Slashdot Mirror
ReactOS Runs On The XBox
KJK::Hyperion continues "This port definitely establishes two facts: the XBox is nothing but a broken PC, and the kernel + HAL design that ReactOS inherited from Windows is sound - all of the changes to the core system necessary for the XBox port (namely, the blacklisting of a buggy PCI device and handling the fixed partition table on the built-in hard disk) were limited to the HAL. This is a first, important step towards better portability, as it has already underlined some shortcomings in our build system.
What the port is lacking is hardware support: especially, ReactOS has no USB support at the moment, so it basically just sits there being pretty, because mouse and keyboard won't work. The network and video cards should be mostly identical to their "real" counterparts, so the Windows drivers for them should work (except the video card, a modified GeForce - it's been established we need some HAL trickery to make the Windows driver load). We wouldn't mind some help :-)
To run ReactOS on the XBox you need our custom version of the Cromwell boot loader (not released yet) and the XBox HAL for for ReactOS."
I see this more as a proof of the power of ReactOS than the XBox. If it is a crippled PC it should be easy to port to (note: I have not tried, so I don't really know, but it should not be *that* hard), however porting an OS (specifically a similar-to-Windows one) so easily is a great sign for ReactOS. Makes me even more interested in what this could become (stable, embedded, Windows x86 EXE compatable, OSes anyone?).
WASTE - The Secure P2P
The passage of time makes it a moving target. It's moving further and further into the software tarpits of the past, as more and more new software simply doesn't work on NT 4.0.
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
Still, pretty cool to run a clone of a Microsoft OS on a Microsoft product.
The point with ReactOS isn't to keep up with the latest and greatest. ReactOS with full NT4 compatibility will have a function in many offfices, that still have a huge NT4 presence, but are find that they are coming to the end of their support life cycle with Microsoft. ReactOS would squeeze a little more life out of their systems, and would also provide an easier upgrade path to a straight Linux system than simply going Windows --> Linux.
Home users are a different breed to corporate users, and tend to want the latest version of an OS. Of course, ReactOS is in no position to compete with XP, but wouldn't we be hoping that rather than chosing Windows XP, home users will eventually be installing one of the multitude of distros available?
Sunday you're Thinking Different, Monday you're a huge tool, paying too much and waiting to think like everyone else.
NT 4.0 is not a "moving target." The project has no plans to implement the features of 2k and XP. I've seen a lot of "RTFA" cases, but this post is the first I've seen where the writer has neglected to read the quote he's included in his own post.
Microsoft sells the Xbox at a loss, and expects to make up for that by selling games. If people aren't using their Xbox for games, or are pirating games instead of buying them, then Microsoft doesn't make back their money. That's why they care.
I'm impressed by what they've done so far, but not the seven years it took them to do it.
Well, this is a bit symptomatic of a lot of OSS projects, they start out with a grand vision and end up planning and then re-planning and throwing out code and never really get off the ground. Some die and stay dead, some get picked up by a group of enthusiasts with a more down-to-earth approach of 'Getting something working now, improvements later.' and the project takes off.
(Case study: See Linux vs. GNU Hurd)
I believe this is pretty much what happened with ReactOS (I'm not a ReactOS developer), so I wouldn't hold it against the current crowd too much.
I suspect it will have the same trouble WINE runs into: it's chasing a moving target, and it's way behind.
Ah, the old catch-up argument. It's a valid argument, but it's not as important for API:s as it is for, say, file formats.
With the MS Word file format, Microsoft can tweak and alter that all they want, because it's not publicly documented, and they're not that interested in having compatibility with anything other than MS own products. Backwards compatibility isn't important. Heck, they're happy to break it and create incentive for people to buy the new versions. That's a hard act to follow.
With API:s, things are quite different though. Firstly, the '80-20 rule of features' pretty much applies. Most programs don't use the entire API, but a rather small subset.
Secondly, API:s rarely break backwards compatibility. That would break all existing third-party apps and make it difficult for people to migrate. The exact opposite situation to the previous one. So MS bends over backwards to make stuff backwards compatible. Windows 3.0 apps still run on XP.
The APIs are also (relatively) well documented. Sure, there's a lot of undocumented functionality, but most of that is also unused. The implementer has access to the same information as most application-developers.
Another point of difference is that you don't have to be super-fast in implementing new API:s.
The day a new Word version hits the street, people will be asking 'Why doesn't this work with OpenOffice?'.
Not as true for APIs. While we all like the latest and greatest, professional developers don't rewrite their programs to use the latest APIs 'just for the heck of it'. There has to be good reason. In fact, you want to avoid using the latest APIs as far as practical and economical, because otherwise, you're going to be shutting-out potential customers running the old OS version.
