4 ms·

I still don't understand the motivation for this project. If you ought to run a windows application, you use windows anyway. If you like to move to an opensourc

by xxqs 15y ago

I still don't understand the motivation for this project. If you ought to run a windows application, you use windows anyway. If you like to move to an opensource platform, you have to invest in migrating your applications anyway. I don't get where ReactOS fits in this picture. also how people can spend their precious time in re-implementing an existing architecture? There's lots of interesting and creative projects to actually build something new.

acuozzo 15y ago
> There's lots of interesting and creative projects to actually build something new. Can you recommend one that involves building a kernel, from scratch, that at least _some_ people will use?
- xxqs 15y ago
  excuse me for answering with a question to a question, but why would you need a new kernel? There's BSD, there's this list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_real-time_operating_systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_real-time_operating_sys... , there's GNU Hurd... why do you need another one? Besides, if you really want a new kernel, why should it be win32 binary compatible?
  - acuozzo 15y ago
    Excuse me as well for answering your question to a question with a bunch of questions. > why would you need a new kernel? 1. Why wouldn't you? Requirements change. Would you expect humans 100+ years from now to be hacking on BSD? 2. What if it's (kernel hacking, that is) the only domain you enjoy working in? Different programmers have different interests. Should you just give up to work on something `popular'? > Besides, if you really want a new kernel, why should it be win32 binary compatible? 3. How else would you expect to find users and contributors when many people already have their own $OS_OF_CHOICE? Also, consider the year of the initial ReactOS release: 1998. A FOSS WinNT clone would've made sense at that time.
    - xxqs 15y ago
      :-) actually 1998 voids your argument for "building a kernel from scratch". It's not any more a new kernel in fact :) see my other comment in this thread about the business case. Without a business case, any exciting project would eventually disappear.
      - acuozzo 15y ago
        > see my other comment in this thread about the business case. OK, I read it and I think you've a point. > Without a business case, any exciting project would eventually disappear. I don't understand what you're arguing here. What is the `business case' for GNU Emacs?
        xxqs 15y ago
        ok, name it "motivation" instead of Business case. for GNU Emacs, the motivation is completely clear: it's a tool for developers, and some of those developers contribute and make it better for everyone. For ReactOS... ok, someone seems to have a motivation, but that's completely beyond my understanding :)
- rbanffy 15y ago
  You either build something new or you build something people will use. Building a Win32-compatible kernel is not something new. It's only a reimplementation of something very old. It's not saying it's not an interesting project in itself - it's just not something I would attempt
  - xxqs 15y ago
    simply because there are less boring things :)
userulluipeste 15y ago
> If you ought to run a windows application, you use windows anyway. If you like to move to an opensource platform, you have to invest in migrating your applications anyway. This is a false premise. Even before ReactOS to get traction, there was WINE. From your point of view WINE "doesn't fit" either? And people are spending their precious time in something actually useful for the entire world. They canonize a proven and currently used (in massive proportion) architecture and take it out of the Microsoft's whims. They put their time and effort in a public solution which is an alternative to Windows, yet not a sadomasochistic option like Linux & related (trying to shove down to mainstream user's throat something that was not designed for him). Finally, they do something that is obvious and had to be done a long ago, and I'm shocked how there could be people questioning the even the reason for ReactOS's existence.
- xxqs 15y ago
  (thanks for not pulling down my karma :)) I am in fact an open-source developer, but there's some business case behind each of my project. I just don't see a business case behind ReactOS. I know about WINE (never used it though), and it makes at least a bit of sense to me, unlike ReactOS.
  - noselasd 15y ago
    Not everyone is driven by a business case. Some people want to help feed the poor, some just want to tend their rose garden all year long, and some want to provide a compatible but open source alternative to the OS provided by Microsoft.
    - xxqs 15y ago
      a project of this scale needs proper funding, otherwise it would take forever (which actually seems to be the case). the guys are building a competition to Microsoft. Some may do it for the pleasure of doing that, but I see it as a dead-end, as there is no business driver.
      - 15y ago

by xxqs 15y ago

acuozzo 15y ago

> There's lots of interesting and creative projects to actually build something new. Can you recommend one that involves building a kernel, from scratch, that at least _some_ people will use?

xxqs 15y ago
excuse me for answering with a question to a question, but why would you need a new kernel? There's BSD, there's this list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_real-time_operating_systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_real-time_operating_sys... , there's GNU Hurd... why do you need another one? Besides, if you really want a new kernel, why should it be win32 binary compatible?
- acuozzo 15y ago
  Excuse me as well for answering your question to a question with a bunch of questions. > why would you need a new kernel? 1. Why wouldn't you? Requirements change. Would you expect humans 100+ years from now to be hacking on BSD? 2. What if it's (kernel hacking, that is) the only domain you enjoy working in? Different programmers have different interests. Should you just give up to work on something `popular'? > Besides, if you really want a new kernel, why should it be win32 binary compatible? 3. How else would you expect to find users and contributors when many people already have their own $OS_OF_CHOICE? Also, consider the year of the initial ReactOS release: 1998. A FOSS WinNT clone would've made sense at that time.
  - xxqs 15y ago
    :-) actually 1998 voids your argument for "building a kernel from scratch". It's not any more a new kernel in fact :) see my other comment in this thread about the business case. Without a business case, any exciting project would eventually disappear.
    - acuozzo 15y ago
      > see my other comment in this thread about the business case. OK, I read it and I think you've a point. > Without a business case, any exciting project would eventually disappear. I don't understand what you're arguing here. What is the `business case' for GNU Emacs?
      - xxqs 15y ago
        ok, name it "motivation" instead of Business case. for GNU Emacs, the motivation is completely clear: it's a tool for developers, and some of those developers contribute and make it better for everyone. For ReactOS... ok, someone seems to have a motivation, but that's completely beyond my understanding :)
rbanffy 15y ago
You either build something new or you build something people will use. Building a Win32-compatible kernel is not something new. It's only a reimplementation of something very old. It's not saying it's not an interesting project in itself - it's just not something I would attempt
- xxqs 15y ago
  simply because there are less boring things :)

userulluipeste 15y ago

> If you ought to run a windows application, you use windows anyway. If you like to move to an opensource platform, you have to invest in migrating your applications anyway. This is a false premise. Even before ReactOS to get traction, there was WINE. From your point of view WINE "doesn't fit" either? And people are spending their precious time in something actually useful for the entire world. They canonize a proven and currently used (in massive proportion) architecture and take it out of the Microsoft's whims. They put their time and effort in a public solution which is an alternative to Windows, yet not a sadomasochistic option like Linux & related (trying to shove down to mainstream user's throat something that was not designed for him). Finally, they do something that is obvious and had to be done a long ago, and I'm shocked how there could be people questioning the even the reason for ReactOS's existence.

xxqs 15y ago
(thanks for not pulling down my karma :)) I am in fact an open-source developer, but there's some business case behind each of my project. I just don't see a business case behind ReactOS. I know about WINE (never used it though), and it makes at least a bit of sense to me, unlike ReactOS.
- noselasd 15y ago
  Not everyone is driven by a business case. Some people want to help feed the poor, some just want to tend their rose garden all year long, and some want to provide a compatible but open source alternative to the OS provided by Microsoft.
  - xxqs 15y ago
    a project of this scale needs proper funding, otherwise it would take forever (which actually seems to be the case). the guys are building a competition to Microsoft. Some may do it for the pleasure of doing that, but I see it as a dead-end, as there is no business driver.
    - 15y ago