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.
todyas date: feb. 2
my pet machine
From the site, the focus seems to be on 4.0, not 2K/XP. While this will be great for those who have a huge amount of time and effort invested in implimenting an NT4.0 environment, it doesn't make much sense for someone who has migrated to 2K/XP to move back to ReactOS.
I do think this is really cool though, and I plan to keep my eye on this. With any luck it'll come far enough to start implimenting 2k/Xp compatibility.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
How many Operating Systems do we actually need?
Three OS for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Redmond where the Shadows lie.
One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them,
One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Redmond where the Shadows lie.
"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them." -- George H. W. Bush
I wonder if ReactOS, if they become successful, might end up in a bit of legal trouble from Microsoft. I'm sure MS has patents and copyrights up the wazoo on Windows NT, and is not afraid to take advantage of them. 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? Even though that company had some contractual rights to the IP MS purchased from them, which ReactOS hasn't.
If you thought Mono was a legal minefield, this is has to be akin to strinking and flicking matches in dynamite wharehouse.
Where are the screenshots?
Oh, that's why.
This isn't going to replace Windows anytime soon if it doesn't have a graphical interface of any sort.
While this is cool a bunch of guys with time on their hands figured out how to get binary compatility with NT, the one thing that holds people to NT now(XP/2k) is the direct X layer between hardware and OS.
It's still a pretty good feat though and is noteworthy of frontpage news. If the authors are reading would you mind answering a few questions?
1. What timeline do the authors see for adding a directX layer?
2. Do you forsee using the wineX code for reference or will you rewrite it from scratch?
Is this actually intended to supplant Windows on the desktop, or is it more aimed at small embedded systems? Or alternately, is there a parallel project that aims to replace Windows CE for the latter? I know there are a lot of similarities between NT4 and CE.
I am not personally a fan or a "user" (hah!) of Windows, but I have...friends...who might be interested in a "sidegrade" to an open-source embedded OS which is WinCE compatible. If nothing else we might be able to improve the security and reliability of embedded applications that have already been developed for Microsoft OSes. There is nothing worse than a small, single-purpose appliance - say for making toast - that can't perform reliably because the underlying OS is faulty, or constantly requires patches to assure peace of mind (hah!).
Could I interest anyone in some toast?
This announcement of this OS may seem interesting, but if you play the endlessly fascinating game of Go, your insight can become more balanced. For example, When Microsoft was well on the way of total OS dominance, it was as if the board had many stones, but all in one corner. Then Linus Torvalds, almost absentmindedly, played a stone in the opposite corner that was mostly vacant and Microsoft and the rest of the world ignored it, so Linus played a few more stones. Soon there was a formidable structure that Microsoft and the rest of the world couldn't ignore. And that's where we are today. Now ReactOS comes along and plays a stone, but no matter where the stone is placed on the OS board, the position is weak.
BTM
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
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.
FWIW, some parts of ReactOS use FreeDOS components. For example, the ReactOS cmd.exe is based on the FreeDOS "FreeCOM" (the FreeDOS command.com).
Thought you'd like to know. If you're interested in the DOS parts of ReactOS, you're probably better off to download FreeDOS, which is more stable & mature anyway.
yes, no gui whatsoever...
I know quite some people with this attitude, and I'm afraid that most of them Just Don't Get It.
Most of the people writing Open Source software are doing it because they like to do it. That's all.
If somebody is doing something special just for the fun of it, you can't just kick him and say: "That's of no use for anybody, why don't you just do $THIS instead?"
Won't work at all if he's not interested in doing $THIS. Things just don't work this way. And this is a Good Thing[tm].
And, coming back to your question, no, the world wouldn't be a better place. :-) Definitely no.
[Footnote and rant: Maybe I should send good ol' George W. a mail asking him to do something different because that would make much more sense for everybody else than what he's doing at the moment. But I'm afraid this won't work either. He just likes what he's doing ATM too much, I'd guess.]
42. Easy. What is 32 + 8 + 2?
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.
First off, this is "supposed" to be a drop in replacement for Windows NT 4.0. Why? Even Microsoft is trying to abandon NT 4.0.
But, Ok you want a drop in replacement for NT 4.0. So, where is the GUI? There is no GUI. Second, but perhaps most importantly, where is the file system support. This thing uses FAT32. Windows NT 4.0 can use FAT32 but, its primary file system is NTFS.
How can they possibly call it a seamless replacement for NT 4.0 with no GUI and no NTFS file system. I'm sorry but, renaming FreeDos utilities to try to emulate the CMD.EXE shell is hardly a substitute for NT 4.0 and I won't even mention Windows 2000.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Work is being done on the ROS GUI, windowing is still being implemented. I personally am helping out in this area (or at least trying to) so i assure you there is in fact work being done, don't like how slow things are progressing? help out! ROS is starving for ready and able developers.
> 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.