8 ms·

I wish they took more of a ReactOS kind of approach. Namely, use all the open-source parts that go into macOS, like the kernel and CoreFoundation, and write the

I wish they took more of a ReactOS kind of approach. Namely, use all the open-source parts that go into macOS, like the kernel and CoreFoundation, and write the proprietary ones from scratch. Then you'd finally have a desktop OS with no compromises and a huge existing app ecosystem (and a consistent GUI).

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
scythe 6y ago
That was tried with OpenDarwin, but Apple was not a fan of the project IIRC. More generally, it doesn't offer much of practical value to use the Darwin kernel which is at this point pretty tied to Apple hardware that comes with OS X anyway. You can still Hackintosh but it just adds a lot of additional complexity that you won't have to deal with on Linux.
- grishka 6y ago
  The point is that desktop Linux is still pretty much a bunch of standalone components loosely duct taped together. Sometimes they fall apart, but even when they don't, it still shows. Linux GUIs still feel like an afterthought. upd: googling "OpenDarwin" bings up two first results that are news of it closing, in 2006
  - chungus_khan 6y ago
    And working with the Darwin kernel would offer zero benefit in fixing this. The GUI coming out the other side would still rely on all the same technology as Linux desktops do, just as is the case on BSDs. Using a different UNIX kernel doesn't change any of that, and any effort made on the Darwin side would be easily ported to Linux. The GUI components of Mac OS are not open source.
    - monadic2 6y ago
      It would offer access to the mac software ecosystem, particularly the (imho) cohesive set of underlying frameworks. Just like linux is "just" a kernel but is in reality a center of floss development, actively organizing around bringing binary compatibility can bring incidental benefits. That said at this point I don't see anything inherently easier or beneficial about this than creating some other project around an alternative paradigm than PC derived desktop systems on top of some existing better supported kernel. That said contrary to what the previous poster implied I don't think either OpenDarwin or PureDarwin aimed at reproducing the proprietary bits—they were/are essentially quirky, buggy, poorly documented BSDs just as reliant on the floss ecosystem as much better supported stacks.
    - grishka 6y ago
      > The GUI coming out the other side would still rely on all the same technology as Linux desktops do Why? Where does this logic come from? And apparently it's common, because PureDarwin mentioned in another comment does just that for some reason. IMO, the right thing to do would be to replicate Apple's proprietary stack as closely as possible. Like, literally take the real macOS and start replacing essential proprietary frameworks like Cocoa and Quartz and core apps like Finder and Dock with fully API-compatible open-source ones. You'll eventually end up with a fully open-source operating system capable of running macOS apps.
      - chungus_khan 6y ago
        That would have to be done from scratch as literally none of that is open source. While it could be done, the same amount of effort spent building a better Linux desktop would be more efficiently spent if the goal was to just get a high-quality open source desktop offering. There's also some hairiness legally about working from within the official Mac OS system outwards AFAIK.
        grishka 6y ago
        > That would have to be done from scratch as literally none of that is open source. That's the point. ReactOS doesn't use any of the Linux parts, and it's reimplementing everything from scratch because there are no open-source components in Windows afaik.
  - symlinkk 6y ago
    Have you used GNOME? Download Fedora and tell me it’s not more visually consistent than Windows
  - blablabla123 6y ago
    > The point is that desktop Linux is still pretty much a bunch of standalone components loosely duct taped together. To some degree it is. On the other hand this is also why I prefer to use Ubuntu or Debian over any other distribution. They are highly integrated and opinionated in the sense that they keep the packages as unmodified as possible.
dis-sys 6y ago
why bother following the clearly failed model? ReactOS has been there for more than 20 years, how many people are actually running ReactOS in production?
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  ReactOS got too ambitious IMO. If they had stopped chasing versions at say XP/2003 then it may have matured more quickly. That said they are getting closer to useable with every release. Like FreeDOS before it I suspect it will fill a niche where Microsoft binaries are too expensive yet compatibility is important.
  - detaro 6y ago
    ... but they are targeting XP/2003?
  - jeroenhd 6y ago
    If they stopped at 2003/XP then no modern web browser would run on it and the system would be even more useless than it is today. If you want any decent usage out of the system, you need to support a whole bunch of APIs from at least Windows 7 (probably even Windows 8 now that 7 is our of support) because people have stopped compiling for XP ages ago.
    - paulryanrogers 6y ago
      Looks like they are open to implementing newer APIs in the future. So if the version reported can be spoofed or modern browsers only feature sniff then there is hope.
  - JdeBP 6y ago
    Not targetting versions beyond XP is what ReactOS does, and pretty much always has to my knowledge. It's explicitly mentioned in its doco that it targets Windows NT 5.2. Indeed, this is the first thing dealt with in the ReactOS FAQ on its wiki. * https://reactos.org/wiki/ReactOS_FAQ https://reactos.org/wiki/ReactOS_FAQ I found this disappointing at the time that ReactOS was announced, as I recall, because there were a few things that were architected better in Windows NT 6.
shp0ngle 6y ago
That exists, is named PureDarwin (I think) and is about as active as the original article project. Which is not completely dead, but also not that active. Turns out there is a big effort difference between “why don’t they just”ing on forums and actually doing it! :)
ric2b 6y ago
> Then you'd finally have a desktop OS with no compromises and a huge existing app ecosystem (and a consistent GUI). What compromises does Ubuntu have vs MacOS? It has orders of magnitude better gaming support thanks to Wine + Steam Proton.
- grishka 6y ago
  Linux GUIs are extremely inconsistent and just generally feel like an afterthought. Out of all GUI desktop operating systems I've used, nothing comes close to macOS as far as consistency goes. Besides that, Linux desktop is this loosely stacked pile of different components that sometimes falls apart. No one wants to spend 50% of their time writing config files and setting up drivers instead of actually doing something useful.
  - ficklepickle 6y ago
    So, misconceptions and generalizations then? I don't understand how you can make sweeping generalizations about every desktop environment that runs on Linux. Every DE is an afterthought? Just the fact you call them "Linux GUIs" makes me question how much you have even used any DE with Linux. I spend no time writing system config files. Drivers are part of the kernel, so I also spend zero time on that. Brand-new laptop hardware sometimes takes a while to get support, but it is really easy to check before you buy. It is perfectly OK to prefer a padded, walled garden. Just like it is OK to prefer a modular OSS Linux environment where everything is knowable. Nobody needs to be "right", and nobody needs to bash the other with unsubstantiated claims.
    - grishka 6y ago
      I do, of course, know that there are many DEs and window managers. I generalize them quite purposefully. The point I'm trying to make is that on Linux, there are hardly any well-defined standards for anything beyond system calls. There also are no UI guidelines and there's no single accepted UI toolkit (some apps use Qt, some apps use GTK, some use something else). This leads to overall subpar user experience. Many apps have UIs that make you think before you do something with it. A good UI doesn't make you think, it feels like a continuation of your thoughts right when you see it for the first time. Consistency helps a lot here. (FWIW, the way GUI apps feel and behave doesn't depend much on your choice of desktop environment.) I don't like walled gardens — I despise Apple's service ecosystem and the app store. I just prefer things to work sensibly out of the box. The only reason I made an Apple ID is because it won't let me download Xcode without one.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

scythe 6y ago

That was tried with OpenDarwin, but Apple was not a fan of the project IIRC. More generally, it doesn't offer much of practical value to use the Darwin kernel which is at this point pretty tied to Apple hardware that comes with OS X anyway. You can still Hackintosh but it just adds a lot of additional complexity that you won't have to deal with on Linux.

grishka 6y ago
The point is that desktop Linux is still pretty much a bunch of standalone components loosely duct taped together. Sometimes they fall apart, but even when they don't, it still shows. Linux GUIs still feel like an afterthought. upd: googling "OpenDarwin" bings up two first results that are news of it closing, in 2006
- chungus_khan 6y ago
  And working with the Darwin kernel would offer zero benefit in fixing this. The GUI coming out the other side would still rely on all the same technology as Linux desktops do, just as is the case on BSDs. Using a different UNIX kernel doesn't change any of that, and any effort made on the Darwin side would be easily ported to Linux. The GUI components of Mac OS are not open source.
  - monadic2 6y ago
    It would offer access to the mac software ecosystem, particularly the (imho) cohesive set of underlying frameworks. Just like linux is "just" a kernel but is in reality a center of floss development, actively organizing around bringing binary compatibility can bring incidental benefits. That said at this point I don't see anything inherently easier or beneficial about this than creating some other project around an alternative paradigm than PC derived desktop systems on top of some existing better supported kernel. That said contrary to what the previous poster implied I don't think either OpenDarwin or PureDarwin aimed at reproducing the proprietary bits—they were/are essentially quirky, buggy, poorly documented BSDs just as reliant on the floss ecosystem as much better supported stacks.
  - grishka 6y ago
    > The GUI coming out the other side would still rely on all the same technology as Linux desktops do Why? Where does this logic come from? And apparently it's common, because PureDarwin mentioned in another comment does just that for some reason. IMO, the right thing to do would be to replicate Apple's proprietary stack as closely as possible. Like, literally take the real macOS and start replacing essential proprietary frameworks like Cocoa and Quartz and core apps like Finder and Dock with fully API-compatible open-source ones. You'll eventually end up with a fully open-source operating system capable of running macOS apps.
    - chungus_khan 6y ago
      That would have to be done from scratch as literally none of that is open source. While it could be done, the same amount of effort spent building a better Linux desktop would be more efficiently spent if the goal was to just get a high-quality open source desktop offering. There's also some hairiness legally about working from within the official Mac OS system outwards AFAIK.
      - grishka 6y ago
        > That would have to be done from scratch as literally none of that is open source. That's the point. ReactOS doesn't use any of the Linux parts, and it's reimplementing everything from scratch because there are no open-source components in Windows afaik.
- symlinkk 6y ago
  Have you used GNOME? Download Fedora and tell me it’s not more visually consistent than Windows
- blablabla123 6y ago
  > The point is that desktop Linux is still pretty much a bunch of standalone components loosely duct taped together. To some degree it is. On the other hand this is also why I prefer to use Ubuntu or Debian over any other distribution. They are highly integrated and opinionated in the sense that they keep the packages as unmodified as possible.

dis-sys 6y ago

why bother following the clearly failed model? ReactOS has been there for more than 20 years, how many people are actually running ReactOS in production?

paulryanrogers 6y ago
ReactOS got too ambitious IMO. If they had stopped chasing versions at say XP/2003 then it may have matured more quickly. That said they are getting closer to useable with every release. Like FreeDOS before it I suspect it will fill a niche where Microsoft binaries are too expensive yet compatibility is important.
- detaro 6y ago
  ... but they are targeting XP/2003?
- jeroenhd 6y ago
  If they stopped at 2003/XP then no modern web browser would run on it and the system would be even more useless than it is today. If you want any decent usage out of the system, you need to support a whole bunch of APIs from at least Windows 7 (probably even Windows 8 now that 7 is our of support) because people have stopped compiling for XP ages ago.
  - paulryanrogers 6y ago
    Looks like they are open to implementing newer APIs in the future. So if the version reported can be spoofed or modern browsers only feature sniff then there is hope.
- JdeBP 6y ago
  Not targetting versions beyond XP is what ReactOS does, and pretty much always has to my knowledge. It's explicitly mentioned in its doco that it targets Windows NT 5.2. Indeed, this is the first thing dealt with in the ReactOS FAQ on its wiki. * https://reactos.org/wiki/ReactOS_FAQ https://reactos.org/wiki/ReactOS_FAQ I found this disappointing at the time that ReactOS was announced, as I recall, because there were a few things that were architected better in Windows NT 6.

shp0ngle 6y ago

That exists, is named PureDarwin (I think) and is about as active as the original article project. Which is not completely dead, but also not that active. Turns out there is a big effort difference between “why don’t they just”ing on forums and actually doing it! :)

ric2b 6y ago

> Then you'd finally have a desktop OS with no compromises and a huge existing app ecosystem (and a consistent GUI). What compromises does Ubuntu have vs MacOS? It has orders of magnitude better gaming support thanks to Wine + Steam Proton.

grishka 6y ago
Linux GUIs are extremely inconsistent and just generally feel like an afterthought. Out of all GUI desktop operating systems I've used, nothing comes close to macOS as far as consistency goes. Besides that, Linux desktop is this loosely stacked pile of different components that sometimes falls apart. No one wants to spend 50% of their time writing config files and setting up drivers instead of actually doing something useful.
- ficklepickle 6y ago
  So, misconceptions and generalizations then? I don't understand how you can make sweeping generalizations about every desktop environment that runs on Linux. Every DE is an afterthought? Just the fact you call them "Linux GUIs" makes me question how much you have even used any DE with Linux. I spend no time writing system config files. Drivers are part of the kernel, so I also spend zero time on that. Brand-new laptop hardware sometimes takes a while to get support, but it is really easy to check before you buy. It is perfectly OK to prefer a padded, walled garden. Just like it is OK to prefer a modular OSS Linux environment where everything is knowable. Nobody needs to be "right", and nobody needs to bash the other with unsubstantiated claims.
  - grishka 6y ago
    I do, of course, know that there are many DEs and window managers. I generalize them quite purposefully. The point I'm trying to make is that on Linux, there are hardly any well-defined standards for anything beyond system calls. There also are no UI guidelines and there's no single accepted UI toolkit (some apps use Qt, some apps use GTK, some use something else). This leads to overall subpar user experience. Many apps have UIs that make you think before you do something with it. A good UI doesn't make you think, it feels like a continuation of your thoughts right when you see it for the first time. Consistency helps a lot here. (FWIW, the way GUI apps feel and behave doesn't depend much on your choice of desktop environment.) I don't like walled gardens — I despise Apple's service ecosystem and the app store. I just prefer things to work sensibly out of the box. The only reason I made an Apple ID is because it won't let me download Xcode without one.