Proposals for REALLY pushing this project forward

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

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

Re: Proposals for REALLY pushing this project forward

Post by Z98 » Sun Aug 21, 2016 1:19 am

Probably around $8-9K on the low end.

Heis Spiter
Posts: 183
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 11:39 am
Location: Paris, France
Contact:

Re: Proposals for REALLY pushing this project forward

Post by Heis Spiter » Sun Aug 21, 2016 12:32 pm

dark wrote:Out of curiosity, how much would a contract cost for getting the new CC done (and installing to ext2 works)? That seems like it would be the main thing to make the system run far more stably.
I'm not sure where you got such information, but our current Cc allows ext2 and ext3 working smoothly in ReactOS. The fact that ReactOS cannot be installed on it is just a matter of bootloader.
I'd recommend you try ReactOS before writing such statements.
Pierre Schweitzer (aka Heis Spiter)
ReactOS kernel developer.
ReactOS systems administrator.

erkinalp
Posts: 823
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:55 pm

Re: Proposals for REALLY pushing this project forward

Post by erkinalp » Sun Aug 21, 2016 4:54 pm

Does ReactOS record ACLs(for security attributes) in an ext2/3/4 FS?
-uses Ubuntu+GNOME 3 GNU/Linux
-likes Free (as in freedom) and Open Source Detergents
-favors open source of Windows 10 under GPL2

dark
Posts: 274
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 9:40 pm

Re: Proposals for REALLY pushing this project forward

Post by dark » Sun Aug 21, 2016 6:14 pm

Heis Spiter wrote:
dark wrote:Out of curiosity, how much would a contract cost for getting the new CC done (and installing to ext2 works)? That seems like it would be the main thing to make the system run far more stably.
I'm not sure where you got such information, but our current Cc allows ext2 and ext3 working smoothly in ReactOS. The fact that ReactOS cannot be installed on it is just a matter of bootloader.
I'd recommend you try ReactOS before writing such statements.
http://imgur.com/a/p7Lsc

Still doesn't work during install, 0.4.2 and r72404 (ext2)

R A V E N
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:49 am
Location: Tuzla, Bosnia

Re: Proposals for REALLY pushing this project forward

Post by R A V E N » Sun Aug 21, 2016 6:54 pm

Konata wrote:But no, the project doesn't need a bunch of loose cannons who wouldn't know what to do with themselves when they find they can't aimlessly mangle the project any way they want like they do with linux and it's API/ABI
Z98 wrote:The majority of Linux kernel developers are not working on Linux for the sake of creating a desktop competitor to Windows. Their primary motivation is to basically craft an operating system that suits their needs, or in the case of the paid developers, the needs of their employers. They really don't give a damn about how suitable Linux is as a platform to build a desktop OS that is usable by the general public.
What about people who develop typical desktop distributions like Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu... ?

Imagine two programmers. Both are knowledgeable and experienced C/C++ developers, but both of them are unfamiliar with Windows NT technology. However, both are eager to learn about it. Only difference is that second guy worked more or less on development of some other OS, not necessarily Linux.

Which of them would be more useful to ReactOS? Which of them would more easily grasp Windows NT?

My idea is to create short promotional movie, maybe no more than 1:30 long, where we would ask much needed programmers to join effort. Specifically, we should target other OS developers because there have to be some common things to all OS programming.

Which software would you recommend in order to create such movie? Blender?

Heis Spiter
Posts: 183
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 11:39 am
Location: Paris, France
Contact:

Re: Proposals for REALLY pushing this project forward

Post by Heis Spiter » Sun Aug 21, 2016 7:45 pm

dark wrote:
Heis Spiter wrote:
dark wrote:Out of curiosity, how much would a contract cost for getting the new CC done (and installing to ext2 works)? That seems like it would be the main thing to make the system run far more stably.
I'm not sure where you got such information, but our current Cc allows ext2 and ext3 working smoothly in ReactOS. The fact that ReactOS cannot be installed on it is just a matter of bootloader.
I'd recommend you try ReactOS before writing such statements.
http://imgur.com/a/p7Lsc

Still doesn't work during install, 0.4.2 and r72404 (ext2)
I'm not sure how you get to that point. As I said, setup doesn't offer the option to install on ext2/3 due to the lack of support.
I repeat myself, out of that specific point, ext2 and ext3 are working smoothly on ReactOS. You should really try them out of setup and enjoy.
Pierre Schweitzer (aka Heis Spiter)
ReactOS kernel developer.
ReactOS systems administrator.

ekohl
Developer
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 3:00 pm

Re: Proposals for REALLY pushing this project forward

Post by ekohl » Mon Aug 22, 2016 9:39 pm

erkinalp wrote:Does ReactOS record ACLs(for security attributes) in an ext2/3/4 FS?
That is quite unlikely, because Unix ACLs and Windows ACLs are as incompatible as Unix Access Rights and Windows Access Rights.
But you are free to implement some mapping code...

Carlo Bramix
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 12:43 am
Location: Italy

Re: Proposals for REALLY pushing this project forward

Post by Carlo Bramix » Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:54 am

"Proposals for REALLY pushing this project forward?"

I have two proposals:
1) trash the limit of 2K3/XP API compatibility and support also newer functions. The look and feel could stay on the classic user interface, but since I use XP every day I can tell you that lot of software refuse to work and the amount of those programs will always increase. If you really want, you can limit the available functions at compile time and leave this choice to the final user. This will also simplify the alignment with the components shared with the WINE project. I do not see it as a so big trouble... after all, this project started initially for cloning Windows 95, no?

2) Do something against ONLINE-614: no offense, but really, if there won't be a solution for it, you won't go anywhere.

Sincerely.

