Google SoC

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

fred02
Posts: 551
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 5:54 pm

Re: Google SoC

Post by fred02 » Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:27 am

vicmarcal wrote:@JPLR:
"Yes there are counter examples (I mentioned it in my post) but less than you might think"
I agree with vicmarcal and jgwright. This Plan9 project looks more as an exception than a rule. Just looking at the (random?) 5 first projects on the gsoc2009 list gives:
  • Improving AbiWord’s OpenXML Support
    AbiWord with GetText; AbiText?
    Speeding up AbiWord's table layout algorithm
    Port AbiWord for Windows to Unicode
    Writing /proc and /dev File Systems
Looks nothing of "scientific value" to me, engineering at best. :roll: But very good to learn about XML, text handling, Unicode and *nix architecture.
I also agree that ROS is not a good PR. On one hand it is not mature enough to generate strong positive "public" response, but "controversial" enough to start bad hype a.k.a. "Google is sponsoring Windows replacement".
Which makes me think about the idea expressed in another topic about spinning off sub-projects for ROS components. Surly things like UniATA, USB or ACPI are interesting learning material, especially if they work for all NT-based systems. :idea:

JPLR
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Google SoC

Post by JPLR » Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:38 pm

Oh if you feel those GSoC examples as easy, then it's, I don't want to nitpicking eternally on this subject, but I wouldn't consider writing a /proc file system for Minix an easy task.
BTW: UNIATA, ACPI GPL WDM drivers are already written, the open source ACPI WDM driver is even written by the reference organization for ACPI.

If it doesn't work on Reactos the problem is not with any of them but with Reactos kernel.

fred02
Posts: 551
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 5:54 pm

Re: Google SoC

Post by fred02 » Tue Mar 16, 2010 5:06 pm

JPLR wrote:Oh if you feel those GSoC examples as easy, then it's, I don't want to nitpicking eternally on this subject, but I wouldn't consider writing a /proc file system for Minix an easy task.
I probably mis-expressed myself, I did not mean to say that gsoc projects were easy, just that not all of them have to be of "scientific value".
Whole point being that ROS projects can be as good and valuable as any others.

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

Re: Google SoC

Post by vicmarcal » Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:49 pm

JPLR wrote: If it doesn't work on Reactos the problem is not with any of them but with Reactos kernel.
Then "Fixing ReactOS Kernel to support ACPI GPL" sounds interesting enough :)
Image

JPLR
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Google SoC

Post by JPLR » Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:13 pm

I agree.
Perhaps you could improve the sentence in a very attractive way and with an academic look with something like:
"Discover and improve new strategies to find nasty bugs: An example with the Reactos kernel and ACPI."
or
"Little known features of ACPI and how to implement them: Implementation shown for an open source project.
etc..

;-)

jgwright
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: Google SoC

Post by jgwright » Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:32 am


Aeneas
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:09 pm

Re: Google SoC

Post by Aeneas » Mon Mar 29, 2010 12:51 pm

Opticks. So, so. And Geeklog. Aaah.

OK, if I quit being cynic, I have to remark, it is entirely obvious that ReactOS isn't there for political reasons only.

Angelus
Posts: 132
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:26 pm
Location: Spain

Re: Google SoC

Post by Angelus » Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:41 pm

WINE, yes. ReactOS, no. :shock:
Interesting and puzzling at the same time.

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

Re: Google SoC

Post by Nintendo Maniac 64 » Tue Mar 30, 2010 9:56 am

Well, at least work on WINE will help out ARWINSS.

EmuandCo
Developer
Posts: 4334
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Germany, Bavaria, Steinfeld
Contact:

Re: Google SoC

Post by EmuandCo » Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:15 am

not only there. DOnt forget the share of many user mode libs.
Image
ReactOS is still in alpha stage, meaning it is not feature-complete and is recommended only for evaluation and testing purposes.

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

Re: Google SoC

Post by cmoibenlepro » Wed Mar 31, 2010 7:34 pm

EmuandCo wrote:not only there. DOnt forget the share of many user mode libs.
Since both projects share code, maybe that explains why ReactOS was rejected? :?:

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

Re: Google SoC

Post by vicmarcal » Thu Apr 01, 2010 1:47 am

cmoibenlepro wrote:
EmuandCo wrote:not only there. DOnt forget the share of many user mode libs.
Since both projects share code, maybe that explains why ReactOS was rejected? :?:
We share really little code, and not kernel code at all.
We have needs that Wine project doesnt have, as NT Drivers support(among others).
Btw, other OpenSource projects share code and it doesnt mean they are both rejected or one of them.
Image

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

Re: Google SoC

Post by wildschwein » Thu Apr 01, 2010 9:05 am

after this disappointment it would be fine to here at least one sentence from one of Reactos Team members, who attended "Chemintzer Linux Tage", how the interrest and the reactions of the visitors were. Did many guys interessed for ROS - only a few ?

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

Re: Google SoC

Post by wildschwein » Thu Apr 01, 2010 9:16 am


EmuandCo
Developer
Posts: 4334
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Germany, Bavaria, Steinfeld
Contact:

Re: Google SoC

Post by EmuandCo » Thu Apr 01, 2010 1:37 pm

Image
ReactOS is still in alpha stage, meaning it is not feature-complete and is recommended only for evaluation and testing purposes.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], DotBot [Crawler] and 5 guests