(There are plenty of brand-new apps released today which run on Win98, or Win95 even.)
Here is a group of OSS developers working in their _spare_ time and you say your not impressed? Dude, your an idiot. This small group has done what MS did in _half_ the time. I am _very_ impressed.
I guess your expecting a small group of developers to duplicate what a bunch of developers and tons of cash did over _years_ funded by the _largest_ software company in the world?
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
... a great project for the developers, since they gain a hell of a lot of marketable experience building the OS; I'm sure it's quite fun too. But outside of that, it's a total waste of time. These people are very talented... drop this and join the Linux movement! They are re-inventing a wheel that Linux has already long since created. Take that drive and knowledge, and apply it towards building a windows emulation layer in Linux. Hell, join WINE and make their app commercially usable. Another alternative, if you are that confident that your solution will be better than the NT core, is to simply join MS and make the NT kernel stronger (and make a nice mint in the process).
ReactOS will keep these people busy and entertained, but in the end will never result in any singificant piece of operating system.
Until they get this thing running and out of beta, it's a pointless waste of time to port it to some other platform.
I know it's free software, etc., etc., but honestly I get annoyed at people who spend all their time developing silly stuff and not focusing on the basics. That kind of focus on pointless frills is the reason Mozilla supports all these "wonderful" themes and other eyecandy but still has some of the same stupid bugs it had years ago, and why Firefox has inherited some of them. And it's also why Linux supports a whole slew of funky weird TV cards and every bass-ackwards broken-as-designed 10BaseT Ethernet card, yet they haven't finished udev yet and you're forced to either work with devfs (which is basically deprecated and unmaintained) or udev (which is not out of beta yet) or MAKEDEV (which is out of the stone ages and unmanageable).
That's like saying an AthlonXP emulates a Pentium4. It's reimplementing something, not emulating it.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
besides a horrible lack of eloquence, there was one good point made in the grandparent, this work is probably too slow. What they need is to be up and running and better than NT 4 at least a couple years before MS cuts support, and I don't know if they can do that seeing what there pace was like up until now. The reason you need to be out before support is cut is simple, you need to make some name for yourself and an Alpha version just doesn't cut it. And after that, you need a chance to find some of those pesky bugs that only can be found after general implementation. There is one advantage Linux had, it wasn't aiming for a fixed goal. Rather, you had someone make an OS and just try to improve it. And Linux came up a hell of a lot faster. But for all that, I say more power to this group, hopefully this will give them a little more presense and maybe a few more contributors. OSS is either and start and die thing or it starts and snowballs into something great. If they can get this implementation running at full soon, that could be a huge dent in MS monopoly. They will probably continue to extend there support for NT4 if it really takes off.
If you can't see the value of a free, open source OS that will run the abundance of Windows executables, then I guess there's nothing more that needs to be said.
emulate
To imitate the function of (another system), as by modifications to hardware or software that allow the imitating system to accept the same data, execute the same programs, and achieve the same results as the imitated system. Isn't this what ReactOS does?
So by that logic you are also against Linux since there were free Unix implementations already available?
SYS 49152
...There are probably less Windows 95 users out there than that, yet just about all modern Windows programs still run on 95....
This is not true, there are a ton of users still on 95. Schools, home computers, old computers passed down to kids, office computers, etc., they all operate on that and other damned operating systems. I have personally interacted with over 100 of them in the past year.
What makes ReactOS and its like necessary is that it is needed to "fill the gap". If a company knows that an open source solultion can save them money and get more support then an end-of-life-cycle product like 95 or NT 4, then they will choose the free open source product, deploy it at the cost of labor, and support it themselves with their own cost of labor... this makes is significantly cheaper then keeping NT4 around and paying some disphit (like myself) $300 to come in and fix a computer everytime something gets scrwed up.
It's really quite an ingenous project, and has quietly been gaining support and interest. Give it another 7 years, and something like WinNT4 will have been created. BTW: How long did NT4 take to make? Nearly 14 years....
A Two Cents Post.
- Simrook
'Truth' is linked in a circular relation with systems of power which produce and sustain it...
Pardon me for rudeness...but are you stupid?
I would say that seven years worth of people duplicating a massive, multimillion dollar development project in their SPARE TIME is VERY impressive. If it works, more power to them, and even if it does not, I will certainly say it was an excellent attempt. Don't you remember when Linux was thought of as a "silly" OS?
