Why is it taking so long?

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

mrugiero
Posts: 482
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 9:12 am

Re: Why is it taking so long?

Post by mrugiero » Fri Apr 11, 2014 2:04 pm

Aeneas wrote: Well....... You'd be surprised. ;) Linux also supports UPPERCASE ONLY LOGINS, if you happen to not have a lowercase-enabled terminal. Now how 70s is THAT? And you have no problem at all getting over acoustic couplers, I've done that already.
User space. And AFAIR, most things on Linux and any UNIX-like are case-sensitive.
A lot of my point has to do with the fact the kernel doesn't impose that all of your OS have to be unix-ish. Some things are forced to be like that by the kernel. For example, you have to follow the everything is a file philosophy to some point, as it works with file systems. But you don't have to use tar, you are not forced to follow the "do one thing but do it well", you are not forced to even have a bash interpreter. Because, contrary to the BSDs, Linux is just the kernel. It only provides the bare basic functionality (well, it actually provides much more, being monolithic as it is, but you see the point). Stating "Linux" is a UNIX is like stating the Windows NT kernel is a Windows. You could use a completely different user space, which means not a single Windows app will run, and would you still call it Windows? I wouldn't. It could even be console only, and I'd definitely wouldn't call a console-only OS "Windows", as it wouldn't make any sense.
Moreover, e.g. tar takes options without "-", because at the time tar was first created, there was no clear convention yet how to supply options.
User space, and not a must use on any modern distro. You actually gave the perfect example of a typical UNIX application that you can completely avoid on Linux.
On a more serious level, the distinction that e.g. the network is NOT to be found under /dev is a relict from the 70s. Originally, Unix hat this thingy that "everything is a file", but they did not stick to that principle - as new technologies became available (like networking), they became "somehow attached" to the core Unix OS. That violated some principles, but ... it worked, so it stuck. And Linux copied it - 70s again. Plan 9 tried to change that (but Plan 9 itself was "trying to be incompatible" out of the arrogance for being so "novel"). Ideas from Plan 9 WERE, however, adopted back into Linux - such as the /proc "filesystem".[/size]
Well, they are diverging in pretty much everything from the old UNIX philosophy, and there actually quite some discomfort between purists because of that. That's my point. They do share some things with the old ideas from the 70's, but really not in the sense the guy I answered to seem to imply, except from X11 and sysvinit (which is going away in most modern distros), mostly. It's not like they are being like "hey, the only good way to do things is as our granpas told us". They don't even care about keeping compatibility with UNIX ideas if they stopped making sense. Systemd is the prime example of people not caring about those old mantras on the Linux world.
As to ReactOS: you all will have to admit, despite all whining, this project is taking an ETERNITY already. If anybody made his girlfriend pregnant when this project was conceived, that kid could nowadays help you coding! - So I really hope that fundraiser will take ReactOS somewhere.
Nobody denies the time it takes. I just find irritating the fact most people complaining about the time it takes does nothing about it. That's the main reason it takes that long. I do nothing either. But I don't complain, I can live with Linux.
Linux is not the only Unixoid around. Just see NetBSD. It was actually OLDER than Linux (at least, "immediate predecessor"-wise). But it failed to perform and became much, much less attractive than it seemed at a point. Yes, it still exists, and yes, it is one of my favourite OSes. But its path is not to be envied. So ReactOS should beware to follow the path of Linux rather than of NetBSD.
I'm fully aware of the BSD family, too.
Another example of not-THAT-good progress of late is, unfortunately, Haiku OS. It's great, really. But they got themselves into such a mess that they are still stuck at an alpha over a year old. This is simply ridiculous. And people mention that to them ... they react harsh. Like, "whine-whine-cry-cry, we are SOOO overworked". As in real life, that is simply not attractive, nor professional.
I don't know, they do pretty novel stuff, even while they don't bump the version number. For example, the Linux folks are now thinking of implementing something that AFAICT Haiku invented, QR codes for kernel messages. They also have modern mesa support, and they got it mainlined.

Lastly, it's not that there isn't any ideas it keeps around from the 70's. It's about I suspect the poster made it as just an ignorant claim. The fact you can name some things it keeps around, doesn't mean the other guy doesn't just apply some prejudice to it. It's still to be proved that any *bad* or *obsolete* idea is still around, as that's the problem with old ideas. If they are still valid, I'm pretty sure Windows at least considered them, too ;)
You named one obsolete perk from tar, and one from login. Yet those aren't the kind of thing that get in the way of development, as you can avoid them completely. I named two that do get in the way, and that are being abandoned (and abandoning them is planned since long ago, it's not even that they just had the idea, but the ground work took time).

Webunny
Posts: 1201
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Why is it taking so long?

