4 ms·

"It doesn't even matter if the tech is any good or not. ReactOS has to reverse engineer it if they want parity with Windows. It's just a pragmatic result of wri

"It doesn't even matter if the tech is any good or not. ReactOS has to reverse engineer it if they want parity with Windows. It's just a pragmatic result of writing a clone of another project that itself is constantly undergoing development." I think this is where you're making wrong assumptions. ReactOS is free and open-source, and from this comes choice. Even if the main project chooses to work on reimplementing marginal or even unwanted things, a fork is always an option. (A fork from an immature project like it still is doesn't make sense for now.) After all, it's known that people don't appreciate bloat. ReactOS wants parity with Windows 2003 and that is a manageable target. Bits from later Windows versions may be added for important applications but it hasn't have to be nor is necessarily wanted all that Microsoft pushed from Vista hitherto. ReactOS doesn't have to cover all that much, really. Also, an important nitpeek: ReactOS doesn't reverse-engineer. It employs clean-room engineering.

laumars 10y ago
ReactOS is aiming for 2003 at the moment. A few years back it was 2000. Then previous versions of Windows before then. It's target has been upgraded every few years. I've been following and using ReactOS for about 15 years now. Trust me when I say I'm familiar with the project and what it's aims are and have been in the past. Yeah you're right it's not reverse engineering in the technical sense. It's a lazy term to use because it sounds like the approximation of the process even though it's technically inaccurate. I should get out of that habit. :)