I'm also not sure how NT4 is a "moving target", MS stopped development on that years ago. Please don't knock other people's work until you do something more worthwhile yourself. If you have, feel free to submit your own articles...
And finally, even if this particular project doesn't pan out, the project is opensource, and the implementations of the "base" API's and similar could easily be used to jumpstart an opensource reimplementation of a newer Windows version. So all in all...these people are doing something quite worthwhile, and I for one think they're due credit, not bullshit.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Ok, first off: I hate Windows. I hate its stupid UI, its ugly fonts, and the company that produces it. I jumped ship and switched to Linux before Windows 95 came out. I mean, I hate it, and I would never run an OS that even superficially resembles it. That includes ReactOS.
But.
ReactOS is a perfect example of the OSS spirit. Lots of folks here have been making comments along the lines of "You ought to be working on Linux" or "You ought to be working on WINE" or the like. It surprises me that a site as devoted to the OSS concept would parrot such ridiculous drivel.
It's possible that Linux-based OSS has gotten so popular that we now have lusers of our own. You know what makes a hacker? Someone who codes because he (or she) loves to code. Loves, you know? Not to be productive. Not because they want to change the world. These things may be true of some hackers, but these things alone do not a hacker make.
There was a time when people here respected this. When the majority of Slashdotters were active hackers themselves. Don't be fooled by my high UID -- I remember those times. We wrote software because we loved to. I rather suspect that lots of folks would have told Tim Berners Lee that the web was a dead end idea, or that at the very least it would never be useful. Lots of people have belittled Linux over the years using the same flaccid arguments.
You know GNU? The group that started it all? What was their goal? To produce a free UNIX. Yes, a clone. You understand this? In those days, there was no Windows (1984). A hacker at MIT decided that he wasn't going to put up with this proprietary software bullshit and he said, "I'm going to make a free UNIX clone." And people laughed at him. They said it would never happen. But it did, didn't it? I'm typing this from my Debian GNU/Linux workstation. People like Stallman and Torvalds made that happen. All they wanted was a free OS to replace the one they used at school/work and loved.
Now, most of us (myself included) dislike Windows. We dislike Microsoft (but then, I'm sure RMS disliked IBM, Sun and HP, too). But aren't you missing the point? Some guys like Windows. They like its interface. But like RMS, they demand freedom. Freedom, you know? In this world of the business-friendly "Open Source" movement, people seem to have forgotten this concept, the concept that motivated hackers to create a free UNIX in the first place. It's easy to forget about uncomfortable, uncomprimising ideals like Freedom. But people like Richard Stallman and Theo De Raadt -- and even Linus -- for all their failings -- are motivated by this ideal.
ReactOS is simply another GNU project. But this time, the hackers that have undertaken it aren't fond of the UNIX way. So what? They like an OS I don't like, but so the fuck what? Look at what they're doing. They're creating a free replacement. Free. As in Freedom, you know. So people everywhere that like Windows can use Free Software.
As difficult as it is for me, a unix-geek, to believe, some people don't like UNIX. Some people prefer VMS (I actually quite like VMS and wouldn't mind a FreeVMS). Some people prefer Windows. BeOS. Whatever.
People seem to think that if these guys weren't working on ReactOS, they'd be working on Linux, or BSD, or the HURD, or whatever pet project you have. But that's not how it works. Developers scratch and itch, you know? Because they're coding for love, because they like to code. Not for you. Not so that you can sit on your fat ass and benefit from their work. They do it for themselves, in an ultimately selfish way, to scratch their personal itches. And if you benefit, that's great.
Lusers are people that think FS devs are out to serve them. But guess what: just because you discovered Linux last week and found out that you can run on your machine and get work done doesn't mean that its a "product" that is being "produced" for you to consume. It's a labour of love, made by
Very mature. If you lose an argument, just call names. I love it! Nothing like an immature baby trying to make a _poor_ point on /. and then calling names!
OK, um....
(a) If you're newfangled enough to figure out the bold tags, you should be able to figure out the italic ones too. <i> isn't so much harder to do than <b>.
(b) You called him an idiot first, what the Hell.
Woah, control yourself. I actually found it amusing (albeit misleading), despite your comment.
Why is it so accepted to call someone an idiot just because they make a mistake? There's such a thing as constructive criticism, and it's possible to comment on something without acting like a jerk while doing it.
If the earlier poster was deliberately provoking it or if you were a regular troll then I could understand it and ignore it, but you've gone out of your way to also correct what was said. Slashdot's great for conversation with tech-minded people and that's what keeps me here, but all that fostering this attitude does is to make potentially interesting slashdot conversation appear even more childish and immature to anyone who reads it.
