Question to ARWINSS

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

wildschwein
Posts: 413
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:13 pm

Question to ARWINSS

Post by wildschwein » Fri Jan 29, 2010 11:54 pm

Some question to ARWINSS, I am not a developer but i am VERY (!) excited if ARWINSS could perhaps be a big breaktrough... So what i am wondering about is, if perhaps the developing of ARWINSS is not that much code, but more "brainwork" and finding all errors and finetuning. Because Wine is used. Or my question in other words...Is it a lot of programming work to finish ARWINSS, or is it already there (with fireballs first approach) and it "only" needs to be improved and tested ?

Or even another formulation: How big is the "Wine-leverage", means the saving by using wine-code ?

And how many developers are working on ARWINSS now ?

Will it come into trunk branch, when it's stable enough ?
Could this already be in 3.12 ?

Sorry for my bad english, it's rusted in :-)

betaluva
Posts: 424
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:33 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Question to ARWINSS

Post by betaluva » Sat Jan 30, 2010 6:59 am


wildschwein
Posts: 413
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:13 pm

Re: Question to ARWINSS

Post by wildschwein » Sat Jan 30, 2010 10:36 pm

thank you ! wonderful explaining of ARWINSS...

But the question how many developers work on ARWINSS is not answered...

and what things must be fullfilled that ARWINSS comes to main branch

vicmarcal
Test Team
Posts: 2732
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Question to ARWINSS

Post by vicmarcal » Sun Jan 31, 2010 1:22 am

wildschwein wrote:thank you ! wonderful explaining of ARWINSS...

But the question how many developers work on ARWINSS is not answered...

and what things must be fullfilled that ARWINSS comes to main branch
Currently the main developer working in ARWINSS is Fireball, but there are also some Devs helping from time to time: Smiley, Pigglesworth.Also there are some Devs which looks the code and sometimes sends some Patchs.Btw, there are some Testers following Arwinss progress, mainly(but not just him) Gabrielilardi.

To move Arwinss to main branch it will need to demonstrate (at least) equal compatibility than current Win32 subsystem.It would be useless to include a Subsystem which has lower level of compatibility than actual. When it reaches that "equal compatibility" then (maybe) it will be included in parallel with current Win32, it will be very handy for testing purposes.I.e,It will help to find if the Bug is placed in the Subsystem or in ReactOS kernel.
The development in current Win32 wont stop, since that is the way to reach a 100% compatibility.But meanwhile reaching fast a 95% of compatibility thanks to Arwinss is not a bad "hack" ;)
Image

hto
Developer
Posts: 2193
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:43 pm

Post by hto » Mon Feb 01, 2010 12:17 am

vicmarcal wrote: It would be useless to include a Subsystem which has lower level of compatibility than actual.
I disagree with this. IMO, it should be moved to mainline early. No need to wait when it attains some "equal compatibility".
it will be very handy for testing purposes.
Quite true!

vicmarcal
Test Team
Posts: 2732
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:35 pm

Re:

Post by vicmarcal » Mon Feb 01, 2010 6:30 pm

hto wrote:
vicmarcal wrote: It would be useless to include a Subsystem which has lower level of compatibility than actual.
I disagree with this. IMO, it should be moved to mainline early. No need to wait when it attains some "equal compatibility".
I dont want to wait neither, butI think it is the only way to reduce the probabilities of a possible drama.
Image

hto
Developer
Posts: 2193
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:43 pm

Post by hto » Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:30 pm

Moving code in the repository can cause a drama? :)

EmuandCo
Developer
Posts: 4346
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Germany, Bavaria, Steinfeld
Contact:

Re: Question to ARWINSS

Post by EmuandCo » Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:55 am

Nope, it cant. We wont overwrite the existant subsystem. I thought this is clear already...
Image
ReactOS is still in alpha stage, meaning it is not feature-complete and is recommended only for evaluation and testing purposes.

vicmarcal
Test Team
Posts: 2732
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Question to ARWINSS

Post by vicmarcal » Tue Feb 02, 2010 3:29 am

EmuandCo wrote:Nope, it cant. We wont overwrite the existant subsystem. I thought this is clear already...
I didnt say a word about "overwritting" ;) but "having both".And having both is going to create a Drama too.
And how it can create a Drama if the current one is not going to be substituted?
1)We can have both in Ros, but one has to be the default.Which is going to be the default: win32ros or arwinss?
2)If Arwinss shows better compatibility than win32ros, why Arwinss wont be the default subsystem?Just to avoid Drama?This will be called the "pro-Arwinss" Drama
3)No. Users cant choose which one is going to be the default one when installing ReactOS. Imagine the question: Do you want to have your Win32 subsystem managed by Win32 or Arwinss?The user will say: what the hell does "managed"mean?and "subsystem"?"Ar--w..what"?
4)Then we have the purists.Adding a Subsystem that doesnt follow the internal NT architecture?Heretic!!!!This will be called the "keepRosPure" Drama.
5)People that didnt sleep well. They will create a Drama called the "TodayIWantToLove...Dramas" Drama.
6)People that doesnt understand a word about the Arwinss Architecture and CurrentWin32 architecture, but that wants to share their technical opinnions in the Mailing List. This drama will be called "IdontknowanythingaboutArwinssbutIamHere" Drama.

