5 ms·

> 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

by 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 :)

by 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 :)