4 ms·

Probably out of frustration from ReactOS's lack of development. ReactOS must take the record for software with the longest gestation in history. The project is

Probably out of frustration from ReactOS's lack of development. ReactOS must take the record for software with the longest gestation in history. The project is decades old and there's little to show for it. I've never figured out why the inordinate delay given that millions are unhappy with Windows and Microsoft generally. You'd reckon open source developers would be falling over themselves to join such a project but it seems not. Perhaps there's something about how the ReactOS project is run that I'm unaware of that puts people off. The other problem is trying to find out news of the project, the ReactOS website goes dead for many months at a time and updates are at times years apart. You'd reckon its developers would be much more communicative, and I reckon this is one of the reasons why there isn't more interest in the project. The fact that ReactOS is going nowhere is most annoying, having no alternative O/S to Windows is a real pain. BTW, I've tried every every release for years and I have been unable to get a stable enough release to run even one dedicated task. (Some of my tasks such as email or wordprocessing could be put on a dedicated machine so it was the only user-installed software, that way an unstable O/S wouldn't be stressed too much but unfortunately with ReactOS even that idea hasn't worked out.)

celdon25 2y ago
You successfully answered why you would make a project that you haven't made, but that doesn't really answer the question, and the author already answered in the same subthread 30 minutes before your post.
- hilbert42 2y ago
  Not answered to my satisfaction.
forgotpwd16 2y ago
To not get cease & desist'd to hell, great effort is spent to make sure every bit of code introduced to ReactOS has been properly clean-room engineered. The Windows source code leaks specifically have made a great job to stall ReactOS development. Also the potential legal issues and making an enemy of MS makes it hard to get sponsors. Hence project is entirely developed by unpaid volunteers.
- hilbert42 2y ago
  "Windows source code leaks specifically have made a great job to stall ReactOS development." What you are in effect saying is that Microsoft has essentially killed the ReactOS project off. Are you reasonably sure about this? The reason I ask is that I was under the impression that to overcome any MS code issues that ReactOS was porting Wine code (this ought to be clean). A supplementary question, as ReactOS is using Wine code what parts still have to be coded that might be in conflict with MS's proprietary code? This question relates to my earlier point about how little info developers are providing potential users. The lack of info doesn't doesn't sound good nor does it offer users much hope. I've been waiting about 20 of ReactOS's 26 years, unfortunately it seems to me I'll be dead before it's ready.
  - JPLeRouzic 2y ago
    If I remember correctly, Hartmut Birr, a developer from early times had suspicions (at the time of v2.8/2.9) that a new and very productive developer had disassembled MS code. His code used the MS calling convention to the kernel, before that Reactos used interrupts to access the kernel. The other developers disagreed and Hartmut Birr quit the project.
    - hilbert42 2y ago
      Right, I'd read something like that but without the specifics. If that's over-spooked developers then it's a shame. Microsoft has what it wanted—an almost halting of the project.
helloooooooo 2y ago
It’s because all of the early React developers now have incredibly successful careers and don’t really have time to support it
- hilbert42 2y ago
  As I said, why then aren't other/new developers rushing in to fill the void? Again, this is still a mystery.
  - delfinom 2y ago
    Because OSS is a thankless job and _free volunteer_ work. The more niche something is such as Windows kernel clone development, the ridiculously smaller pool of potential contributors that may even want to contribute _their personal free time_ to spend on it. And I come from the perspective of other large niche OSS projects.
    - account42 2y ago
      Add to that that finishing the remaining 90% of a project is a lot less exciting than designing the first 90% of a new one.
    - hilbert42 2y ago
      "Because OSS is a thankless job and _free volunteer_ work. " Agreed, it's why I've advocated a halfway 'house' to overcome the problem and pay for the project's development. It goes something like this (but no doubt there are many suitable variations): create a nonprofit cooperative organization/society that is revenue neutral to develop programs and pay developers a reasonable wage. Employment could be flexible, the organization could employ both full-time and part-time developers (this would help those who've a keen interest in the project but whose principal job is too valuable to let go etc.) In effect, this software has a cost but it would be very much cheaper than products from Microsoft, Adobe, etc. Also, licensing would be less restrictive—say make the product still cheaper or even free if one compiles the code oneself. There are ways of releasing the code so someone doesn't release a compiled version (each source could be different, have individual certificates, etc., thus compiled versions would individually identifiable), but I'd reckon the price would be so reasonable that it wouldn't be worth the effort. By revenue-neutral I mean the price of the product would not only cover wages, administration but also necessary reserves. I've mentioned this concept on HN and elsewhere previously for software such a Gimp, LibreOffice and so on. I'm somewhat surprised there aren't any software organizations that use this development model.
omneity 2y ago
> ReactOS must take the record for software with the longest gestation in history. May I introduce you to GNU Hurd? First release happened 34 years ago. https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/ https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/
- hilbert42 2y ago
  OK, thanks, I've learned something new, GNU Hurd has the edge over ReactOS by eight years. :-)
- exikyut 2y ago
  *Google* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandem_Computers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandem_Computers: 1974 (50y) (semi-dead) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QNX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QNX: 1982 (42y) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VxWorks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VxWorks: 1987 (37y) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd: 1990 (34y) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4690_Operating_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4690_Operating_System: 1993 (30y) (these run the self-service touchscreens at Costco's food section, IIUC) It's surprisingly hard to query for "graph intersection between earliest first release date and most recent release date" :(
  - KerrAvon 2y ago
    I think the parent’s point was that Hurd is still unfinished. All of the others in your list shipped releases that met their intended goals in a much more compact timeframe. edit: clarification
  - pengaru 2y ago
    "gestation period" != age
- account42 2y ago
  At least Hurd is making better progress than TempleOS these days.
  - 2y ago
account42 2y ago
> Perhaps there's something about how the ReactOS project is run that I'm unaware of that puts people off. My guess is that the intersection of people who don't need need bug for bug windows compat (so aren't are stuck on real Windows) and those who really care about the NT compatibility at the kernel level is about zero. > having no alternative O/S to Windows is a real pain. That really depends on what you count as an alternative, doesn't it? As far as regular applications are concerned Linux + Wine is a pretty good alternative.
Workaccount2 2y ago
I'm pretty confident is that a core problem is that people who develop OS's realize that linux or unix-like systems are plain superior, and end up just building on that, being well versed in their structure and syntax. This is great and all, except that the linux experience is about a 3/10 for people who are trying to leave windows. Especially when the core of using linux is still so incredibly CLI heavy. It's kinda like having professional race car drivers build cars. They end up being fast, efficient, nimble, and easy to repair. But driving them is difficult as hell, the drivers seat looks like an apache helicopter cockpit and the clutch is so stiff and throttle so sensitive that you almost always stall or lunge. But it does have an automatic "beginner" mode, never leaves first gear and the throttle becomes slush, but it will get you from A to B around town, mostly. Great for grandma.
hitpointdrew 2y ago
> I've never figured out why the inordinate delay given that millions are unhappy with Windows and Microsoft generally. You'd reckon open source developers would be falling over themselves to join such a project but it seems not. I think there is a strong misconception that there is this massive pool of open-source devs twiddling there thumbs just itching to jump in on some project were they can pour time and effort for nothing more than the "good of the community". I don't have any sources for this, but it my strong suspicion that the vast majority of "open source" contributions are actually done by contributors that are compensated either by a company that doesn't mind paying their employees to work on open source projects, or by a foundation behind the open source project. Take Go-lang for example, originally created by Google, then opened up. I am sure there are Google employees that still contribute (on Googles dime) to the project. Why would Google do this? Why not keep the Go just for themselves? Simple, if they open it up and can get other people/companies to use it, then they can make future hires where they don't have to train everyone on a proprietary language. ReactOS doesn't have a large foundation behind it, and it doesn't make sense for companies to allow their employees to develop and contribute to it on their dime. Development is skilled labor, especially for an OS. Dev's need to eat, need a home, etc. I don't know a single dev that is itching to give away their skills for 0 compensation. The only time devs really do that is when it is a personal passion project.
- Suppafly 2y ago
  >ReactOS doesn't have a large foundation behind it, and it doesn't make sense for companies to allow their employees to develop and contribute to it on their dime. It's also a solution to a problem that largely doesn't exist. The people working on it do so for fun, not because they need Windows but not made by Microsoft. The parent comments says "having no alternative O/S to Windows is a real pain" but it's not a real pain to any significant amount of people.
- troad 2y ago
  > I think there is a strong misconception that there is this massive pool of open-source devs twiddling there thumbs just itching to jump in on some project were they can pour time and effort for nothing more than the "good of the community". I don't have any sources for this, but it my strong suspicion that the vast majority of "open source" contributions are actually done by contributors that are compensated either by a company that doesn't mind paying their employees to work on open source projects, or by a foundation behind the open source project. I actually think this is a wider societal issue. People love calling for work to be done in some abstract sense ('someone should really...', 'they should make it so that..'), but who is this 'they'? Or this 'someone'? You? Because you're either volunteering yourself, or you're 'volunteering' someone else for the job, there's no third option. There's this general sense that everything will be (or is) documented; every tool made, every itch scratched. But unless the incentives (money, fame, prestige, personal fulfilment, love, curiosity, self-expression, etc.) are there for someone to do it, it won't get done. Most things will never be done. So if someone says "I don't understand why X hasn't been done", I feel like an appropriate response is to ask why they haven't done it. And generally, whatever reasons they give, those reasons will be a good explanation why anyone else hasn't done it either.
spc476 2y ago
> ReactOS must take the record for software with the longest gestation in history I think that would be Project Xanadu, started in (depending upon what you consider as "starting") in 1961 or 1965.
tombert 2y ago
I think the main issue is that there's just not much money in it. Let me explain. I don't have hard numbers on this, but I'd venture to guess that a vast, vast majority of funding/code-time-donations towards Linux is specifically for making server infrastructure more stable. Fortunately for the community, these changes get pushed upstream and also fortunately a lot of them end up also benefiting the desktop environment as well. Windows does have a server presence obviously, but I think if you're using a Windows server, you're not going to drop it and replace it with ReactOS (even if it were less unstable); you'd probably move to Linux with .NET Core. I don't think any company is going to fund the development of ReactOS on server, or as any key part of infrastructure, and so the only thing that React has is consumer desktops. I don't think there's a lot of funding going towards consumer products; I'm not saying it's zero, but even for Ubuntu and Canonical or Fedora and Redhad, I always kind of figured that the desktop OS's were effectively loss-leaders for commercial clients. I think the final nail on the coffin is Valve and Proton; for awhile Microsoft still basically had a monopoly on games, regular Wine was hit or miss, but Proton keeps getting better and better, to a point where I almost never have to worry about a game not working on my Steam box. Valve can continue to work on SteamOS specifically because they have funding in the form of people using their platform to buy games. I was rooting for ReactOS for quite awhile, but nowadays I'm not really seeing the point of it. Linux driver support is actually pretty decent nowadays (particularly with AMD GPUs), it runs reasonably fast, and most applications have moved to web-based stuff anyway.