Post by Webunny » Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:23 pm

vicmarcal wrote:For those with "Russian" concerns...
The current IndieGoGo campaign is being done through the German Foundation. And the funds are reaching the German Foundation. So if anyone has doubts, he can feel extra-confident.

Reasons of having a Russian Foundation (among others) are:
- There are a lot of Russians interested in ReactOS. Google analytics shows that.
- While in Europe there are discussions about "software patents", in Russia there aren't (so in case Europe become idiotic because MS pushed for it, we have a place to live
free and without issues).

Regarding "corruption", there is "corruption" everywhere but usually it is about Politicians. Be sure that our ReactOS Russian Foundation is clean and non-corrupted.
I wish the ReactOS Box is full of money via donations, but heheh..it's not the case. The funds are enough to pay our servers, and probably to hire a dev or two periodically. But not much. So the money is so low that if anyone tries to "steal" a dollar, it will be easy noticeable. Again, there is corruption in all the countries (Spain, Greece, Germany, Brussels,...) and the best proof is how "Laws" are set to fit multinational operations and needs. If anyone thinks his country is corruption-free, he should look deeper(or better) and enjoy.

Btwm,German and Russian Foundations are independent, while they cooperate together, afaik.
Ok, but how about some transparent and open (detailed) info on this? Is there a way to look that up (and where)?

I would like to repeat my question: how is the Foundation set up, exactly? What must one do to become a (normal) member? How many people are on the board? How were they elected? When are there 'general assemblees' where all members can congregate and/or vote? What minimum quorum is set for members to validly choose a board or committee? Is there an open bookkeeping that can be looked into?

I think these sort of things should be better explained, so that questions and misconceptions as we now saw pop-up can be easily answered and countered.

It's not sufficient to just say 'oh, don't worry, everything is covered' on itself, I hope you see that. If there is nothing to worry about, there is also nothing to worry about being totally open and transparent about it. I realise that you yourself probably can't provide the answers to this, but maybe someone knowledgeable about the inner-structure of the Foundation could shed a light, or give a link to where those details can be found? I've been in two non-profits myself, one as a member of the board, so I know there should be regulations and provisions to cover all these aspects. It would be nice to be able to look into it, especially for people like RussoTuristo, who might otherwise have misgivings or doubts.

Z98
Release Engineer
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 8:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Why is it taking so long?

Post by Z98 » Fri Apr 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Details have been updated on the https://www.reactos.org/foundation page. The English translation of the Russian foundation has been uploaded and the German original of the German foundation linked. A translation of the German foundation's charter was never finalized so at this point there's nothing to update. A copy of the Russian original will be uploaded later once I dig it out.

Webunny
Posts: 1201
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Why is it taking so long?

Post by Webunny » Fri Apr 11, 2014 8:48 pm

Z98 wrote:Details have been updated on the https://www.reactos.org/foundation page. The English translation of the Russian foundation has been uploaded and the German original of the German foundation linked. A translation of the German foundation's charter was never finalized so at this point there's nothing to update. A copy of the Russian original will be uploaded later once I dig it out.
My German is a bit rusty, but I still can read it well enough. This would be the relevant part in relation to my own questions:

§ 3 Erwerb der Mitgliedschaft
(1)
Mitglieder des Vereins können natürliche und juristische Personen werden, die die
Ziele des Vereins unterstützen möchten. Folgende Arten von Mitgliedschaften sind
dabei vorgesehen:
a)
Aktive Mitglieder
sind natürliche Personen, die den Vereinszweck und die
Vereinsziele durch Mitarbeit unterstützen und dabei die vollen Pflichten eines
Vereinsmitglieds übernehmen. Insbesondere wird von ihnen Mitarbeit, die
Teilnahme an den Mitgliederversammlungen und die Ausübung des Stimmrechts
erwartet.
b)
Fördernde Mitglieder
sind natürliche und juristische Personen, die den
Vereinszweck und die Vereinsziele insbesondere durch finanzielle Unterstützung
oder Sachbeiträge fördern. Sie werden auf eigenen Wunsch auf der Webseite
des Vereins veröffentlicht und haben das Recht zur Teilnahme an der
Mitgliederversammlung, ohne damit ein Stimmrecht zu erwerben. Juristische
Personen benennen eine natürliche Person als Vertreter zur Ausübung der
verbleibenden Rechte und Pflichten.
(2)
Mit dem Antrag erkennt der Bewerber für den Fall seiner Aufnahme die Satzung an.
Ein Aufnahmeanspruch besteht nicht.
(3)
Über die Aufnahme entscheidet der Vorstand durch Beschluss. Die Entscheidung
ist dem Antragsteller mitzuteilen; sie bedarf keiner Begründung.
(4)
Die Mitgliedschaft beginnt mit dem Aufnahmebeschluss.

