Slashdot Mirror


ReactOS 0.3.1 Released

fireballrus writes with news of the release of ReactOS 0.3.1 — press release, changelog, download packages. ReactOS is "an open source effort to develop a quality operating system that is compatible with applications and drivers written for the Microsoft Windows NT family of operating systems (NT4, 2000, XP, 2003)." The press release notes: "Please don't forget this is an alpha-stage operating system, which means it is not suitable to replace your main OS. Also, this release is aimed to be run mostly in virtualizers / emulators (like QEmu, VMWare, Parallels, etc): because of the big amount of changes, our development team was not able to test/fix all problems which arise when running ReactOS on real hardware."

189 comments

  1. Nice to see them plugging ahead by dreamchaser · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've messed with ReactOS on and off for awhile. They really deserve some kudos for what they've accomplished to date, even if the system isn't really usable yet. I strongly encourage you to check them out if you're at all interested in the project; they've done some nice coding to date but can use all the help they can get.

    As mentioned, it's perfect to diddle with in a VM environment, though I have loaded it on a dedicated test machine before and that was a lot of fun too.

    1. Re:Nice to see them plugging ahead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They really deserve some kudos for what they've accomplished to date, even if the system isn't really usable yet.

      I'm not sure it will ever really be usable. I don't mean that as a insult towards the developers, either. I think the main usability problem involves the system that they're duplicating: Windows NT. Windows NT is virtually useless today.

      As a server platform, it's eclipsed by *BSD, Linux, OpenSolaris, and a host of other operating systems. For use as a workstation, again it's pretty useless. WINE on Linux runs virtually every Windows program I've tried. And if it doesn't directly run some Windows program, there's usually a far superior open source alternative.

      The only thing I see it being good for is as a hobby for its developers. If they enjoy working on it, good for them. But it'll probably never be of any practical use.

    2. Re:Nice to see them plugging ahead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      WINE on Linux runs virtually every Windows program I've tried. You must not have tried many Windows programs. I'm usually more surprised when something somewhat works. To even get to that point it takes considerable tweaking. Crossover acceptably when using supported applications, but if you stray from that it's little better than Wine.
    3. Re:Nice to see them plugging ahead by gfody · · Score: 1

      Is there a possibility of running this XP clone on non x86 hardware?

      --

      bite my glorious golden ass.
    4. Re:Nice to see them plugging ahead by ZephyrXero · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Is there a possibility of running this XP clone on non x86 hardware?"
      maybe if you were running it through an emulator...

      --
      "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
    5. Re:Nice to see them plugging ahead by 644bd346996 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It doesn't seem that you know that ReactOS and WINE share a lot of work. For example, the wine Task Manager was created for ReactOS and then integrated into wine. So far, ReactOS has benefitted more from the sharing, but as ReactOS gets more complete, the extent of the sharing increases.

    6. Re:Nice to see them plugging ahead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Sort of. I've run earlier versions under QEmu on my G4 iBook.

    7. Re:Nice to see them plugging ahead by nrdlnd · · Score: 1

      Yes - this is a very nice thing so you don't have to be suspected being a criminal! Wine doesn't always work and there are some instances when you need to run some Windows only programs. The best way (most convenient) is to run Windows in an emulator but it's ridiculous to have to pay for a full Windows license for this. I have bought a license for the Windows XP64 mainly to be able to profile my monitors for serious picture work. The calibrator is not supported in Linux. The system I'm working in is Linux (Ubuntu). A couple of programs that I need are Windows only and I think it could be nice to run them in an emulated environment. I have registered my copy of XP64 but I think it will be a nightmare to register the second copy of exactly the same "legal" copy when I run it in an emulated environment on exactly the same hardware (computer)!

    8. Re:Nice to see them plugging ahead by Foolhardy · · Score: 1

      NT is designed to be portable, and Microsoft has ported it to MIPS, Alpha, PPC, x86, Itanium and AMD64 each at one time or another. The ReactOS developers are retaining NT's portability, but running anything other than x86 is a very low priority right now.

    9. Re:Nice to see them plugging ahead by Diordna · · Score: 1

      I'm on a crappy old PPC eMac and I booted it once in QEMU just for kicks. Worked, but vvveeeerrrrryyyyyy ssssllllooooowwwwwwlllllyyyyyyy.

    10. Re:Nice to see them plugging ahead by MADCOWbeserk · · Score: 1

      It is unlikely that you will find an application that will work on ReactOS that dos not work on wine or vice versa. Both projects share API code and research. Compiling ReactOS for other architectures other than 64bit x86 extensions would be doable but fairly useless as windows application binaries wouldn't work on it. For example, Linux runs happily on powerpc, macromedia has a flash plug in for Linux, but it will not run on my Linux ppc box, because it is compiled for Linux x86.

      While I was excited in the early days of ReactOS, actually the NT kernel is fairly advanced, I am less so now. There isn't a single windows application that hasn't been ported or I haven't found a Linux substitute for that I need. Linux, with it's source based structure and applications offers a flexibility NT can't come close too.

      I could see a fork of the project where they put CYGWIN and X on top of the React kernel and dump the whole concept of full binary compatibility with windows (a lot of the simpler things that already work should still work). Then bring over the GNU tools and you could port just about any Linux app or window manager to it. Essentially it would give you another GNU distribution with a different kernel. Should have pretty good performance too.

      simple thoughts from a simple mind...

    11. Re:Nice to see them plugging ahead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the fuck is this flamebait? Put down the crack pipe, mod, and step away from the keyboard.

    12. Re:Nice to see them plugging ahead by vandan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      NT is designed to be portable, and Microsoft has ported it to MIPS, Alpha, PPC, x86, Itanium and AMD64 each at one time or another.

      That's stretching the truth a bit.

      The AMD64 'port', for starters, isn't in the same category as other 'ports' as it doesn't actually require any porting! There are optimisations that can be done. But is this a full-blown 'port'? Doubt it.

      Next in terms of completeness is the Alpha port, which was abandoned long, long ago. Was it NT3.5 that used to run on Alpha? Something like that. And there was a tiny selection of server software / hardware combos that worked.

      Next in line is the Itanium 'port'. I went to a Microsoft SQL Server sales pitch from Microsoft a while back, and they were demoing SQL Server 2003 on Itanium. The presentation was full of quotes like "Of course when it's complete, it won't lock up at this point ... hang on while I reboot ...", and other things such as "The whole DTS thing will run in 32-bit emulation mode, and quite slowly, for many years to come. We're having big problems getting this to work properly on an IA64 kernel." Now fair enough, this might be at least partly SQL Server, and not NT, but I think it's indicative of the whole shebang.

      As for MIPS, I've never seen this one, so I can't comment.

      And PPC? Are you serious? There's a PPC port of Windows? I don't think so. Maybe someone in Microsoft was dreaming of it, but I don't think this 'port' ever got anywhere.
    13. Re:Nice to see them plugging ahead by uhlume · · Score: 3, Informative

      And PPC? Are you serious? There's a PPC port of Windows? I don't think so. Maybe someone in Microsoft was dreaming of it, but I don't think this 'port' ever got anywhere.

      How old are you, twelve? Just because your memory doesn't reach back that far, doesn't mean it never happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT#Supported_ platforms

      (Also, as noted in the linked article, what do you suppose the Xbox360 runs on?)

      --
      SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM
    14. Re:Nice to see them plugging ahead by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      I went to a Microsoft SQL Server sales pitch from Microsoft a while back, and they were demoing SQL Server 2003 on Itanium.

      A while back??? SQL Server 2000? 2005? I ain't never heard of SQL Server 2003. In any case, I'll tell you /this/... Microsoft runs literally thousands of servers on SQL 2005 (although generally on AMD) 64 bit.

    15. Re:Nice to see them plugging ahead by dreddnott · · Score: 1

      Development of Windows NT 4.0 (and Windows 2000!) for Alpha continued up until 1999, and NT 4.0 as well as NT 3.51 was released with support for MIPS and PPC. A SPARC port was also made, but just as a one-off for one company. I had thought that the PowerPC port of Windows NT was more famous, but I guess not!

      (just confirming what I already knew, nice to see that)

      Windows Server 2003, the successor to Windows NT and 2000, is still available for IA64 (Itanium) as well as AMD64. I found that out on the Microsoft website, where they take great pains to distinguish the two architectures. Apparently it does well in some specialised applications...I personally despise the architecture.

      Speaking of the AMD64 port of Windows, I'm not sure you understand entirely the degree to which the operating system has been altered to accommodate 64-bit hardware. Your ignorance may have something to do with the fact that the Athlon 64 chip will run any 32-bit operating system, while Itanium does not, and suffers a performance penalty, like you mentioned, for running 32-bit in 64-bit mode. I've been using 64-bit Windows for AMD64 since October 2005 and I can say that it's noticeably different. You can't use any 32-bit drivers, or run any 16-bit or DOS software, and when the system gives the Blue Screen of Death, the memory addresses are given with 16 hex characters instead of 8 (that amuses me for some reason). There's a new folder in C:\WINDOWS called \SYSWOW64\ which contains all kinds of new DLLs, the registry has been given a freshening up, and there are a few bona fide new features unrelated to the 64-bitness as well.

      Also note that the Xbox 360, a PPC system, apparently runs a modified Windows 2000 kernel.

      --
      I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
    16. Re:Nice to see them plugging ahead by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Don't confuse the 64 bit PC CPUs ("x64") with the Itanium (IA64).

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    17. Re:Nice to see them plugging ahead by Ours · · Score: 1

      AMD64 != Itanium
      Intel's x64 is actually a fully compatible (read copied) implementation of AMD64. But Itanium is a whole other think.

      --
      "You superiour intellect is no match for our puny weapons" - The Simpsons
    18. Re:Nice to see them plugging ahead by Lance+Cooper · · Score: 1

      Yes, the project has been working on support for non-x86 architectures. See http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php/PowerPC

    19. Re:Nice to see them plugging ahead by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Cool, so when Apple discontinues support for Mac OS on your hardware, you can replace it with, um, Windows.

      Mac OS on x86, Windows on PowerPC - The sky is falling!

    20. Re:Nice to see them plugging ahead by ppc_digger · · Score: 1

      Cool, so when Apple discontinues support for Mac OS on your hardware, you can replace it with, um, Windows. ReactOS, not Windows. Windows/PPC doesn't run on Macs, only on PReP/CHRP machines (such as the IBM RS/6000 series and several PPC ThinkPads).
      --
      Of all major operating systems, UNIX is the only one originally meant for gaming.
    21. Re:Nice to see them plugging ahead by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Not Windows® per se but an operating system specifically engineered to host Win32 applications. Forgive my sense of humor but you obviously missed the irony of running this on Apple hardware. :(

    22. Re:Nice to see them plugging ahead by ppc_digger · · Score: 1

      I didn't miss the irony - "Mac OS on x86, Windows on PowerPC - The sky is falling!" is very obvious.

