linux even easier to use than Windows. So why would we need OpenWindows? Redmond Linux already have Beta 1 out. ;-)
--
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
Or, Freedows? Or, for a completely different argument, haven't they ever heard of OpenWindows, Sun Microsystems' implementation of X11 (also, Sun's name for their OPEN LOOK desktop environment/session-manager)? Sun might consider this an abuse of their trademark (even though they're trying to sink the OPEN LOOK ship and embrace bletcherous CDE and Motif, instead).
Pining for the days when The Glorious MEEPT!!! graced SlapDash with his wisdom.
No, record companies often PAY the radio stations to play their stuff. They do this through middlemen so it doesn't seem too obvious.
I personally think that something like Wine is much more interesting. It makes you able to run Windows programs while it doesnt limit you to it.
The alternative i use myself is Win4Lin. It might be a sucky solution to actually run 2 operating systems at the same time, but hey, it lets me use all the Windows programs i need except for Diablo 2 :)
Hello,
I'm new to slashdot so you will have to forgive me if I am doing this wrong, your comment is the first shaft of light I have had in my desire to master Linux. I have been trying since last November and it is doing my confidence no good at all, please could you email me more info. on what POSIX actually is. You have accuratly defined what has been causing me all the problems, I have tried more than one distro and every time I have tried to configure things, I have come up against the same brickwall, that being, when I try to configure how linux works, from a config utility some obscure file somewhere that I can never seem to find out where it is, overrides those settings and I am back to square one. I think I have configured my slashdot user info with an email address that will reach me. Help me with this problem and you will be my friend for life.
Pete.
It's called an elephant's trunk whereas it is in fact, an elephant's nose, a nose by any other name would smell as sweet
Isn't it possible to program a very basic, stripped down Windows clone that is at least Win95 compatible? For example, are you guys saying it's impossible just to get a familiar looking GUI that loads over DOS, displays 256 (or even just 16) colors in VGA mode, and has a mouse running? And could such a GUI be made so it can load up some very basic, simple Windows 95 programs -- like the calculator, the paint program, solitaire? I'm not a programmer but I do understand the complexity involved in programming an OS. Yet the above to me simply does not sound impossible to do today and in a fairly short amount of time. To me, it looks like the problem is is that many of the Windows clone projects have attempted to recreate the OS in its entirety from the start. If a team put together a very basic, working version of a Windows 95 clone described above, released it to the public and open-sourced it, it would start the ball rolling. Please enlighten me why the above is impossible/hard to pull off because I'd like to know why. It really looks to me that the issue of whether or not a Windows clone can be made centers really on limiting one's vision for the first version of such an OS. AF
If OpenWindows succeded, and was open source, then Linux projects like Wine would have an open source code to pick through. Wine could successfully emulate all the APIs, and do a much better job of emulating. I wish them good luck!
My email is real.
When you were younger, did ya ever gather your friends and plan to build a big tree house, convince everyone you could do it, and never get to it? You know that videogame you're always gonna write? That symphony? Your novel? ... this is the same thing, ain't gonna happen :) A bunch of people got really excited about this idea, put up a webpage, and tried to ignore that little voice in the back of their head called common sense.
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
This is the core question. ms has done a fine job a cludging together a heap of backward compatibility and bloat that somehow manages to boot. We should be learning from the glaring failures in windows as we point, laugh and learn. Programers should learn new things everyday, but not the same things.
How much fun is punching a brick wall that already has many holes in it?
Start me up
Attention would-be artists.
OW is looking for artwork. We want
your ideas for startup/shudown and
off screens. We will accept
submissions until 15 August. At that
time the public will vote on the
winning screens. So what will it be?
Minimalist? Extravagant?
You makethe call! Submissions must be
640x480 at 256 colors (16 color
beauties will also be accepted). Send
you compressed entry (jpeg, png, or
zipped bitmap) to
openwindows_2000@yahoo.com
Website making great progress
The Open Windows website is making
great progress adding a news
section, a cleaner look and a great
public face for the project.
Open Windows News
The Open Windows News System has
been installed successfully. Now the
team leaders can post public news.
I'm afraid time has shown that any project concerned with a news system, development of their web site, and startup and shutdown screens (!) before having LOTS of code to show, doesn't have much promise.
I mean really:
From: <linus@torvolds.net>
Date: Jun 30, 1993
Hello, I have an idea for a great OS. I have a website up, and a news system, and I just drew startup and shutdown screens. They're really cool. So anyway, I was thinking I'd write an OS. Who wants to jump on board?
Linus
--
Even though this sounds like a good idea, I really think that a Windows compatible Linux distribution would be alot better. This would really make alot of newbies to choose Linux.
;)
The bigger disadvantages with linux for the average user is that it's still rather complicated, and the software is still limited (atleast in some areas, e.g. games).
If there was a Linux distribution where you could run win programs, and have a GUI looking like windows, it would really draw a crowd. There could even be multiple presets in the GUI: one just like Windows, one a bit more like Linux, and one hardcore Linux..
A better example: try beating me in Q3A using only the keyboard...
You know I have dedicated some thought to this, and I don't really see how Napster is different than phoning your local radio station, or MTV, or MuchMusic (hi Canada!) and requesting a song. You get what you want, more or less when you want it, and you can use conventional tools to record it and then you really have it. What you are not doing is burning an exact lookalike of the artists album, and selling it en masse for big bucks. Then what are you stealing? Nothing, a bunch of Fourier vibrations.
When I want to hear a song right now, I download it off Napster, and I listen to it. If its good, maybe I want to hear more of this artist, maybe I think the artist has good music, and a good image, so I'll buy their CD, even at today's ridiculous CD prices which they said would come down shortly after the release of CD technology.
Oh and about that radio thing, I can request music, but when they play those 3-4 minute stints of ads, I turn off my radio, so no one is making money off me hearing thier music/ads. Yes I also block banner ads in my browser.
Lars -
This won't clear up shoddily written applications such as Excel. Windows itself works fine, it's poorly written applicatons that cause the majority of the errors. Explorer crashes because it has bugs. Excel causes numerous page faults and other memory errors, and is so poorly written that it causes faults in itself. Rewrite 'windows' all you want, it won't fix the problem, just the symptom.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
TGL
--- this space intentionally left blank.
You're right. That seems kinda commercial and lame to me. I didn't read that, thanks for pointing it out.
/* c. hs laviola
claviola@rj.sol.com.br, uin# 55799523 */
There's lots of red herrings out there. Don't be fooled.
The game is afoot!
OpenWindows will be based on the FreeDOS kernel at first.
DOS programs will run in OpenWindows.
ReactOS is an NT clone and will therefore generally not run DOS programs.
They will both be working with the Wine people once they are ready to implement the API
Why do so many people go shooting their mouth off when they don't know what the fuck they're talking about?
A Win9x system boots to DOS... for anywhere from about 2 seconds or so to as long as it takes to load any real mode drivers or configure any hardware that isn't totally supported by Windows... Most new systems have no such hardware - mine certainly doesn't. As soon as DOS loads WIN.COM, the Windows kernel32 fires up, switches the processor from real mode to protected mode, and unloads DOS. The kernel loads drivers, the hardware gets initialized, the user interface loads, and that's Windows. If you open a DOS prompt while you're running Windows, DOS is running in a virtual machine, on top of Windows.
Feel free to quote me on that to any die-hard Linux evangelist who doesn't know shit about how Win9x functions. I agree, it is a buggy, backwards-compatible-hacked-together mess of code, but it isn't running on top of DOS anymore.
Just like it's impossible to completely reverse engineer .DOC, it's going to be impossible to clone winDOS. Certain 'features' of winDOS are just NoGo code that solified into the morass. Unlike Linux, which can be POSIX-compliant and therefore has a particular behavior goal, winDOS is just whatever MS says it is.
I should have been more clear. Those parts of the brain, to whatever extent they are still in use, are responsible only for bad elements of human behavior such as territorialism and mating instincts. This is probably an example of such.
OK, asbestos jacket on... Almost every post I've seen on this appears to assume that Windows=Win9x. While this may be true from a home user, gaming perspective, it's simply not at all true in the bigger picture. Yes, Win9x are horrible operating systems, but they do perform acceptably for most end users. If you try to use Win9x for more demanding tasks (read: anywhere in a business environment) then you deserve everything you get.