RussoTuristo, if you do not understand German, or have other questions, I'll try to translate it for you from the pdf z98 provided.

(It would be useful it there was an English copy of it there too by default, though. If you want, Z98, I could could translate this too, if you want.)

Bluebee
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 10:38 am

Re: Why is it taking so long?

Post by Bluebee » Fri Apr 11, 2014 9:28 pm

Webunny wrote: ... maybe there are just OS'es enough already to fill all the needs, and the needs ROS would fill in, is already occupied by MS (certainly in regard to support) where price is of secundary importance to big companies.

There is a great need for a working OS which is able to run XP programs, because companies have to pay millions of dollars to migrate to another OS than XP, whose support by Microsoft has been said ended.

The problem is to make it possible to bring those companies together with those who work on ReactOS.

My experience from the early days of microprocessor programming is that there is a huge gap between companies which need software and people who are able to deliver.

Only a few weeks ago Time magazine reported "the story of a team of unknown—except in elite technology circles—coders and troubleshooters who dropped what they were doing in various enterprises across the country and came together in mid-October [2013] to save the [US government healthcare] website. In about a tenth of the time that a crew of usual-suspect, Washington contractors had spent over $300 million building a site that didn’t work" they got it running - "Obama’s Trauma Team". Source: http://time.com/10228/obamas-trauma-team

At the end it was reported that these companies which had the skills to get these $300 million dollars contracts didn't have the skills to get this website running. And my experience: people who have these technical skill to get software running don't have the skills to get the money needed for a fast progress.
Webunny wrote:Whatever the reason(s) may be, we don't get the attention Linux has gotten - at least as of yet - so our development team is still more akin to the begindays of Linux. Which means not too many devs, a relatively slow progress, and modest resources in general.
I did some research: "Torvalds wrote in his book Just for Fun, he eventually realized that he had written an operating system kernel. On 25 August 1991, he announced this system in a Usenet posting to the newsgroup "comp.os.minix."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux

Being aware that Google groups are some of the most important groups for communication about software development, I looked at comp.os.minix to see if ReactOS is mentioned there. There are four groups especially for ReactOS:
ReactOS, ReactOS-Deutschland, ReactOS China, and ReactOS Ideastorm.
ReactOS has one topic, consisting of one word from 2007, ReactOS China has 5 topics (I couldn't read it, latest 2008), and the other groups don't have any topic. Somebody should take care of these groups and remove them - or bringing them to life.

On the other hand, living discussions about ReactOS are on groups like alt.comp.freeware, openwatcom.users.c_cpp, Sounder (switched from Debian), comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, microsoft.public.windows.vista.general, microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support, alt.bbs.synchronet, and so forth, altogether 14713 posts, Google says. I didn't check these posts, it's overwhelming.

But when starting this search at comp.os.minix the first post on top of was "LINUX is obsolete" - starting in 1992, the last post was recently. The first post says "LINUX is a monolithic style system. This is a giant step back into the 1970s" and: "The alternative is a microkernel-based system, in which most of the OS runs as separate processes, mostly outside the kernel. They communicate by message passing. The kernel's job is to handle the message passing, interrupt handling, low-level process management, and possibly the I/O. Examples of this design are the RC4000, Amoeba, Chorus, Mach, and ... Windows/NT."

Z98
Release Engineer
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 8:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Why is it taking so long?

Post by Z98 » Sat Apr 12, 2014 12:31 am

NT is not a microkernel.

Bluebee
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 10:38 am

Re: Why is it taking so long?

Post by Bluebee » Sat Apr 12, 2014 12:58 am

Z98 wrote:NT is not a microkernel.
Sorry, I shouldn't have removed the three words "not yet released" before NT and putting three dots in there instead.
I didn't know that they changed their minds.
Thanks for correcting.

RussoTuristo
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 1:48 am

Re: Why is it taking so long?