      Running Windows on Macs is not new, though.

      --
      Of all major operating systems, UNIX is the only one originally meant for gaming.
    23. Re:Nice to see them plugging ahead by pato101 · · Score: 1
      IMHO what makes ReactOS different from Linux+Wine (or BSD+wine) is the aim of allowing windows drivers be used at a free OS.

      There are potential benefits for both ReactOS and free-posix+Wine approaches, so keeping working on both sides makes a lot of sense.

    24. Re:Nice to see them plugging ahead by nxtw · · Score: 1

      I remember reading that early Xbox 360 devkits were actually Apple G5 machines, and I believe they were said to be running Windows 2000.

    25. Re:Nice to see them plugging ahead by denttford · · Score: 1

      How old are you, twelve? Just because your memory doesn't reach back that far, doesn't mean it never happened:

      No kidding. Mod GP down for general stupidity. DEC Alpha support was maintained until the RC stage for Windows 2000, not NT 3.5. In fact, some people do jump through some minor hoops to run W2K on Alphas.
      --

      Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
    26. Re:Nice to see them plugging ahead by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      They'll need some sort of emulation layer, but because they control the entire OS, they have the potential to do this with enormous performance.

      They can port all *their* code (and all the APIs) to the PowerPC. The only thing left running x86 code will be the actually application code. But since they'll be making calls to native libraries, you don't get the overhead of having to emulate the entire OS.

      This is actually how Apple has done it all the way back to the 68k/PowerPC switchover. And during the PowerPC/x86 switchover, they benefited from the same thing. The reason that Rosetta (Or rather, Transitive's QuickTransit) is so fast emulating a PowerPC on an Intel processor (which is normally much more difficult than the other way around) is because Rosetta isn't emulating an entire OS like PearPC and other similar projects are attempting. Rosetta just emulates the application code, and the application's API calls are made to native APIs.

      There is some trickery needed to make cross-platform API calls, of course, but the performance benefits are insane :)

      Not that I know anything about implementation. But the observation of Apple's two arch migrations is proof enough.

    27. Re:Nice to see them plugging ahead by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

      NT is designed to be portable, and Microsoft has ported it to MIPS, Alpha, PPC, x86, Itanium and AMD64 each at one time or another. The ReactOS developers are retaining NT's portability, but running anything other than x86 is a very low priority right now.

      The big stumbling block to running on non-x86, non-AMD64 hardware is that most Windows drivers and apps are only distributed in binary form, and the vast majority of those are built for x86. Even if you were to get ReactOS running on (for instance) a G4 Mac mini, you're still not going to get the Windows version of Office running on it unless you have some sort of x86 emulation thrown in. It's possible (Palm OS 5 emulates 68K on ARM, while Mac OS X emulates 68K on PowerPC (through the Classic environment) and PowerPC on x86), but it'd be far from optimal.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    28. Re:Nice to see them plugging ahead by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

      Intel's x64 is actually a fully compatible (read copied) implementation of AMD64.

      It's not a 100%-compatible implementation, as Intel left out 3DNow! support.

      That said, when I upgraded an Athlon 64 box to a Core 2 Duo, the AMD64 Gentoo install on it continued working just fine (most likely because the "3dnow" and "3dnowext" USE flags (and the other SIMD USE flags, too) have been masked in the AMD64 profiles until the yet-to-be-released 2007.0).

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    29. Re:Nice to see them plugging ahead by Foolhardy · · Score: 1

      Even if you were to get ReactOS running on (for instance) a G4 Mac mini, you're still not going to get the Windows version of Office running on it unless you have some sort of x86 emulation thrown in.
      What they need is an OSX environment subsystem (like what Wine is for Win32 on Unix) for PPC Reactos to run Microsoft's PPC-Mac port of Office :)

      Seriously, you're right that the compatibility angle would be largely defeated by running ReactOS on non x86 compatible hardware, but I think many people would also run ReactOS because they prefer a NT-style system to the more popular (on non-x86) UNIX variants. Besides, there are still many portable open-source apps and drivers that can and will be ported to non-x86 ReactOS.
    30. Re:Nice to see them plugging ahead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just make sure you change your flags to -cpu=nocona, instead of -cpu=opteron.

    31. Re:Nice to see them plugging ahead by mink · · Score: 1

      Actually NT for Alpha was abandoned at version RC2 of Windows 2000. Runs rather well IMO, even the x86 to Alpha converter thingy did a good job. Hardware support was also pretty good (back then).
      If you actually pick up legit NT4 media and look at it it says right on it that it's got Alpha binaries as well as a few other platforms besides X86.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  2. Cool project by 26199 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The legal issues are kinda scary but it looks like they have them under control. All respect to them for attempting the impossible... and from the look of it, they're a good way to succeeding :)

    1. Re:Cool project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The legal issues associated with reverse engineering an operating system to run programs originally written for windows should not be any scarier than those associated with reverse engineering (clone) the hardware to run software written for IBM PC. IBM had deep pockets and a penchant for enforcing its large IP portfolio, but the cloners won.

    2. Re:Cool project by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On the other hand, at that point in time IBM wasn't really all that interested in stopping the development of clone PCs, for a variety of reasons. Had they really chosen to throw their weight around, they most certainly could have, in which case someone else would have taken over (which might have been a good thing for world of personal computing, when you get right down to it.)

      Apple, in fact, spent far more time in court suing the likes of Franklin Computer (who, in many ways, had a better product.) Granted, that may have been simply because IBM didn't perceive the personal computer as being a big part of their future, at that point in time, since big iron was still their bread-and-butter. However, if you want to get into the history of anticompetitive behavior at IBM, check out out how they dealt with anyone making plug-compatible components for their mainframe systems in the 60's and 70's. That was a very different story. There's a guy named Amdahl that would be happy to enlighten you.

      Besides, the legal climate for reverse-engineering is decidedly less friendly to cloners than it was in, say, 1981.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:Cool project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except some of the ReactOS developers peeked at the Windows source code. Or, as the ReactOS developers put it, "...the term reverse engineering can mean many things to many different people."

      http://www.reactos.org/en/news_page_14.html

    4. Re:Cool project by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      All I can say is God Bless these people for trying to do what is so badly needed in the world of computing right now. Until we get a real competitor to the Microsoft/Apple hegemony that can actually run the professional programs that people need, we users are going to continue to suffer under hobbled applications, less-than-stellar interfaces and substandard quality control (and that's just Windows - Apple has their own problems with being able to bring a product that gives good value to the market - and not just to the enthusiast).

      I believe it was the brief threat of OS/2 that made MS and Apple get their acts partially together way back when. We saw both those companies put out products that were far more sturdy and usable in the period after OS/2 hit the market.

      But what's really necessary is a solid, well-financed commercial operating system that can run current Windows and/or (why not?) Mac applications on widely available hardware. I keep hearing all this yada yada about "virtualzation". Well, I've read the Wikipedia entry on virtualization and I don't know why we can't see a bold product that could run the apps we want the way we want them. Vista is a horror. Leopard is fine if you don't have to justify buying the overpriced package (and I mean Mac Pro. I need a serious desktop system and an iMac just isn't it.)

      Not long ago, nobody would have believed that Apple would come out with an OS based on BSD. Everybody believed MS would come out with a stinker like Vista. I believe that there are innovators out there who still have the ability to surprise us with something spectacular. Lord knows a world of users would run to them with open arms.

      But it has to be well-financed, commercial. Honestly, I don't care if it's almost as expensive as a Mac. Something galls me about having to pay the high premium on average hardware that you get with a Mac Pro. I just want a viable, professional choice.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Cool project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's also this little gem at the end: "If people made mistakes and there was a violation of the law, I question the justice of the law and or anyone that would try to prosecute any of the developers who just want the freedom to learn and create a more free system."
      --
      "I am the law." - Judge Dredd

    6. Re:Cool project by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      I believe it was the brief threat of OS/2 that made MS and Apple get their acts partially together way back when. We saw both those companies put out products that were far more sturdy and usable in the period after OS/2 hit the market.

      At the time when OS/2 "hit the market" (and for some years thereafter), it was a Microsoft product.

      What timeframe are you actually thinking of ?

    7. Re:Cool project by MADCOWbeserk · · Score: 1

      Actually Compaq did not reverse engineer the hardware of the IBM PC. IBM used fairly common standard components in order to speed development. They were already x86 computers using similar parts to the IBM. However they were not compatible. Compaq reversed engineered the bios which allowed for full software compatibility. Compaq was also extraordinarily careful to cover their legal asses. They used two teams of engineers who had never laid eyes on a PC. One team measured BIOS outputs to different inputs, the other team took those measurements and designed another bios that produced the same results. IBM would have like to sue, but Compaq carefully documented the entire process.

    8. Re:Cool project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but will it be open source and/or gpl, or will we even be able to see the source, like zimmerman with the pgp source?

    9. Re:Cool project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      richard stallman would be proud

    10. Re:Cool project by dal20402 · · Score: 1

      I believe it was the brief threat of OS/2 that made MS and Apple get their acts partially together way back when. We saw both those companies put out products that were far more sturdy and usable in the period after OS/2 hit the market.

      ?

      I don't see how this is true for any value of OS/2.

      OS/2 1.0 came out in 1987, and MS was partially responsible. At that point Apple had more or less the same Mac OS it had in 1984 (with minor refinements). MS's other offering was... DOS.

      OS/2 2.0 came out in 1992, when Microsoft was offering... Windows 3.1. Wow, that's some kind of stable operating system. Just before OS/2 2.0. Apple came out with System 7. It was a disaster until 7.1, and was never a particularly "sturdy and usable" product (except possibly for "7 Pro" on 68030 machines).

      OS/2 Warp came out in 1994, when Apple was running a nearly entirely emulated OS (680x0 code, PowerPC hardware) with a ton of bugs and Microsoft was *still* peddling Windows 3.11 (soon to be replaced by a very buggy and unstable Windows 95).

      Windows really became "sturdy and usable" with Windows 2000. Depending on how you define "sturdy," you could argue that Mac OS 8.6 (the most stable classic Mac OS) in 1999 fit the description, but I wouldn't call any Mac OS release really "sturdy" until OS X Jaguar in 2002. (Even Jaguar was not that usable -- OS X really became both "sturdy and usable" with Panther in 2003.) OS/2 was dying a horrible death by the time these all came out.

      Something galls me about having to pay the high premium on average hardware that you get with a Mac Pro.

      So many good examples of arguably overpriced Mac hardware (see Mac mini) and you choose the one model that's unequivocally a screaming deal to complain about the price? I'm confused... Most dual-dual Xeon 5100 boxes go for $300 to $700 more than a comparable Mac Pro, and don't even have the slide-out drive bays. The Mac Pro is NOT comparable to ordinary desktops (which is why Apple really ought to offer one).

