Hardware compatibility ? Main problem with new OS'.

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

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

Post by Z98 »

A better question is, does ROS need to pass DoD requirements?

I'm making an assumption here, but most of us that are interested in ReactOS is because it's trying to be Windows compatible. If any of us really wanted a POSIX compliant system, I think most of us have enough experience with technology to be able to set up a Linux/BSD system.

dark
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 9:40 pm

Post by dark »

Z98 wrote:A better question is, does ROS need to pass DoD requirements?
I would say no, why would ReactOS need to pass US Department of Defense Standards (http://www.asrl.com/guid_doc/std2361.pdf)? These standards are only for the army and the department of defense. it's right there in section 1 of the foreward.

(also please stop trying to bloat ReactOS, i'm still on dialup and half of everyone that connects still uses it last time i heard)

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

Post by EmuandCo »

Well said. I wanted to write the same right now. If you want a Linux, then use Unix/Linux. If you want a Windows, then use Windows/ReactOS. Two worlds, two standarts and two GUI Systems. And if you want it pass the DoD then feel free to code for it being so.

InFeRnODeMoN
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 1:39 pm

Post by InFeRnODeMoN »

EmuandCo wrote:If you want a Linux, then use Unix/Linux. If you want a Windows, then use Windows/ReactOS.
What if we want both in one, a long-time dream for ReactOS?

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

Post by oiaohm »

Prebuilt X11 thin Clients with encryption are cheeper than Windows RDP compad thin clients. This will not change any time soon. The X11 thin Clients need less processor power.

Also DoD has a policy of allowing its programmers to submit fully functional bug patchs back to Open Source. But the application/OS's has to pass their standards or be close before they can work on it. Wanting more developers sometimes comes at a price.

It also one place were we can for sure kick Microsoft into the Ass. There support here is so min it not funny. Its also about the only place where we can use source code written by Microsoft. Because some of the SFU is released under GPL.

If the Reactos Core does not Ship with X11. To match DoD guidelines it must be embedable into the installer disk. Ie they download 2 files and merge into one disk without rebuilding from source. This does not have to bloat the installer disk. Microsoft gets around the same problem with SFU addon.

Please note DoD standards don't only apply to Department of Defense. In some cases it also applys to supplying companys and releated agencys. Even in some cases overseas agencys pickup the USA DoD standards and base there own on them. Basicly its a tip of iceberg.

DoD standards are more about network intergation, controlled secuirty and the broadest range of suppilers.

Selinux is a gift from DoD to linux to bring it up to spec. Because it was close. If Reactos can get close Reactos may get help from full time programmers for nothing.

If you have no interest in the advantages of this path fine.

To pass DoD there are features that will have to be done to Reactos One way or the other. Ie embed the parts in the main disk. Or build a working slipstreaming system. Most people on dialup would prefer the slipstreaming option.
If you want a Linux, then use Unix/Linux. If you want a Windows, then use Windows/ReactOS.
Have you ever used SFU EmuandCo.

X11 intergation of SFU allows simple control from linux clients/Unix Client/X11 termals. X11 termals some contain perfectly custom build X11 servers to display X11 applications. Ie X11 support is not a Linux thing or a Unix thing its a compadablity thing.

Status Current Status of SFU like system for Reactos Over 60% complete. Reason 60% of it is GPL stuff. Its the remaining 40% that is a problem. And the 60% of GPL stuff in MS SFU is all out of date newer versions can be simplely aquired. About another 20% is takable from FreeBSD. Will have to be altered even these versions are a long way out of date as well. Final 20% are the tricky things. posix thread, Win32 applications to X11 client, Linux/Unix password syncing and so on. Lot of ways SFU is most likely closer than Win32 bit compad. No reversing really required that much.

Most of the work is just putting it together.

Yann64
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 9:07 pm
Location: France

Post by Yann64 »

InFeRnODeMoN wrote:
EmuandCo wrote:If you want a Linux, then use Unix/Linux. If you want a Windows, then use Windows/ReactOS.
What if we want both in one, a long-time dream for ReactOS?
If you want both, use CoLinux on Windows/ReactOS, or Wine on Linux....

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

Post by oiaohm »

Yann64 Sorry to say colinux is not a cure its a work around.

A true SFU posix system in partical for running HPC processes(Ie Clustered appliucations). Functions over 1000 times better than colinux methord.

Colinux has a virtual network card. Double handling of HPC packets is harmful to performance. Also X11 server still has to be installed on Windows so you can have good graphical control of the linux. Memory usage is also a lot here than it needs to be.

I would not be as woried about it. If there was not important reasons to provide the Posix interface. Most supercomputers are Linux/Posix. So applications are built for this envorment. Most will work without a Linux layed out filesystem. The important parts. Pthreads. Gnu compad functions Ie glibc functions to glibc specs. No Ms alterations. X11 server just because the config for some of these apps is pure X11. Now these parts should not be hard to install. Also speed and performance is just as important.

Xen is a maybe but it still has the double handling of packets problem.

Wine on Linux might not be a option due to driver problems with X hardware. Reactos will work around that problem.

Now if I want something done quickly and there is a cluster processing tool to do it. I will wish to use. The true problem is MS has almost no Supercomputer Market Share. So almost no applications are created for it. And if they are they use SFU. Just to reduce on the recoding.

Now this still brings me back to another problem. If I have a X11 Thin Client ie hardware thin no way to add on more software. How do I connect it to Reactos without anything else? Or is it just a paper weight. MS Cure install SFU now that provides a TSE Terminal Serices Emulator. That coverts RDP to X11 on the Windows Server so the X11 Thin Client can interface with it and provide the same screen access as you would have got with RDP. X11 on server is handy to check that you have the TSE setup right before trying the client. SFU is minorly flawed here thinking that most modern hardware locked X11 clients support linking to a X11 server threw ssh. A fully encrypted link. SFU does not ship with Putty or a sshd server. X11 server is GPL. Only things missing is the Translation to X11 for remote desktop and some nice simple to use config tool. Sshd most of the either use SFU or cygwin yet the program itself is GPL.

Colinux does not provide that fix and cannot provide that fix. TSE I personally Believe is a nasty hacked way of getting around the problem. Modified Wine Video driver going straight from the input data that gets turned into RDP would most likely be faster with less overhead on server.

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

Post by Z98 »

What your proposing can go both ways. In order to get the possibility of DoD assistance, the ROS developers have to commit the time to develop a POSIX subsystem, with no guarantee that the DoD will in the future help. And Microsoft has a lot more pull in the US.

Interesting you should mention the thin client issue. Microsoft actually worked out a rather novel way of producing a thin client with Windows XP. They're using remote desktop on top of a very basic Windows XP Pro install. I don't know exactly how they pulled it off, but that's more of a server side thing since the important thing for the client was to have remote desktop.

Generally, most of the jobs you have described are Linux/Unix domains, and you yourself pointed out that Microsoft has almost no share in the cluster market. I don't think ReactOS is trying to aim for those markets either, since it appears to be more of a client side OS at the moment. I myself would probably not use it as a server, since I already have a Linux machine acting in that capacity.

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

Post by oiaohm »

Big point is the no way option. Ie we will not have X11.... Reactos is young. No point saying no way to much yet.

Z98
They're using remote desktop on top of a very basic Windows XP Pro install.
Yes and TSE. Both ways pull it off. Is Reactos only going to do half of it? X11 and RDP makes sure almost 100 percent client thin client coverage. It a strange hardware thin client that does not support one or the other.
If we are thinking the sameone the client need to be x86 with boot network support I endup using Linux disks instead of it a lot. Problem this is not always the case. Custom X11 termalls and the like the MS XP solution does not work because windows does not run on them. MS provides TSE to work around that. I got a 21 inch montior for nothing once because a person did not know how to setup TSE. It was connect to a completely custom X11 termal. Even the monitor cabling is custom to that brand. Note the Custom X11 termal startup is under 1 sec. Fick power see login screen almost straight up if not much traffic is in way. Only thing that slows it down is network traffic.

Clustering of Clients can provide a very large ammout of processor power. One of the common stunts that is verry infective is the colinux mosix screen saver on windows clients. To share there processor power back to do other things when they are not being used. MS machines do get mixed into bottom end clusters. A Win32 OS that mixed better with less work and a higher effectiveness. Ie less processor wasted running the interface to the program. More put into doing the processing itself. Would gain in the bottom end of the cluster market. The graphical over head of Win32 would most likely stop it from getting right to the top.

