React OS = Linux?

[hto]

There are only a few files taken from Linux, which is perfectly legitimate, as ReactOS uses the same license.

[EmuandCo]

Watch the 2nd Stage Setup and you will see all apps where code was taken from in a nice list.

[Haos]

Pls no thread necromancy...

[Switchboy]

Why ReactOS will be beter then Linux for desktop home use when it's done:
1. Easy to use (for people familiar with windows)
2. one on one compatability with win32 (binaries)
3. no commandline needed
4. aboundanty of drivers (win 2k xp and vista)
5. Direct dirext X with ReactX (no wrapper)
6. one distribution instead of ~14762649
7. one "xserver"

[Mrkaras]

although you are right, you will probably be attacked by penguins for that post.

[.aart3k]

yes yes, pengoins attack! who's with me?
I think there should be no discussion like "what's os is better desktop os" as there is abouletly no point

And ReactOS distibutions...? it is possible and if reactos is stable enough somebody propably will start to make packages with non-ros-team applications bundled, included some tweaks: ROS for overclockers, ROS for developers, ROS for idiots etc.

[Switchboy]

yes yes, pengoins attack! who's with me?
I think there should be no discussion like "what's os is better desktop os" as there is abouletly no point

And ReactOS distibutions...? it is possible and if reactos is stable enough somebody propably will start to make packages with non-ros-team applications bundled, included some tweaks: ROS for overclockers, ROS for developers, ROS for idiots etc.

With one important difference from Linux. The ROS distributions will be binairy compatible (if they want to stay win32 compatible ).

I don't want to start a holy war about wich one is better. I'am only saying that when it's done, the avarage john doe will know how to work with it right away. And because of that it will porbebly be better for home desktop use.

Maybe I should have stated this more clearly in my first post, but I thought that it would be understood.

[Haos]

Since the ressurection for this thread is already completed:

I`m not a penguinistas, rather a win32 follower. I probably would be capable of running *nix box with some training... heck, i`m old enough to remember and work on DOS, with or without NC. Bash cannot be much harder:P

There will be distributions/forks of ReactOS, as soon as it gets stable and functioning. I can name at least three: gaming os - crafted for running games with most speed , secure os - with removed functionality for better security (vide our irc process injection discussion), adn minimalistic os - trimmed version for most raw power.

We could also see specific compiler optimization builds, for amd/intel cpu-s.

Nothing to be scared of. This is a sign that the software is good and popular. No distributions at all would make me think that something is wrong...

[.aart3k]

As there is one windows and were many unices there is no uniform dir and config files structure for linux distros and that's only difference. who said that they aren't binary compatibile you can rather say that there are no 2 compatibile linuxes as there someone always has some extra libraries included in his own installation. same thing on windows.

distros are chance for ros to get popular, windows is huge competition

and if "average john doe" was put in the front of linux desktop from beggining for a couple of months he plays with linux eaisier rather than with windows.
windows anyway got popular and it's name is acronym for "pc os"

[Reacter]

A: Who dug up this pre-0.3.0 thread? B: Bash is nearly DOS expanded in many ways, but having case-sensitivity. C: DOS is awesome, Windows is slightly off, and that's why ReactOS and FreeDOS are awesome!

[.aart3k]

i leave this topic, writing about why bash is not "expanded dos" is pointless for some poeple here

[Z98]

They aren't binary compatible BECAUSE they have different library versions. That tends to play hell with many apps, and most distros don't seem interested in maintaining any uniformity amongst themselves. A lot seem determined to create a new type of lock-in, so that users have to keep using their distros. It's the repetition of the UNIX clones that allowed MS to win in that OS war. The only way for Linux distros to be meaningful in the mainstream is if they provide a unified/coherent/consistent core. That by itself will wipe out most differences between the various distros and negate the necessity of having so many. And if some distros die in the process, all well, those are usually the ones that don't really offer anything groundbreaking to begin with. We don't need a dozen "generic" distros anyways, since the only differences between them are the ones the distros intentionally put in.