Yeah I know. This is slashdot. Whatever.
Well, I have to step in here and fire up my rant machine. Everyone else is having a row, I want one too. So here goes: It's time for my Bullshit Theory of the Day!
You say that the team is building something that has already been built. You claim that they are attempting to reinvent a wheel that is no longer useful. I must call bullshit on this whole diatribe. This isn't the wheel. I know how to build a wheel. More importantly I'm pretty sure you know how to build a wheel. My little brother knows how to build a wheel. With so many people building wheels we have to stop using this analogy for open source implementation.
I say this is building a Pyramid. Do you know how to build a Pyramid? I know I sure don't, and they are one of the wonders of the world. The Great Pyramid was built within the lifetime of one man. But the secrets that allowed them to build the Pyramid died with the master builder. (Oh, and let's nip this before it starts. The workers were not slaves. They were freemen as evidenced by "signatures" around the pyramid structure.)
The secrets of the source of the Win32 API are held by one man. He (and his team) know exactly how to push this block on that level and move it hundreds of feet into the air to start the next level of the Pyramid being built. I don't know how to move that block, and the ReactOS guys don't know how to move that block either. But they are trying to learn.
For hundreds of years man has attempted to relearn knowledge that was lost through the sands of time. Hundreds have tried to decode exactly how this block moved to be placed on top of that one after being rough cut by hand from a quarry at the base. Is this worthless? Is the knowledge of how a structure was designed, fabricated, built, and weathered as such that it has lasted hundreds of years useless information?
Rome had aquaducts, plumbing, roads. All structures designed in the minds of men and built on the backs of men. But which required decades, if not centuries, to recreate elsewhere in the world after the fall of the Roman Empire. Those structures too are still standing today.
My house, however, built only a year and a half ago, is not. Creaky boards, swaying walls, truly horrifing things happening. I, Sir, want an aquaduct. I want a Pyramid, a Castle. I want a home I know is going to stand for centuries. Not a measely couple of decades.
This is no different than what is happening here. There is no amount of information which is not knowledge. There is no knowledge that is not power. Power is what mankind strives to achieve. The very fact that the secrets of how to move those blocks into the air to get Word to run belong to so few is why so many are working so hard to recreate the information needed to perform these tasks.
It's the *why*. Why does x+y=z? Why does yellow + blue = green? Why is the sky blue? This isn't about recreating an OS that is dying if not dead just so they can have a perfectly dead OS. This is not about wanting to run an old copy of Word 2.0 they happen to have lying around. This is about the why of the power.
It's also the exact same why that created Linux.
Why is it that whenever someone with so little resources accomplishes so much there are always millions waiting to tear them down and tell them to go to hell? You don't want to install ReactOS to run Word 2.0 because you've already pirated XP SP2? Fine! Don't download it, don't install it, don't run it. But as a member of mankind at least understand that we will always rebuild what has already been built. Always.
Cars, Trains, Buildings, Waterways, Boats, Spaceships, and yes even the leaning t
"Genius may shine aloof and alone, like a star, but goodness is social, and it takes two men and God to make a Brother."
Will it run XLiveCD?
Seriously, ReactOS has been making some amazing progress lately. I don't know why anyone would want to use it (other than geek factor), but it shows that even Microsoft's crown jewels aren't safe from assimilation.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
the ONLY reason software does not run on NT is because of programmed in failpoints and the lack of upgraded Direct X libraries.
so if I look at the list of apps that do not run on windows NT 4, and is not a game, it is exactly one....
Adobe Premiere Pro, and ONLY because they wrote code to detect XP... I have seen it run under windows 2000 after hacks removed the parts that are checking for OS version.
so stop spreading your lies. NT4 is still a very viable Corperate OS and I can do anything under NT4 in a corperate environment that XP can.
honestly NT4 + office 97 is still as capable and useable as XP+office 2003
and it's TCO is far FAR less. Which does not suprise me when I find smaller companies still running it.
you got an insightful moderation... it should have been clueless.
Once upon a time, the use of the word "emulator" to mean "something that looks like something it isn't" was generally considered correct usage. Somewhere along the line, because the most popular "emulators" were hardware emulators, too-clever-for-their-own-good people of the "/usr stands for Unix System Resources" and "The US is not a democracy, it's a Republic" variety, decided to "correct" anyone using the word in its original wider definition.
Please. You knew exactly what he meant. He wasn't being misleading, it really is a product that tries to look and run as much like Windows as possible.
It's a Windows emulator, not a PC emulator.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.