3 ms·

It's a rather huge effort by a fairly small group of people not backed by any corporations [1]. They are aiming for bug-for-bug compatibility with Windows, incl

It's a rather huge effort by a fairly small group of people not backed by any corporations [1]. They are aiming for bug-for-bug compatibility with Windows, including the driver model. One of the reasons for it taking so long, though, was it was discovered that a previous developer had written code garnered from disassembling pieces of the Windows kernel. Thus they had to perform a rather long process of auditing all of the code that had already been written to ensure that no Microsoft code was in the codebase. [1] https://reactos.org/wiki/People_of_ReactOS https://reactos.org/wiki/People_of_ReactOS

rrdharan 10y ago
The audit does seem to have been a setback but looks like it didn't take that long relative to the total development time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReactOS#Internal_audit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReactOS#Internal_audit That is to say, I doubt they'd be running Aero Glass or UWP applications this month even if they hadn't lost time to the audit.
- userulluipeste 10y ago
  That audit was more than just a time stall. It affected the community. Being temporarily prevented from working on the project, many contributors oriented themselves elsewhere. Then there is also the friction caused by the rigor the team had to enforce on accepting new contributions further on. And that wasn't nowhere near the real damage for the project! The real thing was the reticence of serious backing/involvement from wealthy players' part, caused by the fear of something similar (but more serious). That audit can be (and for many was) taken just as a warning.
copx 10y ago
What a waste of time. ReactOS is illegal anyway. Microsoft must have a million patents on Windows technology, no way you could re-implement Windows without violating them. Fact is the moment ReactOS becomes a threat to Microsoft's business interests they will sue it out of existence. Even if you ignore the patents issue, any re-implementation of Windows will inevitably be full of code looking similar to the Microsoft one, even if the authors never looked at the Microsoft code. And as the recent Oculus court case has shown, such a similarity is all Microsoft needs to successfully sue them. I like the idea of project but I would never contribute to it because of the reality above.
- wtallis 10y ago
  It sounds like you're commenting within the context of the worst excesses of US IP law, but the project seems to be most closely tied with Germany and Russia. It's definitely not illegal everywhere. And even within the US, ReactOS in its current state is perfectly safe: Microsoft has nothing to gain by suing them, but they would risk an extremely harmful precedent should they go to trial with their precious IP. Microsoft's patents and copyright FUD are effective tools against corporations, but not loosely organized collections of free software users.
- Intermernet 10y ago
  Consider your statement against the fact that Microsoft are currently pushing a Linux subsystem in Windows. They are doing what is basically a clean-room implementation of the Linux ABI to avoid the GPL. What stops ReactOS doing the reverse? Microsoft have had 13 years to review the source code for ReactOS and haven't had a problem with it so far. The only major issue arose internally: > A claim was made on 17 January 2006, by now former developer Hartmut Birr on the ReactOS developers mailing list (ros-dev) that ReactOS contained code derived from disassembling Microsoft Windows. The code that Birr disputed involved the function BadStack in syscall.S. as well as other unspecified items. Comparing this function to disassembled binaries from Windows XP, Birr argued that the BadStack function was simply copy-pasted from Windows XP, given that they were identical. Alex Ionescu, the author of the code, asserted that while the Windows XP binary in question was indeed disassembled and studied, the code was not merely copy-pasted, but reimplemented; the reason why the functions were identical, Ionescu claimed, was because there was only one possible way to implement the function.[1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReactOS#Internal_audit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReactOS#Internal_audit

rrdharan 10y ago

The audit does seem to have been a setback but looks like it didn't take that long relative to the total development time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReactOS#Internal_audit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReactOS#Internal_audit That is to say, I doubt they'd be running Aero Glass or UWP applications this month even if they hadn't lost time to the audit.

userulluipeste 10y ago
That audit was more than just a time stall. It affected the community. Being temporarily prevented from working on the project, many contributors oriented themselves elsewhere. Then there is also the friction caused by the rigor the team had to enforce on accepting new contributions further on. And that wasn't nowhere near the real damage for the project! The real thing was the reticence of serious backing/involvement from wealthy players' part, caused by the fear of something similar (but more serious). That audit can be (and for many was) taken just as a warning.

copx 10y ago

What a waste of time. ReactOS is illegal anyway. Microsoft must have a million patents on Windows technology, no way you could re-implement Windows without violating them. Fact is the moment ReactOS becomes a threat to Microsoft's business interests they will sue it out of existence. Even if you ignore the patents issue, any re-implementation of Windows will inevitably be full of code looking similar to the Microsoft one, even if the authors never looked at the Microsoft code. And as the recent Oculus court case has shown, such a similarity is all Microsoft needs to successfully sue them. I like the idea of project but I would never contribute to it because of the reality above.

wtallis 10y ago
It sounds like you're commenting within the context of the worst excesses of US IP law, but the project seems to be most closely tied with Germany and Russia. It's definitely not illegal everywhere. And even within the US, ReactOS in its current state is perfectly safe: Microsoft has nothing to gain by suing them, but they would risk an extremely harmful precedent should they go to trial with their precious IP. Microsoft's patents and copyright FUD are effective tools against corporations, but not loosely organized collections of free software users.
Intermernet 10y ago
Consider your statement against the fact that Microsoft are currently pushing a Linux subsystem in Windows. They are doing what is basically a clean-room implementation of the Linux ABI to avoid the GPL. What stops ReactOS doing the reverse? Microsoft have had 13 years to review the source code for ReactOS and haven't had a problem with it so far. The only major issue arose internally: > A claim was made on 17 January 2006, by now former developer Hartmut Birr on the ReactOS developers mailing list (ros-dev) that ReactOS contained code derived from disassembling Microsoft Windows. The code that Birr disputed involved the function BadStack in syscall.S. as well as other unspecified items. Comparing this function to disassembled binaries from Windows XP, Birr argued that the BadStack function was simply copy-pasted from Windows XP, given that they were identical. Alex Ionescu, the author of the code, asserted that while the Windows XP binary in question was indeed disassembled and studied, the code was not merely copy-pasted, but reimplemented; the reason why the functions were identical, Ionescu claimed, was because there was only one possible way to implement the function.[1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReactOS#Internal_audit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReactOS#Internal_audit