ReactOS and the .NET framework

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

stratemeyerjw
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:38 am

ReactOS and the .NET framework

Post by stratemeyerjw »

Is ReactOS compatible with microsoft's .net framework?

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

Post by oiaohm »

It is party a dead idea before you start. This is from the Microsoft .Net EULA
NOTE: IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A VALIDLY LICENSED COPY OF ANY VERSION OR EDITION OF MICROSOFT WINDOWS 95, WINDOWS 98, WINDOWS NT 4.0 WINDOWS 2000 OPERATING SYSTEM OR ANY MICROSOFT OPERATING SYSTEM THAT IS A SUCCESSOR TO ANY OF THOSE OPERATING SYSTEMS (each an "OS Product"), YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO INSTALL, COPY OR OTHERWISE USE THE OS COMPONENTS AND YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EULA.
There is more basically its not usable without Microsoft Operating System Legally. http://www.mono-project.com and http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/ are two of the options to get .net without the license problem. These still need to be tested for effective operation as far as I know.

Sorry Reactos is not a magic bullet in this regard

Nmn
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 10:20 pm
Location: In front of my pc maybe?

Post by Nmn »

I didn't know about dotGNU but I was gonna mention Mono. dotGNU is a good idea because Novell might get patent raped by Microsoft after they try to make them the best Linux distributer, And Novell supports Mono...

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

Post by oiaohm »

Unlikely when it comes to contracts Novell is more likely rape Microsoft.

Novell is basically going no where. Novell has key patents without them Microsoft is stuffed as well.

GreatLord
Developer
Posts: 926
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:26 am
Location: Sweden

Post by GreatLord »

we have good relaship with dotgnu
both go-mono and dotgnu missing axhost

we need axhost in the framework

Nmn
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 10:20 pm
Location: In front of my pc maybe?

Post by Nmn »

Perhaps its because ActiveX in OS's other than Windows requires Wine. In React OS, I'm sure someone could figure it out - I'm suggesting that we use DotGNU, But i'm not one to decide that.

cmoibenlepro
Posts: 483
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 5:44 pm
Location: Canada

Post by cmoibenlepro »

I'm suggesting that we use DotGNU, But i'm not one to decide that.
dotgnu can't run .NET applications natively, it can only be used to recompile the application. Which is useless to run commercial application without source.

GreatLord
Developer
Posts: 926
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:26 am
Location: Sweden

Post by GreatLord »

cmoibenlepro

It seam u do not known much about dotgnu.
dotgnu can run comersa apps without source.

and saying dotgnu need todo recomping with the source are wrong.
I been using dotgnu and go-mono with varus dotnet apps, that does
not have source code.

Ms dotnet, go-mono, dotgnu
all tree need todo jit (just in time compiling)
it mean it comping part or whole program at start
and continue doing so. If you have done you home work
you will read that dotnet compiles to byte code like java does
then the byte code will be recompile at runtime
it is so dotnet works.

Nmn
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 10:20 pm
Location: In front of my pc maybe?

Post by Nmn »

lol, it would be downright redundent to implement dotGNU with the .NET API and then use a different format, especially when its quite known and already used before. I also take it DotGNU has its own .NET compiler (for C#) alot like mono.

hmm.. decision could be a hard one. Perhaps if it couldn't be decided compatibly comparisons could be made or the beginning of an implementation could be started and developers could pick which one to work on. Either way, Since i heard well much about Mono and DotGNU, I could guess Mono actually does more or does a better job. I can't say yet. As for the missing features both have, since its either start off with one of them or start from scratch, maybe its best that those features get implemented within the ROS tree if either is forked off for ROS.

GreatLord
Developer
Posts: 926
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:26 am
Location: Sweden

Post by GreatLord »

my expresn is dotgnu can handle more apps that go-mono does, and run more complex windows forms apps. It is sad say none of my dotnet apps I wrote or try in go-mono under ReactOS or Windows did work,
only framwwork that partly works or complete run the program was dotgnu.

Then u look at licen of go-mono the class files are under X11-mit licen
mean novell can close the source code any time they want.

Nmn
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 10:20 pm
Location: In front of my pc maybe?

Post by Nmn »

Yeah, that is a scary license to have at a cooperation, even if it does have a Open Source reputation. Regardless, I'm pretty sure its legal to fork off the code into any license. So forking it off to GNU GPL should be legal and easily possible. Either way, glad to hear that DotGNU is good even if its not getting proper hype. My expeirence with mono: A small SdlDotNet game of mine ran partially, including the WinForms part (The WinForms part ran great with perfect graphics asside from themes, but the games splashscreen was mangled then the screen blacks out after words)

I'm gonna try DotGNU today so i can see how much better it is right now.

geertvdijk
Posts: 318
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:19 am

Post by geertvdijk »

oiaohm wrote:It is party a dead idea before you start. This is from the Microsoft .Net EULA
NOTE: IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A VALIDLY LICENSED COPY OF ANY VERSION OR EDITION OF MICROSOFT WINDOWS 95, WINDOWS 98, WINDOWS NT 4.0 WINDOWS 2000 OPERATING SYSTEM OR ANY MICROSOFT OPERATING SYSTEM THAT IS A SUCCESSOR TO ANY OF THOSE OPERATING SYSTEMS (each an "OS Product"), YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO INSTALL, COPY OR OTHERWISE USE THE OS COMPONENTS AND YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EULA.
There is more basically its not usable without Microsoft Operating System Legally. http://www.mono-project.com and http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/ are two of the options to get .net without the license problem. These still need to be tested for effective operation as far as I know.

Sorry Reactos is not a magic bullet in this regard
Well, it only says we have to own a copy of windows 95-xp, and most of us have at least one version of Windows legal, so, no problemo?
-graey-

Nmn
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 10:20 pm
Location: In front of my pc maybe?

Post by Nmn »

Nice catch, to be honest i didn't notice. This is true for quite some amounts of MS software, not just .NET. So its possible that its legal as many other projects take advantage of the fact a license being available is enough.

geertvdijk
Posts: 318
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:19 am

Post by geertvdijk »

Nmn wrote:Nice catch, to be honest i didn't notice. This is true for quite some amounts of MS software, not just .NET. So its possible that its legal as many other projects take advantage of the fact a license being available is enough.
Yes, 'cause I assume many if not all home pc users have at least one OEM licence of windows 95-vista, so it wouldn't be illegal at all. And even if it were, how is Microsoft going to check wether everyone running ROS+.Net has a valid Windows licence? ^^
-graey-

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

Post by Z98 »

Genuine Windows Validation. The installation checks whether it's running on a real Windows system. You see it when you install IE7 on XP and when you try to download certain things off of Microsoft's website. Circumventing it would violate the EULA.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MadWolf and 4 guests