PurpleGurl
Posts: 1766
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 5:11 am
Location: USA

Re: Proposals for REALLY pushing this project forward

Post by PurpleGurl » Sat Aug 27, 2016 2:21 pm

On compatibility, I see the point. We do have some Vista/7 functions since they are needed to get some of the Wine code to work. However, the thinking is, AFAIK, that we should wait until we have a solid base underneath before we go changing compatibility targets. Some of the necessary APIs are there, but others are still necessary before we do switch targets.

As for Free95, that went nowhere in terms of code, so it was no trouble to switch to NT compatibility, since no coding had begun.

Konata
Posts: 391
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 8:54 pm

Re: Proposals for REALLY pushing this project forward

Post by Konata » Sat Aug 27, 2016 9:37 pm

Carlo Bramix wrote:trash the limit of 2K3/XP API compatibility and support also newer functions. The look and feel could stay on the classic user interface, but since I use XP every day I can tell you that lot of software refuse to work and the amount of those programs will always increase.
This would actively stagnate the project. I highly doubt there's anyone who looked at the project and said "hm, I'd love to share my intricate knowledge of NT with this project, but it only targets Server 2003! No deal." The developers need to focus on 2003 right now just to get a stable system. After ReactOS is "done enough" then they can progress to supporting newer versions. ReactOS' kernel already has some features from newer versions of Windows, they're prepared to support later versions, but not now. Targeting Server 2003 is a strict discipline and they can't afford to chase a moving target right now.
Carlo Bramix wrote:If you really want, you can limit the available functions at compile time and leave this choice to the final user.
I asked the developers about this, they said doing this would be incredibly complex and nearly impossible. So targeting 2003 and 2003 alone is their only option right now.

Carlo Bramix
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 12:43 am
Location: Italy

Re: Proposals for REALLY pushing this project forward

Post by Carlo Bramix » Sun Aug 28, 2016 2:47 pm

Konata wrote:This would actively stagnate the project. I highly doubt there's anyone who looked at the project and said "hm, I'd love to share my intricate knowledge of NT with this project, but it only targets Server 2003! No deal." The developers need to focus on 2003 right now just to get a stable system. After ReactOS is "done enough" then they can progress to supporting newer versions. ReactOS' kernel already has some features from newer versions of Windows, they're prepared to support later versions, but not now. Targeting Server 2003 is a strict discipline and they can't afford to chase a moving target right now.
Well, if there is a philosophical reason, like to say that "we took a way, we must continue until we won't reach the goal", then ok, there is nothing to do...
However, I still think that this fossilization is not the right way.
I started to contribute to development of ReactOS core in 2007 if I'm not mistaken, nowadays we are in 2016 and, although it is progressing every day, ReactOS is not near to the features of Windows 98. Please do not take what I have written as an offense, but we should be quite careful when we say "done enough"...
Konata wrote:I asked the developers about this, they said doing this would be incredibly complex and nearly impossible. So targeting 2003 and 2003 alone is their only option right now.
I think that it is not true.
ReactOS relies on SPEC files https://www.winehq.org/docs/winelib-guide/spec-file
These files have been designed to accept also some options.
Nothing blocks us to add an option "-version" to be applied only to some exports, for making them available only if they have the version equal or not greater than supported platform. No changes in the source code would be done. In reality, it would be better that some functions are also excluded with some conditional compilation, but hopefully GCC could do this for us automatically if we want, by eliminating dead code during linking.

It's easy.

raijinzrael
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:39 pm

Re: Proposals for REALLY pushing this project forward

Post by raijinzrael » Mon Aug 29, 2016 5:32 am

Carlo Bramix wrote:It's easy.
"ReactOS Dev Team accept patches" (tm)

Carlo Bramix
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 12:43 am
Location: Italy

Re: Proposals for REALLY pushing this project forward

Post by Carlo Bramix » Mon Aug 29, 2016 11:06 am

raijinzrael wrote:
Carlo Bramix wrote:It's easy.
"ReactOS Dev Team accept patches" (tm)
See also point (2) of my original post... ;)
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15734&start=15#p122927

Murmur
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:16 pm

Re: Proposals for REALLY pushing this project forward

Post by Murmur » Thu Sep 01, 2016 5:40 pm

#1: Development is already being pushed forward in the last year or so. a lot of the major blockers have been dealt with which allowed ROS has moved to a rapid release schedule. They have also acknowledged that they needed to fix their patch process and by that more patches have been accepted & deployed.
Progress: http://imgur.com/0elCatl
Patches: https://www.reactos.org/node/926

#2: "Convert developers" - We don't need to "Convert" developers. You can't just shake a stick and developers will flood over. One way of thinking is that we already have converted linux developers because of WINE. We use some WINE components for ROS and both projects have had benefits from their partnership.

https://www.reactos.org/wiki/WINE

#3: "trash the limit of 2K3/XP API compatibility and support also newer functions" - This won't push forward development than just stall it a lot longer. Having a stable target means that they can have a functional OS sooner and add functions around it. Once a whole stable system in place, we can start fuddling with targets and won't have everything fall apart.

dark
Posts: 274
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 9:40 pm

Re: Proposals for REALLY pushing this project forward

Post by dark » Fri Sep 09, 2016 4:29 am

I've thought I've one thing that might secure a study source of funding, approach the antivirus vendors and write up a contract that says ReactOS will come pre-installed with the trail version of your antivirus for a year if you donate x dollars/euros/etc. to funding the project (or the user is annoyed by default to get their antivirus and can then dismiss it forever). I guess you could do similar deals for other software besides antivirus, like make a search bar similar to WIndows 10 and Ubuntu that defaults to Google/Yahoo/Bing, etc. Some people will probably hate this suggestion, but money is money.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests