What is the ultimate goal of react os?

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

Quim
Posts: 257
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2018 11:45 pm

Re: What is the ultimate goal of react os?

Post by Quim »

PurpleGurl wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 11:06 am
why not let the installer install whatever kernel that's the most compatible with the architecture detected (and whatever other necessary code) and report that version. Then for the software side, do the forward compatible shims like now, etc.
Do a Jira request.
And suggest it to Greentea OS developers.

middings
Posts: 1028
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: What is the ultimate goal of react os?

Post by middings »

Ancient wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:45 am
...it's going to be tough to go multi core unless the software was fully reentrant to begin with.
ReactOS is fully re-entrant. This is required by the preemptive multitasking design of Microsoft Windows NT and its successors. Unfortunately, implementing multi-core capability will still be difficult.

Rocket engineers have a saying, "To make a big rocket that flies, start with a small rocket that flies."
Last edited by middings on Sat Aug 18, 2018 6:10 am, edited 2 times in total.

PurpleGurl
Posts: 1788
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 5:11 am
Location: USA

Re: What is the ultimate goal of react os?

Post by PurpleGurl »

hbelusca wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:58 pm

LOL :lol: :lol: :lol:

Real programmers (what matters for ReactOS) code, they don't care about emotions.
Well, emotions just involves a different architecture than what ROS runs on. Sometimes the coders or forum participants throw exceptions. :lol:

And for the comments about Jira and talking to the other project, well, I only threw out a future possibility of what to do when we change kernel targets. I'm not sure it is worth the effort to push in that direction. I can conceive of at least 3-4 ways to meet different driver goals, and I believe this part is on-topic and not hijacking in any way, since ultimate (and theoretical) directions for ReactOS is the topic.

1. Freeze target versions, make whatever revision that provides XP/2003 support available perpetually, and continue to a new driver compatibility target. So those who want the XP/2003 version can still download that as necessary, while those with newer hardware can get the Vista/7 version or whatever.

2. Add an additional kernel and have the installer, along with user intervention, to decide which kernel to install. Both kernels could be in the CD/DVD image and the installer can decide on the kernel and which other files to use to allow the kerel to work.

3. Like 2, but install everything and have the loader files to decide which kernel to load at run-time. Windows might actually do this somewhat, but only run different kernels with the same compatibility target for common variations of the platform, such as single-CPU vs. multi-CPU, etc., and use the same drivers, with HAL making up for minor variations. I'm not sure if HAL also edits microcodes where applicable, but I do believe Windows does that somehow in software for those who won't/can't update the BIOS/EFI. Some of the microcode info has already been leaked to the public, and other bits are still closely guarded.

4. A messy, hodge-podge system of a driver compatibility layer that attempts to run any driver concurrently. I'd say this is the least likely to try, as it is likely to be difficult to code and could be the source of many problems. Not sure it would even work. Plus it could impact speed.

middings
Posts: 1028
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: What is the ultimate goal of react os?

Post by middings »

Discussion of drivers and driver compatibility for ReactOS should probably move to this ReactOS Forum topic:
"The Driver Dilemma".

Ancient
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:32 pm

Re: What is the ultimate goal of react os?

Post by Ancient »

dizt3mp3r wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:04 pm
Ancient wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:48 pm
Use Linux drivers, they're already done.
Gawd blimey - the uneducated masses - gawd bless 'em.
The results for AMD's new 32 core / 64 execution unit Ryzen 2990WX Threadripper are in, and Windows isn't very good compared to Linux at using all those cores. In terms of handling interrupts, page faults, other faults, and dispatch flag / semaphores Linux seems to be a better Kernel than NT. My guess is once multiprocessing is considered for ROS time it will be implemented better than in Windows.

Offload development where possible, Google did this with Android, Apple did it with MacOS which is a POSIX compliant OS, most modern MAC, Linux and UNIX systems are POSIX compliant or certified. . AMD seems committed to Linux more than Intel.

