Why not get some supporters from Linux?

[mametoc]

but i hate windows 7.

Yes i know, but you always can try it "Lited", and Seven SP1 is by far more stable than a XP SP3. Ok, at begining W7 is a mess to find how configure the things.

[mrugiero]

And seems to me redundant to sell a whole new OS, when XP was perfectly fine. And could have just been tweaked a bit to match up to current standards with all its bugs fixed and further more. Know what I mean? But then again, where would the profit be in that? That's the most pathetic thing about corporate owned OS's.

Someone would have had to pay for the work either way. It may be cheaper without the big middle man, but it may also not be.

[Z98]

And seems to me redundant to sell a whole new OS, when XP was perfectly fine. And could have just been tweaked a bit to match up to current standards with all its bugs fixed and further more. Know what I mean? But then again, where would the profit be in that? That's the most pathetic thing about corporate owned OS's.

The notion that XP was "perfectly fine" is one of the biggest misconceptions on the part of users. XP had a lot of underlying architectural issues that were fixed in later iterations of Windows. You could not "tweak" XP to get it to match current standards, the changes that needed to be done were significant and are embodied in Vista, 7, and 8, the very same systems that you claim to loathe. And about the only thing people have been griping about has been the UI. For 8, that's a legitimate complaint. For Vista and 7, the UI was probably the least significant of the changes done to the OS.

[mametoc]

Returning to thread, another alternate thread title might be:

Why Free Software Fundation don't give some support for ReactOS (or "co-adopt" it)?.

Auto-response: Becouse Richard Stallman (and surely others FSF members/fellows) doesn't like ReactOS. Probably is the most annoying and unpleasant free/open source project for him.

[mrugiero]

Returning to thread, another alternate thread title might be:

Why Free Software Fundation don't give some support for ReactOS (or "co-adopt" it)?.

Auto-response: Becouse Richard Stallman (and surely others FSF members/fellows) doesn't like ReactOS. Probably is the most annoying and unpleasant free/open source project for him.

Did Stallman ever stated something like that? Stallman is not a UNIX fanboy, he is a free software fanboy. ReactOS (while they are not zealots) currently complies with everything that defines free software according to the FSF, so I really doubt Stallman will ever have anything against ReactOS. However, the FSF uses most of its not very abundant money to pay for lawyers, as its mission is not to produce software, but to help enforce the GPL in cases where there are violations, and to make better (to their criteria, of course) iterations of the GPL from time to time. There are some FSF sponsored (I'm not sure if sponsored in money, but publically promoted) "priority" projects and most of them don't advance too much faster than ReactOS. There's also the fact they'd probably prefer ReactOS to use the GPLv3 if they are going to sponsor it, and that's really fair from their POV, as they wouldn't want to help a project so later one contributor can say "hey, see that code you accepted there, which I willingly gave you? well, you must ask me for permission every time you want to actually execute it, as I have a patent on it". They care about software freedom, not about plain open source, so with that value in mind, GPLv3 would be "better" (it's really hard to talk about better or worse in this context, as it depends on your personal values; even though I might disagree with them at times, when I make judgements of value I try to adopt what I think they believe to be good or evil, for the sake of making discussion clearer: please keep that in mind when you read me so you don't think I'm trying to impose my beliefs as "THE ONE AND ONLY TRUTH"). At the same time, GPLv3, for mostly the same clauses, is not very company friendly, as it imposes distributors they have to give freely the right to use their IP if it's used in the software to any recipients they give it to, and to any recipients that get it indirectly from them, and that's a valid reason from a more pragmatic POV to avoid that license (and I guess that's one reason ReactOS won't change ever to GPLv3).
Still, I think they won't support ReactOS for something simpler: they don't see a need for a free Windows, they see a need for any kind of free, usable OS, and they seem to consider they are closer to achieve it with the GNU projects than by reinventing Windows (keep in mind that to have a fully free environment using a Windows compatible OS, they'd need to write more than just the OS, and that's their goal). That means they won't be against ReactOS, but they will never consider it a top priority.

[Z98]

Oh, we're not "free software" compliant, not by a long shot. For example, we link proprietary apps in the download utility.

