ReactOS as it is

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

User avatar
Jaix
Moderator Team
Posts: 838
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 3:40 pm
Location: Sweden, Växjö

Package Manager

Post by Jaix »

frik85 wrote:
Jaix wrote:And I agree, please not to many distributions!

The Package Manager could stop that, if there were possible to create some different standard selections in the Package Manager

one for servers
one for workstations
[...]
DrFred and I had exectly the same ideas that was one of the reasons why we started with the ReactOS Package Manager.[...]
Okay, I thought it just had the ability to install/ update the applications not setting standard selections, this is good news!

I long for the day when I can insert a DVD with ROS and make a selection for creating a workstation and leave the building and come back an hour later and start to work with a fresh installed configured workstation.
frik85 wrote:
Jaix wrote:Well, I have one idea about this, picture a hardware vendor want to make a firewall, he starts by porting ReactOS to this processor and platform, and sets the Package Manager to just install software compiled for this platform. This should not be the same DISTRO as ReactOS, all software needs to be recompiled for a special hardware, and because of this it's not possible to use the same Package Manager but modified one to deliver software for the correct platform (Actually this could be the same PM but with different databases.). [...]
Why do you think it is not possible to use the same Package Manager (code)? Sure it's not possible to run a win32 exe (for x86) e.g. on a win2k (alpha computer) you need the app compiled for the alpha cpu, but it's generally the same code (maybe with small modifications). (e.g. putty is available for x86 and for alpha; both for win32 as exe files). [...]
Okay, I thought so too, and it will work for those projects started as a branch to ROS (XBox & PowerPC port for example) but then I realized that other people will probably create their own projects just like some already have, (they will probably like to be in controll of their own stuff thuss create a new database (of course built form your Package Manager) and stuff it somewhere on the net. I didn't think they had to reinvent the wheel again.

User avatar
Jaix
Moderator Team
Posts: 838
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 3:40 pm
Location: Sweden, Växjö

ROS ported...

Post by Jaix »

Ratteler wrote:You know what would increadibly cool, but probably almost uselss as the same time. A PowerPC version of ReactOS.

Kind of blashphamouse I know, but there are a lot of old Mac's out there doing basically nothing.
Well, it already is an ongoing project:
http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php/PowerPC
Well, there is a long way to go to make ReactOS work on x86 and even longer way for other ports, but it will happen. In time ReactOS will have ports for very many platforms just like Linux. Everyone who want to make a platform want to have a lot of software and experienced users, with a ReactOS port they have.

Lucractius
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 4:27 am

Post by Lucractius »

Ok that package manager looks like a great thing. But since its late im tired i cant check it out completely.

If im not mistaken it doesnt do quite everything... Its a "package manager" ... it doesnt cover the system stuff like i was thinking. But it looks like the design is flexible enough that it could be added to / reused to get a complete update/installation managment system. the configs look simple, and the tools exist already (and im sure SOMEONE has done automated scripts for the Nightly builds... are any of these useable on reactos to build reactos? )

If the package manager has already been started then its probably a good idea to get something like (ill just reffer to it as "fuzion" from now on) Fuzion going now, so it can be neatly fitted in. (and what does anyone else think of that by the way... An install/update system for reactos that can handle OS and listed apps, via Source and Precompiled exe's. I think "Fuzion" is a good name for it, Fusing the system together from its parts :) )

once exams are over for me in 2 weeks ill examine this thing further... id like to try and not... lock in... the design to reactos... since reactos and wine AND windows share a large common software set, id feel wrong about the software side update tool being reactos only, as opposed to Win32 based with ReactOS/Wine/MS platform dependant information being implemented. the system side tools would obviously be reactos dependant though so i figure they can be designed separately and then integrated in whatever kind of scripting 'Fuzion' would use. (before we jump on the language/programming holy war path, remember that the idea is to manage things based on the inputs, input>logic>output>command execuction>updating takes place, to me it seems that a scripting langage would be best to at least build the initial design in. since the commands are going to be used by the user, like a very complex batch file.

Floyd
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:45 am
Location: The frozen part of the USA

Post by Floyd »

GvG wrote:Thank you. Your message is a nice change from the "dude, your GUI sucks" we've been hearing so much lately.
well, we are all enthusiasts about ReactOS and would like to see it come to fruition. i think the debate on the shell just reflects the enthusiasm to make it different, just enough, from windows. but i guess you're right in the sense that we don't encourage enough. we do hope you succeed.
pax mei amici amorque et Iesus sacret omnia

Lucractius
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 4:27 am

Post by Lucractius »

Ok it seems like there is already plans for an system update manager too.

the Basic scripting for the apps in the package manager looks pretty good, not to hard to learn, or build an app to do for utterly hopeless/lazy programmers.

if anyone IS interested in my ideas to do with a combined update manager then id like to hear their thoughts, since right now im making private notes for what do bout my idea, implementation possibilities and so on, and im not entirely sure if saying them all would just be cluttering up the list.