Post by RussoTuristo » Sat Apr 12, 2014 2:03 am

mrugiero
Maybe you should see the slow progress of ReactOS as a sign that you should start to help. If ReactOS got a line of code for every person that argumented they should be more on par but did nothing about it... :roll:
Absolutely agree. So, I still wonder why the project appeared to be so little tempting to bored developers.
As for me, maybe I will. Someday.
You also seem to think most Linux devs work for free.
Okay, not most but, no doubt, many of them. But it doesn't really matter. The thing that matters is that there are a lot of them. Again - why? Why did such a project like Linux, with the goal of creating an open-source OS based on 20-year-old ideas, gain so strong support?
That's pretty much like saying Windows 8.1 is pretty much the same thing Windows NT 3.11 for Workgroups was.
Not 3.11, I suppose. You went down too far. :) However, the system architecture of Windows 8.1 still uses the same ideas that were developed for Windows NT 4.0. And I find working in very old Windows 2000 (yeah, NT 4.0 is too old) much more comfortable than in modern Ubuntu 14.04. (However, I'm not using 14-year-old OSes now.)
Linux is just the kernel...
It is. However, it defines its environment, which has to be GNU or at least GNU-like. But Linux itself, as a kernel, has at least one unpleasant design characteristic. Have you ever thought why Linux supports much-much-much fewer devices that Windows? And even if it supports a device, it does it a little bit :) more poorly. And that's the biggest problem. Let's go further. If you want to run a program in Windows, you only have to get an exe file and execute it. In the most cases. And in the most cases it will run in Windows 8.1, Windows 8, Windows 7, and even in Windows XP. And you don't have to compile the program. Just run. And it will run. But if your OS is Unix-based, you have to compile the program. If you don't want to compile it by yourself, you should find the compiled version of it, that is compiled for your Linux distribution exactly. Well, it might work if, for example, you try to run a program compiled for Debian 6 on your Ubuntu, but most likely it won't. Have you heard of so called "dll hell"? Well, Linux doesn't have "Dll hell". It has just hell.
Yeah, they share the base design for the kernel, but most of the API changed, the driver model is a lot different and changed several times, even the recommended way to allocate memory changed since then.
That's right! The driver model! Windows has a driver model. It was worked out in the days of the first Windows NT and it's still here. And it's been proved it's a very smart and productive idea. Its success was already evident in just a couple of years after creation. Does Linux have a driver model? Does Linux use drivers? When you buy a super sound card what is the first thing you do? You download its driver. But if you use Linux? Well, in this case you may want to get a refund, because the recent Linux kernel 3.14 can't use your very expensive device at all. And probably never will.
Linux came first.
I talk about the same thing. Linux came first. Horses also came first. Then why do we use cars now?
It'd be good if you actually tell me what ideas do you think Linux keeps from the 70's. And more importantly, what do you understand by "Linux".
When I say "Linux" I mean all of those Unix-like distributions that mostly use Linux as the kernel and GNU as the userspace. Debian and all Debian-based, RedHat, SUSE and so on. The main idea that Linux took from the 1970s is monolithic kernel. That's why it's so difficult to make Linux to support devices. I also can mention its POSIX infrastructure, its security model that only allows to set one user and one group to a file (and the user has to be the owner of the file). And what about its marvelous concept that any object in the system is a file? Their XWindow System with the idea of using network sockets even locally is soooo modern... They even invented Unix sockets for local communications, because even if they work local they still want to use sockets. But, wait, XWindow is modern - it's from the 1980s, not the 1970s. (And, yes, I know that X.org server updates every month. I also can feed my horse every day, but it won't turn into Ferrari because of that.)
It could even be console only, and I'd definitely wouldn't call a console-only OS "Windows", as it wouldn't make any sense.
Why not? What about Windows Server Core? However, it's not really console-only Windows, because you still can run GUI applications on it, despite the fact they are not initially installed.

Z98
Release Engineer
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 8:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Why is it taking so long?

Post by Z98 » Sat Apr 12, 2014 5:23 am

Some of your complaints are valid. Others are overblown, and this coming from someone who is usually more than ready to rip the Linux community a new one for Linux's flaws.

Linux became dominant because the GNU project needed a kernel for their free software operating system. They had the user space but they did not have a kernel and Linux emerged in a clunky but usable state at the time. They decided to pick up Linux as a "temporary" solution and poured resources into getting it to work with the GNU components. Since then, it's remained good enough for most purposes and every attempt by the GNU project to supplant Linux with a kernel of their own has failed because no one wants to expend the effort to duplicate the work that has already gone into Linux. And as for why a Unix-like OS became so popular, the answer is pretty simple. Unix has a long history, meaning people know it well. Sys admins and the like had no desire to have to retrain in order to accommodate some new architecture and so helped push through Linux based distros as a successor to the older proprietary Unix variants. The companies that sold Unix backed this move because their expertise could also still be leveraged when selling Linux.

As far as device support goes, of course Linux has a bloody driver model. Of course it uses drivers. It has a kernel API used to write drivers just as Windows does. The only difference is Linux's licensing model makes it trickier to keep the source code closed and Linux intentionally does not attempt to preserve ABI compatibility between kernel versions for kernel modules. It is ultimately up to the hardware vendor to decide whether they want to produce drivers for Linux or if they want to provide enough documentation for the Linux community to write the drivers.