/.ers wouldn't post so many attacks on something they don't have a decent understanding of. Or base criticism of Windows in general on Win9x in particular. (Which I'm sure will get thrown straight back at me as people attack my lack of *NIX knowledge...)
If you look at WinNT or Win2K instead, then you start making a lot less sense. Win2K does not assume that it's smarter than you - I think you're probably complaining that the GUI tools are too limiting. The GUI tools are very useful when you have a limited number of servers to administer, but yes, they can become a pain when you have to repeat a task over 5+ boxes. Win2K exposes consistent interfaces which make almost any task programmatically possible. Look at COM/DCOM for full-blown apps, and the various scripting possibilities for sysadmin work - WMI and WSH, for example (and Perl's Win32 module, if you go outside the OS).
As for an OS that cannot be separated from its UI, why would you want to? After all, any OS is useless without a shell of some sort. You're complaining that you can't change the shell (in fact, you can, but it's not for the faint-hearted), which is a different and much more reasonable argument.
Security - WinNT has always had a security model, based on the idea that everything is an object (compare UNIX: everything is a file). In fact, compared to UNIX file permissions and groups, the Windows model is a hell of a lot better. Commerical *NIX vendors have introduced ACL-style permissions on files, just like the Windows ones, because they allow far more flexibility and control. The 'owner-group-world' approach is very simplistic.
I won't argue with you re. FAT, which is a very poor choice of file system - NTFS would be much better. You get security, journalling and more advanced features like write-through calls (important for databases and other transaction-protected processes), and encryption (Win2K only).
As for the hoax idea, you could just be right. Trying to re-write Windows is just too big a task - Microsoft have integrated elements of the operating system so tightly that you have to code a very large chunk of the OS before it's usable. *NIX, being much more modular, is easier to reproduce. This is not necessarily a bad thing - for example, in a Windows NT environment, handling web app security by having IE pass your access token direct to IIS is a great idea. A full Windows environment (NT, IIS, MSSQL, Exchange, etc.) gives you genuine single sign-on, which is something that people devote huge amounts of time, money and energy to trying to achieve in mixed environments.
So, bottom line, Windows!=Win9x. I wish
The quote was "DOS ain't done till Lotus won't run".
Of course, there was actually very good reasons why 1-2-3 had problems. In it's day it was the most memory intensive application people ran on PCs, and consequentally Lotus had to invent their own expanded memory API (The LIM EMS spec). Later on, MS invented 386 XMS extended memory, and of course considered EMS to be depreciated.
That was all a long time ago though, and I don't know if there are any credible stories about the API changing with modern Windows versions. (The Real/QuickTime thing was about file type registration, IIRC.) Something like 98% of Windows 3.1 apps run on Win 98, and there's even some hidden tools to tweak it to run Windows 2.0 programs. Furthermore, any API change has a high enough likelyhood of breaking one of Microsoft's own applications that it would probably scare them off.
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
We've already been over this:
Freedows: www.freedows.org
Alliance OS: www.allos.org
(Alliance OS broke off from Freedows because of lack of progress and dissatisfaction with the "management"; see the Slashdot article above).
ReactOS (an NT clone): www.reactos.com
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
you are a sucker. You have been brainwashed by geek 'street-cred' 1337. You make so many foolish assumptions that I can't even begin to rebut them but I guess I have to try:
...It's obvious that there was no actual design effort put into that pile of crap."
/bin/sh", I will hazard the guess that you are a Linux advocate. Furthermore, in response to your overtly hostile tone, I will infer that you are in fact a lowly zealot.
...place thanks to Intel's worship of backwards-compatibility."
...They hold no knowledge or useful information, but are still there because of evolution"
"
Obviously your flippant attitude towards this multi-billion dollar effort called 'Win98' suggests advocacy of alternative OSs. Since you are probably not a billionaire software success, I'd guess you haven't exactly succeeded in presenting your own alternative OS. That would lead to the ready assumption that you partake or prefer of another OS. Since end user grade OSs are limited in number, and since you refer to a specific Unix command with "rm
That being the case, It is only reasonable for me to find myself compelled to mention that THERE IS NO ACTUAL DESIGN EFFORT PUT INTO THAT PILE OF CRAP known as Linux. This OS you are so vehemently proud of represents exactly zero coherent 'design' across the many layers of an OS. From the randomness of the UI syntax or widgetry, to the complete and utter lack of consistent and timely hardware support to the pedantic and onerous development of the kernel, there is nothing whatsoever impressive about linux development and planning. When we start getting into unified driver models, shell consistency, robust and dependable API's that create another strata of sophistication (like COM is above the HAL), only then will Linux become a worthwhile user experience.
I'm sure you are proud of your detailed knowledge of the cryptic tangled mess that is Linux today, but it has almost nothing to do with getting the job done in a quick and efficent way. The time it takes just to familiarize yourself with it all is already costing you, instead of increasing your wealth- if you are in any sort of business not directly related to computers. Since zealotry is entirely to blame for the short-sightedness and failure to overcome design errors in Linux, it is fair to say that you might as well stfu and go home, because you are causing much more damage to OSS and Linux than you are doing good at tearing down the Windows Hegemony.
"
I have worked at/on many firms that still rely on 286's to this very day! Law Firms, Collection Agencies, Insurance brokers, almost all of them are able to function on Dos 5.0 and a 386. many of them do. Wordperfect, Peachtree and Foxpro are some of the main apps still in use today. Why are MS and Intel dominant? Because they have a huge software base and support backwards compatability. How did they acquire such a huge install base in the first place? because they were there and provided an 'Open Hardware' model and a consistent development environment. No need to worry about the proprietary hardware and OS coming out of Honneywell or HP or Digital or Fujitsu or Samsung or any of the big iron mfctr's of years past. PC companies made hardware to a standard. PC companies wrote software to a standard. there were few licensing retrictions in place to limit the development plans and market pressures. In fact, the only companies hobbled by the licensing restrictions were those companies that sold prebuilt systems, the Dells and Compaqs. A small price to pay, and in fact, Intel and MS were as much to thank for building the PC clone's business as the other way around. Remember, the x86 rose to dominance out of the morass of C64, Apple/Mac, TRS-80, TI-99 4/a, etc. The deciding factor in the alternatives' demise is the closed hardware model. Apple is still hanging in there, but it ebbs and flows. maybe we will live to see them switch over to MS OS's in the future, we'll see how it goes. But the point is that there were some things done right by mocrosoft and intel that have really advanced the state of the art and focused the community of developers and engineers to hug the bleeding edge. Soft hearted communistic OS efforts will only thwart the madcap sprint into the future of High-Tech.
"
even here you reveal yourself to be a fool. The human mind governs a LOT more that you will ever know. In fact, memories are stored in a volume, not a mere linear format. holographic even, with endless interconnections and cross references. You are discussing an architecture well outside your grasp. talk to the hand, don't even go there.
stfu and just go home.
-=(V)0(V)0cr0(V)3=-
If this project succeeds, they'd have complete cloen of Windows. Now the question comes: why would I use a system that differs from Windows in only one thing - no Microsoft support? At least with the real Windows I can yell at Microsoft tech support when it doesn't work, with their product I'll have the same system with all it's design deficiences and no multi-milliard-dollar corp working around the clock to keep it alive? Well, I better pay for a real Windows, thanks.
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
As most of you probably know, especially those of you who have used it, Windoze is an overpriced piece of garbage. While rewriting the OS may be possible, it isn't really worth the developer's time. If I were them, I would try to reengineer some cooler operating system such as OS/2 or Tru64 as they are much more reliable and functional systems anyway. +, they would be great additions to the ever-growing Free Software repository ;-)
-----------------------------------------
Perversely greped and groped by PowerPenguin
I am seeing a lot o pessimism here, but this project would prove MANY times more effective at upending the Windows monopoly than Linux ever will. it's just obvious.