    11. Re:Cool project by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      On IBM, they indeed had been an anti competitive company for a while.

      Once they had signed the consent decree on the issue, they abided by it,
      as far as I know. I worked at one place as an operator in a small shop,
      and I can say that at least there, the IBM people I came in contact with
      were careful not to even bad mouth the competition, much less try to
      force us to choose IBM. This was mid to late 90's.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    12. Re:Cool project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      plus they sold their pc division to lenovo, which validifies what you said.

    13. Re:Cool project by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "at that point in time IBM wasn't really all that interested in stopping the development of clone PCs, for a variety of reasons. Had they really chosen to throw their weight around, they most certainly could have"

      This is a completely revisionist view of history, because IBM sued a number of early clone makers who directly copied their BIOS (which is exactly what Franklin did to Apple) -- one example is here (http://www.scripophily.net/eaglecomputer.html), but there are various others. Note also that oldsters like myself and Bruce Perens (http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=20 01-05-03-007-20-OP-CY-0014) remember that IBM sued Compaq for infringement, but lost because the Compaq BIOS was reverse-engineered rather than copied, and in the absence of software patents and the DMCA, writing something which did the same job as copyrighted code without copying the code itself was allowed.

      At that point in time (to use your own term) IBM were notorious for throwing their weight around, and their policy with the PC was "business as usual", i.e. use the cheapest possible method of crushing competitors, which in the case of those who are much smaller and therefore lack the funds to maintain armies of lawyers, was usually the courts.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    14. Re:Cool project by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I didn't say they took no legal action. I said they weren't interested in stopping the clones, which is a different matter entirely and which they could have done ... instead, they protected their copyrights and not a lot more. IBM had the resources to cause clone makers a lot more grief than it actually did (and which Apple did, and is still doing.) If a comparatively small company like Apple can do it, you can't tell me that IBM couldn't have had they pulled out all the stops. Copyright infringement was only one avenue that IBM could have taken: with their patent portfolio they could have found something with which to go after Compaq and the rest, if they'd wanted to that badly. Like I said, IBM wasn't that interested in stopping the clones, because if they had been ... there wouldn't be any. Oh, we'd still have personal computers, but they wouldn't be IBM PC compatible.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    15. Re:Cool project by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "I said they weren't interested in stopping the clones, which is a different matter entirely and which they could have done ... "

      There was nothing else they could have done. The IBM PC was built from off-the-shelf commodity components because the DOJ were investigating them for anti-trust violations, and they'd already agreed to let MS sell DOS to anyone. The _only_ thing IBM had that was entirely theirs was the BIOS, so the BIOS was what they defended in court.

      "IBM had the resources to cause clone makers a lot more grief than it actually did (and which Apple did, and is still doing.)"

      It's irrelevant what resources they had if there was nothing to defend with them. Even litigation-happy Apple didn't sue people for making similar hardware to theirs, but only for copying their ROMs. Atari STs for example were perfectly capable of running the Mac OS and software if equipped with a cheap third-party expansion box that took Apple ROMs, so Apple took action to prevent the ROMs being sold on their own -- they could not however prevent Atari from making a computer that used most of the same third-party internal hardware as a Mac, just as IBM couldn't prevent people from making computers with the same third-party internal hardware as their PC.

      "Copyright infringement was only one avenue that IBM could have taken: with their patent portfolio they could have found something with which to go after Compaq and the rest, if they'd wanted to that badly."

      Patents on what? There were no IBM-sourced components in the PC to patent, and nothing else in it was new or innovative in concept or technology. The Intel 8086 family was 6 years old when the IBM PC was launched, and other manufacturers had used it long before IBM; memory mapped displays were commonplace; expansion ports had existed on microcomputers since the original Altair; cassette ports and 5.25" floppy drives had been used by others, usually at much higher density in the case of floppies; dynamic RAM was standard, as was ROM, etc., etc., etc. It was a machine that used fairly old technology in a very ordinary, conservative way, so there was nothing in IBM's otherwise extensive patent portfolio that applied to anything in it. By the time they tried to fix the situation with the significantly more patent and copyright-encumbered PS/2, the clone industry was big enough to chart its own independent course, so it was IBM who eventually had to relent and release machines with a VESA bus rather than everyone having to build licensed PS/2 clones.

      "Like I said, IBM wasn't that interested in stopping the clones, because if they had been ... there wouldn't be any"

      Just because you say something doesn't mean it's true. IBM did everything they possibly could to stop the clone makers within the law (that previously wouldn't have been a barrier, but I said before, they were undergoing a very extensive DOJ anti-trust investigation at that time, so they were anxious to keep their noses clean). It's also probable that they simply failed to see what was happening until it was too late; they'd become accustomed to owning 90% of the IT industry, leaving the usually better and cheaper competition to fight over the remaining 10%, and very likely believed that PC clones would be more of the same. And to be fair, it certainly looked that way for a few years, because the PC, XT, and AT sold very well despite their pedestrian technology and high list prices (which few of their valued corporate customers actually paid), so IBM possibly didn't really know what was happening until their corporate reps started seeing machines from the likes of Compaq on the desktops of previously IBM-exclusive customers.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    16. Re:Cool project by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      So if I want a solid desktop computer with which to use my brand new $1000 RME sound card, which Mac am I supposed to use if not the Mac Pro?

      Please enumerate for me the full-size tower (or any tower, or anything with a PCIe or PCI slot) Macs besides the Mac Pro.

      If I want to use a Macintosh to use Logic for music production, it's $7000 before I even look at any audio hardware. That's too much. I've used the top of the line iMac and mini-Mac for music production and they just can't handle it.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  3. what's in a name? by User+956 · · Score: 0

    ReactOS is "an open source effort to develop a quality operating system that is compatible with applications and drivers written for the Microsoft Windows NT family of operating systems (NT4, 2000, XP, 2003)."

    That's great and all, but does it comply with Newton's Third Law?

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:what's in a name? by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      Of course... Microsoft made a new driver system and API for Vista, which could be considered a force in the opposite direction, as things written specifically for Vista are not cited as being compatible with ReactOS.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
  4. But I have to know... by Arceliar · · Score: 4, Funny

    does it run cygwin?

    1. Re:But I have to know... by andreyw · · Score: 1

      Why not? It implements Win32. Hell, cygwin probably runs under Wine. *snickers*

    2. Re:But I have to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think that was funny? I am so tired of these cliched responses. You waste my time, and the time of everyone else who is actually interested in ReactOS and hoping someone posts something interesting about it.

    3. Re:But I have to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but we all need to know if it runs Linux, and how well a beowulf cluster of these would run, Stateside as well as in Soviet Russia.

    4. Re:But I have to know... by fonik · · Score: 1

      Lighten up, Francis.

    5. Re:But I have to know... by fonik · · Score: 1

      Seriously, though, whether it will run Cygwin is an important question. People won't be using this for games unless the OS can support the very latest Direct X. People won't be using this for home user stuff because windows lovers love windows and everyone else loves *nix. Who does that leave?

      People who would use this are the same people who are probably running FreeBSD or Debian on a server right now, but have something that would run better on an NT system. These people will be more likely to adopt ReactOS if they can access it with their favorite shell and not some graphical remote desktop thing.

    6. Re:But I have to know... by Myen · · Score: 1

      In the same vein, does it run Interix (Services for Unix / Subsystem for Unix-based Applications)? (It's like cygwin, but runs on top of the NT core itself rather than Win32)

      That'd be interesting, even though as far as I can tell it's more NetBSD than Linux.

    7. Re:But I have to know... by ady1 · · Score: 1

      But does wine runs under cygwin?

    8. Re:But I have to know... by julesh · · Score: 1

      You think that was funny? I am so tired of these cliched responses. You waste my time, and the time of everyone else who is actually interested in ReactOS and hoping someone posts something interesting about it.

      Frankly, I'd say that it's a serious question. I mean, if ReactOS can run cygwin, firefox and a reasonably good text editor, I could use it for 90% of my daily work. That'd be a great start to being a useful system.

  5. Good News For Compatibility by Foofoobar · · Score: 1

    While Microsoft drags their feet with compatibility both with the Justice Dept here in the US and with the European Commission, it's nice to see people working on projects like this which potentially will enhance the interactivity between all platforms. Macs and Linux get along fine but Windows doesn't want to get along with anyone. Maybe ReactOS (being an open source project) will finally force Microsoft compatibility without their consent.

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    1. Re:Good News For Compatibility by purplehead · · Score: 1

      Funny, Apple traditionally didnt communicate with anybody, because they invented there own stack which spoke to no-one else. It was only when Dave (horrific product name) was released that macs spoke tcp/ip. Microsoft actually made a fairly decent effort at being compatible with Macs. As for Unix/Linux type platforms, Windows has CIFS, and provides a fairly standard and compatible TCP/IP Stack. Plenty of companies employ both platforms and it can be done fairly successfully, not sure I see where the problem is tbh. If you set out to be a maverick dont complain when the world decides to not want to play with you.

    2. Re:Good News For Compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is just incorrect. Dave was not a TCP/IP stack. Dave would allow you to connect to Windows shares back in the System 7-9 days.

      A machine running system 7.1 could speak TCP/IP with no 3rd party software of any kind. I'm sorry but you're just wrong.

    3. Re:Good News For Compatibility by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      The TCP/IP stack in windows is fairly standard and compatible because it's mostly copyright the Regents of the University of California at Berkeley. Given that, it should be perfectly compatible, and not just fairly. "Embrace and extend" is a business strategy at Microsoft, you see.

    4. Re:Good News For Compatibility by 0racle · · Score: 1

      Windows TCP/IP stack has been rewritten twice since NT 3.5 which was where they first used the BSD TCP/IP stack. There might be some BSD influenced stuff still in it, but the majority of actual BSD code is gone.

      A network stack is not the be all and end all of compatibility, and in general Windows fits in just fine in a mixed environment.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    5. Re:Good News For Compatibility by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      If it's been rewritten from the original code, then it's still copyrighted by the University. There's no reason to doubt that MS either would leave the copyright notice in place or do a full rewrite. I believe a lot of negative things about MS, but I don't think they're boldly ripping off a TCP/IP stack.

      I'm just saying there's a good reason for it to be compatible -- because it was at least at first derived from one of the original implementations of TCP/IP. This is a great example of BSD-style code doing a lot of good. Linux uses it. Windows uses it. OS X probably uses it since that's derived largely from the BSDs. And the world can communicate better because the code was BSD licensed.