Let's see, what else. People, including the Linux developers, have wanted to kill X Windows for years now. That's why Wayland was born. As for local sockets, Windows has that as well. Linux also has support for access control lists for security, well beyond the old POSIX security model. As far as the monolithic kernel thing, NT is also a monolithic kernel. As for binary incompatibility between distros, that's also hit and miss. I've gotten binaries built on one platform to run on another before and it generally comes down to what version of libraries you've built against. The same problem can occur on Windows though, and the issue has more to do with the GNU project's libraries than anything intrinsic with Linux itself.

It's fine to have issues with Linux. I have plenty. But if you're going to try to argue against Linux, get your facts straight. Linux's supporters are going to be a lot less civil than I am if you try arguing with them in ignorance.

mrugiero
Posts: 482
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 9:12 am

Re: Why is it taking so long?

Post by mrugiero » Sat Apr 12, 2014 8:20 am

RussoTuristo wrote:mrugiero
You also seem to think most Linux devs work for free.
Okay, not most but, no doubt, many of them. But it doesn't really matter. The thing that matters is that there are a lot of them. Again - why? Why did such a project like Linux, with the goal of creating an open-source OS based on 20-year-old ideas, gain so strong support?
Simple answer: because they don't seem to think those ideas are obsolete. Why would anyone want to work right now in 20 years old ideas, such as Windows NT ones? Because they fit their needs alright.
Not 3.11, I suppose. You went down too far. :) However, the system architecture of Windows 8.1 still uses the same ideas that were developed for Windows NT 4.0. And I find working in very old Windows 2000 (yeah, NT 4.0 is too old) much more comfortable than in modern Ubuntu 14.04. (However, I'm not using 14-year-old OSes now.)
A lot of things changed since Windows 2000.
It is. However, it defines its environment, which has to be GNU or at least GNU-like.
No, it hasn't. See Android, Tizen and several other smartphone OSes that I forgot the names of.
But Linux itself, as a kernel, has at least one unpleasant design characteristic. Have you ever thought why Linux supports much-much-much fewer devices that Windows? And even if it supports a device, it does it a little bit :) more poorly. And that's the biggest problem.
I noticed it. Have you ever noticed how Windows comes installed with computers, and thus not supporting their devices on Windows means a no-sale? There you got why Linux has poorer support. It's not because of technical obsoleteness, it's because of lack of man power and official support from the manufacturers. For example, NVIDIA binary drivers *for Linux* can run faster in some situations than Windows 8.1 ones (you can look for the benchmarks on Phoronix).
Let's go further. If you want to run a program in Windows, you only have to get an exe file and execute it. In the most cases. And in the most cases it will run in Windows 8.1, Windows 8, Windows 7, and even in Windows XP.
That's nothing to do with Linux itself, it's related to userspace not keeping binary compatibility. It's not old ideas, it's that MS gets out of their way to keep compatibility. The faster development is, the harder this becomes. Kudos to MS, but it has nothing to do with the software design. You can also just provide a binary for Linux, even without taking into account ABI compatibility: you can just statically link or provide your own libraries (the latter is a common practice on Windows, too).
And you don't have to compile the program. Just run. And it will run.
Same thing. You don't need to compile programs (well, not the user, in both cases SOMEONE has to). Distributions are the ones to take care of that. Take a look at Steam on Linux. Valve didn't release the source code for Steam, so building is not even an option. They did create a bundle of libraries, so your binary games can work targetting them, so you don't need to care about binary compatibility, and you can run your game the same on Ubuntu or Gentoo (two pole apart distributions), it's called the Steam Runtime.
But if your OS is Unix-based, you have to compile the program. If you don't want to compile it by yourself, you should find the compiled version of it, that is compiled for your Linux distribution exactly.
False. Point one, directly false. Point two, half-true, but same degree of truth as in Windows. You need the binaries to target the symbols exposed by the local libraries, or you could provide your own copy of the libraries. This has nothing to do with it being a unixoid.
Well, it might work if, for example, you try to run a program compiled for Debian 6 on your Ubuntu, but most likely it won't. Have you heard of so called "dll hell"? Well, Linux doesn't have "Dll hell". It has just hell.
Again, API/ABI unstability has nothing to do with the UNIX design. It has more to do with the nature of software itself: everyone does as they want, and if they disagree, then their software becomes incompatible. The only difference Windows has here is it has a central control for the OS itself, where the library versions and the symbols exposed can be defined for everyone once. If someone cares about doing the same in the Linux world, they can adhere to freedesktop.org standards.
That's right! The driver model! Windows has a driver model. It was worked out in the days of the first Windows NT and it's still here. And it's been proved it's a very smart and productive idea. Its success was already evident in just a couple of years after creation. Does Linux have a driver model? Does Linux use drivers? When you buy a super sound card what is the first thing you do? You download its driver. But if you use Linux? Well, in this case you may want to get a refund, because the recent Linux kernel 3.14 can't use your very expensive device at all. And probably never will.