The thing that strikes me is that 13373 h4x0rz are able to crack a game in an hour. Why can't people apply some softice or other reverse engineering debugger to the binaries? How about sharing the info with the world? The API's are almost completely available online, much less in the Visual Studio Documentation. But the specifics should be irrelevant. One could use any number of techiniques to hack apart win98. So why don't we just contribut to an 'Open Hack' map of the beast online? Then people could work on smaller and smaller chunks and test them by simple replacement on a windows machine. seems simple to me... it also seems to be the openwindows plan. Well, do I need to point out that you can participate in an open project? There were several complaints that a project like this could never compete with the hundreds of programmers working on '98 and ME, but c'mon, get real! we could eventually have millions pitching in effort, take the lead and let M$ play catchup. All you need to do is accept the inspiration, and the rest will take care of itself.
If you'd all just take off your pissy-hats and apply yourselves, we could communally hack this out in under a year.
This is a tremendous clew, a great place to start. Many of you sourpusses would like to think of yourselves as 1337 enough to handle this, but for some reason, because it has something to do with M$, you are all discouraged and talking trash. Put your money where your mouth is!
-=(V)0(V)0cr0(V)3=-
Linux succeeded because the Unix model it was built on is not evolving any longer. That is not true of Windows. I remain skeptical.
How dumb can you possibly be to think that you can rewrite windows. it didn't get as bad as it did overnight, it took over ten years of careful development to get it that way.
Additionally, if they intend to use existing software from everywhere, how will they deal with incompatible licenses? There are lots of "free" licenses that are fundamentally incompatible with GPL. Will they ask developers to sign over copyright ownership ala GNU?
Sounds like a nice way to kill time, but developer time could probably be better spent on helping out the Wine people, and then making a distro around that.
What I actually found was lots of bickering, and people spending hours and hours writing bureaucratic documents about coding style (indenting, variable naming), arguments about how the kernel group were more l33t than the UI group, and generally lots of vapourware hype.
The fact that now, nearly two years on, the web-site still has nothing to show for itself, and in fact, none of the dates have been updated for 10 months, suggests it's never going to happen.
Personally, I think Wine has most chance in this area - at least the kernel is already written, but witness there how much of an uphill struggle there is - and this is with lots of support. Re-inventing the wheel again is not the answer.
Is it just me or does anyone else see a Micros~1 lawsuit coming from a mile away? While their cause may seem justified, I think these guys are going to get shut down before they even get a decent start. With everything that's been going on lately in the patent world it wouldn't surprise me in the least. Face it, if Micros~1 thinks that they'll lose even a penny to this project they'll be sending out their lawyers in mindless drones.
P.S.: This isn't an attempt at being flamebait... this is an honest opinion.
Chances are that this was thought up after a long night of drinking and smokin' weed. Probably a bunch of kids or college students on vacation with nothing better to do.
I mean they are already calling for artists to design startup and shutdown screens when they don't have a kernel! Talk about jumping the gun!
Have you seen screenshots of MS whistler ?
now there's a toy OS!
---
Great! An OS just like Windows, only worse!
How many million lines of code are supposed to make up Windows 2000? By the time they've got something equivalent to NT4 we'll all be using Windows 3000 or something.
Perhaps the salient point though, is "why bother"? There's an old saying that "you can't polish a turd" which seems very applicable here. Come on guys, find something more worthwhile to spend your time on!
Obviously your flippant attitude towards this multi-billion dollar effort called 'Win98' suggests advocacy of alternative OSs. Since you are probably not a billionaire software success,
Yup. Obviously if it cost a lot of money to make, and can make other people lots of money, it _must_ be good!
Go home, Microserf.
I'm rather amused by the two main sets of comments here on /. - the "if they could pull this off, it would be really cool" crowd and the "rewriting windows is an impossible venture" crowd.
I'm not entirely convinced either way. Idealistically it's probably a good thing, more free software, and just maybe they'll make it. On the other hand, technically, we're talking about a project that's going to take years. Three or four, and probably longer. You have to implement a multitasking kernel, GDI, C libraries, multimedia libraries, system tools, and a hundred other little and big things. Against a moving target, no less. Is this project useful?
This project will be useful to the programers on it. They'll probably learn something about programming and software engineering. Will this project be useful to other people? Maybe one day, but not for a long time. Don't hold your breath.
People always seem to think UNIX is "difficult", it's not difficult, it's just "different"..you have to unlearn some bad habits. My girlfriend, who is just becoming computer literate (meaning..knows more then just MS WORD), has been using Mandrake Linux for a year. SHe installed it herself. Popped the CD in, and bingo, she loves it. Sure, she might need help compiling some software, but what IT staff member has NOT installed software for people on Windows? Using just a setup file? Easier than turning the darn thing on, but some people can't do it...ease is just relative.
If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
FAT is actually a good filesystem for Windows - it can handle power cycling with little to no damage.
Cheers,
Rick Kirkland
Nietzche had no point.
Just a lot of fancy words and a bunch of people eager for him to render their pointless lives no worse than anybody else's lives.
He was one evil fucker, in other words.
At, reputedly, 40Million lines of code, do you really think a clone of Win2K is feasible? It took MS 5+ years to crank out Win2K. Cloning it should be even harder (since you have to be conformant, whereas MS could do whatever and simply be canonical). By the time you are done, the Win2K approach will have been fully discredited anyhow, and MS will have moved to the next generation of software architecture as the computing environment changes radically.
I think this sounds like a really cool idea - but my gut feeling is that eventually the group will realize that the job is just too monumental to complete. On the other hand, obviously these guys must know what they're doing, so I would imagine that other projects (such as Wine) could greatly benefit from their help. Perhaps their efforts would be better spent doing that, and here's why:
First - what is the point, really? Most "True Geeks (tm)" would rather run Linux, *BSD, or something along those lines instead of Windows. All that would be changed would be the underlying code. Okay, it would be free - but it would still be Windows on the surface.
On the other hand, perhaps their target audience is not geeks but your typical Joe user. Sure, he would rather use a free-beer version of Windows than the commercial version, but would he really have the option to do so? It would be difficult (though perhaps not impossible) to convince OEMs to use a Windows clone - and that would really be the only way to get people to use it, since 99% of (okay, no idea of the exact percentage, but it should be high) PCs are shipped with Windows already on it - they're forced to pay for it anyways.
Third - (okay, my last point didn't have a number, but regardless...) - This goes back to "What is the point?" Let's assume that they manage to perfectly clone Windows and that the new code is squeaky-clean (or at least significantly cleaner than Microsoft's legacy code). What about the applications? If they aren't willing to clone Office and Internet Explorer as well, there will still be plenty of bugs, unexplained system crashes, system slowness, and all the other features we've come to love.
And finally - how can they create a perfect clone without access to Microsoft's APIs? Part of the requirements of making a clone are cloning all of the defects, too. Many applications probably depend on bugs in Windows libraries.
So I think that this sounds like a great idea on the surface, but in reality their efforts should probably be focused on something more worthy of their time. I would hate to see them realize that their project was irrelevant and give up after spending months, or years, on this behemoth of a project, and regret all the time they wasted.
"Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try."
As always, when dealing with any tech issue, I try to imagine my parents or older brother's and sister's using it. My parent's don't like it when their computer crashes, but they have gotten used to the typical Windows lock-ups that occur and accept it as par for the course. It is the known evil of using the product.
It is also the same reason why they use AOL even when they have two sons telling them to dump it and move to Earthlink or the local Montana option. But the comfort of knowing everyone else is going through the same pains keeps them with what they have.
Trying to get them to accept an operating system that is even a little different (they are 95 users) doesn't work. Imagine trying to convince them to switch to an open sourced operating system that might not be compatible with all their current software. That might make them have to reconfigure system settings.
People are sheep. People like stability. People will willingly pay more just for the sense of comfort and security...knowing they are in a pack.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
Look at how much trouble the WINE guys are having just implementing a wrapper around the win32 API. Now OpenWindows would have to do that, plus write more or less the equivalent of the entire linux kernel, plus X, plus GNOME. Ummm ... good luck, guys :).
The linux kernel was a monumental feat, and it was only possible because it implemented a well-known, standardized API (POSIX). Building a kernel around a poorly defined, constantly changing API like windows' is impossibly difficult, even if you could muster the same manpower that linux has.
Also, unless they want to write their own drivers (another monumental effort), they would also have to re-implement windows' binary driver interface, which presumably is even harder to get a grip on. Incidentally, this also means that OpenWindows would be as unstable as the real one, since a lot of the bugs in windows are caused by crappy third-party drivers :).
Building an OS from scratch is hard enough; copying someone else's is really, really hard. Try something easier, guys ...
That OS is set to be released by our friends at 1 Infinite Loop Cupertino, CA to the public next month, and will be preloaded on millions of computers in early 2001.
Yes they are!
Check out, for instance, the "L4" kernel. I'd give you a reference, but I don't have one.
This is designed to be a blindingly fast (true) microkernel, with EVERYTHING except for:
Process creation
Thread creation
Message passing
Security
running at user level. Even page fault handlers and exception handlers are run at user level!
It's very interesting, and worth looking at.
-Shane Stephens
I'd also like to call attention to Trumpet Software's attempt at a Win32 clone, PetrOS (Trumpet being the same folks who developed the famous Trumpet Winsock). At least, that's the way it was being billed when they first started the project. No mention of Windows compatibility is mentioned now, but that doesn't rule it out. Regardless, it still sounds cool. Check it out here. Peace & Love.
Thank you.
4920616D206E6F7420656C6974652E
Email me.
+++ATH0
Windows was always built in an overbulky code environment with 18 to 20 errors per 1000 lines of code.It was never built to be sleek; just piles of code patched one on top of the other by gazzilions of Microsoft Programmers, and covered up and gift wrapped by a decent user interface.
An open Project, like say Linux, strives every second to be optimal; which Windows is not.
Each "technology" that these MS guys have come up with is nothing but a method to patch up the earlier mistakes. An open project will from the ground up, not have these mistakes, so Half the things will just not fall in place. Take for example ActiveX (not a very good example, but still.) is used for those previews in Windows Explorer. Why? Because Explorer just isnt Flexible enough to add on a previewer binary!!
So when developers have a good version of Explorer, ActiveX wont be used. So will many other Proprietary MS stuff. And so windows wont be windows. It'll end up being an X11.
"What seems like a really good thing, might just be a beta version."
I'd like to know why this group is so arrogant that they think their project is going to succeed
One could ask the same question about those who claim that they know this project won't work.
And, if you really want to get into a discussion about arrogance, how about all the "you suck because you're a Winblows luser!" penguinheads and devil worshipers out there, hmm? If that's not an example of "a feeling or an impression of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or presumptuous claims," I don't know what is. (Merriam-Webster OnLine; unfortunately it doesn't give a viable or obvious way to bookmark the exact query)
For the record, I'm one of those "Winblows lusers," though I am learning BSD on a "lab" box built from assorted fragments of previous systems. I don't use Windows because I believe it to be the best thing since sliced bread; I think there are some areas that truely and honestly suck boulders through a stirring straw, BSODs being the least of my concerns at times. I use Windows because it gets the job done, and without an excessive amount of hassle. Many here may poo-poo GUIs as "point and drool" or something similar, but guess what? It gets the f*cking job done. Most users (which doesn't cover (m)any /. readers) don't care about the legacy cruftage. They don't care about whether Microsoft is stifling competition (I think MS does exactly that, in spite of their NewSpeak-ish "Freedom to Innovate," but that's irrelevant right now), nor about the fact that even if they buy a barebones computer without an OS they're still paying for Windows because of obnoxious alternative-stifling contracts with computer manufacturers.
You want to know what they care about? They care about $POPULAR_GAME. They care about writing letters to grandma, $SIGNIFICANT_OTHER, or others. They care about being able to balance their checkbooks online. And, most importantly, they want to use their computer with little to no effort, instead of taking time to compile source code, install RPMs, or anything else that's part and parcel of UNIX and UNIX-like OSes.
And you know what? What they want does matter, because it's their wishes that drive the market. You (generic "you") can go on about how st00pid they are, how much they're "lusers," and otherwise look down on users who don't toe the $ALTERNATE_OS line (and that is how it looks to many who only use Windows, that the anti-MS people, as a group, are as sheepishly minded as the anti-MS people claim Windows users are), but the fact remains that they're the ones who are putting up the cash, and who create enough of a perceived demand to make companies want to provide a supply.
Now, back to the subject of this story, Open Windows. I'm not up on all the technical aspects, so I can't comment on that. However, I would like to see them continue, and even encourage them to do so. "To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Lord Tennyson, Ulysses. Don't yield to the naysayers, folks.
For those of you posting to the general effect of "Why bother?", you should ask themselves a question, and be true to yourself (if no one else) when answering. The question is this: Why do you think it's important to put down the project? If you didn't think it was important, you'd just glance, say "yeah, whatever," then move on. You're not, though. You're taking the time (to varying degrees) to post to the uberthread, whereas just a passing glance takes a small fraction of the time, regardless of how much (or, more accurately, how little) thought and/or effort you put into your post.
Dan "Think about it" Poore
[insert witty quote here]
Is about all this 'project' will ever generate.
Having done that, I'd say they should celebrate their resounding success and pack it in.
**>>BELCH
I suppose you could call me a true Geek. I have 5 t-shirts I cycle every week and three of them are linux related from copyleft. I would use this, I enjoy playing with new systems, even buggy systems, just to kill time and learn stuff. I also wouldn't mind not having to su to root just to mount a CD. (Yes, I'm sure I could do it another way, but that's how I've been doing it since I started with linux in '96).
The best way to accelerate a windows box is at 9.8 meters per second square.
If someone is going to do this, I think they should initially focus on replacing slow/buggy Microsoft components with fast/non-buggy versions released under the GPL (to keep Microsoft from appropriating them).
Once these new components were of sufficient quality the word would get out that Hey, you can improve the speed/stability of Windows by installing these files instead of the Microsoft originals.
Eventually, the installed base of the GPL'd versions would be sufficient that you could begin to make proprietary enhancements (i.e., full Windows compatibility would be a subset of the functionality) to these GPL'd components and have other GPL'd programs take advantage of them.
This would result in a package that is:
If this sounds familiar it is because it is. It is commonly known as embrace, extend, extinguish which is a double-edge sword.
If all this was Objective One of the project, then if it somehow failed to achieve Objective Two (a full implementation of Windows), it still would not have been a wasted effort.
As to the obvious counter attack from Redmond of changing things in response: Microsoft is much more constrained because of their installed customer base and cannot make completely arbitrary changes to core routines. As a result, they cannot be more agile than the GPL group.
-- OpenSourcerers
I would seriously doubt things are non-user-friendly because of services-oriented marketing... they are non-user-friendly because that is what the authors want. UI's are like bandpass filters, and you can't get both the lows ("My First Computer"-type intuition of interface, point-and-drool) and the highs (being able to do practically anything you want with a piece of software with a single command line) with one pass.
So, being that the developers who wrote the software, who know the thing inside and out, who wrote it because they want to do EVERYTHING they can with their software _also_ write the user interface, guess which end they will shoot for?
Part of the coolness behind Mac OSX is that it would bring in developers who are much more concerned about exposing functionality to a user in a point-and-drool, intuitive way than making you able to do a single-line, search-and-replace of all files in a directory. They are taking years of extremely powerful code and figuring out how much of that power they can present to the user without the newbie's head exploding.
Should be quite fun to watch (MacOSX, not neccessarily the newbie's head exploding, although that could be cool too)
Development communities can not be artificially 'created'. They happen naturally wherever interesting and well-thought-out projects arise, and take on a life of their own.
**>>BELCH
Depending on what you are doing, Linux is stable with 4MB of memory. NT is only that stable if you have more memory than you ever use.
It' HUGE man, REALLY HUGE. It's like making a scale model of an aluminium foil Boeing 747!!! (we could call it Boing 747, actually)
Hi.
/. community, I have submitted almost every type of post, ranging from preeminent insights to over-the top and vulgar flames. I've trolled, been trolled, shot from the hip and been torched when speaking-of-that-which-I-do-not-know. But for me at least, there is one situation I find myself in time after time. I suddenly have an insight into some topic that has no relevant story to post in. I post anyway, only to lose karma and have my insights buried as (-1: Off Topic), and few regular readers ever get to see them. I've taken to operating a couple of UIDs in order to burn or preserve my karma as appropriate, but I find it all rather cumbersome. I like this UID, and I dislike logging in different accounts several times a day.
