Slashdot Mirror
ReactOS Revealed
reactosfanboy writes "DRM Hacker Alex Ionescu explained the internals of ReactOS in a recent talk. Ionescu indicates that ReactOS is nearly 100% binary and API compatible with the Windows 2003 kernel, and that they are aiming for full Vista compatibility. Ionescu attempted to demonstrate ReactOS but only succeeded in installing it after two BSoDs. This alone should make it clear that ReactOS is still not ready for prime time." In what may be a red flag for Microsoft's lawyers, ReactOS is described as "an environment identical to Windows, both visually and internally." Here are slides from Ionescu's talk (PDF), which might prove more useful than the video offered in various forms at over 450 MB.
ReactOS would still be unsupported and untrusted in business, and it's proliferation would only add to MSFT's dominance of the market.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Having begun the struggle with adapting application installers to Vista, I think I'd be more interested in a version of ReactOS that ISN'T Vista compatible.
On a serious note.
Given the limited resources of the ReactOS team it's not even that bad. Even Microsoft had (serious) issues with pretty much every new Windows version presentation.
it seems a pretty obvious answer to me.
...but free, secure and open source...
put aside the fact that the softwares you mentionned are emulators, not OS,
it would steal users from windows.
imagine, having an OS the same as windows, friendly for computer illiterate
need i explain more ?
If you look like your passport photo, you're too ill to travel. - Will Kommen
OK, I don't need to know this, but I'm an old assembler-head: I remember how much SMALLER DRDOS was than MSDOS. Microsoft makes bloated things.
I want to know how much memory ReactOS takes up versus WindowsXP. Has someone run it who can trivially answer? Did these guys make a smaller, lighter windows?
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Funny, I've had to install it hundreds of times and I'd say my attempts per success is very close to 1:1. I've very recently encountered my first failure when building a new computer. XP (SP2 slipstreamed as well) would bluescreen on the install. Had to use Vista instead (how's that for mildly ironic? Other than that I can honestly say I've never had any issues installing Windows...
Windows is not nearly as unstable as the FUDDERS would like to make it seem.
They can sue all they want, they can't win this.
Except via patent claims, for which independent development is not an adequate defense.
Application Compatibility - Wine can never offer as much compatibility as ReactOS. Since ReactOS actually shares Wine's code base, it is highly unlikely that ReactOS will have significantly better compatibility than Wine.
Speed - Wine, since it is an emulator, can never be as fast as ReactOS, a dedicated OS. This is usually advanced without any sort of benchmarks or other proof to back it up. First, Wine Is Not an Emulator, it is just an implementation of the win32 api. There is no technical reason why Wine couldn't be as fast as other "native" Linux APIs, such as QT or Gtk+. Furthermore, there have long been reports of Windows programs running faster on Wine than native Windows.
Driver Compatibility - ReactOS can use native Windows drivers. Projects like NdisWrapper have shown that it is possible to use Windows drivers on Linux too, if enough people are interested. Of course, Linux already has drivers available for a great deal of hardware. There is also the huge issue of using binary drivers in an open source kernel. It still hasn't been settled whether or not this is ultimately a good or bad thing. However, it is generally accepted that open source drivers are much better than binary, and ReactOS would provide absolutely no motivation for hardware vendors to ever open their drivers, or even to target ReactOS as a platform.
User Interface Familiarity - Windows users would feel right at home, with virtually no learning curve. This ignores the fact that anyone who has been through Win 3.1 -> Win 9x -> Win XP -> Vista will know that Window's interface is anything but consistent, things move around and change quite a bit between major releases. Also, if one desired you could rework something like KDE to be VERY similar to Windows, I believe that there are already distro's who try to do this (such as Linspire). There are still differences, but not really significantly more than between Win 98 & XP.
Don't get me wrong, I think ReactOS is a pretty cool project, and it would be kind of neat to have an open source Windows clone, however as I said I can't really find much practical reason for it beyond the coolness factor. It seems like one would be better off just integrating Wine into Linux better. Please feel free to enlighten me. ;)
When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
WINE isn't good enough for everyone.
So instead of an emulation layer which is almost adequate for most tasks, but needs careful testing with anything you're planning on using in production because any action you try performing may or may not work as designed, we'll have a full blown OS which is almost adequate for most tasks, but needs careful testing with anything you're planning on using in production because any action you try performing may or may not work as designed.
Great. Thanks.
We're kind of ruining the top post which was actually pretty funny, but...
I would almost agree with you, if only looking at a snapshot from about 2002 until 2006 during which I was no longer dealing with 9x and NT4 installations. Installation headaches were pretty commonplace prior to these years. Once hardware vendors had all gotten used to the ways of NT5, installing Win2K and XP became a total breeze. Rarely have I had trouble installing either operating system. They will choke occasionally on cheap and/or new hardware, but with typical stuff installation is usually a no-brainer.
And now Vista is upon us, and it's not detecting a lot of real obscure hardware, like say, MY CDROM DRIVE. WTF. Once again it's become hit and miss...or would be, if I chose to install Vista in production at this time.
Difficulty installing an OS isn't really a good measure of quality anyhow. I recently had a bad experience installing Ubuntu 6.05LTS to an array on an adaptec I2O controller. Rock solid once I got it fixed. That's just the way it goes sometimes.
