for Aleksey - ARWINSS

[cruonit]

ARWINSS
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/ ... 00069.html

[Z98]

The fact that people keep thinking ARWINSS is some kind of rewrite tells me either people aren't reading the newsletters, aren't paying attention to what is being written, or I'm failing as the writer.

[ThePhysicist]

Everyone says different stuff about arwinss, even Aleksey doesn't really seem to know what it's point is...

But it doesn't throw away code, it reuses the wine code. And that's it's weak point

I prefer spending 1 week rewriting a bunch of code from scratch and spending another week to fix bugs rather than spending 4 weeks trying to understand some crappy code, another 4 weeks trying to find the bug and another 8 weeks to get the stuff in a decent shape.

[Lone_Rifle]

ARWINSS
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/ ... 00069.html

No.

[fireball]

Indeed that article applies to our "general" development process (rewriting bad/incompatible/unstable/whatever code), rather than to arwinss, which is almost fully based on Wine, with an additional driver for native graphics output and input devices support.

It's still a very experimental thing, mainly for a small group of people to have fun and for another small group to have something what they may hate

Oh, and bytheway, I read that article long time ago, and I do agree with most of the points there.

[JPLR]

Hi,

I am not interested in Win32 API but ARWINSS as a project decision seems to me to be a sensible step to isolate some Reactos components from each other.
I can't understand how people can at the same time argue that the each Reactos subsystem is too buggy, that no progress can be made because of the intricacies of code in one hand and in the other hand mock ARWINSS.
Most probably the same kind of engineering decision should be made for other sub-systems and then some progress will be seen.

Keep on the good work Aleksey!

[EmuandCo]

Who says the subsys is so buggy that we cant get any progress with it?? Tell me and I will ban his ass to the moon!

[asd1!]

I prefer spending 1 week rewriting a bunch of code from scratch and spending another week to fix bugs rather than...

That's the problem: it's not 2 weeks, it's 10 years of alpha quality

[vicmarcal]

Uhmm...look at Linux(just because is an OS written almost from scratch) and tell me how many years did its development took. Wikipedia is your friend.
This is an OS not an APP.
Btw, nowadays there are quite incompatibilities in Linux, the difference is that Linux never stated an Alpha State,but Linux was in Alpha State too. Do you think is better to advise the users saying ReactOS is Alpha?or do you prefer we dont advise(as Linux did) and you will face issues?
The opinion in ReactOS nowadays is being sincere with our Users.Advising and usually overadvising about our State.
One of the big issues i´m facing when talking about ReactOS is the same: Are you still in Alpha?
The problem is that the Alpha 2 years ago and the Alpha 10 years ago are completly different. Test 0.2.0 and 0.3.10 to check this statement.
So the issue is that Alpha,Beta and RC are quite discret variables. They arent continuos, neither derivables. They dont have middle points.Or Alpha or Beta.
But how much %Beta or %Alpha is ReactOS code nowadays?
Maybe we should use Alpha1,Alpha2,Alpha3 to avoid this just Alpha, or maybe other way to make the function"ReactOS State" more continuos than 3 points(Alpha,Beta,1.0). We can use the....,40-60,30-70,20-80,10-90,Beta, for its state.
i.e:40-60(40%Alpha-60%beta)
But this is quite difficult to plan, and to measure.

Saying "you have been 10 years in Alpha" is a little bit unfair for all the progress since 10 years ago we have reached.And if you think 10 years is a lot of time for an OS, check Wine development(which isnt an OS) or check Linux development . So you will have a real perception of how much time does it take to have a working OS.

[JPLR]

Hi,

I don't care for Linux or Windows, but Vic you are not fair to Linux: The kernel v2.2 was quite similar to Windows 2000 in functionalities to the point big corporation considered its use as a Win2K replacement. Kernel V2.2 started in 1999. IBM made a bold statement that it was supporting Linux right from 1999 on *ALL* its platform.
That was just 7,5 years after the famous post on Usenet.

[hto]

ReactOS is different. ReactOS need to implement undocumented or poorly documented Windows features. Linux is a kernel, user-mode components are independent projects. Also, there already exist other free Unix-like kernels. ReactOS also borrows from Wine and other projects, still much work remains for ReactOS developers. (On the other hand, ReactOS does not develop so many device drivers, as Linux.)

[vicmarcal]

Hi,
The kernel v2.2 was quite similar to Windows 2000 in functionalities to the point big corporation considered its use as a Win2K replacement.
That was just 7,5 years after the famous post on Usenet.

Three things:

1) As Hto stated you dont use just the Linux kernel but GNU+Linux.Two different projects. Our Devs have to fight with the developing of a Kernel+ User Mode. Some of the User Mode code can be copied from Wine but not a lot, since Wine is developed to talk with a Linux Kernel and not a Nt architecture.This is just for preventing someone saying that ReactOS is a mix of ReactOS Kernel+Wine.

2)I have never say something bad against Linux. I just said that Linux (as any OS) has been in Alpha State.That isnt unfair,that is completly true.Or does an OS appear directly as a pure-perfect-working OS? Tell me the trick and i will sell it to ReactOS Foundation.
The example of Linux(and Wine as i said) is just to open the eyes to those who thinks an OS is created in a year.(and Wine isnt an OS btw).I didnt open a flamewar and i´m not going to open it now. Btw, i have a Linux installed for Neighboor Security Networking reasons.

3)Yes. Linux Kernel 2.2 took 7.5 years, it tried to be as workable as Windows2000(kernel support). ReactOS (the full one, not just the kernel) is taking 10 years, and is trying to be compatible with XP(and with its drivers *cough*).This is a fact.

So dont find any flamewar that i didnt begin,i love Windows and i love Linux.They have their markets.But that is completly offtopic.

[swight]

The trick to having any program perfect from the beginning is to have no one tell you about it until it is perfect. Since so many know about this OS already this trick would be useless to the foundation(and had they done it from the start they would probably be no where near where they are now).

[asd1!]

vicmarcal
By Alpha, I meant: an OS that is stable enough for everyday use.
I've checked the latest ReactOS release, and it clearly isn't.

I read the newstellers, and most of the time I see minor stuff that been fixed, like cursor bugs, or some specific sound problem, etc.
While there is a progress, the question is: how many of such bugs still needs to be fixed, and how much of new ones will appear in the process?
How much time is it all going to take?

Perhaps the whole approach is wrong, and has to be changed?
That's what ARWINSS is for, isn't it? To try out a new thing.

[vicmarcal]

By Alpha, I meant: an OS that is stable enough for everyday use.

Then you arent using correctly the Alpha term.

Alpha: In software testing terminology alpha testing is done by the client in the presence of the tester or developers and the test environment is not open for the end user.

No end user means no everyday use.

And Beta:

Beta testing allows the software to undergo usability testing with users who provide feedback,[/b]so that any malfunctions these users find in the software can be reported to the developers and fixed.

It isnt pretended neither to be perfect as it follows saying: "Beta software can be unstable and could cause crashes or data loss."

Btw,reading Wikipedia i feel ReactOS fits better in the Beta stage than in an Alpha stage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_stage#Alpha