Viator
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:53 am

Post by Viator »

Reactos Should be like debian in that you can theoretically install once and upgrade forever apt-get dist-upgrade upgrade your kernel etc forever. Without ever doing a full reinstall. Will you be able to upgrade the kernel in ros? Instead of having to download a whole new iso of the whole os when it is upgraded updated... Imagine telling windows people that they never had to buy or download the "whole" os EVER again but could stay bleeding edge if they wanted to with upgrades updates every once in a while(at THEIR discression)..now thats freedom! Also itd be nice if reactos fixed the problem windows has in that you have to reboot after you do EVERYTHING i hate that... The ONLY time i reboot in linux is after a kernel recompile

Lucractius
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 4:27 am

Post by Lucractius »

So i take it you like the idea of an integrated update/package management system :)

im behind you with the install once, update forever philosophy. But i belive that the freebsd ports|pkg system is a better path than debian packages. if your ambitious, impatient, picky, like to fiddle, or whatever, there are the ports sources, if you want it done simple and quickly, theres the packages. theyre both cross compatible, so you can install something using packages, then update it using ports without breaking anything unless ive missed something about doing things with ports that breaks packages that ive never done.

the problem with the no reboot upgrade is that linux has a different kernel style... but then again... i suppose it COULD be posible to work something out, i read somewhr ethat the NT kernel was a hybrid microkenel, well then i suppose the systems ontop could be designd for safe online upgrade with minimal fuss. But its no small feat. and like i keep saying. its suff that should be looked at now, before it gets difficult to see ways to fix it without causing problems wiht breaking functionality.

jasorn
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 12:28 am

Not too many distros?

Post by jasorn »

Don't take this the wrong way but I'm not sure we're getting the point of FOSS. Once this thing gets to a suitable point, there will be as many 'distros' out there are people who have the time, desire, and skills to make one.

Who knows, there may already be people out there who are creating there own as I type.

Even if there was some sort of code added to try to discourage that, the FOSS nature of the project would just mean someone would have to remove or disable it in order to make his distro.

Also, I think some in this thread have overstated the difficulties for the newbie in today's linux world. I've been using linux since '97 and I've seen it go through many changes. For instance, the new version of mandriva is so simple to install, I'm recommending it to many of my not so techie friends. There are others just as easy.

Linux can be daunting. I know from experience. But it isn't the chore it once was. There are distros out now that a novice user can point and click his way through a full desktop install in 30-60 minutes and have all his HW(yes, it does have to be on the suppored list) recognized and installed properly.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a windows hater. I like windows, dos, linux, cp/m. the mainframe, sunos, menuetos, heck, I like just about all OSs. The prospect of having FOSS versions of unix and windows both is almost too exciting.

On the difficulty angle... Every time I buy a new computer, they've all had windows preinstalled for at least a decade, I immediately reformat the hard drive and do a fresh install. I do this for 2 reasons.
1. To remove all the extra crap they installed that I don't want. AOL comes to mind.
2. To document the things I'll need to know in case I have to do a reinstall sometime after the warranty ends and they won't support me anymore.

What's interesting is that with every new computer I've had(1 every 3 years) there is at least one driver I can't get installed correctly. It's either buried someplace on the install CD and the device driver installation program can't find it or there is something special you need to know/do in order to get it installed correctly.

I even had a case for which the driver wasn't on the CD and they had to ship me a new one.

What I do is call support and have them tell me how to install the hw I can't get installed and document it for future reference.

My point is that sure, windows has the distinction of being "easier" but I wonder how much of that would change if computers didn't come pre loaded with windows. I know there are now computers shipping with linux preinstalled. I'd like to see some polls on 'easiblity' from the people who bought one of those machines.

As far as ease of use goes, I think windows went in the wrong direction with the registry. Ini are easier for the noobie.

It used to be that FOSS, free dev tools, and price was the reason I switched to linux. But these days, FOSS is pretty big in the windows world. Now, I want both a FOSS windows and unix environment at home because I work on windows and unix at work.

Enough talk. Time to contribute!