celdon25 2y ago

You successfully answered why you would make a project that you haven't made, but that doesn't really answer the question, and the author already answered in the same subthread 30 minutes before your post.

hilbert42 2y ago
Not answered to my satisfaction.

forgotpwd16 2y ago

To not get cease & desist'd to hell, great effort is spent to make sure every bit of code introduced to ReactOS has been properly clean-room engineered. The Windows source code leaks specifically have made a great job to stall ReactOS development. Also the potential legal issues and making an enemy of MS makes it hard to get sponsors. Hence project is entirely developed by unpaid volunteers.

hilbert42 2y ago
"Windows source code leaks specifically have made a great job to stall ReactOS development." What you are in effect saying is that Microsoft has essentially killed the ReactOS project off. Are you reasonably sure about this? The reason I ask is that I was under the impression that to overcome any MS code issues that ReactOS was porting Wine code (this ought to be clean). A supplementary question, as ReactOS is using Wine code what parts still have to be coded that might be in conflict with MS's proprietary code? This question relates to my earlier point about how little info developers are providing potential users. The lack of info doesn't doesn't sound good nor does it offer users much hope. I've been waiting about 20 of ReactOS's 26 years, unfortunately it seems to me I'll be dead before it's ready.
- JPLeRouzic 2y ago
  If I remember correctly, Hartmut Birr, a developer from early times had suspicions (at the time of v2.8/2.9) that a new and very productive developer had disassembled MS code. His code used the MS calling convention to the kernel, before that Reactos used interrupts to access the kernel. The other developers disagreed and Hartmut Birr quit the project.
  - hilbert42 2y ago
    Right, I'd read something like that but without the specifics. If that's over-spooked developers then it's a shame. Microsoft has what it wanted—an almost halting of the project.