      I'm a big fan of the GPL (version 2 anyway), of BSD, the Mozilla License, the Artistic License, the MIT license, etc. They are all pretty good at accomplishing what they are intended to accomplish. In this case, the BSD license was used to allow everyone to have a working TCP/IP stack whether open or closed source, and that's a good thing. OTOH, I'm glad certain projects are GPLed, because when everything becomes a one-way street with open source code, you get the kind of fragmentation we had with Unix in the 1980s.

  6. Screenshots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
    1. Re:Screenshots by Chapter80 · · Score: 1

      I thought for sure your Screenshots link would include at least one Blue Screen of Death.

  7. hmm by mastershake_phd · · Score: 1

    I wonder if Microsoft has any tricks up their sleeve to deal with these guys. Hidden API functionality perhaps.

    1. Re:hmm by The+Mysterious+X · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If there are hidden API's, then that means nobody knows about them, which means, nobody uses them (apart from MS software, but lets be honest, if you're running a free NT clone, you aren't going to be running MS office are you?), which means that it won't affect them in the slightest.

      And if there are any hidden API's, the DOJ and EU will hit MS with the antitrust stick.

      API changes might be an issue, but again, if the API's are in use, they can't do this without breaking other software. Hiding stuff from a competitor is one thing, but deliberately crippling a rival's software?

      That would earn them the antitrust battering ram.

      It also wouldn't make much business sense; who would want to develop for a platform where the goalposts are constantly moving?

    2. Re:hmm by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      (apart from MS software, but lets be honest, if you're running a free NT clone, you aren't going to be running MS office are you?)

      Yes, actually.

    3. Re:hmm by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      It also wouldn't make much business sense; who would want to develop for a platform where the goalposts are constantly moving?

      You just described everyone who's been developing on the Microsoft bandwagon for the past twenty-five years or so, me included. The goalposts not only move, but they have JATO units attached to them that fire at random intervals. Now ... does that make much business sense? No, not really: but that's how things work in the world of Microsoft operating systems.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    4. Re:hmm by zuiraM · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing an important point:

      Clean room reverse engineering and reimplementation.

      One team of tainted developers reverse-engineer the code, and write a spec.
      Another team of *untainted* developers only get to see the spec, and write code that conforms to this spec.

      At least that's how I understood it. Basically, they have a legal way of reimplementing things, including any hidden APIs. Of course, in the US, the DMCA might make the first part illegal, but that part can be done elsewhere if that is the case, and I don't think the spec is legally tainted by any infringement of the DMCA, at least not if it's done outside US juris(male)diction.

    5. Re:hmm by thebdj · · Score: 1

      Actually, there are "hidden" APIs to which developers have been trying to gain access for a long time. In fact, these "hidden" APIs are a big reason that wine doesn't run all programs and doesn't run many programs as fast as Windows can. It isn't just because they are translating the API, it is because Microsoft has obsfuscated a lot of its API and has, as we are referring to them, "hidden APIs".

      Also, you incorrectly assume that no one else knows about the "hidden APIs". This would be the perfect example of what an NDA would be used for, which I am sure plenty of companies dealing with Microsoft have signed. You also incorrectly assume the DoJ will do something. Need I point out that the DoJ went limp on Microsoft, and the biggest hurt to MS stateside has been from individual states and not from the US Government. (Recall, Microsoft was originally called to break-up, but the appeals court saw that didn't happen.)

      Actually, the US has not really stood to tall against any monopoly lately. The break-up of AT&T has now proven to be a joke, and while AT&T had to make some concessions in order to acquire Bellsouth (subsequently becoming the sole owner of Cingular), those concessions were made to the FCC and not the FTC. (Personally, I find the somewhat cyclical history of AT&T interesting.) The EU might be able to force MS to do some things, but I will guarantee you that Microsoft would say, "We don't have to do that in the US though, since the EU has no power there." So it will be good for Europe, I guess...but the US still will have a convicted monopoly doing business as usual.

      --
      "Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
    6. Re:hmm by denttford · · Score: 1

      (apart from MS software, but lets be honest, if you're running a free NT clone, you aren't going to be running MS office are you?)

      Why not? You could set up an Exchange Server (which is popular and useful despite the predictable /. "why would you want that") without having to pay for the underlying OS.

      --

      Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
  8. Re:this is kinda weird by xtracto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because it is not Free? as in Beer and as in Libre?

    --
    Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  9. R-e-a-c-t-i-n-g .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why? Such wasted effort to duplicate a flawed system of software.

    1. Re:R-e-a-c-t-i-n-g .... by Jartan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why? Such wasted effort to duplicate a flawed system of software.


      Well it would be interesting to see if the effort allows them to fix some of the flaws and continue to run a lot of the software. For me personally I look at this sort of an effort as a perfect solution to the main thing that keeps me from ditching MS: games.
    2. Re:R-e-a-c-t-i-n-g .... by catbutt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because most applications that people use are written for Windows.

      Once you give people other options for running those apps, that aren't controlled by a company trying to protect their monopoly, you open up a lot of possibilities for the industry to move away from Microsoft lock-in.

    3. Re:R-e-a-c-t-i-n-g .... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Why? Such wasted effort to duplicate a flawed system of software.

      Just like Linux was, you mean ?

    4. Re:R-e-a-c-t-i-n-g .... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      As a note here, one of the reasons for the Microsoft "Shared Assurance" program that locks you into their grips is to prevent people from trying to install "free upgrade" and other stuff from the Microsoft.com website. There are not nearly as many "free downloads" from there as there were even a few years ago. And those that there are require you to use your OS registration key (in an innocent name called a "passport") or some other similar feature to verify that you are a genuine MS customer.

      This was not done at all ten year ago, when ReactOS could barely boot at all, and that was considered a major accomplishment.

      I would say that while Microsoft is not running for the hills with their tail between their legs, they are not ignoring ReactOS either. I would even argue that the move with Vista to a new API was due in part to their attempt to relegate ReactOS to the dustheap of ancient and unsupported operating systems.

      Where ReactOS is going to be a "killer app" is when Microsoft finally decides to stop supporting Windows 2000. There will be a huge need for many businesses to keep some legacy applications running on new hardware (due to the old stuff simply having mechanical failures) but they can't upgrade to XP (or Vista) for various reasons. ReactOS would certainly be something for companies considering this as a potential migration path, where continued OS support will occur.

    5. Re:R-e-a-c-t-i-n-g .... by AxminsterLeuven · · Score: 1

      I feel the same way.
      But you'd still have to run Microsoft's DirectX and I wonder if that will ever run on ReactOS. Also, since they aim for compatibility with XP, it'll never run DirectX 10...

    6. Re:R-e-a-c-t-i-n-g .... by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that they would support DirectX 10 if they can get everything else in the pipeline working. If you look around the ReactOS site and read the forums, I think there are posts to the effect.

      Of course, if you pardon my pessimism I think the chances that a volunteer project will cleanly reverse engineer even the vast majority of Windows 2000 is rather small. I wish them the best, but they're tackling an enormous task.

    7. Re:R-e-a-c-t-i-n-g .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me, too, but I don't think ReactOS 0.3.1 will cut it. I'm waiting for ReactOS 0.95.

  10. Re:this is kinda weird by goarilla · · Score: 1

    why don't you skip all the hard stuff and just build a complete interface replacement for XP or Vista
    i don't get it are you talking about a new shell/graphical interface like geoshell, liteshell, ...
    and all the others which can be easily found on this page http://www.shellfront.org/
    i know what the goal is of ReactOS, to create an open-source free Windows alike os
    and they are obviously doing an incredible job, they are kinda reverse-engineering windows if i can call it that

    but ILuvRamen i really don't understand what you're saying, please explain
  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. Re:this is kinda weird by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

    because this way we have a tiny squishy portal we can use to host windows only programs personally i would like to see the EU force Microsoft to write enough docs and blank off the patents so that reactOS could become a drop in replacement for XP .

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  13. Does it run Duke Nukem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ;)

  14. Reactos Alpha = Windows Beta? by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1

    It would be interesting to compare Reactos' interpretation of Alpha vs Microsoft's. What's the BSOD rate?

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Reactos Alpha = Windows Beta? by dhasenan · · Score: 1

      Patent 6,379,553: Method to Display Failure Information

      A method and system are provided for displaying failure information on a limited resource computing device. Unparseable textual messages are displayed upon failure. ...

      4. The method of claim 3, in which the screen is blanked before the message is displayed.

      5. The method of claim 4, in which the message is displayed on a blue background.

      ---

      As you see, React cannot legally implement the Blue Screen of Death.

    2. Re:Reactos Alpha = Windows Beta? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be so leet! I bet M$ Windoze has a lot more BSOD's than Reactos. Har har, Microsucks Windoze has bluescreens all the time!

  15. Please don't forget that this is an alpha stage OS by RLiegh · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    ...and that when or if it should ever reach beta (or, god forbid, release) stage it will be sued back into oblivion by Microsoft for an almost infinate number software patent violations.

    I mean, come on guys...you know it's going to happen, it's just a matter of time. Why not invest your time and money into something that isn't litigation-bait?

  16. How to Avoid Vista by rueger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only reason why a lot of us would upgrade to Vista is because Microsoft will stop supporting our current OS with bug fixes and security updates. Vista to me looks like a nightmare of DRM and restrictions on what I would want to do, but I can see my current Win 2K install becoming as outdated and unsupported as Windows 98.

    If React OS can keep me running my current Windows apps in a sensible, secure, and supported environment, then I can avoid Vista. That means less headaches, and less expense.

    Really, these folks may have found a really nice niche.

    (Honestly, looking at Vista make me think that this is the time when someone, whether Linux, Mac, or something else, could make significant inroads.)

    1. Re:How to Avoid Vista by RLiegh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >If React OS can keep me running my current Windows apps in a sensible, secure, and supported environment, then I can avoid Vista. That means less headaches, and less expense.

      Which is exactly why Microsoft will dig deep into it's legal fund and patent portfolio and nuke reactos off the face of the planet the very second that ReactOS becomes a practical alternative to Windows.

    2. Re:How to Avoid Vista by linguizic · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm betting that Apple is making significant inroads. The idea of running XP for 7 more years drove me to buy a macbook.

      --
      Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
    3. Re:How to Avoid Vista by MBGMorden · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Doubtful. Reactos has been around a LONG time. They've always been very careful to avoid any actions that would be legally unsound. If you play the game right, you can legally clone a system and there's nothing that they can do to you. BTW, if they happened to sue ReactOS, WINE is in trouble too. Most of the Windows API code that actually deals with running programs they closely model on each other.

      In any event, the whole topic is moot. If they sue based on software patents, then ReactOS can simply move the servers to a country that doesn't recognize them (and there are will plenty of those).

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    4. Re:How to Avoid Vista by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

      And will the developers move to Outer Elbonia too? If MS had a (e.g.) U.S. court declare that Reactos was an Unclean Abomination That None May Look Upon, I'm pretty sure that the courts would frown on a U.S. resident developer who continued to work on it and claimed US laws didn't apply because they submitted the patches to a server in Outer Elbonia.