If Google and Apple saved time using the POSIX model, why is it dismissed so easily?

Ancient
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:32 pm

Re: What is the ultimate goal of react os?

Post by Ancient »

hbelusca wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:58 pm
Also to the guy above.. having 1k posts you ought to realise that if you were nicer to people we'd probably have more people developing on ReactOS than we do now. Same problem over at Haiku people need be nice.
LOL :lol: :lol: :lol:

Real programmers (what matters for ReactOS) code, they don't care about emotions.
If we are going to go juvenile, reasonable discourse is already lost.

karlexceed
Posts: 515
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 6:17 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the ultimate goal of react os?

Post by karlexceed »

Ancient wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 2:54 am
using the POSIX model, why is it dismissed so easily?
It's not a standard part of NT 5 and there's very little payoff for spending the time to implement that API/standard.

Plus, MS has a history of POSIX systems that, in theory, could be installed on ROS at some point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_POSIX_subsystem (Windows NT versions 3.5, 3.51 and 4.0)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX (XP/2003 - Server 2012)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_S ... _for_Linux (Windows 10 / Server 2016)

anthracen
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu May 10, 2018 2:28 pm

Re: What is the ultimate goal of react os?

Post by anthracen »

Ancient wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 2:54 am
The results for AMD's new 32 core / 64 execution unit Ryzen 2990WX Threadripper are in, and Windows isn't very good compared to Linux at using all those cores. In terms of handling interrupts, page faults, other faults, and dispatch flag / semaphores Linux seems to be a better Kernel than NT. My guess is once multiprocessing is considered for ROS time it will be implemented better than in Windows.
who said that? insane linux fanboys? your guess? wow! if linux is better for you, then please why you are bothering people here, go and harass ubuntu with your visions of what they should do. logical?
Offload development where possible, Google did this with Android, Apple did it with MacOS which is a POSIX compliant OS, most modern MAC, Linux and UNIX systems are POSIX compliant or certified. . AMD seems committed to Linux more than Intel.

If Google and Apple saved time using the POSIX model, why is it dismissed so easily?
man. it's hard for to comprehend how people could be that stubborn and stupid! the GOAL of this project is to reimplement the NT kernel and its APIs!!11 in both kernel and user space. what is not clear in this statement? posix garbage doesn't belong to NT.

But NT does have the environment subsystem notion. if you are a lover of posix, well, it's an open source project - go and port it! make a POSIX subsystem for ReactOS. make, NOT suggest others do for you. nobody is interested in your delusions! trust me.

It's the most demotivating thing - all these cretins that come here and start to whine how linux is better and what reactos should and shouln't do. who the hell all you are? why having done nothing here, you got so insolent to dare to command what this project should do or shouldn't? is it a curse for this project - to collect all the linux-apple-google masturbating morons having their main life goal to show up here and teach everybody? lately there is just a bunch of these. somebody especially gifted even went up to the level of threads as this. they clearly dictate! gosh. unbelieveble.

User avatar
EmuandCo
Developer
Posts: 4432
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Germany, Bavaria, Steinfeld
Contact:

Re: What is the ultimate goal of react os?

Post by EmuandCo »

Watch your language! This one is enough to warn you in theory!

Regarding topic. This is no Linux/Unix/*nix we make here. So we care ZERO about POSIX. This is a Windows arch based OS and it will stay that way, thus POSIX is as useless as a pimple on the ass. ^^ No one needs another Linux distro providing zero benefit compared to the other 3*10^8 distros out there coming from the fact that anyone thinks his brainfuck is better than the rest. (This is the reason why Linux still is useless shit on commercially used PCs/networks and most home PCs aka everything except embedded systems. Person x makes a nice addition, person y hates the base color and makes a fork fighting the original code saying his crapload is better and this *29482845723 and you have the Linux community) ^^
ReactOS is still in alpha stage, meaning it is not feature-complete and is recommended only for evaluation and testing purposes.