With Linux, in most cases, you either use an open source driver, which in turn comes with the kernel (that's why you don't download it), or you download a closed source one if the manufacturer supports it. Having a driver model? I can at least name three. Also, you can't blame lack of drivers on the OS: Windows doesn't produce the drivers for most of the devices it runs, the manufacturers does. It is again unrelated to the technical side of things, and now related to commercial side of things: is it worthy for the manufacturer to support Linux? Well, it always depends. If the piece of hardware is for servers, then it is, as Linux is widely used for servers, so you are likely to get clients paying big sums for it. On desktop, it is worthy for some, it is unworthy for some others.
I talk about the same thing. Linux came first. Horses also came first. Then why do we use cars now?
The fact it came first also means it has more momentum. As I argued in another thread, for a lot of use cases it is not really relevant which base design you follow, but to have something working. They got it to a working state, and they see no reason to drop it.
When I say "Linux" I mean all of those Unix-like distributions that mostly use Linux as the kernel and GNU as the userspace. Debian and all Debian-based, RedHat, SUSE and so on. The main idea that Linux took from the 1970s is monolithic kernel. That's why it's so difficult to make Linux to support devices.
Linux supports modules, and it's not harder because of that. I don't have experience in driver development, but using a microkernel, as far as I understand, would mean you need to do a lot of message passing for drivers. That's actually harder than just calling a common API on the kernel that does what you want.
I also can mention its POSIX infrastructure
That's too wide a subject. What specifically is problematic about that?
its security model that only allows to set one user and one group to a file (and the user has to be the owner of the file).
I hope Z98 corrects me if I'm wrong here, but isn't Windows moving in that direction, too?
And what about its marvelous concept that any object in the system is a file?
For a start, it's been a long time since *everything* was actually a file. And again, what's wrong with that? That's just a consistent metaphor for different kind of objects.
Their XWindow System
But, wait, XWindow is modern - it's from the 1980s, not the 1970s. (And, yes, I know that X.org server updates every month. I also can feed my horse every day, but it won't turn into Ferrari because of that.)
It's funny that I mentioned *twice* that it is obsolete and *not even liked* by most of the Linux community, and they are on their way to kill it. You seem to also assume the ideas in the Linux world are kind of stagnant. Like they don't ever argue on the files metaphors, or believe X Windows is state of the art. Get your facts straight. You can hate Linux all you want, as it is a matter of preference, but coming to "teach" when you evidently don't know what you talk about is just wrong.
with the idea of using network sockets even locally is soooo modern... They even invented Unix sockets for local communications, because even if they work local they still want to use sockets.
I don't know about that, but Z98 seems to know better and says Windows uses those...
Why not? What about Windows Server Core? However, it's not really console-only Windows, because you still can run GUI applications on it, despite the fact they are not initially installed.
Then it is not *only-console*, and comes with the same userspace APIs you need to run GUI apps, which is clearly against the example I gave. And, well, why not? Because it is called Windows because of the windows. Wouldn't have guessed that one, right?
Bluebee wrote:... maybe there are just OS'es enough already to fill all the needs, and the needs ROS would fill in, is already occupied by MS (certainly in regard to support) where price is of secundary importance to big companies.
That's certainly a possibility. In technical terms, I think it is true, in fact. But I like Windows technically (while I dislike some of the faces of MS), and like open source and free software, so it comes natural to support ReactOS, even when the technical niche is filled. Still, I don't think it'll keep filled, since MS seems to want to eventually go full on tablet OS for everyone (with it's forwards and it's backs), and they'll eventually drop support for Windows 7 (IMO, the best Windows in terms of desktop UI).
There is a great need for a working OS which is able to run XP programs, because companies have to pay millions of dollars to migrate to another OS than XP, whose support by Microsoft has been said ended.
Doesn't most or virtually all XP programs run on Windows 7? The way I understand it, is not the need for a working OS with the ability to run XP programs (I never had a problem to run even Win95 programs on Windows 7), but a matter with the migration costs (not only in terms of actual hardware and software, but the uptime and such) and the learning costs.
But when starting this search at comp.os.minix the first post on top of was "LINUX is obsolete" - starting in 1992, the last post was recently. The first post says "LINUX is a monolithic style system. This is a giant step back into the 1970s" and: "The alternative is a microkernel-based system, in which most of the OS runs as separate processes, mostly outside the kernel. They communicate by message passing. The kernel's job is to handle the message passing, interrupt handling, low-level process management, and possibly the I/O. Examples of this design are the RC4000, Amoeba, Chorus, Mach, and ... Windows/NT."
[/quote]
But then again, you are basing on a claim made by:
A) a microkernel die-hard as Minix author.
B) someone who seems to believe UNIX is still the right way, but is just against monolithic models.