I am a typical Slashdot reader. I have a couple of accounts, and I am posting this from my 'troll' account because it is rather off-topic, and deserves to be modded down. But this is a serious post, and I encourage you to read on:
As a typical member of the
I have been waiting for Slashdot to open up some persistent sids on recurrent topics, and maybe even list them on the front page. I've written this suggestion to Hemos and Taco both, though it probably just got lost in the noise. So, in the spirit of Open Source Everything©, I hereby introduce my own unsanctioned Open Editorial Decision©. See, I realized one day that the trolls had taken to making their own sids, so I thought to myself, 'how can I harness this phenomenon in a positive, productive way?'
And so I've decided to create the following sids:
Open Source Advocacy
Operating Systems
Hardware
Sci-Fi / Anime
Slashdot Culture
Technology and Politics
Trollsville
Now there is a place for us to go to vent our spleen, contribute, rant, spam, joke about, whatever you may want( within the limits of legality, of course) and yet remain entirely on-topic.
I know this is rather pushy of me, but it really is for the best. Now, if you find yourself with a brilliant insight for the Slashdot crowd, and there aren't any relevant stories to post it on, you've a place to go without thrashing your karma.
I have already made FP! introductory posts at each of the sids. C'mon by and tell me what you think. Especially the Slashdot staff- I realize you may be irritated at my forthright feature-creep, but there are so many worse things I could be spending my time on, while this is actually positive, useful, and will hopefully increase banner ad revenues for you. Oh, and I assure you, I hereby state that I hold no claim to the design or ownership of any aspect of this idea. I just wanted a feature, and utilized the 'Open' philosophy to my advantage, with the tools on hand.
Thank you very much,
-=(V)0(V)0cr0(V)3=-
Actually, they are still in use today. I heard a story on NPR a few weeks ago about a doctor/researcher who found receptors in the front of human nostrils that feed directly to the limbic system. He also found that people who have had them damaged, due to nose jobs and similar events have a far different view of people based on first impressions than folks who still have them in place. His theory is that this is a possible explaination for "love at first site."
"Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
I agree with the fact that computer vendors could save money shipping a free Windows clone. But dont you think M$ will put a bit of 'pressure' on vendors to not ship the clone, such as 'you will never ship another machine with Windows on it again?' If you are a vendor, you gotta think, if you totally switch to the Windows clone, is the money you save gonna make up for the customers you lose because they need 'windows' and dont have the knowledge/time to figure out openwindows is the same thing?
All that doesnt even take into consideration the fact that prolly 99% of pcs shipped today already include Windows, so what incentive would there be for the average person to switch from an OS that came with their machine to a hacked clone of it with no support...
Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
linux is going incredibly slow[ly]? it didn't even exist a short time ago. It was small a short time after that. It never got mentioned in the press a short time after that... so therefore it will never catch up? You've just recapitulated the mistake of Zeno's paradox! I guess Microsoft and Compaq will never overtake IBM on the desktop... :)
So much praise for windows, all in one discussion! I think I gotta go wash! I feel disgusting!
Freedows' experience in organising committees for hashing out the future design and adding lots of kick-ass features before the first line of code is ever written will come in very handy indeed, and should take OpenWindows into the realm of first-class vapourware.
Projects like these are the only hope for ever getting an equal number of windows and linux distributions.
The result of the real player case was that it
turned out it was a bug in their software as I
remember. I don't know aobut Lotus 123 but when
service pack 6 broke Lotus Notes MS had to release
a new version very quickly to fix it.
I always find it interesting to read about people's experiences with Linux. It makes me happy to know that I'm not alone in getting pissed off at how complex it can be to perform something that is so simple in Windows.
That said, partitioning, formatting, and installing Windows really isn't any easier than Linux. Your USB mouse wouldn't have worked during the install for Windows 2000 any better than it didn't work during the install for Linux, but you'd have a realistic shot at getting it to work afterwards.
Before I get flamed to death for that statement, yes, I realize that you can get a wide range of hardware to work in Linux, if you have the time to track down drivers and can comprehend the installation procedure. In my experience, the more expensive your hardware is, the more likely it is to work with Linux. Go for the name-brand stuff, avoid USB like the plague, and don't buy a single product, with the exception of CPU's and motherboards that isn't at least six months old, or you won't find any support for it in your shrink-wrapped distribution.
Yesterday, I took down my Linux server at work, and replaced it with a Windows 2000 server. Yes, I'll probably get flamed for this, but I had a specific reason, Samba. Eight months ago, I set up a Red Hat Linux server to act as a file server for my Windows users. It was rock-solid stable, the machine would never crash, but transfers at 100 Megabits would eat up 70% of the CPU time on a PIII-500 with 192MB of RAM. This would render the GUI unusable, and the Samba status window I had running in X would die as well.
I updated to the newest version of Samba, I read the man pages, I even got up in front of my local Linux Users Group to ask for help and suggestions. All I got were some snide remarks about "Well, that's Samba for you..." and some shrugged shoulders. So yesterday, I took down the venerable Linux box, uptime of 98 days, since I put it in the new rack, and replaced it with a Windows 2000 Server which requires less than 10% of the CPU for a 100 Megabit transfer.
---
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. --Robert A. Heinlein
We use linux and other opensource os's to get away from windows, i wouldnt even use the open source windows cause its windows even if it is an open source clone.
The Beaver The Best Things In Life Are Free And So Is Linux!
I think the idea of an opensource and windows compatable windows clone is wonderful, but wouldn't Gates sue for something like this, if successful?
They said their intital goal is compatability. As far as that goes, nobody is going to be interested. I mean, all y'all who are running Windows, didn't it come with your computer whether you wanted it or not, or didn't you pirate, err... borrow it?
However, if they manage to get to phase two, IMPROVING it, I'm all for it. The idea of being able to choose between many different free distributions of Windows like you can with Linux appeals to me. This of course presumes that Red Hat Windows, etc, will be stable (Hell, I'd even care less about the Blue Screen of Death if it came in different colors).
Propping Linux here is preaching to the choir, but my limited newbie experience with Linux has been underwhelming thus far. I KNOW that Linux kicks ass, but unfortunately, not at anything that I care about. I likeWord97. GIMP is still Photoshop's bitch. Corel Linux is slower than Win95 at everything (at least on my p166).
I'm not bashing Linux, and I'm not advocating Windows. Both are different, and both need work (IMHO). For me, this open Windows clone project is a great idea.
....
....
--Hey Doctor Jones! No time for love!
An example of a project where people took a known API and cloned it is OpenSTEP.
(digging about in back of brain, and odds are people who KNOW the histry far better will correct my preceptions)
It was a small group of people, who turned out to be dedicated. My inital reaction was "Oh look, another well-meaning project" And it seemed to me, the project didn't go anywhere. But lo and behold, they got the code to where it was almost useful to others, and these others used the code and submitted changes. And then the new code became useful to others and on and on.
Stumbling blocks:
1) Lack of full disclosure of the Windows API.
2) Microsoft has the ability to change its API at will. They have MANY more programmers than this project will to totally re-write code if they choose to.
I'm betting the project will end up like the 'lets clone the newton API" projects. If no one sits down and keeps turning out code/results, the project will go no where.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
i dont see why this would be "impossible"
... getting a compaitable kernel and all the integral vxd's will be difficult but i doubt it is impossible ...
...
...
... "now that would be a worthwhile accomplishment and some would argue thats win2k "
all windows is , is a enhanced gui running over dos
but as many has stated is it worth it ? many programmers hate programming any thing for windows due to way windows works to begin with
do these guys want to responsible for trying to fix their code to work with some other programmers workaround ?
as you can see this can get rather messy
what would be nice is a 100% windows compatiable os that works better than windows
music the paint
dancefloor the canvas
Music the Paint dancefloor the canvas your body the brush
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
--
I like to watch.
Can someone please explain the point of this one to me? Why not just buy Windows from Microsoft? If it's so bad, why are people trying to replicate it exactly?
Please excuse my editorial laugh (ha, ha), but some people just take things too far. Use open-source software and linux, or use Windows (or any other operating system, but that argument doesn't apply here), but why hate an interface just because it's made by people you don't like?