Take you small network of 5 machines. Lets say they are 2g each combinded you have a 10g processing machine. Now due to over heads of colinux you get back to about 8g. Due to normall losses you get back to 7G. I don't think anyone here could affored a 7G processor on a desk. Now getting 9G out of that would be nice instead of 7G. But if you have a peek of 9G you only run Wine supported Windows apps on them with a lot of Wine overhead. Ie Reactos should be able to support enought to get 9G without any major over head points. SFU does not cause major overheads. Bigest problem with SFU is that is extreamly out of date. You replace over 50% of it before you get started just so that old bugs don't come and bite. As processors get larger there is more and more used processor power sitting in Office networks just being wasted.

Yes there is a huge whole in the bottem end of the cluster market. Linux is not covering and MS is not covering it either.

It a gap that is left open. MS has not looked after that market. Its there for the taking.

Yann64
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 9:07 pm
Location: France

Post by Yann64 »

oiaohm wrote:Yann64 Sorry to say colinux is not a cure its a work around.
Totally agreed. I just wanted to say that if you want to run executables of both systems on a single os, colinux on a win32 is also something that should to be considered (although not a panacea).

forart
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 1:36 pm
Location: Italy
Contact:

Post by forart »

EmuandCo wrote:Hardware compatibility ? Main problem with new OS'.
1. X11 ? What you mean ? Are yourself offtopic ? :?
2. The HW-compatibility problem is relevant, that's the reason why i've opened a wiki section called Hardware manufacturer's list (contributors needed!).
They should be informed about ROS, so they can support the project (by donating sources or -why not- money) to solve issues.

:roll:
»Forward Agency NPO
In progress we (always) trust.

Floyd
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:45 am
Location: The frozen part of the USA

Post by Floyd »

Z98 wrote:A better question is, does ROS need to pass DoD requirements?

I'm making an assumption here, but most of us that are interested in ReactOS is because it's trying to be Windows compatible. If any of us really wanted a POSIX compliant system, I think most of us have enough experience with technology to be able to set up a Linux/BSD system.
if you want the government to consider it in lieu of Windows, then yes. if you're just going after the hobbyist, then no.
pax mei amici amorque et Iesus sacret omnia

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

Post by EmuandCo »

oiaohm: Yes I already used SFU. And it sucks. It blows up Windows with an additional GB of stuff that I will never use in my life.

Aaaaand for the third and the last time: Feel free to include your wants to ReactOS. Out current devs have much more important stuff to do for now. (Kernel, CC, Direct Draw, Driver Support etc etc)

@ the ops. I think its time to close this, before it mutates into a flame war...

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

Post by oiaohm »

SFU is not exactly small. A colinux install can expand space used by over a 1g as well and is slow compared to SFU. TSE from SFU is not that large.

I would not pull developers of what they are working on at moment to say the least. Kernel problems stop me from really puting together the best bits of SFU. Operation Correctly Posix threads is kinda a requirment. No workaround to get some stuff working. Cygwin does not provide this redhats pthread lib for win32 does not provide this. Only winntposix and SFU provide that.

I guess EmuandCo never had nice little X11 only thin termal boxs sitting around. It a pitty to let them sit in the conner get dust when they have a bigger screen than the one you are using. And due to custom voltages and signals and the like the screen as extreamly hard to connect to a PC.

SFU is not excactly desktop users solution. Neither is colinux in a lot of ways either. If you are running cluster apps or have nice X11 termials around. 1g of disk space is not much to give up for the gains.

Also critical to migrations between Windows and Unix at times. Hey X app does not work under the windows client. Shoved under cygwin hey still does not work try SFU and sometimes it works. Pthread problems or env problems.

People who do use it a lot. Do know how important it is. Without it lot of tasks are a lot harder. If not impossable. How out of date SFU is makes it just annoying to use at times. As Reactos becomes more network enabled the importance of the SFU like interfaces will display itself more an more. Best joke about MS SFU that shows it's age big time. Most linux's/Unix don't ship with telnet servers anymore and stop default installing them over 8 years ago. Linux and Unix's ship with sshd servers reasion sshd can do more and is encrypted. Ie does not seen passwords as plaintext over network or anything else.

Basicly SFU and TSE Emulator(X11 client support) stuff might not be important now in the current layout. Must not ruled out at best just put on the back burner.

Before anyone brings it up again. The posix system in Reactos disappeared because it was more defective than winntposix. Ie not worth wasting time developing it anymore until the bugs where removed kernel stoping winnt posix from working. Yes killed because Someone pointed out that a better more developed and completely stable project existed that did a better job.

samwise52
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:14 pm

READ ME FIRST

Post by samwise52 »

READ THIS POST TO GET ANWSERS TO YOUR QUESTION

http://www.reactos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2487

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 4 guests