Slashdot Mirror
ReactOS Now Runs Abiword
martijn-s writes "Reactos will now run, amongst other programs, AbiWord, IrfanView and its own Explorer clone. Screenshot here. I keep getting amazed by the quality of the code that is coming out of this project..."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
While I'm no great fan of the copy-cat mentality parts of the FOSS community are infused with, I must admit I think ReactOS is a good idea. It's ok to clone a Windows interface when the underlying operating system is Windows, the whole "Let's make GNOME just like IE!" thing has always worked terribly because the underlying OS is not Windows and doesn't look or work anything like Windows. The NT generation of Windows (NT, 2000, XP, 2003) is a reasonable design for an operating system too, so if you're going to start somewhere...
That's my 2c. Coming up, a skateboarding rabbit. That's after a word from our sponsors.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
ReactOS is most definitely a good direction for these people. It provides them with what they wanted in the first place, and they can develop an environment that works according to the paradigm they find most suits them. Meanwhile, GNU/Linux can progress and turn back into some sort of POSIX system.
| As for the comment about IceWM, that merely changes the look, it doesn't change the OS. It's a little like saying "Why run GNU/Linux when you can run Cygwin and WindowBlinds?".
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I think the point is to make a free Windows. The idea is having a free way to run Windows applications perfectly, the copycat interface is probably just a way to attract those farmiliar with Windows who do not wish to pay for it. Aso, Wine Is Not an Emulator...
In particular the version of Windows they are working on is old, and has been EOL'ed. So you can no longer get support for it. It'd be novel to have a version that was fully compatible, and you could have the source to keep up to date with bug fixes.
Second, they aren't trying to be like Wine. The Wine project is orders of magnitude harder then ReactOS (in some ways). Wine is attempting to make a translation layer from Win32 calls into a Posix/UNIX/Linux environment. That's a whole heck of a lot harder in a number of ways. Things are set absolutely in stone, and can't be changed. On top of all that, at points they get stuck because they are attempting to emulate kernel space functionality in a userspace application a lot of the time.
ReactOS, can make map kernel space things to kernel space things. They can map user space things to user space things. They already have the entire design, and a known model to follow. That's a lot easier then Wine in terms of implementation. Wine is attempting to live withing a much harder set of constraints then ReactOS. However, ReactOS does have to actually implement an entire OS (so it might be a wash). I know I'd rather try and make ReactOS go, then attempt to make Wine work the way it does.
Finally, part of the reason Wine has so many problems, is it started out as a Win3.1 or 3.11 tool, doing 16-bit applications. Now it's moved on to covering a half dozen versions of Windows (at least that many). They also support multiple platforms, and are attempting to be reasonable portable.
The other thing I'll be interested to see is if the ReactOS guys can manage to make it run on MIPS, Sparc, x86, x86-64, Alpha, and any other random platform you can think of. It'd be interesting to see what all they can come up with.
Kirby
Well. To clarify I guess . . .
/. This could allow companies to upgrade at their own pace, rather than at Microsoft's, and allows public code review for security holes. This isn't just lusers, this is large corporate installs of NT gaining a signifigantly different and more flexible upgrade path.
Wine and ReactOS *are* sharing code and ideas. Wine is really a reimplementation of the Win32 API, and ReactOS is working with them both to improve the Wine DLLs as well as port those DLLs to the ReactOS kernel.
Wine does work with native Windows DLLs, and so will ReactOS (may now, not sure). As for how hard it is to emulate Windows, it's hard. The Windows runtime is a twist maze of libraries all alike, and it's not just source compat were after here, its binary compat.
And as for lusers and their software, the disadvantages of a closed system have been widely discussed here on
"Seriously, I don't get it, if you make something new, you might as well try to do it different, or improve on what already exist, not simply clone something."
I think you fail to see the potential of this particular project.
If a project like ReactOS results in a viable drop-in replacement of Windows (NT, 2k, XP), while adding many of the benefits of OSS (e.g. Linux), it may ultimately end up destroying (a good part of) MSFT's market share of desktop OSs, as few companies and individuals will see the need to pay for 'Windows' (the OS). Imagine Walmart selling those cheap PCs again, but this time with ReactOS installed.
Certainly, Windows is a bad OS in too many ways (security-wise, as well as because of the messy API), but that doesn't mean that through a project like ReactOS we can't end up improving 'Windows'. And do what Linux has failed to do so far: take over the desktop OS market.
Site & blog: http://www.mayaposch.com
Here's the URL of my answer (a comment), (the comment)... from an article preceeding slashdot's posting by several days... I'll even paste it (my reply) for you if you're adverse or too lazy bother to visiting signalnine.com...
I still think the POTENTIAL for having a 'free' platform to EASILY port your code to is a good thing. We have no idea what might become of Windows (as we know it) once Longenhurden manifests. This project, I think, offers a small amount of comfort to businesses (think enterprise and small biz, too) who have invested exorbitant amounts of programmer-time and dollars on in-house, 'vertical applications'. They may not need the lastest whiz-bang Microsoft 'features' (that MS says we can't do without). Even if they can't implement all of say, DirectX for gamers; or .Nyet, (I say this because of the potential of land-mine-infested patents...c'mon you KNOW MS isn't benign, ADMIT IT!), running a 'cheap' Delphi application that does your check processing/imaging on NT 4 or Win2k is a VALID REASON for this effort ('what we have right NOW works just FINE, thank you').