I'm also wondering how this will work without all the proprietary code needed for Windows to run. Anyway.
Why the negativity? Because it's a waste of headspace. The project sounds 'bold and visionary' to non-programmers while the bit-heads have all laughed it off and moved on after just reading the headline.
Bold, colorful announcements are a dime a dozen and do not deserve our attention and praise.
**>>BELCH
I hope they don't copy the blue screen. That's trademarked.
I say I ain't giving you no tree fiddy you goddamned Loch Ness monster, get yo own goddamned money!
What's the point in all this? Win98 is good for game playing, so you simply burn yourself a copy of it. You don't have to access internet with it (except for internet play, of course) so there is no risk of getting caught. And when you want to access internet (or do something apart from playing games), you just dual-boot to the UN*X of your choice.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
looking for artwork. We want your ideas
for startup/shudown and off screens.
Oh yea... this sounds like a successful project to me.
Tom the Sigless
Heh, I wonder why a detailed post with some truth in the facts and some glint of reasoning isn't moderated up, while a flame that used the magic word "microserf" is.
But isn't the purpose of the Doomsday machine lost if you keep it a secret!
Are they going to have it auto bluescreen every so many minutes no matter how stable it is to simulate a true windows enviroment? Will this be a setable setting? And will it bluescreen more often the longer you have had it installed to simulate bloated DLL files and such?
Personal Website
All this project really has to do to reach its goal is to re-implement the core Windows DLLs (same as WINE). There are already open-source DOS clones around, plently of open-source shells and file managers, and plently of open-source Solitaire programs. The only thing they can't just adapt from others is Windows itself, the core DLLs, which means going through basically the same things WINE did.
The potential advantages of this over real Windows are speed (maybe), flexibility (reimplement all of Win32 and you don't make hardware auto-detect non-overridable again), and the possibility of filling in some missing but badly needed features (symlinks, breaking the registry into multiple files, maybe support for some alternate file systems). I think their only real chance of success is by taking various open-source projects, adapting them, and copying and pasting a lot of code out of WINE. It's not very likely, though.
Yes, it's desirable, because it'll tie up some of the Microsoft lawyers in fruitless litigation. Every little bit helps.
This won't work though if the project is at the mercy of injunctions. It needs to have a distributed base in several countries where MS hasn't extended strong tendrils into government, plus a floating US presence just to annoy the hell out of them.
And of course it should be faithful to the MS way by embracing and extending MS's own standards.
That should be fun to watch.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Is it desirable? Warcraft III, Diablo II, Deus Ex, and a host of other games help warrant my vote: yes.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
What good would it make users to make another nightmare windows system. yes it is open. but even if they should succeed in time which is highly doubtful, then they would make another system which is incompatible with all the unix based solutions, and when unix is the answer, what good is it to develop another windows nightmare?
My point is that it will not enhance the speed and ease of migration from windows to unix platform for the users. It will confuse and noway can a new windows system starting development now catch up with windows today. So why not take the ressources planned to be invested on put efforts into improving wine, windows compatibility on unix. when they first can run their killer/must have/no present serious alternative applications on unix, they will have completed first stage. And from there they have only one way to go.
Yes the open systems/unixes are the future in my eyes. They are capable of providing as real solutions. We should collect our efforts on compatibility between all open unixes.. linux, *bsd, solaris etc. When we stand together, we stand strong. Remember.. we geeks are responsible for making the IT solutions for the non-geeks. Lets do it with honour.
Just a thought. But why be compatible with one of the biggest problems Microsoft has to deal with... backwards compatibility ?
It would be great for most people to have a MS compatible OS that just runs the 32bit apps. It would eliminate a lot of the problems, instabilities and bloat.
MarsDude
Reading about this gave me an idea--MS is trying to push developers towards the so-called ".net", where apps and data live out on the network. This has the advantage for MS of making it possible to really rent software so that the captive audience pays so much per unit time forever, but it occurs to me also that one thing that makes WINE et al. even semi-possible is inertia; there are a LOT of apps sitting out there physically on CD-ROM that MS can't recall to introduce intentional incompatibilities into. With ".net" the apps aren't physically located in stores, they're on the net in one or a few locations, and easily updatable. Who's to say that somewhere people won't be running/studying WINE, Open Windows, FreeDOS, et al. and regularly updating Windows and .net apps to make sure that WINE et al. are endlessly playing a futile game of catch up?
So you have a copy of Windows as source as reference for your asshole comments? If you're correct I ought to never find an error in the code of a Linux app or the base system itself? Windows programmers also decide they want to be non-optimal while people who program for Linux strive every single second to save every last processor cycle of their machines? You're so full of shit. You can't even be ignored as a troll because deep down you believe your own stupid shit.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Yet people ought to program for using X and Motif and OpenGL all of which are at least ten years old or more. OpenGL was around in many forms specifically under IRIX until SGI decided to port it. Good call jackass.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
I can't believe there are so many people on here that are supposedly "enlightened" with open source yet so ignorant of anything and everything else. Pick up a book or two on Windows specific programming, not only is the API very very well documented but programmers are encouraged to program directly to the Windows API rather than use low level system calls. This why many applications written for Windows 95 and 98 work just as well under Windows NT. Without penguin coloured glasses one can easily take an abstract look at the various flavours of Windows and see an almost elegant design for the operating system. For some reason Linux zealots scream over the "bloated" code of Windows and the lack of optimization inherent in it. Of course their precious Linux has never had and never will have an error or an ounce of unoptimized code.
I really like the idea behind this project and thing if managed properly and done correctly will work out very well. Windows is an extremely well documented system which would allow a clone maker to write their own libraries and such which operated the same as their closed source counterparts. Just look at the Mesa project, they set out to write an open sourced version of OpenGL which worked in the same way and could do all of the same thing and for the most part they have done just that. The Open Windows project is the same basic idea, you use the documentation that exists to write you own code that responds the same way but is written by you rather than Microsoft. Microsoft encourages developers to program to the API rather than the hardware or the low level system because it allows them to upgrade the kernel drivers and libraries without nuking the system. How many times have a Linux kernels been released that broke programs because system calls or functions had changed? Such a system also allows for a group to put together a more efficient way to run Windows applications. In the end it doesn't matter what OS you have, the OS isn the least important part of the computer. The important part is the applications that actually get work done.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
there is a group called VMware that has done this (emulate another pentium processor) it is very very good. you can download it from http://www.vmware.com .
Especially considering that anyone who uses the r-utilities deserves to have their box 0wn3d.
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
Heh, I'm typing this comment under IE4 under Win98 running on Win4Lin. And, guess what? It's a violation of the EULA.
:^) but their bass-ackwards licensing does little more than stifle innovation.
Thanks to the way Win98 is licensed, I can only install *one* copy of Win98 on *one* machine. My current plan is to trash my current machine in a couple of months and use my current copy on my next machine; no need to buy another licens for the same product, right? Guess what? Violation of EULA. And, folks, the same applies to *you* if you have Win98 installed on a partition and you install it on a virtual drive via VMWare, it's a violation of the EULA.
Even worse, if I connect to my Win98 machine from work using VNC, it's a violation of the EULA. Ditto if I run VMWare or Win4Lin at home and display it on an X server elsewhere. No using Win98 over a network is allowed. I remember watching two guys laugh over fighting for the mouse pointer; one was running Win95 on one machine and the other was connected via VNC. Well, that's a violation of the EULA since they were using one copy concurrently on two machines.
So, hell *yes* an open Windows project is desirable. Windows is a halfway-decent product (I hate to admit
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
What can this provide that you wouldn't get from a full implementation of Windows services in Wine, or running DOS apps via DOSEMU or VMWare?
Aside from the sarcastic remarks about instability, I can only imagine one thing--use of Windows device drivers. Seems like reverse-engineering and rewriting specific drivers would be less effort.
Java: the COBOL of the new millenium.
The point is that from an ease-of-use perspective, windows doesn't exactly come out smelling like a rose and usually get it butt kicked by MacOS in any matter of ease of use. Windows is to linux as MacOS is to windows. On the stability side of things windows is problematic, but what people don't realize is that on the user interface side of things, windows is also very problematic. That's why I am against duplication of the windows interface--it duplicates all of window's UI mistakes.