AFAIK, both Linux and Windows can be considered hybrid kernels, in the sense they can't be tagged by the arbitrary definitions of micro or monolithic kernels (a monolithic kernel shouldn't have modules, for example, while a microkernel shouldn't include drivers in itself, and some other things, IIRC).
It's fine to have issues with Linux. I have plenty. But if you're going to try to argue against Linux, get your facts straight. Linux's supporters are going to be a lot less civil than I am if you try arguing with them in ignorance.
Hey, even while I like ReactOS, I do support Linux (and I use it far more than I use Windows), and I believe I'm being civil...
I agree that a lot of the community are pretty harsh (I guess something related to the elitism of most of them), but extending those "perks" to all of us is unpolite.
Last edited by mrugiero on Sat Apr 12, 2014 9:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Webunny
Posts: 1201
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Why is it taking so long?

Post by Webunny » Sat Apr 12, 2014 10:09 am

Lol...and some people were complaining about my walls of text in the past... :lol:

Marzz
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:13 pm

Re: Why is it taking so long?

Post by Marzz » Sat Apr 12, 2014 2:57 pm

Indeed, haha! :D

RussoTuristo
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 1:48 am

Re: Why is it taking so long?

Post by RussoTuristo » Sat Apr 12, 2014 6:19 pm

Z98
Linux's supporters are going to be a lot less civil than I am if you try arguing with them in ignorance.
Am I fighting with them? Am I fighting with Linux advocates on ReactOS’s forum? Yeah, It’s really the right place to do it. The only thing I did, and the only thing I intended to do, was to show why I find the current situation a bit odd, when Linux has gained so much support while there has been no successful attempt to create a modern open-source OS.
As far as device support goes, of course Linux has a bloody driver model. Of course it uses drivers. …
Then why is Ubuntu 14.04 with the latest kernel 3.14 unable to detect my AverMedia TV tuner? AverMedia didn’t bother to create a “Linux driver”? Okay, but why? If creating a “Linux driver” isn’t more challenging than creating a Windows driver, then maybe AverMedia’s staff is just lazy? Okay, but what about other companies that are much more powerful than AverMedia? The only company I know that did manage to create something that can be called a driver for a device that a user can install, as he does it in Windows, is NVIDIA. I don’t have an AMD video card, but AFAIK, they also managed to create something like that, but they still have some issues (more than NVIDIA) with their drivers. Why did only one company (or two if we count AMD) manage to create a separate piece of software that can be added to a Linux distribution to make it able to use a device? Why do other hardware manufacturers still have to incorporate their device supporting code into the Linux kernel itself? Do they find it convenient?
But if you're going to try to argue against Linux, get your facts straight. …in ignorance.
Okay, I’m not a Linux expert as you or mrugiero. So I really can’t argue with them. And actually I don’t even want to do it. Because there are pretty many other guys that are much more competent than me. I found a detailed article about all these things. (For those who may ask: I don’t REALLY know why it’s on narod.ru. I swear. :) )

Why am I still talking about Linux? I was asked questions. Should I leave them unanswered?
Some of your complaints are valid.
Again, I’m not complaining. I’m just wondering out loud.
Lol...and some people were complaining about my walls of text in the past...
I know, it’s my bad. :) I always spoil everything :) This topic had been so peaceful and quiet before I came...

PS: I did my best to make myself clear. However, I won’t be surprised if I failed to do that. It’s not so easy for me to write such large sheets in a foreign language. :(

PPS: To think of it: I’m complaining of Linux while my focus is on being able to use Linux-based systems. Who am I? What am I doing? It seems I need a vacation…

mrugiero
Posts: 482
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 9:12 am

Re: Why is it taking so long?

