Hi

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

Post Reply
jatos
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:28 pm

Hi

Post by jatos »

I decided to try reactOS. Looks nice so far. One I thing though, I personally feel the OS is too much like windows. I rather myself had something similar, thats intuitive but not something that feels like a straight clone of 2000.

Anyway i've run it in Qemu, when I get my rather old Toshiba Sattellite to boot ReactOS install - it won't read rewrites.

Ged
Developer
Posts: 925
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 3:00 pm
Location: UK

Re: Hi

Post by Ged »

jatos wrote:I decided to try reactOS. Looks nice so far. One I thing though, I personally feel the OS is too much like windows. I rather myself had something similar, thats intuitive but not something that feels like a straight clone of 2000.
Having a windows 2000 look and feel is one of the goals.
This is so end users who are not computer savy (most Windows users, including my gran ;) ) feel right at home and have a minimal learning curve.

Once uxtheme.dll is functional and/or we support add on shells, you can customize to your hearts content and have it looking however you want.

I wish we could get this point through to the few 'interface bashers' we have. :?

Luemmel
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 7:18 pm

Re: Hi

Post by Luemmel »

ged wrote: I wish we could get this point through to the few 'interface bashers' we have. :?
Perhaps including it into the FAQ would help.
The question "Why do you clone Windows look and feel?" is definitly one of the most frequently asekd I've seen here so far.

jatos
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:28 pm

Post by jatos »

Hmm, I see it been so close to windows causing copyright issues. Anyway once I got on my system am I going to look into customising the interface to my liking.

Wierd
Posts: 147
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 10:12 am

Post by Wierd »

Patent issues maybe--- But not Copyright issues.

Patents (which I feel is stupid for software anyway) cover ideas and implementation practices.

Copyrights cover individual works of authorship.

That is to say, in countries that support software patents, you could well patent "A system of navigable rectangular menus for the purpose of displaying information to the user." and thereby trump pretty much every computer OS in the world. (This is just about how most software patents are written too! Look at the Borland SEH patent, for example!!)

While copyright law covers XXX code segment, written by XXX, on XXX. Think of it like writing a book--- Micheal Chriton wrote the Andromeda Strain, so if you were to try to claim that literary work as your own, you would be violating copyright. Writing a book with a simmilar plot, and of simmilar thickness and literary style is not a violation of copyright law.

ReactOS is not a straight copy/paste of MS source code, therefore, it does not violate copyright.

MS may hold patents that it hasnt disclosed, covering the behavior of NT internals, thus Reactos might be infringing on patent law (In certain countries).

It is exactly this latter problem with the software industry-- Take out a bunch of patents on very vauge and difficult to live without processes-- that has many european FOSS developers hoppin' mad (If you'll excuse the Americanism). This is because these patents are litterally impossible to keep track of, and dont serve any purpose other than the legalized monopolisation of software ideas and concepts for 20 years after filing. In the computer world 20 years might as well be a whole aeon in the regular innovation fronts of mechanical engineering, et al, where Patent law really should remain.

Some proponents of Software Patents feel that they improve innovation, by protecting the interests of the "inventor". This simply isnt true-- Since it halts innovation by preventing new inventors from picking up the torch of their predecessors for 20 years!

Perhaps it the limitation on software patents was reduced to something like--- ONE YEAR--- *MAYBE* I could see it being somewhat beneficial. However, as it currently is, Software patents only do harm to free innovation; When one cannot determine if what he/she is working on is technically illegal because of some vauge patent some corporation someplace filed-- how can that person in sound mind innovate?

This is the problem with software innovation in the world as it stands today.


So-------

Copyright infringement?

----No


Patent Violation?

----Unable to determine, unless given a suit.

Arent software patents wonderful?

jatos
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:28 pm

Post by jatos »

Ok, on the patents note, I am strictly against software patents. I just thought the some parts of the OS's visual design been almost exactly may be a bit dicky copyright, still I am not a lawyer.

Also back to patents again, I am member of www.nosoftwarepatents.com and I do sign petitions when they need them signing. I think software patents are very dodgy indeed.

vanguard
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:51 am

Post by vanguard »

The UI of Microsoft may be Copyrighted and Patented.

For example the Coca Cola company won a court case for Copyright and Patent infringement because another company used the neck design. Because the feature had no use other than for docor, Coca Cola won. The Windows UI may apply under the same catagory in law.

Trademark's | Copyright's | Patent's
Name's | Images | Idea's

This Project will need to find a new way of doing things and will need to develope a look of it's own before MS get's the grumps. Corporations do not take prisonors they boil people in oil painfully :twisted:

May I stress tho that the law is different depending on the country. UK law is different to US law even tho they are in the same treaty.

Post Reply

Who is online

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