PurpleGurl
Posts: 1788
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 5:11 am
Location: USA

Re: What is the ultimate goal of react os?

Post by PurpleGurl »

Ancient wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 2:54 am
If Google and Apple saved time using the POSIX model, why is it dismissed so easily?
Because it is not our cup of tea. If we wanted that, this would be a Linux project, if it even existed at all. This is the only project of note that attempts to make an open source version of an NT operating system, and attempts to do it lawfully and everything. Yes, there have been fork attempts of this project, and as of yet, they all seem to be vanity builds, where they only change the name and theme, or maybe remove a hardware sanity check or two. So this project is doing all the heavy lifting in coding a Windows software and kernel/driver compatible OS.

Being able to run some Linux aps is really a minor side point and does nothing to further the heavy lifting in creating an NT kernel that is still yet to be done. Adding POSIX support at this point is much like having major cancer and opting on a nose job instead of treating the cancer.

Linux is all over the place. If that's what you want, work on one of those. Or, if you want a POSIX subsystem bad enough, code it yourself, and make it where it can operate with any Windows version (and thus ReactOS too). This is one of those features that really is of low priority and can wait. When I ran 2000 on mine, I stripped all the POSIX and OS2 stuff out (just deleted maybe 3 files and some registry keys), and nothing I used failed to work.

wdstudios
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 8:53 pm

Re: What is the ultimate goal of react os?

Post by wdstudios »

anthracen wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 4:10 pm
insane linux fanboys... posix garbage... all the linux-apple-google masturbating morons
EmuandCo wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 4:48 pm
we care ZERO about POSIX... POSIX is as useless as a pimple on the ass... Linux still is useless shit...
PurpleGurl wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 8:04 pm
Because it is not our cup of tea... Linux is all over the place... When I ran 2000 on mine, I stripped all the POSIX and OS2 stuff out
Whoa there, go easy on the Linux/POSIX hate! Linux is a perfectly fine OS for servers, Web browsing, office work, virtual machines, fixing broken Windows installations, Steam games, Minecraft, and possibly 3 or 4 other programs, plus whatever you can get to work through WINE. In fact, for the foreseeable future, running an XP/2003 virtual machine within Linux will be a far more viable option for XP/2003 enthusiasts than switching to ReactOS.

ROCKNROLLKID
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:19 am
Contact:

Re: What is the ultimate goal of react os?

Post by ROCKNROLLKID »

I have absolutely nothing against Linux/Posix/Unix/etc, but I cannot stand the Linux communities and users. This thread is an example of why I stay away from Linux forums, sites, or anything that has to do with Linux. Look at how the Linux fanboys come here and start pushing Linux like it's a whole religion and try to convert us. "Why don't you use Linux" is one of the most annoying things I hear commonly from hardcore Linux users. Why don't you use Windows? Or better yet, we have ReactOS now, a open-source Windows. Sometimes, I think the Linux users that come to the ReactOS forums are jealous because ReactOS might actually have a chance to take off and we would have no need for Linux after that. I love ReactOS, but you don't see me going to Linux forums and asking people why they don't just use ReactOS. Of course, I know better and they aren't all like this, but a large majority of them are.

Sorry I kind of ranted on myself, but you can clearly see what I mean by this thread as no one even mentioned Linux until that 1 fanboy came on here and started non-sense.
Last edited by ROCKNROLLKID on Thu Aug 23, 2018 4:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

karlexceed
Posts: 515
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 6:17 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the ultimate goal of react os?

Post by karlexceed »

wdstudios wrote:
Thu Aug 23, 2018 1:11 am
Whoa there, go easy on the Linux/POSIX hate!
I strongly dislike some of the anti-Linux sentiment in this forum as well. But I think the biggest thing you're seeing in this reaction is actually more in regards to the casual mention of [POSIX compliance] in the format of essentially, "Why didn't you guys ever think to try [this]? It should be easy."