      IANAL

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    5. Re:How to Avoid Vista by weg · · Score: 1

      I believe that Microsoft will support XP way longer than ReactOS will be around...

      --
      Georg
    6. Re:How to Avoid Vista by Sodki · · Score: 1

      And will the developers move to Outer Elbonia too? I doub it. It's very hard to live in a mud country with computers made of cardboard.

    7. Re:How to Avoid Vista by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason people upgrade to Vista is because they are nerds or because they are buying a new computer. The bulk of my family still use Win98, and *shudder* ME.

    8. Re:How to Avoid Vista by Scratched · · Score: 1

      I can see my current Win 2K install becoming as outdated and unsupported as Windows 98.
      I don't think that will happen too soon. Windows 98 was based on the DOS kernel. Windows 2000 was the first mainstream MS OS to be based on the NT kernel. All Windows OSes have been based off the NT kernel since 2000 (and of course even before that, but not as mainstream). Since Windows 2000 uses a kernel similar to XP and Vista, I can see MS supporting it for a while (or at least it would make sense to). MS isn't giving 2000 some things, such as IE, but I don't think they'll cut it for a few years still. I can also see software developers continuing to make things compatible with 2000 since it shouldn't be very hard to do seeing as it uses a very similar kernel.

      I realize that the NT kernel has been updated and changed quite a lot over the years, but I'm pretty sure it's similar enough to keep support for a while.
    9. Re:How to Avoid Vista by Darundal · · Score: 1

      I doubt they would be able to. The guys producing ReactOS went through a self-imposed code audit awhile back, because someone informed them that some patents might have been violated. The way they have been running things, about the only thing they could possibly nail them on at any point would be violating their trade dress for Windows.

    10. Re:How to Avoid Vista by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAHAHAH! Yeah right!

      They can do what they want, but ReactOS is open source. It can still be distributed and developed, though underground.

    11. Re:How to Avoid Vista by TheGreatHegemon · · Score: 1

      Actually, Microsoft already has tried to nuke ReactOS. The development on ReactOS is significantly hampered because they have to painstakingly check every last piece of new code before committing it. Why? Because Microsoft accused them of using MS source code. It even put a hold on development, as they had to review ALL their code for any possible infringements. Lame, huh?

    12. Re:How to Avoid Vista by Saffaya · · Score: 1

      Not to brag, but the EU community does not (yet ?) acknowledge Software Patents.
      Makes a good bunch of countries to live in, including english speaking ones.

    13. Re:How to Avoid Vista by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was in the same boat until I woke up just this past week.

      Ubuntu + Beryl + Wine. I'll never go back.

    14. Re:How to Avoid Vista by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they wrote a piece of paper which said "software patents are forbidden", which was interpreted by the European Patent Agency as "software patents are allowed", so we have software patents, even if that isn't officially acknowledged.

    15. Re:How to Avoid Vista by julesh · · Score: 1

      And will the developers move to Outer Elbonia too? If MS had a (e.g.) U.S. court declare that Reactos was an Unclean Abomination That None May Look Upon, I'm pretty sure that the courts would frown on a U.S. resident developer who continued to work on it and claimed US laws didn't apply because they submitted the patches to a server in Outer Elbonia.

      IANAL


      Neither am I, but I believe designing something that violates patents is not against the law. Only manufacturing (which in the context of software could be interpreted as distributing), selling, importing or using the patented invention for purposes other than research is. If the developers could argue that their purpose in developing is for research (which is perfectly reasonable, IMO), the patents would not apply to them.

    16. Re:How to Avoid Vista by malevolentjelly · · Score: 0

      This is insane. You open-source enthusiasts are maniacs.

      Kudos to the ReactOS team, this is a really interesting project. It looks fairly promising for what it's supposed to do; provide some basic windows support to a free OS.

      However, we've got this moron brigade dancing around like this is some sort of dark secret that Microsoft needs to eliminate or face utter destruction. Am I also to understand that a semi-stable WINE-ish OS is the mark of death for Windows?

      There's even suggestions of DirectX 10 compatibility being right around the corner... are you daft? Let me put it very very plainly:

      The open-source community will not be able to make a better Windows than Microsoft. At most, they're likely to make a better NT 4.0 sometime in the next 3-5 years. By this point, Windows will be well ahead. I think we need to put this into perspective- this project will be a welcome way for Linux-based companies to preserve LEGACY Windows support in Virtual Machines at decent speed, etc. - possibly to be a virtualized solution to Wine. Otherwise, this is not going to be adopted by the masses... EVER. If you think this, then you really don't understand the consumer market.

  17. Please stop Bundling Win32 Qemu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not running Windows, I'm sick of every VM image I download coming with a bundled windows version of this emulator. Can a man just get a qcow or is that too much to ask?

  18. What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    By the time the OS will be anywhere near usable and a "drop-in-replacement" for Windows XP, WinXP will no longer be supported by M$ and there will have been the next 5 releases of windows out. Really why not just focus on getting windows programs to run on other OS'es like using wine on linux. A lot of programs already can be run with wine or crossover office and I'm sure Linux has lots of other great programs which can replace many of the programs which people would want to use ReactOS to run anyway. Or focus on the next generation of windows programs using .Net using mono.
    The only thing I'd really love to see is a way of using windows drivers under linux. I have a feeling that it is a very difficult thing to do though otherwise I'm sure it would have been done by now.

    1. Re:What's the point? by dosius · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Keep in mind that they share a lot of their user-level code with WINE, and the WINE and ROS teams do help each other, this is in their FAQ.

      -uso.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    2. Re:What's the point? by kimvette · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NdisWrapper
      http://ndiswrapper.sourceforge.net/

      It's already been done, for wifi drivers. For the devices it does work with, it works fairly well.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    3. Re:What's the point? by EvilIdler · · Score: 1

      They wouldn't have to mimic the entire user interface of whatever the current Windows is,
      only the APIs so the latest software will run. It doesn't matter if MS don't support XP, because
      they don't support ReactOS either. At least ReactOS will have source code ;)

      I dunno if they'll ever reach their target. They seem dedicated, so it may happen eventually.
      But I still think ReactOS is pure madness, in a cool sort of way.

  19. downmods don't make it any less true by RLiegh · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    mod my comments down all you like, but it's a fact that once ReactOS becomes any sort of threat (real or percieved) to Microsoft, Microsoft will break out the lawyers and the software patent lawsuits.

    Hide your heads in the sand all you want to...it's your time you're wasting, not mine.

    1. Re:downmods don't make it any less true by j-pimp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      mod my comments down all you like, but it's a fact that once ReactOS becomes any sort of threat (real or percieved) to Microsoft, Microsoft will break out the lawyers and the software patent lawsuits.

      Hide your heads in the sand all you want to...it's your time you're wasting, not mine.

      Maybe these people will be able to get jobs as system programmers as a result of this. Maybe they want to see how far they can go before they get sued. Maybe they are hoping that by the time this get to that point the world will be more reverse engineer friendly. Maybe this is just civil disobedience.

      In the 70's and 80's UNIX was a product developed by a big company, the phone company to be precise. it has since become an idea replicated many times, always poorly, sometimes less poorly than K&R's implementation. Why can't that happen to windows?
      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
  20. Re:Please don't forget that this is an alpha stage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    because

    a) there are no patents (yet*) in Europe, so we can still use it.

    b) the more small targets MS has, the more difficult it will be for them to cause real damage before we get the law changed to stop their suits and close them down

    c) we can learn much abou the Windows API which only real study can teach us. This will be useful in anti-trust lawsuits if nothing else

    * http://ffii.org/

  21. I'm not trolling by solevita · · Score: 1, Insightful
    I just don't understand.

    an open source effort to develop a quality operating system that is compatible with applications and drivers written for the Microsoft Windows NT family of operating systems
    but

    this release is aimed to be run mostly in virtualizers / emulators

    So it won't run (or at least won't run well) on actual hardware, so that's the driver issue nullified. I'm not running ReactOS for the drivers, it's running with virtualisation under my already free OS. So I'm running it so i can run Windows programs under my free OS? Why not use WINE? Or push for some standards compliant software that produces results under any operating system? Of course, business situations may require some specific proprietary software, so why not use the specific, proprietary OS?

    I try to use only free software, but if I had to use some software under Windows, I'd run Windows. Creating an alpha environment to run proprietary software just seems wrong.
    1. Re:I'm not trolling by solevita · · Score: 1

      WTF do you expect? It's version 0.3.1.
      Thank you Mr. Anonymous Coward, I know it's version 0.3.1. Is that a reason to use it though? You didn't really answer my question.
    2. Re:I'm not trolling by catbutt · · Score: 1

      I try to use only free software, but if I had to use some software under Windows, I'd run Windows. Creating an alpha environment to run proprietary software just seems wrong. But what if you were running Windows, and wanting to move to another OS such as Mac or Linux....but you realize you have to keep Windows for one or two apps? Or maybe you don't HAVE to, but if you have to give up those apps, you'll lose some productivity.

      Nothing is outright STOPPING you from moving to the new platform, but it sure becomes a lot harder to justify it. Something like WINE or ReactOX can help a lot in making the switch economically practical and smoothing the transition. (I think someone else pointed out that WINE and ReactOS draw from the same codebase)
    3. Re:I'm not trolling by kv9 · · Score: 1

      Thank you Mr. Anonymous Coward, I know it's version 0.3.1. Is that a reason to use it though? You didn't really answer my question.

      you use it for testing? that sounds like a pretty good reason for using alpha software.

    4. Re:I'm not trolling by jbengt · · Score: 1

      "Why not use WINE?"
      From what I understand, the WINE and ReactOS teams work closely together, so improvements in one will often lead to improvements in the other

    5. Re:I'm not trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are already using windows then you already have a licence to use it. So why would you install a free knock-off of something which you have already paid to run? Just dual boot. Or use WINE if you want to run the program in the new OS. That still gives you no reason what so ever to use ReactOS.

    6. Re:I'm not trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Testing what???? ReactOS? You really must be thick and can't read can you? He doesn't care whether it's version 0.3.1 or 2.3.1, why use it at all when it fills absolutely no need? Why waste time developing it?

    7. Re:I'm not trolling by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      Knowing very little about either ReactOS or WINE, I can only presume the difference is goals.

      The WINE project is for creating a windows emulator for Linux, and future releases of WINE will stay that way; ReactOS currently works best in an emulation environment, but aims to eventually work right out of the box, on any box.

      It looks ideal for people like me: I know close to nothing about how to use Linux (much less administering it), so using WINE would mean learning Linux too, and finding new and creative ways of replacing the programs I've collected on my Windows box. This requires time and effort that I don't have.

      Consider word processors instead of operating systems: If I'm a completely new computer user and want to start using OSS, it may be just as easy for me to learn LaTeX as to learn OpenOffice.org; however, if I'm already familiar with MS Office, it's much easier to learn OpenOffice.org than to learn a whole new way of creating documents.

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    8. Re:I'm not trolling by jx100 · · Score: 1

      There is the issue of better support. Microsoft only supports products for a limited time. If you want to update Windows 95 (because your business depends on it) to reflect the new time change, you can't go to Microsoft for a patch. As ReactOS is Free, you could go and find some programmer willing to update it whenever you felt the need to.

    9. Re:I'm not trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps it's hardware upgrade time, and you feel that continuing to use Microsoft Windows is no longer in your best interests. You'd need to go buy new licenses to run Windows on the new hardware.

      As for WINE... that may or may not be an option, for various reasons.

    10. Re:I'm not trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's both funny and sad how the terms "alpha" and "beta" have been abused to the point where people seem to have no idea what they actually mean.

      Yes, the point of this testing release of ReactOS is to test ReactOS. To a user who is not interested in either developing ReactOS or helping out with the testing, it's probably most useful simply as a demo of what you can expect ReactOS to do in the future. Why use it when it fills no need? Don't use it if it fills no need. Use it if you want to help test the software, or if you feel like seeing a demo of how far open source emulation of the Win32 platform has come at the moment.

      "Why waste time developing this software if the testing releases aren't useful?" is an absurd question. All software developed in a semi-standard manner has had testing releases(internal or external - ReactOS is developed openly and thus they naturally make their testing releases public) that were of no practical use compared to finished software available at the time.

    11. Re:I'm not trolling by physicsnick · · Score: 1

      So I'm running it so i can run Windows programs under my free OS? No, you're running it so you can help develop and test it. No one is advocating running it in a VM in a production environment. It's a testing and development release. Obviously the real thing will run on the bare metal; it's just not ready for that yet.

      Creating an alpha environment to run proprietary software just seems wrong. This is just stupid as hell. They don't make it alpha on purpose. It's not finished yet.
    12. Re:I'm not trolling by ZwJGR · · Score: 2, Informative

      The WINE project is for creating a windows emulator for Linux

      WINE
      IS
      NOT an
      Emulator

      WINE is an API wrapper layer, not a processor achitecture substitute, hence the code needs to be written for the same chipset as the machine (means x86 in most cases) and there isn't a virtual performance penalty (no pun intended).
      --
      There is no psychiatrist in the world like a puppy licking your face - Ben Williams
    13. Re:I'm not trolling by zuiraM · · Score: 1

      This may be redundant by now, but the issue is really simple.

      This is an alpha release. As such, they're still in the midst of the code-test-debug-lather-rinse-repeat part of the cycle. That means kernel panics. Lockups. Debugging and single-stepping. The works.

      Hence, almost all the developers will be running it primarily in a virtual environment, so that the work can progress at a decent pace. This makes sense.

      Also, it's not yet a replacement for Windows, which means there is no real reason to focus on those aspects as of yet, so people spend their time trying to get it to a point where it starts to be a real alternative, and when they reach that point, they'll start concentrating on real hardware.

      It just wouldn't make sense to spend their time trying to get all the details of a real machine working right now. They'd get bogged down with the boring stuff, not producing anything that is of real value to anyone, and not making visible (and motivating) progress towards the headlines.

      Once you've fully replaced windows on a virtualized platform, getting it to work properly on a real platform is a lot less hassle, and a lot more motivating. And motivation is a real factor in any open source work; more-so when it's something as specific and formal as dealing with a clean room reimplementation/ripoff of one of the biggest milking cows in the industry.

      If they work on that "real hardware" part now, they'll be doing lots of gruntwork to get something not-quite-functional running on a poor development environment, meaning no real payback and no real motivation. If they work on getting the "not-quite-" bit out of the equation, they're seeing real payback on their invested time all the way, which motivates contributors to get stuff done.

      Once it's a functional solution, but limited to virtualized hardware, getting it onto real hardware suddenly *has* a real payback, and the motivation factor is back into the picture, with the added bonus in the form of a "zomg we're almost done" headrush. :P

    14. Re:I'm not trolling by mgiuca · · Score: 1

      The overall effort is to make it compatible with drivers. This release is aimed at emulators. The ultimate goal is to run it on actual hardware, but they don't want to scare people away if it doesn't run on real hardware at the moment (when it provably runs fine in an emulator).

  22. Re:Please don't forget that this is an alpha stage by Original+Replica · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What if, as it becomes closer to a release product, it becomes decentralized. Anyone who had done enough work on the original ReactOS walks away from the project perhaps with a public request not to use their work. What if there is no one person or entity to sue? Patches could be written for specific issues by the user community, so support would be distributed as well. Basically, is there a way to spread the legal vulnerability/liability between so many people, that MicroSoft would have to resort to suing thousands of individuals for very small amounts, with a limited chance of success in each case?

    --
    We are all just people.
  23. Re:Please don't forget that this is an alpha stage by RLiegh · · Score: 1

    a) by the time ReactOS is usable, there will be. Also, american law is enforcable overseas; cf AllOfMp3 closure and The Pirate Bay raids.

    b) you're assuming that they'll be acting alone; they have novell's help on the Linux front, and slapping a Cease-And-Desist on ReactOS would be trivial.

    c)the only thing useable in an antitrust suit would be the undocumented apis...which have nothing to do with ReactOS. Anything done in ReactOS can easily be found and studied via MSDN.

  24. Re:Please don't forget that this is an alpha stage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What was the last time Microsoft ever sued anybody over patent infringement? Sure, they go after trademark infringers, and copyright infringement is a constant battle. But patents? MS is the defendent in any patent battle I've ever seen (countersuits excluded).

    dom

  25. Re:Please don't forget that this is an alpha stage by RLiegh · · Score: 1

    No one has ever gone after MS's meat and potatoes before. Also, what do you think MS is preparing to do with all the patent noise over "linux IP violations"?

  26. nice to see this progress but by sentientbrendan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    my understanding is that their compatibility with win32 is largely based on wine, and so it has most of the same bugs running win32, and then some.

    What I'd really like to see is some major company getting behind reactos and wine. Getting a portable win32 layer really working to the point where it's no longer just a toy is going to take a major effort, more of an effort than the open source community seems willing to put forward at this time. Working win32 is a real possibility, but it needs a lot of people to get behind it.

    1. Re:nice to see this progress but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair to WINE, it is already more than just a toy. I am able to run the full Starsiege Tribes (original version) without problem using version 0.9.27 - this includes sound, accelerated graphics, and a working mouse (which oddly enough seems to be the hardest part to keep straight, since 0.9.28 broke mouse support again, despite claiming to have improvements to mouse behavior...)

    2. Re:nice to see this progress but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Major companies have gotten behind WINE (Transgaming, CodeWeavers, etc). This problem is deeper than you could possibly imagine. Windows is layers upon layers of API's, bizarre quirks, and it continually grows by massive amounts every year.

      WINE has been around forever and they still just barely can run anything.

    3. Re:nice to see this progress but by catbutt · · Score: 3, Funny

      To be fair to WINE, it is already more than just a toy. I am able to run the full Starsiege Tribes Yes, and to back up the statement that it's not a toy, I should point out that here at NASA, we are using Starsiege Tribes to design the next Mars rocket.
    4. Re:nice to see this progress but by evilviper · · Score: 2, Interesting

      my understanding is that their compatibility with win32 is largely based on wine, and so it has most of the same bugs running win32, and then some.

      No. The projects are working together, and code goes back and fourth... That's kinda the point of Open Source, isn't it? If somebody else does it better, you use what they've written, in your own project.

      A few of the reasons to use ReactOS instead of WINE:

      Drivers. How well does WINE load that WinXP dll/ocx driver for your WiFi card? Display driver? etc.
      Performance. Compatibility layer on top of another OS is never going to be as fast.
      Interface. Everything is in the same place. If you know how to use Windows, running apps, and changing settings in ReactOS is very, very similar. No matter how similar KDE may look to Windows, it doesn't work anything like it.
      Filesystems. Most systems may have FAT32 compatibility, but if you start using it for heavy tasks, the limitations and incompatibilities really come to the surface.

      No doubt there's many more I can't think of at the moment.

      I'm looking forward to ReactOS, if only because it will provide something Windows-compatible that isn't going to perform like a dog, and support isn't at the whim of Microsoft... I'd still be using NT4.0 if updates (of every kind) were still forthcoming. Instead, I'm sticking with 2000, jealously hoarding all available updates before Microsoft starts hiding them from the public, and hoping Microsoft won't be able to come up with anything in the future that will make it difficult to keep using old versions.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    5. Re:nice to see this progress but by zlogic · · Score: 1

      Novell, perhaps?

    6. Re:nice to see this progress but by sootman · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has lots of money and their growth is slowing. Maybe they could help. :-)

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    7. Re:nice to see this progress but by Laur · · Score: 1
      Thought I'd challenge a few of your points about why you'd choose ReactOS over Linux+Wine.

      Drivers. How well does WINE load that WinXP dll/ocx driver for your WiFi card? Display driver? etc.
      Wine doesn't load your Windows drivers, but maybe Linux can. Have you heard of projects like NdisWrapper? Of course, running binary drivers in ReactOS will also have the same issues as running binary drivers in Linux, see the continuing debate on this topic.

      Performance. Compatibility layer on top of another OS is never going to be as fast.
      Do you have any proof of this? Just saying it doesn't make it so. There have long been reports of programs running faster in Wine than on actual Windows. My understanding is that Wine is just an API, such as QT or GTK, and there's really no technical reason that it should perform slower than other APIs.

      Interface. Everything is in the same place. If you know how to use Windows, running apps, and changing settings in ReactOS is very, very similar. No matter how similar KDE may look to Windows, it doesn't work anything like it.
      An some would say that that's a good thing! However, this is a valid point, although it is useful to point out that MS changes the interface between major versions of Windows. Just because you know how XP works doesn't mean that you won't be lost on Vista.

      Filesystems. Most systems may have FAT32 compatibility, but if you start using it for heavy tasks, the limitations and incompatibilities really come to the surface.
      I have no idea what you are saying here, Linux has far broader filesystem support than ReactOS. Currently ReactOS only supports FAT32, while Linux can run NTFS with read/write support (check out NTFS-3G.
      --
      When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
  27. Re:Please don't forget that this is an alpha stage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AllofMP3 is still up, as is thepiratebay, please find other examples to support your assertion.