There might yet be good cause to dread at what's coming up on the horizon.
Just my 2 cents.
Was that rambling? I tried to write something lucid and coherent. Sorry if I failed. I'm very tired as I write this.
spam, spam, spam, spam, e-mail, news and spam.
as few companies and individuals will see the need to pay for 'Windows' (the OS).
Don't forget that one of the things that puts those very people off FOSS is the fact that it is free: free means no support, nobody to sue when something goes wrong, no way to show your shareholders that you're spending money wisely.
ReactOS will only be a sucess as a "drop in Windows replacement" in industry if it manages to do everything in the same way as windows, look the same as windows and have a company sat there offering support and a target for blame.
Why on earth are people with so much talent wasting their time trying to re-do existing things !!! Why don't they try to do something new ? A free NT may be a good idea in some way, but by the time ReactOS is 100% compatible with NT5.x, microsoft will have new features, new incompatible things etc... therefore ReactOS will be again behind them and will have to catch up with all the new stuff. In a situation like that Microsoft have the interesting job, because they invent new things and concepts andReactOS is simply trying to re-do it. If you are talented enough to build an OS, why not using that talent to build something fresh, new and groundbreaking ?!
Yeah, but it wasn't a "free" Windows. It both upped the cost of your PC, and you have few, if any, rights regarding it. Your ability to deal with bugs and security holes is limited by what Microsoft decides to do, including (as with the 9X series), having to buy an entirely new operating system. You can't either modify it yourself (if you're technically competent) or have someone do it for you (either a hired professional, or rely on the resources of a third party support group.)
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
We can argue the benefits of having a free and open Win32. We can argue the benefits of having a choice of implementations. But "Grotmaster Inc. will sell less Grotmaster 2000(tm)s" isn't really a great argument for the end user.
And yes, I'm aware Microsoft has engaged in various immoral business practices over the years, and would like them to get more than a slap on the wrist for it, but Microsoft losing market share is not an advantage unless end users actually benefit - ie what they lose market share too is ultimately superior. It's the improved choice that's the advantage, not the loss in market share for the incumbent.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
The code we re-used from Wine certainly helps to speed up development. But we can't re-use everything and have to develop a lot of stuff ourselves. For example, Wine uses X11 primitives to do BitBlts (bitmap copying). Since ReactOS is not X11 based we had to write that stuff ourselves. Also, in Wine, everything is in userspace, while ReactOS follows the NT4 (and later) design where there is a split between userspace and kernelspace, with most of the work actually being done in kernelspace. Still, we try to co-develop as much stuff as possible with Wine. Ofcourse, since Wine has been around much longer and the number of Wine contributors is larger than the number of ReactOS contributors most of the shared code originates in Wine. Ge van Geldorp, ReactOS developer.
This project, I think, offers a small amount of comfort to businesses (think enterprise and small biz, too) who have invested exorbitant amounts of programmer-time and dollars on in-house, 'vertical applications'.
.NET platform, targetted already by the open source Mono project a better use of resources?
.NET. Instead of asking people to migrate code that runs and works on NT, which I'd argue from the company's point of view that there's no need to jostle, why not have them target new development towards the current [and optionally MS-free] platform Mono/Rotor/.NET CLR represents?
.NET?" Allow new development to easily target multiple platforms. If you haven't learned anything else from the lack of Linux game ports... "Targetting after the fact" is a bad idea.
Though I'm admittedly intrigued by ReactOS' idea of shooting for NT 4.0, why pour resources into an already unsupported platform? Isn't the
In the Mono case, we've even got a relatively good breaking point. There's enough C# in the ECMA standard (so even ignoring WinAPIs) for us to build a right good, copyright issue free (IANAL, etc) platform that'll support current and future work that leverages
NT 4.0 isn't rusting; it still does what it's always done. The easiest way for a business to keep NT 4.0 apps running is to keep running NT 4.0, not to migrate to anything less than absolutely seamless, licensing fees included.
You can't make a successful business case to enough people using NT 4.0 to switch to an open reproduction to bother. You can, I'll wager, get people to target C#/.NET via a robust Mono with new development. To use what's lately become much too popular a metaphor, target the tip of the spear, not the shaft.
The question isn't, "Why bother creating a drop-in replacement for Windows?" but, rather, "Why bother creating a drop-in replacement for NT 4.0 instead of
(boy, sorry for the liberal use of bold there)
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
No, not at this moment anyway. We're concentrating more on getting the features in than on speed.
Your argument -- almost word for word -- was probably used over a two decades ago when RMS started the GNU project to build a Free UNIX. The exact same reasons why the GNU project was started apply to why the ReactOS project should exist.
Today we have Linux. Who knows what we'll have ten years from now if ReactOS can keep up the good work?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").