helloooooooo 2y ago

It’s because all of the early React developers now have incredibly successful careers and don’t really have time to support it

hilbert42 2y ago
As I said, why then aren't other/new developers rushing in to fill the void? Again, this is still a mystery.
- delfinom 2y ago
  Because OSS is a thankless job and _free volunteer_ work. The more niche something is such as Windows kernel clone development, the ridiculously smaller pool of potential contributors that may even want to contribute _their personal free time_ to spend on it. And I come from the perspective of other large niche OSS projects.
  - account42 2y ago
    Add to that that finishing the remaining 90% of a project is a lot less exciting than designing the first 90% of a new one.
  - hilbert42 2y ago
    "Because OSS is a thankless job and _free volunteer_ work. " Agreed, it's why I've advocated a halfway 'house' to overcome the problem and pay for the project's development. It goes something like this (but no doubt there are many suitable variations): create a nonprofit cooperative organization/society that is revenue neutral to develop programs and pay developers a reasonable wage. Employment could be flexible, the organization could employ both full-time and part-time developers (this would help those who've a keen interest in the project but whose principal job is too valuable to let go etc.) In effect, this software has a cost but it would be very much cheaper than products from Microsoft, Adobe, etc. Also, licensing would be less restrictive—say make the product still cheaper or even free if one compiles the code oneself. There are ways of releasing the code so someone doesn't release a compiled version (each source could be different, have individual certificates, etc., thus compiled versions would individually identifiable), but I'd reckon the price would be so reasonable that it wouldn't be worth the effort. By revenue-neutral I mean the price of the product would not only cover wages, administration but also necessary reserves. I've mentioned this concept on HN and elsewhere previously for software such a Gimp, LibreOffice and so on. I'm somewhat surprised there aren't any software organizations that use this development model.

omneity 2y ago

> ReactOS must take the record for software with the longest gestation in history. May I introduce you to GNU Hurd? First release happened 34 years ago. https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/ https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/

hilbert42 2y ago
OK, thanks, I've learned something new, GNU Hurd has the edge over ReactOS by eight years. :-)
exikyut 2y ago
*Google* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandem_Computers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandem_Computers: 1974 (50y) (semi-dead) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QNX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QNX: 1982 (42y) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VxWorks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VxWorks: 1987 (37y) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd: 1990 (34y) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4690_Operating_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4690_Operating_System: 1993 (30y) (these run the self-service touchscreens at Costco's food section, IIUC) It's surprisingly hard to query for "graph intersection between earliest first release date and most recent release date" :(
- KerrAvon 2y ago
  I think the parent’s point was that Hurd is still unfinished. All of the others in your list shipped releases that met their intended goals in a much more compact timeframe. edit: clarification
- pengaru 2y ago
  "gestation period" != age
account42 2y ago
At least Hurd is making better progress than TempleOS these days.
- 2y ago

account42 2y ago

> Perhaps there's something about how the ReactOS project is run that I'm unaware of that puts people off. My guess is that the intersection of people who don't need need bug for bug windows compat (so aren't are stuck on real Windows) and those who really care about the NT compatibility at the kernel level is about zero. > having no alternative O/S to Windows is a real pain. That really depends on what you count as an alternative, doesn't it? As far as regular applications are concerned Linux + Wine is a pretty good alternative.

Workaccount2 2y ago

I'm pretty confident is that a core problem is that people who develop OS's realize that linux or unix-like systems are plain superior, and end up just building on that, being well versed in their structure and syntax. This is great and all, except that the linux experience is about a 3/10 for people who are trying to leave windows. Especially when the core of using linux is still so incredibly CLI heavy. It's kinda like having professional race car drivers build cars. They end up being fast, efficient, nimble, and easy to repair. But driving them is difficult as hell, the drivers seat looks like an apache helicopter cockpit and the clutch is so stiff and throttle so sensitive that you almost always stall or lunge. But it does have an automatic "beginner" mode, never leaves first gear and the throttle becomes slush, but it will get you from A to B around town, mostly. Great for grandma.

