A Reactos Distro - Working software collection

[Shawhifox]

Then you're saying that the purpose of ROS is only obtain a free (of charge) clone of the work of others, regardless of users, as does microsoft?

What reason is there for use ROS then? Use a pirate version of windows is faster and 100% compatible. What reason (apart from the legal) do you have to use/create ROS then? I can not believe that the developers expect so little of their own creation, and wait just a simple clone of something that already exists.

I've been following this project for years, and I always wondered why ROS had so little support, being a free project of this magnitude. Perhaps this explains it. It is very sad...

Bah forget what I said. I thought all this time that ROS was something else.


Bye

[Z98]

Because we have a sense of ethics and believe that pirating software is wrong, legal issues aside? And because we dislike some of the technical decisions MS made in the implementation of NT? We expect people to use ReactOS however it suits their needs. We also expect people to use whatever software best suits their needs. Whether it be closed source or open actually doesn't matter to us, just that it lets us get our job done or do what we want.

We believe we can get ReactOS in a form that better suits our needs and requirements than XP or Vista and that is why we work on it. Many people also seem to agree. However, if your intention in using open source is to stick it to Microsoft or something like that, then you are most definitely in the wrong place. We actually like a lot of MS' products and feel they are far superior to what the competition has to offer.

[meridian.blue]

It "would seem" the idea of a custom distro does not require a blessing but it certainly requires capablity and capacity which is why although an interesting idea it is "likely" easier said than done. There does not "appear" to be any kind of "universal" mission in the open source world other than freedom (however it is defined... "including" opposition to exploitive platforms) which is "likely" why open source and it's projects exist. Irregardless of the agenda of a project, the ones that are not popular "typically" cease to exist or become obscure. Exclusivity does not "tend" to translate well to longevity and/or notoriety which "could" make popularity an attractive "option". "Perhaps", if enough individuals with "enough" capacity and capabilty pursue a custom distro one will exist. Until then, only ideas exist and that does not "appear" to be a negative, at least in a forum...=!

[vicmarcal]

Well..because i think Reactos should be more than a Clone MS Windows.
Making it fully compatible doesnt mean stopping at that point.
Windows is: 0,1,2,3,4....infinito
ROS should be: -infinit....,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,4....infinito
That means...ROS is Compatible with Windows,but also has other improved options Windows doesnt have.
Maybe indeed a more useful GUI than Vista or XP

But Step by Step: Lets made ROS working from 0, to infinito. And then we will improve it.

Of course a "cloned" Windows doesnt have sense but a Free Improved SeemsLike Windows could be Armaggedon'¡¡¡

[Z98]

In the future, you don't need to use quotes or underlines for emphasis. It actually made the post a bit more difficult to understand. Subtlety is not easily conveyed over text and double meaning can lead to major misunderstandings.

[SdC]

In the future, you don't need to use quotes or underlines for emphasis. It actually made the post a bit more difficult to understand. Subtlety is not easily conveyed over text and double meaning can lead to major misunderstandings.

Or people just don't read it anymore (like me).
Gives me a headache.

[meridian.blue]

In the future, you don't need to use quotes or underlines for emphasis. It actually made the post a bit more difficult to understand. Subtlety is not easily conveyed over text and double meaning can lead to major misunderstandings.

As my previous post indicated, the purpose is not emphasis it is qualification, which is the opposite of a double meaning. It prevents misunderstandings by highlighting the statement of a opinion not fact. I don't use double meanings but there is a tendency to quote me out context which for me is the source of misunderstandings directed at me irreguardless of argument to the contrary. Again as I have noted if something is not understood it is logical to ask... what do you mean? Before I used this approach I was exposed to numerous undefendable attacks. By highlighting a word like (belief) a point of view is clearly established which I believe I am entitled to for right or wrong if it does not break rules. The underline feature has a purpose otherwise it would not be available. In order to avoid the impression of censure of a personal viewpoint... it would be helpful to offer an alternative. If my style offends I can use captions or any other device, unless I am not intitled to have a style at all. I have been in many forums this is the first I have seen that appears to challenge free expression (at least mine). I see many styles that are very confusing (at least for me) that do not appear to offend. I can use any number of devices to convey the same point but if they are all challenged this would give the impression of censure. If my presence is unwelcome it would be useful to know. I go where I'm celebrated not tolerated.

[cppm]

I find it bemusing sometimes when people hide behind 'freedom of expression' when told to keep quiet (or even more despairingly, simply told that their viewpoint is not commonly held) by one of their peers. And for some reason it happens especially so on the internet and forums such as this.