This project has been around in one form or another for about 22 years now. It's goal is binary compatibility with Windows Server 2003/XP, which is a big undertaking. A project of this scale needs to aggressively fight one almost thing above all else - feature creep. If the devs kept adding new features and functions to the goal for a 1.0 release, it would certainly never happen. The scope of what ROS 1.0 will do must be limited, especially not to include anything beyond the NT basics.

If ROS can achieve it's goal - basic but complete Windows NT 5.2 compatibility - then everything afterwards becomes much easier. So many software packages will suddenly just work like they should. As I pointed out before - Windows has software that can be installed in order to make it essentially POSIX-compliant.

The other major thing to note is that these forums are filled with posts by someone who discovers ReactOS, think's it's a great idea, then comes here and immediately posts something like:
Hey, just found ReactOS. Great work! Say, you know what I think would really help you guys out? Have you ever thought about just using the Linux kernel with WINE on top and making that super slick? You've been working for 20 years on this one specifically defined goal, but just throw that all away and build what anyone with a brain can install at home in 15 minutes. Ubuntu + WINE = BOOM. DONE. No need to thank me, but maybe if you could build Steam into ReactOS too, that'd be great.
The others that frequent this forum are obviously tired of it, and I can't really blame them. I try to assume that these people mean well, but are just a bit uninformed, but it can be tiring to repeat yourself. Many newcomers here don't even understand that ROS is alpha software, which is literally front and center on the homepage.

And lastly, the devs here aren't uninformed, nor are they going to work needlessly. ReactOS includes chunks of code from other open source projects - namely WINE. There's a full list here: https://reactos.org/wiki/Third_party_libraries But the thing about POSIX compliance (at least the way that I remember it being implemented on Windows) is that it actually imposes restrictions on you, modifying the way the Windows operates. I recall Windows becoming case-sensitive in filenames and paths, for example. This would deviate from the primary development goal of ROS and therefore doesn't make sense to pursue.

PurpleGurl
Posts: 1788
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 5:11 am
Location: USA

Re: What is the ultimate goal of react os?

Post by PurpleGurl »

wdstudios wrote:
Thu Aug 23, 2018 1:11 am
Whoa there, go easy on the Linux/POSIX hate! Linux is a perfectly fine OS for servers, Web browsing, office work, virtual machines, fixing broken Windows installations, Steam games, Minecraft, and possibly 3 or 4 other programs, plus whatever you can get to work through WINE. In fact, for the foreseeable future, running an XP/2003 virtual machine within Linux will be a far more viable option for XP/2003 enthusiasts than switching to ReactOS.
What you encounter is not anti-Linux hate. What you have are people who come here to write a NT-based OS getting rather tired of being spammed with Linux stuff. If you like it, it is all over the place, and you can work on one of those projects. Nobody is disputing what you say, though we have all heard it already, and shoving it down our throat nonstop won't cause us to bastardize or abandon this project.

And the ReactOS fans are not the audience you are discussing. We tend to like the classic UI, the fact that there are Windows drivers, etc. Some of us may be Linux fans, but a lot are not, and we want a similar experience to Windows, but just open source. Open source doesn't always have to mean Linux. We tend to like Windows and want to use mostly Windows apps. If I were a Linux user, then yeah, I'd use Wine. But we want to work within the established universe of Microsoft OSs and come up with our own that does Windows things the Windows way, but without Microsoft.

I have a feeling that Daniel (Emuandco) is shining up the ban hammer or at least preparing to lock this thread.
Last edited by PurpleGurl on Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
EmuandCo
Developer
Posts: 4432
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Germany, Bavaria, Steinfeld
Contact:

Re: What is the ultimate goal of react os?

Post by EmuandCo »

Naaah, not yet. I am just wondering if I fired up a thread hijack myself ^^
ReactOS is still in alpha stage, meaning it is not feature-complete and is recommended only for evaluation and testing purposes.

Post Reply

Who is online

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