...but free, secure and open source...
That doesn't necessarily follow. Duplicating a broken API will retain some of the security problems designed into the original OS.
> Ionescu attempted to demonstrate ReactOS but only succeeded in installing it after two BSoDs.
With alpha or beta software, before giving a demo, test what you are going to do in private.
If it doesn't work, don't do it.
Too bad. The world would be a better place with ReactOS. What we need is a fat ass investor with loads of cash and a grudge against Microsoft to donate to this thing.
Linux has proven you can have a viable freeware OS. Now, while Vista makes everyones life miserable, there is an opening.
Personally, if it's a Compaq, I'd blame Compaq, not Windows
"Except via patent claims, for which independent development is not an adequate defense."
Well, in Europe we still don't have (enforcable) softwarepatents. Though it being an Open Source project, I'm not sure under what jurisdiction it falls.
But you make a good point: more proof that softwarepatents suck.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Kind of sad that in the entire history of Windows, there was only a 4-year window (no pun intended) of stable installation.
Sounds like SOP for any IT system to me. Does Windows always work as designed or as expected?
It's hard to hit a moving target.
...or at least, the software can fork, and dev-users can CHOOSE how they want to interact with their software.
I know plenty of people who use the "Windows Classic" skin on XP, because that's what they're used to.
When MS updates its software, there are two types of changes, with different audiences: minor to moderate performance/security upgrades (which require most people to upgrade in order to still communicate with each other, i.e. MSO), and major interface upgrades, to cater to the magpies that will only buy the new version if it is shinier than the previous one.
Unfortunately, these interface "upgrades" require a certain degree of re-learning the same software. I would suspect that ReactOS, like OpenOffice.org, aims to cater to those people who want to be compatible with the rest of the world (who run the "updated" version), but who don't want to learn a new interface every time Microsoft chooses to impose a new one.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
ReactOS still, apparently, has much of the graphics system in the kernel. Along with drivers. It emulates NT 4/2000/XP architecture, not NT 3.51, which actually had a cleaner kernel.
So when they move to mimic Vista's kernel, this will all be moot then...
But at least they didn't put in a 16-bit subsystem.
Um, you act like an independent OS subsystem is a bad thing. The client/server kernel of NT is WHAT MAKES IT INTERESTING, and also is part of why the NT kernel gets the respect it does in spite of the Win32 shorcomings of Windows. PS You do realize that even Win32 is just 'a' subsystem and could be replaced at anytime?
I would be much more interested in an OS X clone running on my PC, than in a Windows clone that I don't need.
Why clone a bad interface when you can clone a good one that many people would like to use?
There's a difference between hardware detection and stable installation. Every time I've installed Vista it's gone out without a hitch, the image based installer failing on me less than XP's installer. (On the same note, I think my XP Pro CD is bad.) At least I can just re-burn the copy of Vista I got from Microsoft Connect legally as opposed to violating the law to make a backup of software I own that's labeled 'Do not make copies of this disc' just so I can install it.
What we DON'T have is a viable commercial product to compete with the PC/Mac control of the market for those of us who need to run professional programs. I mean no disrespect to Linux, and I plan to try out the UbuntuStudio as soon as it's out, but if you need to do video or audio/music production, for example, you're stuck with two platforms that continually underwhelm and have very little incentive to give users what they really want.
Both Microsoft and Apple have held the marketplace hostage for so long, that they can get away with ignoring the demands of their users, which is the symptom of a market out of whack. I want to run OSX on a box I build, but I can't. I want to run Vista without DRM, but I can't. I can keep going like this for a long time. It's the lack of serious competition that has kept the entire desktop market moribund for decades now.
We need another player, simple as that. We need a well-financed company to get into the desktop operating system game and stay there for a solid decade. Then we'll start seeing products and features that we REALLY want, at reasonable prices. Until then, it's going to be this silly charade of Bill and Steve, who we're supposed to believe are competitors, when they're really just enabling each other to abuse their customers, playing to their business partners in the entertainment-industrial complex. They may have done something at one time to move the status quo forward, but in the last decade they've just been a couple of jackoffs, doing zip for you and me.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Aside from shooting the lawyers, the best way to mitigate the lawyers, I think, would be to get rid of the "MS GUI". That is, abstract it a little bit and make it an API-compatible theme engine, with the default looking different.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Please don't abuse the tags.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
oh come on. This is slashdot.
Protocol requires that I leap to the wrong conclusion immediately and rant on about that whilst also having a go at Microsoft.
Do you know nothing?
Kind of sad that in the entire history of Windows, there was only a 4-year window (no pun intended) of stable installation.
That's highly misleading - going by release dates, Windows 2000 was released in 2000, and Vista in 2007, giving us 7 years (presumably the OP was talking about when he had to deal with them, which includes beta releases and people still using an old version).
That's the same timeframe which Mac OS has only offered a stable OS (things like memory protection), in the form of OS X.
Of course, talking of "entire history of" is irrelvant anyway, since versions previous to NT were different operating systems, just as classic Mac OS has no connection to Mac OS X other than the name and company producing it.