  28. Re:Please don't forget that this is an alpha stage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "No one has ever gone after MS's meat and potatoes before. "

    This can be disproven here: http://www.openoffice.org/

  29. Re:Please don't forget that this is an alpha stage by hcmtnbiker · · Score: 1

    a) by the time ReactOS is usable, there will be. Also, american law is enforcable overseas; cf AllOfMp3 closure and The Pirate Bay raids.
    b) you're assuming that they'll be acting alone; they have novell's help on the Linux front, and slapping a Cease-And-Desist on ReactOS would be trivial.
    c)the only thing useable in an antitrust suit would be the undocumented apis...which have nothing to do with ReactOS. Anything done in ReactOS can easily be found and studied via MSDN. a) thepiratebay and AllOfMP3 are up and running RIGHT now, it may have influence on political decisions(which Visa/Mastercard banning allofmp3 and thepiratebay raid both where), but its not enfoceable unless they hold the same law.
    b) A Cease-and-Desist order is always trivial, all it is is an official statement saying stop or I'm gonna sue you. It's a form, that's it.
    c) MSDN CAN be concidered insider knowledge and therefore not able to be used in reverse engineering of the software just as a leak in source code would be illegal to be used inside a clone software or even for studying the original.

    Having said that....
    Reverse-Engineering is protected under law so unless microsoft can prove they are using leaked NT source code the actual reversing is prefectly legal. The thing that scares me is the trivial things that I'm almost cirtain M$ has copyright on such as the [Start] Menu, they could have picked any other name then Start for it but kept it.
    --
    If i had one dollar for every brain you dont have, i would have $1.
  30. FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vista to me looks like a nightmare of DRM and restrictions on what I would want to do, but I can see my current Win 2K install becoming as outdated and unsupported as Windows 98.

    Web of lies!

    I've been pirating games, movies and music non-stop since I upgraded to Vista. I record HBO movies with MCE then upload it to my iPod. I don't know what this DRM stuff is you speak of but it's not as big of a problem as make it out to be.

    Posted AC for obvious reasons.

  31. Re:Please don't forget that this is an alpha stage by jx100 · · Score: 1

    IIRC, they've actively tried to limit the usage of copyrighted strings to only places where it's technically infeasible to not use them. Places like the registry have to have data in places like /Microsoft/Windows are examples.

    And, if I recall a case involving Nintendo and.. Galoob(?) correctly, a simple copyrighted string cannot be used as access control. I'm not absolutely sure it would apply here, but it seems like a workable defense.

  32. Please Look a File Server Location. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its in a country were patents don't apply.
    So Microsoft shutting them down is imposable.
    At worst in countries with software patents people might have to buy a once off license from Microsoft as required to be acquirable under patent law.
    So Microsoft is stuffed. Buy a copy of SUSE Linux and run Reactos side by side with that and you are covered.

    When Reactos goes stable I would not want to be holding Microsoft Shares.

  33. Does it run on Xen without VT? no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I assume the answer is no. Otherwise it would be in the changelog.

  34. Re:Please don't forget that this is an alpha stage by Digital+Avatar · · Score: 1

    a) by the time ReactOS is usable, there will be. Also, american law is enforcable overseas; cf AllOfMp3 closure and The Pirate Bay raids.
    Oh, you mean that site that's STILL UP TODAY? http://www.thepiratebay.org? That one? Yeah, real enforceable.
  35. Obligatory... by isny · · Score: 1

    I've been running this in a virtual machine on Windows and haven't seen anyx938U#Jklx j *** NO CARRIER *** Well, I guess I was wrong. At least Windows allowed me to save what I had previously typed, and Windows is so stable tha83jkJKLEv &#j3kR *** NO CARRIER ***

    1. Re:Obligatory... by Slashcrap · · Score: 1

      I've been running this in a virtual machine on Windows and haven't seen anyx938U#Jklx j *** NO CARRIER ***

      Hi. Can you let me know how to configure my modem so that disconnection messages get automatically written into posts I make on web forums?

      It's just that I also want to be terminally unoriginal and it's such an old fucking joke that it just doesn't seem worth typing that stuff out by hand.

  36. Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now I've got to explain to people why they CAN'T toss out windos and use react OS to all my clinets. Thanks open source people.

  37. So what's up with these guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I had an infinite amount of time and partition space on my hands, I'd install it. But I wonder if the people in this project think about the following things:

    1) Does ReactOS have any workable "killer apps" that might fuel further adoption and development? I'm sure Linux did in the 1.x days.

    2) Have they thought about extending the Windows NT environment as well as embracing it? For instance, adding a "fork(2)"-like ABI/API/system call, Unix/Linux compatibility layer, embedded support for X clients, etc? You might be able to do things Cygwin can't do to improve the way Linux/Unix(TM)/*BSD/Windows work together.

    1. Re:So what's up with these guys by Myen · · Score: 1

      1) Umm, that killer app must also run in Windows, or it's a bug in ReactOS (since they're trying to recreate Windows), no?

      2) Windows 2000+ does have a Unix compat subsystem. It seems more NetBSD than Linux (uses pkg_add etc, NetBSD has Interix packages that you can use), and no X server just libs. I have no idea if they also emulate fork() or not though.

  38. There was a old saying... by El_Oscuro · · Score: 0

    The next release of DOS wasn't ready until Lotus wouldn't run on it.

    --
    "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
  39. News release: Linux Kernel 2.6.16.2023-ac.pl97- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    News release: Linux Kernel 2.6.16.2023-ac.pl97-ß31 available.

    lol

  40. Re:Please don't forget that this is an alpha stage by TechForensics · · Score: 1

    Joint and several liability. Anyone they find can be sued for the whole weight of damages.

    --
    Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
  41. Too Much Risk For One Company by TechForensics · · Score: 1

    Bigger company behind ReactOS would just make a bigger, juicier target. Not gonna happen.

    --
    Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
  42. Re:Cool project (Apple suing Franklin) by qazwart · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The comparison between Apple and IBM is simply not valid. Franklin didn't simply reverse engineer the Apple computer. They copied Apple's design down to the individual electrons. The BIOS and OS was simply stolen from Apple. There was even several places in the Franklin's ROM and in the OS where the string "Copyrighted by Apple Computer" was there for all to see. Even Franklin had to admit they copied the ROM and OS. Franklin tried to use the argument that since the OS and ROM was not in a readable form, it was not copyrightable. They lost on appeal.

    Phoenix, on the other hand, carefully documented their reverse engineering efforts. They had a clean room, developers who never saw the IBM BIOS source, and showed how they tested for compatibility. The BIOS IO was well documented and was fairly simple with a very limited number of routines (not to underestimate the challenge of reverse engineering it, but it was simple enough that Phoenix thought it was possible to even undertake the task). The resulting BIOS clone was register compatible, but not source compatible.

    The rest of the IBM PC was off the shelf parts, so once the BIOS was cracked, producing IBM PCs clones was a cinch. Later on, IBM attempted to kill the clone market by coming out with the Microbus architecture. The Microbus was copyrightable, so other manufacturers would be unable to produce clones of IBM's newest PCs. However, by that time, IBM no longer dominated the PC market, and other manufactures simply produced their own 32 bit architecture machine. By then, "clones" were no longer clones.

  43. Wouldn' it be nice by snickkers · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be nice is ReactOs got to a stage where it could Embrace, Extend and Extinguish the NT line? Oh well, just a fantasy.

    --
    GLORX 3:16
  44. Start by Grinin · · Score: 0, Redundant

    $50 says Microsoft sues them once this thing comes out of beta for the programs button reading "Start"

    It should say "React"!

  45. GNAA press releases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GNAA announces switch to Windows Vista (2007/02/25) CNN HQ Stormed By Elite GNAA Operatives, Classified 9/11 Information Broadcast (2007/02/03) Jewish pedophiles delete GNAA article from Wikipedia (2006/12/03) Lik-Dong closure leaves Noted Gay Nigger jobless (2006/10/25) GNAA Issues Apology In The Death Of Rob Levin's Bike (2006/10/25) GNAA investigators make unprecedented breakthrough in Reiser case (2006/10/13) GNAA suspected in death of Rob Levin (2006/09/16) GNAA CLAIMS RESPONSIBILTY FOR ASSASINATION OF TV HERO (2006/09/06) GNAA Claims Responsibility in Loli-Chan Raid (2006/08/22) GNAA campaign against PHP and ZEND bears fruit (2006/07/29) GNAA Adopts Trusted Platform Module (2006/07/28) Ten-thousand Freenet User Identities Compromised (2006/06/22) MARK SHUTTLEWORTH AND CANONICAL ANNOUNCE LINUX FOR NIGGERS (2006/06/01) David Blaine Fails, GNAA claims responsibility (2006/05/10) GNAA Announces Cleansing Of The Star Trek Gene Pool (2006/04/24) GNAA member JacksonBrown succeeds it, GNAA declares yet another victory over Apple (2006/03/22) GNAA Announces OneNigger Suite of Collaborative Trolling Utilities (2006/03/04) GNAA discovers Scientology's shocking roots in the association (2006/02/28) GNAA Announces Full Cybermilitary Support of the German Government (2006/01/20) Mehmet Ali Agca confessed who paid him to assasinate pope John Paul II (2006/01/18) Recent findings from the GNAAU prove that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was gay (2006/01/17) GNAA unveils "New for Jew Thousand and Six" product lineup (2006/01/01) GNAA announces 2005 a success (2005/12/31) GNAA Announces Corporate Downsizing and Administrative Reformation (2005/10/03) GNAA Mourns the Death of l0de and the l0de Radio Hour (2005/09/11) GNAA pledges aid to Katrina victims (2005/09/11) GNAA outreach program hailed as an overwhelming success (2005/08/06) GNAA Research Division exposes long standing Zionist plot (2005/08/05) GNAA sues the CDC for patent violations (2005/07/04) GNAA Announces Immediate Release of OSX_x86_YHBT (2005/06/14) Apple Bets Farm on Heterosexual Computing - GNAA Members Offended (2005/06/07) GNAA Congratulates the Debian Project on the Release of Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 "Sarge" (2005/06/06) GNAA exposes the dangers of hiring Latvians (2005/05/06) GNAA copycats arrested in LastMeasure child porn scam (2005/04/30) GNAA RESEARCH UNVEILS STARTLING DISCOVERY (2005/04/20) GNAA Bioresearch unveils the Ubernigger Project (2005/04/07) GNAA Mourns Passing of Litigious Nigger (2005/03/30) GNAA releases surprising new Easter research (2005/03/26) Terry Schiavo Announces Support for GNAA (2005/03/21) GNAA announces victory over the state of Georgia (2005/03/14) GNAA announces open source, object-oriented political revolution (2005/03/11) Niggersoft Announces GNAA/Hard (2005/02/11) Michael Sims Fired, Joins GNAA to Troll Slashdot Full Time (2005/02/02) GNAA unveils new 2005 product line (2005/01/25) God Exiled From Information Superhighway (2005/01/22) GNAA Declares ownership of 99.9% of all IRC networks (2005/01/21) GNAA declares boycott of all foods that make sperm taste bad (2005/01/12) Giant Tsunami of AIDS hits America (2005/01/05) GNAA announces Xanga-dotting of Something Awful (2004/12/27) GNAA more effective than Viagra, Cialis, study finds (2004/12/21) GNAA Announces Gay Porn Avalanche (2004/12/21) Low-Carb Movement Gains Internet Celebrity Support (2004/11/23) GNAA Member Arrested for Trolling (2004/11/10) Dremel Stock skyrockets amidst rumors of GNAA takeover (2004/10/31) GNAA freedom fighters attack mbonig into submission (2004/10/25) GNAA declares victory over Wikipedia (2004/10/07) GNAA introduces first open-source corpse (2004/10/01) LastMeasure hits the 100000 watermark (2004/09/27) GNAA Lysol on the 2004 Florida Presidential Ballot (2004/09/23) GNAA supplies arms, expertise to Iraqi Freedom Fighters (2004/09/21) GNAA reactionaries take Condoleezza Rice hostage (2004/09/13) News Agencies Deny NK Blast was a Nuke (2004/09/13) GNAA Announces l0de's Death (2004/09/12) GNAA Launches Attack on Slashdot Parent Company (2004/09/11) Happy 9/11 Fro