Lucractius
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 4:27 am

Post by Lucractius »

One point to nit pick in your otherwise supperb post. I like the registry, windows just took it way to far. OpenVMS uses the registry concept as well, and thats decades ahead of windows in terms of power for an OS, Individual programs should have individual controls, either their own local registry or settings, SEPARATED from the real registry, THE registry should be OS/ SYstem settings only. Not bloated out by every program you add.

and id say the lack of symlinks is bad for this since you do want a central app config folder like /etc/ realy for useability/editability, but that still spearates the configs from the programs, so symlinking configs to the system setting folders "copy" makes sence :)

jasorn
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 12:28 am

I can buy that.

Post by jasorn »

Maybe that's true. The idea of a registry doesn't seem too bad. Maybe if it were implemented differently things would be better. I think I'm still partial to plain text files doing the work but a nice, simple registry might change my mind.

It's also possible I think windows registry isn't so good because I didn't take the time to really learn about it. At about the time I needed to start messing with it very much, I started to change to linux for most of my stuff at home.

Yeah, no symlinks is a total pain. Can reactos put in symlinks and still meet it's objective?
Lucractius wrote:One point to nit pick in your otherwise supperb post. I like the registry, windows just took it way to far. OpenVMS uses the registry concept as well, and thats decades ahead of windows in terms of power for an OS, Individual programs should have individual controls, either their own local registry or settings, SEPARATED from the real registry, THE registry should be OS/ SYstem settings only. Not bloated out by every program you add.

and id say the lack of symlinks is bad for this since you do want a central app config folder like /etc/ realy for useability/editability, but that still spearates the configs from the programs, so symlinking configs to the system setting folders "copy" makes sence :)

Lucractius
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 4:27 am

Post by Lucractius »

well if we go with some reiserfs (4?) based filesystem to reimplement the NTFS funtionality with then we can add symlinks to it :)

and a clean registy is a good one lol

Floyd
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:45 am
Location: The frozen part of the USA

Post by Floyd »

Lucractius wrote:well if we go with some reiserfs (4?) based filesystem to reimplement the NTFS funtionality with then we can add symlinks to it :)

and a clean registy is a good one lol
a small, non-bloated registry is a good one.
IMO too many programs add their own c--p to it when it would they could just as easily write a .cfg file.
pax mei amici amorque et Iesus sacret omnia

Yann64
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 9:07 pm
Location: France

Post by Yann64 »

Floyd wrote:
Lucractius wrote:well if we go with some reiserfs (4?) based filesystem to reimplement the NTFS funtionality with then we can add symlinks to it :)

and a clean registy is a good one lol
a small, non-bloated registry is a good one.
IMO too many programs add their own c--p to it when it would they could just as easily write a .cfg file.
That's so right. And some softwares do not only use the registry for configuration settings, but also as a database to store big amounts of information having nothing to do with its configuration. Luckily these softwares are not so comon.

ThePhysicist
Developer
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:46 pm

Post by ThePhysicist »

Some time ago I posted some of my registry ideas, but can't find them anymore. So here again:

- split the registry into smaller parts and link these together
- check linked registry files at startup and remove obsolete (no longer present) registry parts
- put software specific reg entries in a special reg file in the software's main folder (HKLM/SOFTWARE/7Zip->c:\program files\7Zip\reg.dat) or into the users profile path (HKCU/Software/7Zip->users\JohnDoe\application data\7Zip\reg.dat), so when you delete the software / folder the reg keys will be gone also.
- on deletion of a reg file, ask the user, if to delete the registry entries or move them to a software.dat file, if you like to keep your settings for a later reinstall.
- don't put "every keystroke" to the registry, like last accesed files (MUICache)
- put a maintanance/repair application into reactos and bootcd to repair/reset/reconfigure damaged parts of the installation/configuration (like network getting fucked up after installing AOL) and maybe some kind of safe registry cleanup.
(- for advanced users: give the registry files a unique extension (no, not .reg) and open them on double click with the registry editor (only these subkeys!) so you can configure your apps without searching through the whole registry.)

Lucractius
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 4:27 am

Post by Lucractius »

If the filesystem can support symlinking id like to propose a hybrid,

a central location for all separate config files, with a linked copy of the config there. so if /program files/$foo has config files $foobar and $barfoo, then inside a location say, /system/config there would be placed a link to the config filesinside a folder $foo, named $foobar and $barfoo

the biggest issue with the registry is programs over using it, the best soloution is to take that away from them. since you cant demand they program better, you just make it so their programing cant hurt the system.

And to retain compatibility. a pseduo registry be used, (its location noted in the real registry) to which registry offending programs are forced to use, or the same could be implemented with a set of text files and a full recursive directory structure matching the registry's depending on whichever offered better performance.

just a few more thoughts

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 3 guests