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'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
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.
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