    1. Re:GNAA press releases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i agree the price of tacos is insane
      i want some tacos

  46. Donate to ReactOS by bcnstony · · Score: 1

    Seeing them plug ahead is one thing, donating to help them plug ahead is another. http://www.reactos.org/en/fundraising_campaign_don ate.html

  47. Did anyone notice it by the100rabh · · Score: 1

    http://www.reactos.org/media/screenshots/2007/ros_ 031_cpuz.jpg This screenshot shows PII Processor with clock core running at 2410.9 MHz Is that really possible. Something just doesn't seem right here

    1. Re:Did anyone notice it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is entirely speculation, but since it was mentioned it mostly runs under virtualization, perhaps the clock speed of the machine actually running it is what is reported, and P2 is just how cpu-z identifues the emulated cpu

  48. Re:Let's run this through bullshit filter by Sterling+Christensen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've written a boot sector and a hello world kernel, so I can begin to appreciate how much work it is to get an OS to the point where you can port Wine to it. I'm shocked at the way you make it sound trivial.

    ReactOS already works with many Windows drivers, like nVidia's graphics drivers, and runs about as many apps as Wine, including Firefox. You can't seriously call that "not do[ing] anything real in a VM".

    Either you don't know what you're talking about, you're a troll, you jumped to conclusions before getting any info about ReactOS, or all of the above.

  49. Re:Let's run this through bullshit filter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THIS is "News for Nerds", "Stuff that Matters"?!?

    What, you'd prefer more hard core geek Political news, or fucking Your Whine Online circle jerking? It's about fucking time someone posted something that is actually geek news.

  50. Even better - the real bitter pill by zuiraM · · Score: 1

    Why not just go with the approach of giving a daily fine, like the EU wants, until they open up their stuff?

    And, to make there be some *real* incentive their, force them to make these fines payable directly to a foundation that essentially acts to fund ReactOS and WINE development?

    That'd be a bitter pill to swallow, and a win-win situation for everyone else.

  51. Legal jokes 'warning' by waterbear · · Score: 1

    Patent 6,379,553: Method to Display Failure Information
    A method and system are provided for displaying failure information on a limited resource computing device. Unparseable textual messages are displayed upon failure. ...
    4. The method of claim 3, in which the screen is blanked before the message is displayed.
    5. The method of claim 4, in which the message is displayed on a blue background.
    ---
    As you see, React cannot legally implement the Blue Screen of Death.


    Yeah well, humor and legal comments are not very compatible with each other!
    So probably the parent poster should have said that the 'blue screen of death' patent idea was a joke. On the USPTO website, patent 6,379,553 isn't even about computing:--
    "United States Patent 6,379,553 -- Hogrefe April 30, 2002
    Polymerase enhancing factor (PEF) extracts, PEF protein complexes, isolated PEF proteins, and methods for purifying and identifying same"

    -wb-

  52. Re:Let's run this through bullshit filter by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

    You are an idiot. Please get some help. What is MORE GEEKY than a homespun OS trying to emulate the Windows API? Not only were your assumptions wrong. I wrote my first bootable stub/kernel when you were probably still suckling on your mamma's tit.

  53. ReactOS is your free Windows! Not Linux! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We in the Linux community cheer ReactOS every chance we get. Because the more mature ReactOS gets, the less Windows refugees charge into Linux demanding that we re-invent it as a perfect Windows clone just for them.

  54. Interesting... by red+crab · · Score: 1

    It's interesting to see that someone is working on a free Windows clone rather than a Unix clone. What they have managed to develop till now seems pretty impressive. If they can churn out a beta release in the next couple of years, Microsoft is definitely going to have some competition (no matter how small it is). Unless of course they decide to sell themselves to M$ by that time or M$ forces to shut them down.

  55. Re:Cool project (Apple suing Franklin) by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    You're partly wrong about Franklin. Their initial machines (I saw one ... it was in a cardboard enclosure, for chrissakes) was indeed a knockoff as you say. The model I saw even said "Apple ][" on the top of the display during bootup. But Franklin redesigned the mainboard and the enclosure and wrote their own BIOS (actually, "Monitor ROM"), improving on the design with a substantially better keyboard (something Apple refused to do until the //e came out, and I'm not counting the Apple ///.)

    The problem with ripping off the Apple's Monitor ROM was that direct function calls to specific ROM addresses were required: there was no indirection. Consequently, while Franklin's rewrite was a masterful effort there was a neverending stream of compatibility issues and ROM updates.

    IBM, on the other hand, did a much better job with the original PC BIOS by using software interrupts: it didn't matter where a particular handler was located in memory because there was a pointer to it in the vector table. Writing a clone BIOS was a piece of cake in comparison, hell, you could even run an entire BIOS in RAM (I've done that) or replace specific ROM code with a RAM equivalent. As long as you didn't rip off any of IBM's original code, and could show that the developers weren't tainted, you were gold. The development task itself was straightforward (I still have the annotated BIOS listings for both Apple ][, //e and the original PC ... they aren't all that complicated.) Cloning the BIOS wasn't the trick ... making it legal was. And IBM's firmware design made that much easier.

    In any event, I still maintain that had IBM really been interested in stopping the clones they could have done it. Apple certainly has managed to keep clones at bay, and I can't believe that IBM's legal team couldn't have done just as good a job against the likes of Compaq if they'd really wanted to do so.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  56. You must be joking. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    One word: Appletalk.

    Grrrr....

    And another one:

    Trumpet Winsocket

    Grrrrr....

    MS and Apple were dragged into open standards screaming against their will.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  57. Some of you guys have no grasp of the issues. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    With patent law you can claim somebody is making red nibblets just by convincing a jury (that knows close to nothing about nibblets, specially the red ones) that it is so.

    You don't have to show the nibblet machine or ask the nibblet code to be shown.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  58. Precedent by KingSkippus · · Score: 1

    The open-source community will not be able to make a better Windows than Microsoft. At most, they're likely to make a better NT 4.0 sometime in the next 3-5 years. By this point, Windows will be well ahead. I think we need to put this into perspective- this project will be a welcome way for Linux-based companies to preserve LEGACY Windows support in Virtual Machines at decent speed, etc. - possibly to be a virtualized solution to Wine. Otherwise, this is not going to be adopted by the masses... EVER. If you think this, then you really don't understand the consumer market.

    The hardware manufacturing sector will not be able to make a better IBM computer than IBM. At most, they're likely to make a better PS/2 sometime in the next 3-5 years. By this point, IBM will be well ahead. I think we need to put this into perspective-this project will be a welcome way for IBM clone companies to preserve LEGACY IBM hardware support in clones at decent speed, etc... Otherwise, this is not going to be adopted by the masses... EVER. If you think this, then you really don't understand the consumer market.

    Seriously, there are plenty of cases where a company or organization has made a better (and highly successful!) mousetrap than the original. Look at what AMD is doing to Intel, or what Firefox is doing to Internet Explorer. I think it's naive to think say that it's impossible for anyone to make a better Windows than Microsoft.

    Plus, when you think about it, no one really has to. What exactly is going to run on Windows Vista, for example, that doesn't run on Windows XP? 99.9% of everything that everyone uses on Windows will actually still run on Windows 2000. If they're successful in cloning Windows XP (which is their goal), they don't have to keep up with Microsoft. Hell, I'll actually be pleased if they don't; not cloning UAC is more than fine with me!

    1. Re:Precedent by malevolentjelly · · Score: 0

      This isn't even remotely similiar to IBM and Compaq- just because it sounds clever doesn't mean it is. There are a lot of intelligent underlying technologies that keep Microsoft well on the cutting edge. Products like Visual Studio or .NET or DirectX have years of work and research that position them at the forefront of desktop computing.

      The beauty of open source projects is that they don't come out of nowhere- we can see their progress. Oddly, they never seem quite 'done'.

      The fact of the matter is that we're comparing the work of a disorganized horde to a mega-corporation. Good singular projects come with concentrated effort and a tad bit of corporate management, but Windows is not just an OS or a kernel, it's a desktop solution. It requires decent documentation, intelligent design decisions, and a lot of structure and an endless attention span. Systems like Windows and Apple are untouched in the desktop realm because they're much more than simple operating systems, they're design philosophies and technological concepts as well.

      When you look at open source knock-off's of professional software from a design perspective, it's like looking at a child's drawing of a common machine (like a coffee maker)- from memory. You can see the likeness, but it's not quite the same thing- the buttons aren't in the right place, the handle doesn't quite fit, maybe- it's just wrong.

      In this case, we have an alpha OS that's just barely pushing binary support with Windows, and everyone is suddenly saying "Yay! Windows is dead! We've cloned it!" Doesn't this seem a little silly?... like maybe Windows is more than just the operating system- it's the product machine as well? The support structure? the evolving technologies and support?

      This is like saying that Mac OS X is dead or nearly-through because of the existence of NeXT and GNUStep.

      I never said a serious organized corporation won't be able to clone Windows effectively or make a better Windows than Windows. Companies like Be or Apple have proven that the desktop market can be anyones' game, with the right vision and resources. I'm saying it won't be done by the open source community. They play catch-up. They make budget knock-off's. The work remains amateur unless it's done by professionals (in the case of the corporate linux distros). In most cases, they can't be Microsoft because they don't have the vision or organization to reinvent and evolve their entire platform from the ground up at a standard release cycle.

  59. good post by sentientbrendan · · Score: 1

    you mentioned most of the things that I was going to say to that guy.

    As a side note, I believe that ndis is actually based on reactos' driver code.