So yes, adding Arwinss to trunk in peaceful coexistance with current Win32 is going to produce mini-dramas. Arwinss needs to demonstrate first that its compatibility is worthy enough to fight against these dramas.
Image

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

Re: Question to ARWINSS

Post by cmoibenlepro » Tue Feb 02, 2010 4:59 am

Nope, it cant. We wont overwrite the existant subsystem. I thought this is clear already...
No it is not clear. From the pdf http://www.reactos.org/media/docs/2010/arwinss.pdf it seems clear that Fireball intend to replace the existing system with arwinss. And I thought that other developers agreed.

EmuandCo
Developer
Posts: 4346
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Germany, Bavaria, Steinfeld
Contact:

Re: Question to ARWINSS

Post by EmuandCo » Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:23 am

Beleive me when I say, it wont be overwritten. Its too much code worth to survive because its far better than anything arwinss can offer (architecture wise). Read the new newsletter to get a real official statement to that wrong interpreted and widely shared gossip.
Image
ReactOS is still in alpha stage, meaning it is not feature-complete and is recommended only for evaluation and testing purposes.

hto
Developer
Posts: 2193
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:43 pm

Post by hto » Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:07 am

vicmarcal wrote: 1) We can have both in Ros, but one has to be the default. Which is going to be the default: win32ros or arwinss?

2) If Arwinss shows better compatibility than win32ros, why Arwinss wont be the default subsystem? Just to avoid Drama? This will be called the "pro-Arwinss" Drama
These questions can arise in the future. But it has nothing to do with unrelated question, whether arwinss should be added now. Waiting will not help to solve possible future problems.
3) No. Users cant choose which one is going to be the default one when installing ReactOS. Imagine the question: Do you want to have your Win32 subsystem managed by Win32 or Arwinss? The user will say: what the hell does "managed" mean? and "subsystem"? "Ar--w..what"?
Most people probably will not pay attention and leave default settings. Just as it is now with UP and MP kernels.
4) Then we have the purists. Adding a Subsystem that doesnt follow the internal NT architecture? Heretic!!!! This will be called the "keepRosPure" Drama.
But ReactOS is not "pure", and will not be so in the foreseeable future; there are not enough people to faithfully follow the Windows way. Yet another bit of "impurity" does not matter very much, especially when "heresy" is not stirred to "orthodox" code.
5) People that didnt sleep well. They will create a Drama called the "TodayIWantToLove... Dramas" Drama.

6) People that doesnt understand a word about the Arwinss Architecture and Current Win32 architecture, but that wants to share their technical opinnions in the Mailing List. This drama will be called "IdontknowanythingaboutArwinssbutIamHere" Drama.
Simply ignore.
Arwinss needs to demonstrate first that its compatibility is worthy enough to fight against these dramas.
There is no need to fight. The sage does not fight and thus invincible. If arwinss will demonstrate its worthiness, it will be more difficult to add it…

Ged
Developer
Posts: 925
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 3:00 pm
Location: UK

Re: Question to ARWINSS

Post by Ged » Tue Feb 02, 2010 2:26 pm

cmoibenlepro wrote:
Nope, it cant. We wont overwrite the existant subsystem. I thought this is clear already...
No it is not clear. From the pdf http://www.reactos.org/media/docs/2010/arwinss.pdf it seems clear that Fireball intend to replace the existing system with arwinss. And I thought that other developers agreed.
Fireball got this part wrong.
The existing subsystem will remain and continually be developed.
Whichever is the most compatible and efficient subsystem will be the default.

So, it's highly probable that although ARWINSS will become the default susbsystem in the not too distant future. However it will be probably superseded by the original subsystem eventually.

Nintendo Maniac 64
Posts: 234
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 3:08 am
Location: Northeast Ohio, USA

Re: Question to ARWINSS

Post by Nintendo Maniac 64 » Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:24 pm

So for all intended purposes, ARWINSS is pretty much intended to be a stop-gap?
Last edited by Nintendo Maniac 64 on Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

vicmarcal
Test Team
Posts: 2732
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Question to ARWINSS

Post by vicmarcal » Tue Feb 02, 2010 10:40 pm

Yes,it is a stop-gap that can give us easily extra-compatibility while our current subsystem is being developed.
Image

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Trendiction [Bot] and 3 guests