Hardware compatibility ? Main problem with new OS'.

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

eric33
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:09 pm

Hardware compatibility ? Main problem with new OS'.

Post by eric33 »

How about X windows or directfb ?

I have an emachine with intel extreme graphics 3d.
Last edited by eric33 on Sun Jul 09, 2006 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
EmuandCo
Developer
Posts: 4423
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Germany, Bavaria, Steinfeld
Contact:

Post by EmuandCo »

:? Errrm.... What?

Matthias
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 12:43 am

Post by Matthias »

ReactOS is _not_ yet another Linux distribution, it's not even a UNIX-like OS. There won't be X11, and there will be no framebuffer devices. There will be GDI and maybe at some point WGF. _Perhaps_ there'll be a POSIX subsystem at some point, but currently everybody's working on the kernel, the Win32 Subsystem and some little apps...

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

Post by oiaohm »

Ok I have to tap Matthias on one point.

There will be X11 on Reactos. Just like you can have X11 on Windows. X11 not locked to any platform. And a posix subsystem and unix/linux apps can run on windows as long as there are not expecting kernel stuff. http://www.straightrunning.com/XmingNotes/.

This does not provide access to the X11 hardware drivers. Just X11.

eric33
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:09 pm

x

Post by eric33 »

It's terrible that we reinvent the wheel all the time with NEW operating systems

It's a damn waste.

We need alternative to X for desktop. I know there is some progress with directfb.

Why not use DirectFB's drivers ?

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

Post by Z98 »

It's one thing to say they're reinventing the wheel when dealing with variants of open source projects. It's something else completely when you're talking about a project trying to implement something that is closed source. Because Windows is closed source, most of the information needed to implement it easily are somewhat difficult to get a hold of legally, if at all. Thus one doesn't have much choice but to reinvent the wheel in this case.

As for DirectFB, I actually have to agree with Matthias on this one. It's a software library for GNU/Linux, not for a Windows environment, which is what ReactOS is trying to be. Especially considering it uses the "Linux" Framebuffer Device.

ReactOS isn't even using X as far as I know. Also, at the moment, the system is too incomplete to really consider trying to get any made for Unix/Linux stuff to work through something like Cygwin. However, why would one need X or KDE or DirectFB on ReactOS to begin with? At its core, it is trying to emulate Windows NT. Let's not forget that. ReactOS has its own GUI and has the Win32 subsystem for applications. The objective is to get it to run Windows programs. Saying ReactOS needs this or needs that from Linux or Unix is just confusing the issue.

One final note. The drivers that X has wouldn't work with ReactOS natively anyways, considering the nature of the kernel.

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

Post by oiaohm »

X11 is needed. I install it on Windows all the time. In combination with Putty provided a remote desktop access of Linux machines. Fully encrypted and protected.

Its intergration with the linux servers. In somecases apps are only avaible for linux not windows. Its a way of providing access.

Support of the two remote desktop protocals in common use. Ie X11 wraped with putty and RDP would be a wise move. Drivers from X11 are not required to do this. DirectFB is not used in that way. So from my point of view not a requirement even in time.

There is more than one POSIX layor for windows. Cygwin is the hardest to get working. Internal problems in the kernel stops some of the other POSIX systems from working.

X11 is a requirement in more ways than one.

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

Post by Z98 »

I was referring to eric's suggestions, not yours. From what I'm reading, he's suggesting that ReactOS use X or DirectFB as its primary method of providing a GUI. Yours, I see nothing wrong with, since people will get X to work over ReactOS after it's more complete anyways. However, there is a distinction of it working over the core and being integrated into the core.

eric33
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:09 pm

hnmm

Post by eric33 »

You would think all these independent OS' would solve the problem of lack of drivers. Lack of drivers is killer in adoption. Porting X drivers ?

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

Post by oiaohm »

Arr. This project is not short of drivers. It short of compad at moment with its drivers. Basicly Reactos should be able user windows drivers from NT thew to windows 2003. One huge set. Some internal problems in Reactos stop this from being true at moment.

More important is fixing the compad problems with drivers. Once fixed maybe think about writing/porting some more default drivers.

User avatar
EmuandCo
Developer
Posts: 4423
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Germany, Bavaria, Steinfeld
Contact:

Post by EmuandCo »

To the people who want a X11 sooo much in ReactOS:

As you already heard, ReactOS tries to be as compatible to MS Windows NT Family. So everything will get a solution that is sorta similar to the MS one. So NO X11 will be included by standard. But feel free to install cygwin or something else if you REALLY want a X11 on it. (Or start a Cool POSIX Subsystem for ReactOS ;-) )

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

Post by oiaohm »

Ok are you saying that Reactos will not be upto USA DoD standardS?

I am waiting. http://winntposix.sourceforge.net/. Driver problems stop this from working as it should. Hopefully after Alex is finshed removing the old defects from the kernel we will be able to get going with something serious. I see no point in hacking winntposix to work around bugs in the Reactos kernel that should not be there in the first place.

This is like a part from MS SFU( http://www.microsoft.com/technet/intero ... fault.mspx ).

Posix is a requirement. Windows XP is because you can add on posix. Even Windows 2003 and most likely Vistia will have it to be DoD compad. Problem MS SFU Posix dates from 1990 the bar min Posix they had to support to pass DoD standards.

Cygwin is not a solution is a slow piece of work.

Posix compad is part of being compad with MS Windows NT Family. There is even then few Windows only apps that will not run on windows without SFU installed. To be Windows compad you only need posix version 1. Nothing recent. Recent would be better of course.

Note SFU does contain a very out of date X11 server as well. Xming http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Xming kicks it around the ball park on speed as well being completely up to date. SFU even rendering Windows applications on X11 clients Xming cannot do this. Ie RDP before RDP was invented on Windows. Yet lacking the common security expected by Linux people ssh links between X11 server and Client.

Note Cygwin does not pass DoD standard. Not part of the OS core also to slow. It has to be a subsystem to pass.

Even if it not in the main ship of Reactos it has to be a addon that is simple to install even slipstreamable to pass DoD standard.

User avatar
EmuandCo
Developer
Posts: 4423
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Germany, Bavaria, Steinfeld
Contact:

Post by EmuandCo »

As I said. Feel free to include a POSIX subsys. (You should read more carefully). But it will not become standard to have an X11 Server running instead of the recent solution.

Matthias
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 12:43 am

Post by Matthias »

Windows isn't shipped with a POSIX subsystem anymore, so you don't need a POSIX subsystem to be Windows compatible.

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

Post by oiaohm »

The X11 server is part of the DoD requirements. Microsoft always does the bar min in this reguard. Just enough to get them over the line.

RDP has problems for DoD. Cannot swap the encryption on RDF as simplely as X11. Simple question simple answer yes or no. Is Reactos going to be upto DoD standards?

Post Reply

Who is online

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