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."
MS windows emulator on a peice of MS hardware .... nice
but will it run Linux?
Oh wait...
This is all getting a little silly.
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
When will they get ReactOS working on a PC?
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?
Does Minesweeper support Xbox Live?
My ISP won't talk to me after lodging a support call for helping gettting ADSL hooked up to a WinXP install running under VMWare under Linux on my XBox.
Yes, they will face many of the same challenges the WINE project does, which is why WINE and ReactOS liberally share patches. Why does everyone think they are just some peripheral group reinventing the wheel for no particular reason? The ReactOS project enjoys a symbiotic reliationship with WINE in which both projects benefit from each other's advances.
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
* Requires 8 year subscription to AOL at $23.95 per month
** Requires 12 year subscription to MSN at 21.95 per month
ReactOS is Wine - everything Wine has, ReactOS has too, except the Linux-specific parts (that, in ReactOS, will be handled by drivers). And ReactOS does implement recent APIs, we're no way stuck with Windows NT 4 compatibility, in fact our current baseline is more like Windows 2000 (especially true for the kernel). Finally, we won't just get up one day and declare 1.0: it will be 1.0 when compatibility reaches the intended milestone for 1.0 (namely, good enough to replace somewhere between Windows NT 4 Workstation and Windows 2000 Professional)
Make a difference - use Windows! (open source clone of Windows NT)
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
When XBOX runs Longhorn, then I'll think about switching.
Oh please. I didn't say "Windows is backwards compatible with every single app".
I said that Microsoft tries hard to keep backwards-compatibility.
But don't take my word for it, I don't work for them. Read Raymond Chen's various blog articles on the subject. He is one of the poor souls at MS who worked his butt off to try and keep backwards-compatibility.
This must be some new meaning of 'running' an OS I was unaware of.
Anyone want a 'running' Mac SE 30 with ethernet card? Drop me an email.
SAILING MISHAP
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.
I must disagree there. NT4, despite lacking support for a few things, is still a modern OS, and highly usable. With the hundreds and hundreds of programs I use, the only one that I can recall not working on NT4 is MPC, and that's not a big problem.
Namely, NT4 is lacking in USB support (oddly enough, I find NT4's lack of USB support better than Windows 98's USB support), only has DirectX6, and doesn't support FAT32 without a 3rd-party add-on. Those limitations can all be fixed easily, making an NT4 clone every bit as useful as, say, XP.
In addition, they are in a very different place than WINE. If programming for ReactOS is vagely similar to recent Windows, and it has just a few thousand users, it would become a supported platform. There are probably less Windows 95 users out there than that, yet just about all modern Windows programs still run on 95. A small bit of extra effort to reach a few thousand more people is a great trade-off for most.
Personally, I'd love to see it improve, as Windows is a constant headache for me. Having an Open Source version would make it far easier to solve problems (like why those dammed ATI drivers won't work).
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
The same could be said for Linux when it was in its infancy.
I commend the group working on ReactOS for the job they've done so far. Unlike others, they seem to be progessing nicely and arent stuck in the limbo between design and coding which so many projects seem to suffer from these days.
Theres a growing amount of users who have older hardware that struggles on 2k, XP and will struggle even more so with Longhorn. If ReactOS can provide a relatively stable Windows compatable environment, IMO they will make serious inroads.
So what you're saying is it emulates an API. Right?
No more than my car emulates a mode of transportation employing paved streets, or Mentat's MPS emulates SVR4 STREAMS (or even BSD sockets).
Wine implements the API.
ReactOS was born in dark, barbaric times. In 1997, your most realistic option to build PE executables with GCC on Windows was DJGPP, the port of GCC to a DOS extender, because MinGW didn't exist yet. I have had the dubious privilege of trying that - when I joined the project, DJGPP was no longer required for the main tree, but the boot loader still had to be built with it.
Also, the "don't design, code!" attitude worked in the beginning, to get anything done and avoid the mistake of the ReactOS father, FreeWin95, forever stuck in the design phase, but it backfired when real stuff began to run. It just doesn't work when cloning a system as firmly established as Windows - you can't always attack the problems by implementing function after function, many times you need a good overhead view. The short of it is that we have some embarassingly bad code in the kernel.
Make a difference - use Windows! (open source clone of Windows NT)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You're kidding, right?
A usable, workable microkernal that snuggly runds Win32 by design, and you're suggesting they give up and poke and Linux some more?
And let's not forget that they have essentially "joined WINE" -- both projects apparantly share rather liberally between each other.
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.
The short of it is that we have some embarassingly bad code in the kernel.
;-)
So that means you are really making some headway in duplicating windows properly
A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.
So by that logic you are also against Linux since there were free Unix implementations already available?
SYS 49152
Windows applications are not legacy. Linux is not a Windows replacement. BSD neither. We are totally, absolutely, positively sure: it's a Windows clone we want. We don't all secretly dream running Linux, and in fact several of us must fight the puke back when forced to deal with it (except KDE. I like KDE. I'd like it even more if it ran under Windows). Some have had their weird ideas phase, but you get over it soon.
We're tired of hearing about this every damn time, and I'm not speaking personally here. Even the Linux users among the developers are fed up with that argument. It doesn't make sense, ReactOS is real, is here, today: deal with it already, because at the point it is now, it's not just going to go away.
Your technical argument doesn't make sense, either. One of such DLLs you talk of is called "the Windows kernel", and it's a pretty big piece of software (a 2+ MB binary, for the record). And it has a private API to talk to the HAL. And one to the authentication service. And another to the event logging service. And yet another to the PNP service. Each of these services can be queried by applications with an undocumented RPC protocol. It's a recurring theme in Windows: most APIs have two sides with unknown grounds in the middle, and many DLLs expose multiple client sides. Picture the graph in your mind. No, more arcs. No, way more than that. Yes, you're getting closer, and yes, that arc does go twice the same way. Etc.
One has to wonder why couldn't Wine just provide a loader for Windows executables and let the (air quotes) D-L-L-s (air quotes) do the rest, if your statement had even the slightest trace of truth in it.
Please don't trivialize our work, which is something you apparently don't fathom in the slightest
Make a difference - use Windows! (open source clone of Windows NT)
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
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."