By the time any headway is made with a Win32 clone, Win32 will be out of style. WINE is really cool because it's taken so much to get a Win32 API implementation running in Linux, but it's mostly only cool from an intellectual achievement standpoint. It's not very practical to use.
Please help! I'm stuck inside my virtual reality headset!
If these guys wanted to, I could send them the Windows 2000 source code. It doesn't compile for some reason, 'make all install' returns 'bad command or filename'.
I mean really, if you're going to spend that many THOUSANDS of hours programming to implement an OS, why remimplement a broken one?
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
The concept of an OS that makes the fundamental assumption that it's smarter than the user is a bad idea. The concept of an OS without a security model is a bad idea. The concept of an OS that cannot be separated from its user interface is a bad idea. Why are these people reimplementing something that has so many fundamentally bad ideas in it?
The hardware equivalent of this is going back and reimplementing the ENIAC. It's slow, it's hard to use, it's obsolete, and it's, well, archaic. We've moved on. You'd think it's possible to have learned something in 20 years. Apparently not. A perfect example comes courtesy of their web site: they plan to use the FAT filesystem. They claim that it's familiar and well understood. That it may be, but so are a dozen other filesystems. If you're going to select a filesystem based on familiarity and simplicity, why not choose the Minix fs? Or the version 7 fs? Or ext2? These filesystems have been documented thoroughly in books, in presentations, and in readily available code. The kicker, of course, is that they all offer substantially more features and performance than FAT. They are fundamentally better-designed filesystems. There is absolutely no reason one could not, were one so inclined, implement WinDOS using one of those filesystems in a manner which is entirely transparent to the user.
Because of the obvious irrationality this group exudes, an example of which is discussed above, I'm seriously questioning whether this is simply a hoax. It makes no sense to do this at all. Windows is a fundamentally inferior operating system. The world has moved on. It's bad enough to reinvent the wheel, but it's excusable if you are simply enhancing a previous, working, round wheel (ie all the reimplementations of Unix and Unix-like operating systems). This is taking a triangular wheel and trying to reimplement it faithfully. What gives, guys?
...if the idea was to make a stable version of Windows. Is this just gonna be Open Source for the sake of it?
http://www.blitzbasic.com/
Graphics3D 640, 480
Judging from WINE's "success" just doing the win32 API, I would assume that this is a nearly impossible task to accomplish unless these guys are incredibly brilliant or they are doing something fundamentally better than most other opensource projects. (Or they are planning on have win 3.1 support around the time Window 2020 comes out)
Without all the APIs, is this even feasible?
Why should OpenWindows not have the M$ APIs? These are merely interfacing specs M$ has established to link TO Windows... it is meely the conduit for OS activity, not the actual proprietary code that OpenWindows seeks to replace. I think it's wonderful that somebody is "cloning" Windows... perhaps they can do a better job and shame M$ into slowing the "new release" train long enough to fix existing bugs before coming out ith new versions and technologies.
I haven't actually heard the show since Art left, but after going to his website to check the program listings, I saw the new host's bio, and vowed not to even attempt to stomach listening to that luser.
It'd be cool to have a GNU/Linux hacker hosting Art's show, but this guy ain't it. He's one of the new breed of Windows converts that think using a UNIX-copy plus a pretty Windows-copy GUI makes them intelligent. It's fairly digusting.
Hey, that reminds me -- why did Art leave? I remember him mentioning some mysterious family troubles, and some vague rumours about his kids being molested, but what really happened?
PS - The reason I stopped listening for a few months was because all he ever talked about anymore was Y2K. Every fucking night -- what was wrong with you, Art? It was incredibly droll, redundant, and boring, which was out of character for that show. Maybe that's why he left; out of shame when nothing happened. :)
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
--
I like to watch.
In reply:
:) Read the WINE doc's, you just add PE (Windows) binaries under "misc binaries", set it up so that the kernel knows to use the WINE loader, and recompile. Your Windows binaries now run in the same way as ELF binaries.
1) You really don't want to run UNIX as a desktop operating system, especially for newbies.
This is very true. But then if you just use the Linux (Or BSD, or whatever) kernel, the user doesn't need to know it's *nix as we all know and hate it.
2) Wine is flakier than Windows itself.
At the moment it is, yes. It still does a pretty good job, considering. And it can only get better.
3) Linux kernel doesn't natively support DOS/Windows binaries.
Yes it does
Syllable : It's an Operating System
Why not put a lot of our programming talent into making an OS that is easy to use and develop for.
The reasons this project will fail are:
1. Drivers. I'll say it again. Drivers. Yup, this is why Windows is successful. It supports just about any piece of hardware you want to plug into your PC. Rather than trying to clone Windows why not put all that effort into providing a driver model which is easy to develop for and easy to extend. Make the writing of a driver a no-brainer for the hardware guys and they'll do it. Also ensure those drivers are hot-pluggable.
2. Applications. Apps are easy to write for Windows. You have Delphi, VB, Java, VC++. They all make writing apps for Win32 easier for those who don't want to put their brains in gear. If you want an OS to have mucho support, make sure that even the greenest developer can write an app that is useful and useable and stable. No dicking around with make and other command line tools. Fine for geeks, but like most professions the majority of people that code for a platform want it easy.
IMHO, they should address these problems rather than trying to produce what will inevitably be a poor immitation of something that isn't worth immitating.
the site is just crawling with little pieces of information that scream hoax. they refer to windows as user friendly. they want to use the FAT file system because it is more intuitive! they act as if their open windows will be binary compatible with MS windows programs. i don't think so. and they seem to gloss over the fact that windows is a moving target. are they going to emulate the win32 api, win 98, win NT, win 2000, win millenium, or windows fucking redesign 1000? i'm surprised at the number of positive posts on slashdot supporting an open windows project. windows is the biggest fuck-up of a software project in human history. let it die. no, help it die.
I started using Linux and BSD because I like unix and unix-like operating systems. They are also more powerful and they just do what I want. I suppose that OW would be of interest to certain people, and I know that /. is very much full of open source advocates, but open sourcing windows wouldn't make it a terribly desireable platform for me. This project is nice, it would be nice to see it take on the strenghts of a unix-like architecture and operate windows applications, unfortunately, I think that to REALLY do this, you would have to sacrifice the ability to operate many windows apps. Oh well.
Eh...
It's a project I beleive is usefull and that it will succeed. I've seen OpenSource projects before, but none of them really ever captured my attention. This one tough, is, in my own opinion the mose ambitious open project ever. The difference about this and Linux, is that this could probably even more complicated to do, since e can't look back at another OS (like Linux did) to understand how Windows work. No source code is a real pain in this project, but it sure if feasible.
Why some poeple waster their time writing a windows clone ? I mean if you want Windows, buy the damn thing and take your time to develop something else
Yea seeing Napster on the front page of the paper and a headline on the 6oclock news is just retarded.
I would rather see live coverage of Linus and Alan squashing bugs in 2.4test kernels, and live coverage of Windows servers in high visibility corporations crashing, but I can't always get what I want.
Lars -
All y'gotta do is flood the patent office with a bajillion requests and they'll give you any patent you want. :)
In which case, I say we make the Windows clone run WindowMaker ! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
"If I were to ask you a hypothetical question, what would you like it to be about?"
A project that begins with startup
and shutdown screen artworks will most likely
stuck with those for all of its limited lifespan.
I mean, hey, building an OS is abit more
complicated that grabbing and parsing an HTML
page.
I'd rather qualify this as a plug that as a hoax.
It may give these guys some cash in banners. And
if they begin to violate MS intellectual property
rights, open source will, again, be drawn as a
cybercrime paradise.
KuroiNeko
Well, I don't think that's altogether bad. I mean, when you get down to it, the splash screens are probably the most reliable and important parts of DOS, so doing them first makes sense.
Only for the initial publicity gathering, once the song/artist has reached critical mass, they drop that in favor of receiving their license fees.
I joined the Freedows project long, long, long ago, and left it permanently after one of the larger fights between developers.