[PurpleGurl]

You are right. Our project is actually neutral on the free software thing. Some in the Free Software community are quite militant, and they see no middle ground. The fact we can run commercial software is a major slap in the face for them, as well as the whole RAPPS thing. I saw the comments of the one who started the original Dillo project. He had absolutely no interest in porting it to Windows. He blamed the Win32 platform for nearly everything bad. The platform is just the scapegoat. The same thing could happen with Linux if the wrong corporate interests got involved, managed to hijack and b*stardize all the standards and APIs (if there are any, I admit ignorance of Linux), etc. So using a left-wing metaphor against those who would use it, they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I don't see all commercial interest as being bad. The 3rd party people would produce for whatever popular OS. The militant attitude does them no good, since if the idea is to "kill off" the bullies, what does that make them? If the idea is to chop down all that are popular, then doesn't that make what is left popular?

So I imagine there are a few Linux supporters who don't mind what we are doing. Win32/64 is not inherently bad, it is just that there is this trap of becoming more and more demanding with time. Every time the hardware catches up and you have all this extra power available, the next Windows version uses every bit of that and bogs down like its predecessors did on older hardware. Our critics say we are chasing a moving target, but it isn't just us. And according to a PC maintenance tech who got into the business as a teen in his father's shop, there is this trend to go lighter and greener with the hardware. So you don't find too many branded mega-core PCs, and only gamers, servers, and video editors or movie producers are really interested in very heavy PCs. So it seems the average customer base needs lighter OS solutions. Maybe we could help fill that niche. If we don't, you know who all will.

[Dave3434]

Z98 » 13 Apr 2014 02:24
Oh, we're not "free software" compliant, not by a long shot. For example, we link proprietary apps in the download utility.

so reactos is not free/ open source?

[Dave3434]

So I imagine there are a few Linux supporters who don't mind what we are doing. Win32/64 is not inherently bad, it is just that there is this trap of becoming more and more demanding with time. Every time the hardware catches up and you have all this extra power available, the next Windows version uses every bit of that and bogs down like its predecessors did on older hardware. Our critics say we are chasing a moving target, but it isn't just us. And according to a PC maintenance tech who got into the business as a teen in his father's shop, there is this trend to go lighter and greener with the hardware. So you don't find too many branded mega-core PCs, and only gamers, servers, and video editors or movie producers are really interested in very heavy PCs. So it seems the average customer base needs lighter OS solutions. Maybe we could help fill that niche. If we don't, you know who all will.

i agree.

[mrugiero]

all the standards and APIs (if there are any, I admit ignorance of Linux)

I answer this just because I'd like people to answer my uncertainties: there are some standard APIs, but as it is open source (and there is no intent to keep compatibility with someone in particular as happens with ReactOS), nobody actually enforces these standards to be followed.

So I imagine there are a few Linux supporters who don't mind what we are doing.

Personally, I don't think they're really "few". It is true that most of them would prefer people who is currently working with ReactOS to be working with Linux or any user space that is usable with Linux, but I don't think most of them are against it per se.

Win32/64 is not inherently bad, it is just that there is this trap of becoming more and more demanding with time. Every time the hardware catches up and you have all this extra power available, the next Windows version uses every bit of that and bogs down like its predecessors did on older hardware.

You don't need to look at Windows to see that. That's common to most software: the obvious example on the *nix OSes is KDE. On Ubuntu, a basic KDE takes up more memory than modern Windows do.

[qoute]So it seems the average customer base needs lighter OS solutions. Maybe we could help fill that niche. If we don't, you know who all will.[/quote]
I don't know, I see ReactOS filling the desktop niche better than any current consumer trend, and I say this partly as a compliment. For consumers, Android does mostly good (there are some things to fix, though), but ReactOS (well, ROS right now doesn't, but the OS it tries to mimick does) performs better in a niche far more complex as the desktop, which is, and IMO will still be, where content gets created.

PD: Still, it could be more conservative in the amount of resources it takes compared to other alternatives, and that would be good.

Oh, we're not "free software" compliant, not by a long shot. For example, we link proprietary apps in the download utility.

I didn't mean as a "distribution" of software, but all original ReactOS code. Of course, ReactOS wouldn't qualify as a "free software distribution" as a whole, because of what you say (the same reason why Ubuntu isn't a free software distribution). But ReactOS code base is free software under all definitions. It complies with the four freedoms the FSF defines.