The idea of 'freedom of expression' is that the presiding authority, 'the state' cannot use it's overarching powers to restrict expression. This 'expression' also includes the right of private individuals to tell other private individuals to shut up. These private individuals, on being told to shut up, have the right to continue regardless, but they shouldn't be surprised at the social consequences.

What happens when these people use 'freedom of expression' as their ideological shield is that they express moral outrage at being told they do not wish to be heard, or at the social consequences of continuing when told they do not wish to be heard.

In short meridian.blue, when you say

which I "believe" I'm intitled to

you are, of course, perfectly entitled to your view, the forum is also entitled to tell you that your point of view is not appreciated. However in the members of the forum case you would do best to listen to their point of view, as this is their space and the social consequences will be ultimately one sided.

The question is meridian.blue do you want to engage constructively with the members of the forum and respect their reasonable request that you do not deface the name of Microsoft and Mac OS in their space? Or do you wish to make a political statement, cling to your preference to add $ signs wherever you please, and insist that you honestly, sincerely cannot face up to breaking a heartfelt principle that Microsoft should be spelt with an $ in it? In the process facing the social consequences.

The choice is yours.

PS: in this case the discussion is even more pointless, since If you read what was said carefully, i believe you'll find that no-one was attacking your point of view per se, just your manner of expression. Which has been repeatedly been framed as advice (don't use $ in names, don't excessively underline things) this is actually more comparable to somebody asking you to keep your voice down, or to avoid using language that people find offensive. By all means ignore their advice but be aware of all the options and their respective consequences.

[meridian.blue]

I find universal statements to be interesting. I for one however choose to speak for myself. I find it interesting when individuals hide behind brusk statements intsead of candor without social consequences. Of course the State has the jurisdiction to censure, however... typically no State openly indorses anyone breaking it's rules, (eg. personal attacks or disrespect aka "shutting up") although it could in theory do so privately for any reason allegedly justifiable or not. When individuals use disrespect as their idealogical shield while contradicting what they claim people are entitled to with or without social consequences, they break the forums rules. The question is cppm do you see disrespect as constructive engagement? Or do you choose to read the previous post... (which by all means you have chosen to ignore, by quoting me out of context) where I indicated there are other ways of expressing preference and pseudo-political position, that do not use fossturd's (such as captions or other devices/styles) or break any rules so we can return to the topic.

PS: Are you suggesting brusk language is not offensive? And further, is it being suggested the concept of a forum (at least this one) is to censure certain individuals to cheerleading instead of serious discussion under the veiled threat of exile? I also find critique without offering a reasonable constructive alternative instead of a ultimatum is not very constructive...=!

[Z98]

My post was mostly because the emphasis pattern came off as very awkward in tone as I read it to myself. It made the entire thing read off as indirectly commenting on the viability of ReactOS itself, not a distro.

Anyways, you are certainly free to express your opinion. Short of it violating the code of conduct, which you have not technically done, you will not be punished in any manner, not as if we actually can punish you. I personally prefer not to have to take any direct action, but from time to time I need to. This is generally to rein in overreacting old timers or completely out of their league newbies. You count as neither in this case, but are the focus because all of the old timers are reacting around you.

I would like to avoid such occurrences, simply because they make the entire community look bad. As cppm said, you are perfectly free to ignore suggestions or requests made regarding your conduct by the other members, but recognize that everyone else is free to react according to how they feel. Now, if we're all ready to move on and continue with the discussion regarding distros, then please do so. Otherwise I will have to go moderator mode because this is getting badly off topic.

Distros do not need any sort of official blessing, since the very nature of the license permits it. But again, you really have to ask yourself for what purpose are you putting a distro together for.

[meridian.blue]

Agreed. Returning to topic... Indeed consensus and motivation as well as capability and capacity would be needed. This is (probably) why a custom distro is (likely) a tall mountain to climb...=!

[Shawhifox]

However, if your intention in using open source is to stick it to Microsoft or something like that, then you are most definitely in the wrong place.

No. I like windows xp for example. What I want to see is how would be windows if everybody could improve it. It seems that we have different targets but the same target in the end

[crhylove]

As soon as ReactOS runs a little better, I will be distributing a .VDI of it with every Ubuntu install I do. It will probably have all the apps over at portableapps.com. I will likely post torrents of it as well, and this distro will be widely available, at least as a .VDI. I'm sure many people will be doing things like this, but I will let you know as soon as I have an early alpha up on mininova.

Best wishes, and much love,
rhY

[cuttysark]

I wonder if you can help me, is it possible to explore/edit a vdi File offline?
* I will download you torrents!

[EmuandCo]

Please dont go off topic. PM this question instead