hitpointdrew 2y ago

> I've never figured out why the inordinate delay given that millions are unhappy with Windows and Microsoft generally. You'd reckon open source developers would be falling over themselves to join such a project but it seems not. I think there is a strong misconception that there is this massive pool of open-source devs twiddling there thumbs just itching to jump in on some project were they can pour time and effort for nothing more than the "good of the community". I don't have any sources for this, but it my strong suspicion that the vast majority of "open source" contributions are actually done by contributors that are compensated either by a company that doesn't mind paying their employees to work on open source projects, or by a foundation behind the open source project. Take Go-lang for example, originally created by Google, then opened up. I am sure there are Google employees that still contribute (on Googles dime) to the project. Why would Google do this? Why not keep the Go just for themselves? Simple, if they open it up and can get other people/companies to use it, then they can make future hires where they don't have to train everyone on a proprietary language. ReactOS doesn't have a large foundation behind it, and it doesn't make sense for companies to allow their employees to develop and contribute to it on their dime. Development is skilled labor, especially for an OS. Dev's need to eat, need a home, etc. I don't know a single dev that is itching to give away their skills for 0 compensation. The only time devs really do that is when it is a personal passion project.

Suppafly 2y ago
>ReactOS doesn't have a large foundation behind it, and it doesn't make sense for companies to allow their employees to develop and contribute to it on their dime. It's also a solution to a problem that largely doesn't exist. The people working on it do so for fun, not because they need Windows but not made by Microsoft. The parent comments says "having no alternative O/S to Windows is a real pain" but it's not a real pain to any significant amount of people.
troad 2y ago
> I think there is a strong misconception that there is this massive pool of open-source devs twiddling there thumbs just itching to jump in on some project were they can pour time and effort for nothing more than the "good of the community". I don't have any sources for this, but it my strong suspicion that the vast majority of "open source" contributions are actually done by contributors that are compensated either by a company that doesn't mind paying their employees to work on open source projects, or by a foundation behind the open source project. I actually think this is a wider societal issue. People love calling for work to be done in some abstract sense ('someone should really...', 'they should make it so that..'), but who is this 'they'? Or this 'someone'? You? Because you're either volunteering yourself, or you're 'volunteering' someone else for the job, there's no third option. There's this general sense that everything will be (or is) documented; every tool made, every itch scratched. But unless the incentives (money, fame, prestige, personal fulfilment, love, curiosity, self-expression, etc.) are there for someone to do it, it won't get done. Most things will never be done. So if someone says "I don't understand why X hasn't been done", I feel like an appropriate response is to ask why they haven't done it. And generally, whatever reasons they give, those reasons will be a good explanation why anyone else hasn't done it either.

spc476 2y ago

> ReactOS must take the record for software with the longest gestation in history I think that would be Project Xanadu, started in (depending upon what you consider as "starting") in 1961 or 1965.

tombert 2y ago

I think the main issue is that there's just not much money in it. Let me explain. I don't have hard numbers on this, but I'd venture to guess that a vast, vast majority of funding/code-time-donations towards Linux is specifically for making server infrastructure more stable. Fortunately for the community, these changes get pushed upstream and also fortunately a lot of them end up also benefiting the desktop environment as well. Windows does have a server presence obviously, but I think if you're using a Windows server, you're not going to drop it and replace it with ReactOS (even if it were less unstable); you'd probably move to Linux with .NET Core. I don't think any company is going to fund the development of ReactOS on server, or as any key part of infrastructure, and so the only thing that React has is consumer desktops. I don't think there's a lot of funding going towards consumer products; I'm not saying it's zero, but even for Ubuntu and Canonical or Fedora and Redhad, I always kind of figured that the desktop OS's were effectively loss-leaders for commercial clients. I think the final nail on the coffin is Valve and Proton; for awhile Microsoft still basically had a monopoly on games, regular Wine was hit or miss, but Proton keeps getting better and better, to a point where I almost never have to worry about a game not working on my Steam box. Valve can continue to work on SteamOS specifically because they have funding in the form of people using their platform to buy games. I was rooting for ReactOS for quite awhile, but nowadays I'm not really seeing the point of it. Linux driver support is actually pretty decent nowadays (particularly with AMD GPUs), it runs reasonably fast, and most applications have moved to web-based stuff anyway.