3 ms·

Yes, the project's target is, at least at beginning, a full-fledged Windows binary-compatible OS, a "monolith". Yet, when it will reach a stable version, there

Yes, the project's target is, at least at beginning, a full-fledged Windows binary-compatible OS, a "monolith". Yet, when it will reach a stable version, there isn't really any obstacle, given the fact that it is an open-source project, in forking it. The ReactOS team has to provide everything now, but when others around will start providing better alternatives for the OS' components, the team might retreat in doing only what they do better, which I suppose is the NT core. If you refereed to the NT kernel to be a monolith, then it actually is a hybrid. Other than kernel-integrated UI, its NT core is micro-kernel by design.

gizmo686 13y ago
> Other than kernel-integrated UI, its NT core is micro-kernel by design. Care to elaborate on the kernel-integrated UI. That seems like a weird place to break from a micro-kernel design.
- userulluipeste 13y ago
  There is a referenced piece of info on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_kernel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_kernel "The emulation subsystem which implements the Windows personality is called the Client/Server Runtime Subsystem (csrss.exe). On versions of NT prior to 4.0, this subsystem process also contained the window manager, graphics device interface and graphics device drivers. For performance reasons, however, in version 4.0 and later, these modules (which are often implemented in user mode even on monolithic systems, especially those designed without internal graphics support) run as a kernel-mode subsystem[1]." [1] http://technet.microsoft.com/library/cc750820.aspx http://technet.microsoft.com/library/cc750820.aspx
mtdewcmu 13y ago
I wasn't referring specifically to the kernel. Monolithic kernels aren't any harder than microkernels, as evidenced by the success of Linux vs Hurd. The UI kernel integration intrigues me. Apparently it was done for performance reasons. If it improves performance, then that would be a legitimate reason to do it. I guess the project is aiming to hit some critical mass where it attracts more developers and becomes self-sustaining. But does that point change with each release of Windows?
- userulluipeste 13y ago
  First yes, monolithic kernels aren't any harder than microkernels, they are actually easier. That was the main reason for Linus' choice when redesigning the Minix microkernel into monolithic Linux. Second, yes again - UI was integrated due to performance improvement. Earlier versions of NT had microkernel architecture. Third - well, this is a philosophical question. There are a lot of different people involved in ReactOS and I guess each of them have slightly different reasons for their involvement. "Critical mass" might be unavoidable though, considering the offering. For now Windows 2003 is targeted due to its simpler kernel architecture (NT 5.2) compared to later versions. After that will be achieved, well... we'll see.

gizmo686 13y ago

> Other than kernel-integrated UI, its NT core is micro-kernel by design. Care to elaborate on the kernel-integrated UI. That seems like a weird place to break from a micro-kernel design.

userulluipeste 13y ago
There is a referenced piece of info on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_kernel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_kernel "The emulation subsystem which implements the Windows personality is called the Client/Server Runtime Subsystem (csrss.exe). On versions of NT prior to 4.0, this subsystem process also contained the window manager, graphics device interface and graphics device drivers. For performance reasons, however, in version 4.0 and later, these modules (which are often implemented in user mode even on monolithic systems, especially those designed without internal graphics support) run as a kernel-mode subsystem[1]." [1] http://technet.microsoft.com/library/cc750820.aspx http://technet.microsoft.com/library/cc750820.aspx

mtdewcmu 13y ago

I wasn't referring specifically to the kernel. Monolithic kernels aren't any harder than microkernels, as evidenced by the success of Linux vs Hurd. The UI kernel integration intrigues me. Apparently it was done for performance reasons. If it improves performance, then that would be a legitimate reason to do it. I guess the project is aiming to hit some critical mass where it attracts more developers and becomes self-sustaining. But does that point change with each release of Windows?

userulluipeste 13y ago
First yes, monolithic kernels aren't any harder than microkernels, they are actually easier. That was the main reason for Linus' choice when redesigning the Minix microkernel into monolithic Linux. Second, yes again - UI was integrated due to performance improvement. Earlier versions of NT had microkernel architecture. Third - well, this is a philosophical question. There are a lot of different people involved in ReactOS and I guess each of them have slightly different reasons for their involvement. "Critical mass" might be unavoidable though, considering the offering. For now Windows 2003 is targeted due to its simpler kernel architecture (NT 5.2) compared to later versions. After that will be achieved, well... we'll see.