;-)
Freedows was a darn good idea, but some of the people working on it couldn't get along if their lives depended on it. This resulted in split after split and, at the time I had left, a giant fork in the development (plus about 50 messages a day of "I hate developer X" and "I hate developer Y"). It doesn't appeared to have made much progress, if any at all.
Rest in peace, Freedows. But hell, your lack of anything useful led me to Linux, so at least something good came of this.
What's the point of replicating such a clunky OS? I can appreciate it if its to serve the sainted migration from MS hegemony, but unless it is configurable in it's GUI behaviors (such as allowing a single menu bar, grouping of application windows, and the removal of the redundant blank window for each app), why further a hobbled GUI? If you want to operate on the command line, on the other hand, stick with *nix.
Even if they were some how able to pull this project off(very unlikely), I don't believe this would really be that much of a benefit to anyone. For the open source community in general, most of us run some *nix variant and don't even want to use windows or a win clone even if it was open source. The person who would most likely benefit from such a project would be the average computer user. But herein lines another problem(aside from the nearly infinite technical problems with creating a windows clone). How would this project be distributed to main stream users? It is unlikely that any manufacturer would include a windows clone on their prepacked computers, as OEM windows makes a tremendous amout of money for M$ and the companies that distrubute their computers with Windows prepacked. Think about it, the Linux kernel by itself can still run on a 486 with 4 megs of ram(not that you would want to do that), so with the exception of X, you dont really need a powerful computer to run an effective *nix box. On the other hand, each new revision of windows rapidly ups the minimum hardware requirements making mainstream users buy new computers (with new OEM windows versions of course) faster than they really need to which generates more money for M$ and those companies which distribute their computers with OEM windows. With the OEM dealers are out of the picture, the mainstream users in general are also out of the picture, as I don't think many average users want to download, install and tinker with drivers on some windows clone which will be even less stable than windows. Which brings me back to my main point, who really wants a windows clone?
Did you even read the rest of my post? I specifically described why it would be useless both for "true geeks" and for the common user. Sheesh...
"Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try."
I do believe this project is possible, and probably practical.
1) Windows comptability would kick ass in an OSS OS. Not matter what people say, Windows still has the best apps.
2) It might result in a better windows than windows. If the designers of this new OS can take some liberties and leave out support for Win16 stuff, then the whole thing can a true, non-bloated OS capable of running Win32 applications (which btw. are the only ones worth running and the ones that don't already run on stuff like Wabi.) Also, it should be possible to rearchitecture the internals of this OS for speed and efficiency. As Microsoft has shown (with NT), Windows applications are tied to the API, but not so much to the underlying OS. The fact that most major applications survive the transition to NT intact means that the resulting OS needn't look at all like Win9x or NT. Although applications don't access the OSs internals, drivers are pretty dependant on them, so rearchitecturing the OS may lead to driver incomptability.
3) This would probably be a good OS for games. First, games tend to be pretty API complient. DirectX offers most of the features that a game designer needs from an OS, and DirectX itself is fairly well documented. Because of DirectX, there are fairly few Win32 calls in most games. If this new OS could be rearchitectured to mesh well with DirectX, then it would immediatly gain support since games are big business in the consumer sector.
4) From a comptability standpoint, it all depends. If MS doesn't object to them using DirectX and OLE/COM, then the project won't have to many compatability troubles. Its going to be a legal challange more than anything else, especially if they leave out support for older technologies. Most of MS's newer APIs are well documented, so replicating them shouldn't be terribly hard. However, if MS manages to stop them from using OLE/COM and DirectX (since they are closed APIs) then the project is useless. All the apps worth running on Windows use those two technologies. (I mean why do you think NT 4.x was a less than great seller in the consumer market? It's faster, more stable, but lacks good DirectX support.)
5) It's surprising they didn't mention WINE. Apparently they have replicated some Windows libraries, and that will undoubtadly help these guys. Also, the relative success of Wine is a good sign. It shows that applications aren't terribly dependant on the undocumented aspects of Windows, and that an OS replicating the API might work.
6) There's all kind of legal issues at work here.
A) MS might be forced to open up the Windows code/APIs. While this is years away, if it happens, it will coincide with the probably point of maturity for this project. Thus, any missed bits could be incorporated in.
B) MS might sue.
C) MS might play the "API of the day" game like it did with IBM. But they might be prevented from doing that by the DOJ.
7) The project sounds like a big task. However, I think the biggest mistake they can do is to replicate Windows 100%. The inclusion of FreeDOS in the projects listed page is a bad sign. This OS should NOT contain DOS/Win16 comptability. Most new applications don't use any of those outdated APIs, and it really isn't worth the effort, because things like DosEMU and Wabi exist. Also, native alternatives to older apps like that exist. If they go the track of 100% comptability, I'm afraid they might end up being simply an OSS version of Windows with worse comptability and comprable speed and efficiency.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Those who NEED Windows will pay for the Real Thing. It will never be "100%" compatible.
Yeah. The more I think about this, and read the comments, the more certain I am that this is a hoax. If it's not a hoax, it's drug-inspired. There's just no way that any rational human being could be serious about an effort of this magnitude and uselessness.
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
--
I like to watch.
I remember a Generic Windows project that was going on quite a while ago, but it seemed to have died a quiet death... anyone know what happened? I'm really surprised more clones like this haven't popped up sooner... they could have made quite a bit of progress by now...
Cool. CFC Compatibility would be so great. Crash For Crash.
--- http://foo.ca
Let's look back at WINE, shall we. It took many years to achieve the status of today's WINE. WINE as we know it today was originally made to run Win31 apps, and it adapted to Win32. Even now that it runs some Win32 apps, Win2K is out, creating even more barriers for the WINE developers.
What they really should do is invest the development time in WINE. Look how long it's taken Wine to get this far. Kudos to the Wine team, but we're still very far from being able to execute all our 'doze apps in Linux.
Or they should start writing an Open-Source Win2K, because by the time they have a semi-functional Windows 98, Windows 2002 will start shipping.
GENERAL ...
We at OWP feel the time has come for a MS Windows clone. There are a growing number of alternative operating systems available today, but we feel they lack the familiarity and usefulness of Windows. We feel Windows put the user into "userfriendly". We want to create a product that Windows users can migrate to without the drawbacks of other alternative operating systems. Take, for example, Linux. Setup can be difficult, even more so for novice users. There are GUI's available that are easy to understand, but the file system can be completly alien to those new to Linux. And hardware support?
Filesystem:
As mentioned above, we will use the FAT filesystem. The O.W. group feels that it is very intuitive and widely understood.
They refer to FAT as was the UFS the directory structure (FHS). Makes me hope they begin research before carrying on such a project.
Now, I have to use Win NT 4 at work, and I was having a lot of problem with Adobe Illustrator crashing (you now, things like "illegal memory access" or "this program tried to execute an illegal instruction and has been shut down").
The WinNT admin referred to a rumour along the lines of "the boys at Micro$oft keep some of the API info secret, so that apps from other software vendors are less stable than those made by Micr$oft".
In other word, Micro$oft makes an OS, and keeps back the API information you need to write a stable application. This makes Micro4oft's own applications look better than the competitors'.
It becomes a vicious circle that any proprietary OS maker can pull off once the user base gets up to critical mass. Get the users dependent on the OS because you practically give away the apps with the OS, then screw the competitors by making it hard for competitors' apps to run reliably.
So, along comes a bunch of guys who say:
Of course Micro$oft doesn't want that... (Well, I suppose that if Micro4oft is split into two entirely separate companies,one for OS and the other for apps, the apps company won't care, as it will still make sales... but the OS company will be up shit creek without a paddle...)
However, what's to stop the apps from asking the OS to identify itself (equivalent of doing a uname -a), or looking specific bits of the code to see if it is running under the M$ Real Thing rather than a Free Better More Solid OS?
OK, so Bill got his knuckles rapped when WinDoze (was it 3.1?) gave spurious error messages when it was run over Dr DOS instead of MS-DOS. But the way the US Patents Circus is going, what's to stop Billy boy from patenting some [simple,bizarre,useless] algorithm that is systematically called by every M$ app? If the OpenWindowz Boyz are prevented from using that algorithm, every M$ app will complain and/or refuse to cooperate (so what's changed, you might ask)