[mametoc]

Did Stallman ever stated something like that? Stallman is not a UNIX fanboy, he is a free software fanboy.

ReactOS es un intento de [crear un Windows libre], pero la parte libre no funciona sola, por lo tanto no podría recomendarlo, ¡y quién quiere un sistema parecido a Windows!

ReactOS is an attempt to [create a free Windows], but the free part does not work alone(*), so could not recommend it, and who wants a similar system to Windows!

http://www.linuxadictos.com/fotos-y-vid ... ntina.html

(*) By, "But the free part does not work alone" i guess he means what is dependant as Windows on propietary device drivers, but GNULinux as quite many open-source device drivers.

The final line: "who wants a similar system to Windows!" (but yes similar to Unix?.)

Is from 2008 but others small comments about ReactOS i forgot source, the last it seems from 2012 stills in the same idea. So the problem for him maybe it's not only free/opensource thing in RAPPS.

[hbelusca]

Z98 » 13 Apr 2014 02:24
Oh, we're not "free software" compliant, not by a long shot. For example, we link proprietary apps in the download utility.

so reactos is not free/ open source?

Z98 meant:

Oh, we're not "free software" compliant, not by a long shot. For example, we link proprietary apps in the download utility.

I didn't mean as a "distribution" of software, but all original ReactOS code. Of course, ReactOS wouldn't qualify as a "free software distribution" as a whole, because of what you say (the same reason why Ubuntu isn't a free software distribution). But ReactOS code base is free software under all definitions. It complies with the four freedoms the FSF defines.

As mrugiero said, we are not "free software distribution" compliant according to FSF because we link in RAPPS to some proprietary apps. But we are free & open source.

[mrugiero]

Did Stallman ever stated something like that? Stallman is not a UNIX fanboy, he is a free software fanboy.

ReactOS es un intento de [crear un Windows libre], pero la parte libre no funciona sola, por lo tanto no podría recomendarlo, ¡y quién quiere un sistema parecido a Windows!

ReactOS is an attempt to [create a free Windows], but the free part does not work alone(*), so could not recommend it, and who wants a similar system to Windows!

http://www.linuxadictos.com/fotos-y-vid ... ntina.html

(*) By, "But the free part does not work alone" i guess he means what is dependant as Windows on propietary device drivers, but GNULinux as quite many open-source device drivers.

The final line: "who wants a similar system to Windows!" (but yes similar to Unix?.)

Is from 2008 but others small comments about ReactOS i forgot source, the last it seems from 2012 stills in the same idea. So the problem for him maybe it's not only free/opensource thing in RAPPS.

Not recommending it and being against it is very different. Stallman doesn't recommend using Steam on Linux, but sees its value as leading to a freer system (you go from having to use a proprietary OS to use proprietary games to being able to run them on a free system).
Also, that's quite clearly what I described: he thinks the OS alone is not enough, and I actually named that reason. He believes we are closer to a fully free system by using one of the UNIX-like OSes than by rewriting first the Windows-like OS and then all proprietary applications for it.
On it being about the drivers, I'm not too sure. I mean, that's one thing he probably takes into account, but I think it's more because most Windows-only apps are actually proprietary, so he probably believes the only motivation for a FLOSS Windows is to be able to run those non-free applications. Personally, I disagree. That's one reason, but Windows has merits of its own that makes me (and probably others) see a free implementation, disregarding the wide array of apps, both free and proprietary, that you could use on it. I'd probably still use Linux the better as I feel more comfortable on it, though.

[classicgamelover85]

I guess the whole point in making this post or thread is simple. WHEN THE HELL IS REACTOS GOING TO GET DONE?????? I'm drunk again too just so you know. But anywho. I wish I could find more supporters out there, but I only know so many people. This sucks. This OS won't be done for ages will it? I'll be an old wrinkly old man when it gets done... won't be able to spend any of my youth on enjoying such an awesome idea!!! THIS BITES!!! THIS OS WILL NEVER GET DONE!!! AAAAAAHHHHH!!!!! i'm freaking out. but I think I'm about to pass out too.

[gamax92]

Just wondering since the topic was brought up by OP, what does the ReactOS team consider the point for when this OS can be called "Done"?
When it can run all (or most) of the popular programs?
When it can run acceptably on real hardware?
When a specific set of features or a definable goal is met?