On the surface it looks like windows 2000, but as soon as you try and do anything useful, you bump into problems. Firefox hangs the system when loading. Fonts don't always draw correctly. LOTS of things are missing. Quite often i press a button on a dialog, and it does nothing - why was is it even enabled if it doesn't work?
Still a long way to go!
WINE is not likely to reflect a pixel-perfect representation of what your IE users will see and that's the simple fact. I've been bitten before by trusting the output of an IE in WINE. For testing IE, there is still no substitute for the official Windows platform. I don't think there will ever really be one, but it may be a decent distant-future goal for WINE: consistent pixel-perfect rendering in every IE version.
ReactOS is remarkably functional considering though!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Can you recommend one that involves building a kernel, from scratch, that at least _some_ people will use?
It's not saying it's not an interesting project in itself - it's just not something I would attempt
why would you need a new kernel?
There's BSD, there's this list here:
, 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?
> 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.
see my other comment in this thread about the business case. Without a business case, any exciting project would eventually disappear.
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?
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 :)
Lots of plant touchscreens and industrial computers run a stripped down version of windows NT 3.51, win2k or XP (XP embedded is just a stripped down XP) which dont need any bells and whistles, just a solid network connection and the ability to run the win32 api. I have over 30 of these panel pc's around various factories running touch screen apps in place of explorer.exe so the desktop is not important to me and the demand is expanding all the time.
Thanks for the time and effort lads, I'm downloading it now to give it a go :-)
If you don't need the hardware support the reality is that you'll be much better off using a newer version of WINE on a Linux installation than you would be using a ReactOS snapshot.
Not to mention, WINE is far from perfect. I'd argue that ReactOS, albeit with chunks of it coming from WINE is still far more likely to behave like a real Windows machine.
At the end of the day, it'll probably come down to cost and an in situ replacement of the OS without any application rewrite or hardware changes is cheapest.
I would really like to know why you think this. ReactOS's userspace support is WINE almost entirely. They may write extra win32 applications like explorer.exe for use with ReactOS, but they do not use a separate runtime translator. They may modify portions of WINE to work with their ring 0 graphics code or whatever, but almost all of the serious work is done by WINE.
WINE is tested broadly on Linux platforms and the bugs usually get solved quickly. ReactOS is barely tested at all and I would not expect the kernel to be remotely stable for a long time yet. Why do you think ReactOS, which is usually not using a very recent WINE base (at least not in snapshots), would be more stable than Linux + WINE?
It's a Free, binary-compatible clone of WinNT. You can now run (old) Windows apps with no license fees paid to MS, and without any proprietary code on your system.
edit2: did I mention it's more secure by default than a normal desktop Windows install? WinNT has some pretty nice security mechanisms, if you use them right. As a trivial example, users aren't admins by default.