Post by mrugiero » Sat Apr 12, 2014 9:49 pm

RussoTuristo wrote: Z98
Am I fighting with them? Am I fighting with Linux advocates on ReactOS’s forum? Yeah, It’s really the right place to do it. The only thing I did, and the only thing I intended to do, was to show why I find the current situation a bit odd, when Linux has gained so much support while there has been no successful attempt to create a modern open-source OS.
There is an attempt for it. You fail to see modern does not necessarily means "ditch everything from the old days". It just means "ditch what is obsolete and come up with better things". You can do that with a UNIX-like, you can do that with an NT-like, as long as the core idea doesn't go obsolete.
Then why is Ubuntu 14.04 with the latest kernel 3.14 unable to detect my AverMedia TV tuner? AverMedia didn’t bother to create a “Linux driver”? Okay, but why? If creating a “Linux driver” isn’t more challenging than creating a Windows driver, then maybe AverMedia’s staff is just lazy? Okay, but what about other companies that are much more powerful than AverMedia? The only company I know that did manage to create something that can be called a driver for a device that a user can install, as he does it in Windows, is NVIDIA. I don’t have an AMD video card, but AFAIK, they also managed to create something like that, but they still have some issues (more than NVIDIA) with their drivers. Why did only one company (or two if we count AMD) manage to create a separate piece of software that can be added to a Linux distribution to make it able to use a device? Why do other hardware manufacturers still have to incorporate their device supporting code into the Linux kernel itself? Do they find it convenient?
Driver code doesn't write itself, it always takes up work, and that means money. As a company, you have to think if it's worth it. How your user base is composed? Is it mostly Linux users? No, because TV tuners are mostly used in desktop machines, where Linux has a userbase of (at most) 4%. So, you are losing at most 4% of your possible sales, and quite a lot less if you take into account a lot of other factors involved in your sales. If developing your driver is more expensive than that, you win more avoidint to write the driver than you lose in lost sales. I can't say if any of the driver models is easier, because I'd need to know how to write drivers for both, and a big problem with the open source community is that documentation is usually outdated: software evolves faster than the public knowledge about how it works. That's a non-design-related reason why it could be indeed harder to write drivers for Linux. But it has nothing to do with the age of the ideas it follows, it has to do with volunteers that work on what they like (and usually this means only the code) and companies who don't want to pay an employee to write docs that will not be needed by their staff (as if they are a stable group who always work on the same code base, the only documentation they need is their own experience with that code).
On Avermedia, I've got a working Avermedia Compro M1F working on Ubuntu. I followed the development of the driver, as when my brother bought it there was no mainstream Linux support. Most of the work for these kind of thing is lead by the community, and so it is slower.
On your assumption that they *have* to incorporate things into the Linux kernel, you are really not understanding how it works. It's just easier, from a maintainance point of view. If your code gets mainstreamed, you know your users will have support, because A) the support comes with the distro and they don't need to go on and download a driver, B) changes in the inner working of the kernel (and most drivers need to be aware of kernels, regarding the OS) propagate to your codebase without needing you to intervene. Hardware manipulation always requires the kernel to manage it, for a simple matter of security, and that's true for Windows, too. Windows video drivers have a kernel part in the current model. You can provide a binary of the same kind for Linux, in Linux it is called a kernel module, but as kernel inner working (not the interfaces it exposes) can change from version to version, you need to rebuild some hooks, which the Catalyst and NVIDIA drivers does. The reason they provide a binary driver for download is because they don't want to or can't for whatever reason release the whole source code, and that's a must if you want someone in the free software to accept it in their code base (there is no code to accept, otherwise). Others provide binary drivers (VIA provided binary drivers for Linux for some time), but if you have nothing that could get commercially compromised, like crazy optimization or code you don't own, it is just easier to open source it and get it mainlined.
Okay, I’m not a Linux expert as you or mrugiero. So I really can’t argue with them. And actually I don’t even want to do it. Because there are pretty many other guys that are much more competent than me. I found a detailed article about all these things. (For those who may ask: I don’t REALLY know why it’s on narod.ru. I swear. :) )
Do you realize that none of the things listed there have anything to do with Linux being UNIX-like, following older ideas or anything like that? You are mistaking the fact it is like UNIX with the fact it doesn't have any kind of real leadership, and some lack of foresight. But to show you an obvious example of how it isn't following all of the old ideas, one of the complains in the article is about how kernel modesetting fails to accomplish some things. In the UNIX times, there was no concept as "kernel modesetting". AFAIR, Windows introduced the base idea of it, I don't recall if it was on 98, ME, XP, 2000, one of those ages. Basically it means the basic operation of video cards is done by the kernel, while the more complex parts are done in user space (the latter is a matter of bug surface, if your kernel fails you are usually doomed to reboot, if something in user space fails you can restart it).
Lol...and some people were complaining about my walls of text in the past...
I know, it’s my bad. :)
I'm known for my epic walls of text, I just don't come here often enough to make me noticeable for it ;)

PD: I could argue some of the things in the article you quoted, as some of them are wrong, but I don't think it's relevant to the point in question. If you want to talk about it, just PM me.

RussoTuristo
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 1:48 am

Re: Why is it taking so long?

Post by RussoTuristo » Sat Apr 12, 2014 11:03 pm

mrugiero
Thank you very much for all your patience. Your posts are very detailed and accurate. I appreciate that.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest