Slashdot Mirror
ReactOS 0.1.0 Released
JasonFilby writes "ReactOS 0.1.0 has been released! ReactOS is an Open Source effort to develop a quality operating system that is compatible with Windows NT applications and drivers. In this release, among other new features and fixes, especially worth mentioning are the ability to boot from CD and self-hosting capabilities (ReactOS can be compiled on ReactOS)." ReactOS has been in progress for a while, often tied to other projects with the aim of seamlessly replacing Windows: you can download an image of Bochs 2.0 with ReactOS 0.1.0 preloaded from the download and changelog page.
NT 4 is a good, stable target that encompasses the bulk of the Win32 API that is also in Win2k and WinXP. Once they've got that right, rolling forward to Win2K and up should be trivial - getting the basic microkernel and servers right will likely be the hard part.
I certainly don't want to start a flamewar here, but I'm not sure if I think this is a useful product. It sounds like the objective of this project is to create a free clone of Windows NT, so people have choice. In order for this to be useful, I need to be able to install an app on either Windows NT 4.0 or ReactOS X.Y, and have the application not know the difference, right?
In order to make that work, the OS must look the same to the app. That means APIs and, at a higher level, the architecture, has to be the same. The reason we don't run any Windows NT based systems in production is that the architecture is flawed. It's a desktop OS with "enterprise" features tacked on. The fundamental architecture of NT is why it sucks, in my mind. To emulate that, even if you give it away for free, doesn't solve the security issues, the performance issues, etc etc.
I have a lot of respect for these guys, kernel hacking from the ground up is tough stuff, but I'd rather see them contributing their talent to the Linux or BSD projects rather than copying a flawed architecture.
Of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong.
I did kinda think about the exact same thing.. though I guess it could be useful for people who are still running legacy NT4 systems, and want a system that will be continually updated and patched long after Microsoft finish supporting NT4.. which they are trying to do real soon.
NT4 amazingly works very well for some people, and people don't see the need to go through expensive training and migration to Windows 2000 or Server 2003 if NT4 does the job.
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
Microsoft has been able to buck this trend for over a decade with their unique mix of copyrights, trade secrets and customers locked into large investments of Win32/Office data and code. Microsoft competes on cost, but not against other companies. It competes against its customers' barriers to exiting the Windows corral. Each project that can create a new crack in those barriers reduces the cost Microsoft can charge for their software, thus saving money for the public at large.
Perhaps you missed the part where its written "Version 0.1.0".
I'm sure MS has patents and copyrights up the wazoo on Windows NT, and is not afraid to take advantage of them.
Microsoft isn't the nicest company on Earth, but they don't really have a history of using lawsuits to try to squash competition. I doubt the ReactOS guys need to fear this.
Remember how they arrogantly sued the company they bought MS-DOS from out of existence because they were worried they would add multitasking to it?
Actually, no, I don't remember this at all. Could you point me to a newspaper article or something?
I did a web search, and all I could find was that Seattle Computer Products sued Microsoft (in 1986), not the other way around!
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11-502830.html
If Microsoft ever arrogantly sued Seattle Computer Products, I'd like to know more about it.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Microsoft seems to pretty much ignore efforts like this because they are more interested in the future of computing, not the past, which is definitely where NT4 belongs.
Sorry, but that does not demonstrate a high level of cluefulness. 2000, XP, and all Microsoft OS products in the forseeable future, with the exception of Wince, are based on NT, just as the first 10 years of Windows was based on Dos.
Microsoft ignores efforts like this until they begin to look like they might succeed, then they go looking through their bag of dirty tricks. Unfortunately for Microsoft, they have to burn a lot of karma to attack an open-source project, and the chance of being able to stamp out the source code itself is pretty much zero.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
> Why do we keep assuming that opensource resources just transfer between products?
Because, to a large degree, it is true. And even to the degree it *isn't* true, we should try to encourage would-be developers to join an existing project, rather than start their own. There is no lack of free software projects, however there is a desperate lack if free software projects with enough developers to produce anything worthwhile.
Of course, hobbyist programmers should do whatever they think is fun, even if it never produce anything useful to others. But that should not stop us oldbies encouraging them to join existing larger projects that may already have produced, or is likely to end up producing, something worthwhile. There is also a great fun seeing your code getting used. And while working with others can be annoying, it can also be rewarding, and it is a valuable skill to learn.