...linuxgx wrote:I don't believe I said anything critical of the project
linuxgx wrote:I'd be surprised if 1.0 ever come out
Keeping up...
Moderator: Moderator Team
-
tomleem
- Posts: 638
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:59 pm
- Location: New Hampshire of United States of America
- Contact:
Screen shots
If one views the screen shots, one sees that 1.0 is very doable. I look forward to version 1.0 of ReactOS. 8)
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Tom Lee M / BigGoofyGuy
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Tom Lee M / BigGoofyGuy
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: Screen shots
Actually there are much thing to be done. For me, sound or video isn't crucial at the moment but to have the majority of programs running.tomleem wrote:If one views the screen shots, one sees that 1.0 is very doable. I look forward to version 1.0 of ReactOS. 8)
Most of the installers currrently are working.
Some specific InstallShield installers freeze. This is an issue IMO.
Maybe there is a bug in bugzilla, I don't know.
First this is cache manager and memmory issues.
Re: Screen shots
I believe I said the project needs MS DirectX working, not that it should only be use for acceleration, thats not even a logical Interpretation of my text.Haos wrote:Yeah... why dont you advise Ms to dump DirectX as it is now ("because its a waste"), and use it only for video acceleration... You cannot be serious...
As am I, I'd love to see Ros reach 1.0 Status.tomleem wrote:If one views the screen shots, one sees that 1.0 is very doable. I look forward to version 1.0 of ReactOS. 8)
Then one of us is unable to understand this text:
If one will drop the obvious thing, as MS Dx cannot be used outside of windows legaly, the outcome is bit weird.
So you state thatWe need more centralized focus, and reactX is a waste, accelerate video with DX should be the focus.
meansreactX is a waste
andthe project needs MS DirectX working
meansaccelerate video with DX should be the focus
?not that it should only be use for acceleration
If one will drop the obvious thing, as MS Dx cannot be used outside of windows legaly, the outcome is bit weird.
well technically that falls on the end user. I have no problem hitting agree and never reading as I have a copy of every pc game I own. People dont have much of a problem violating the install agreement.
I mean your telling me that if all the hardware worked and all you had to do was install DX your wouldn't violate the agreement?
I mean your telling me that if all the hardware worked and all you had to do was install DX your wouldn't violate the agreement?
-
inclusivedisjunction
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:09 am
For someone whose user name takes after an open-source operating system, you sure have a negative look at open-source software. Your sole reason for ReactX being a "waste" is apparently that MS already wrote it.
Where do you draw the line? Should ReactOS stop working on the ROSExplorer, and start working on getting Windows Explorer running? Should they not work on writing a free USB stack, and instead just copy XP's? Hell, Microsoft already wrote an NT kernel, so why bother?
I'm all for working on making DirectX usable, should a user choose to install it. But saying that an open-source project should use proprietary software to save reinventing the wheel borders on mental retardation.
Where do you draw the line? Should ReactOS stop working on the ROSExplorer, and start working on getting Windows Explorer running? Should they not work on writing a free USB stack, and instead just copy XP's? Hell, Microsoft already wrote an NT kernel, so why bother?
I'm all for working on making DirectX usable, should a user choose to install it. But saying that an open-source project should use proprietary software to save reinventing the wheel borders on mental retardation.
Dx/Rx is too closely knit together with the rest of NT to separate it or to just dump its development.
Illegal things are illegal. We not supposed to promote such actions, so please watch what you write here.well technically that falls on the end user. I have no problem hitting agree and never reading as I have a copy of every pc game I own.
My hope for this project is very simple, I want to be able to use it!
- I want the kernel done and the subsystems working, everything else has a third party counter part. Ex, Ros Explore - bbLean or GAMEOS GE works fine as far as I'm concerned.
Dont get me wrong I'd like to see the whole NT system cloned at some point, but why does that mean that everything must be done at the same time? I just dont see ReactX as vital at the moment. I mean you do realize that MS is simply going license all of its software for windows only, the moment we gain any marketshare?
And why dont we modify the USB stack from the linux kernel?
- I want the kernel done and the subsystems working, everything else has a third party counter part. Ex, Ros Explore - bbLean or GAMEOS GE works fine as far as I'm concerned.
Dont get me wrong I'd like to see the whole NT system cloned at some point, but why does that mean that everything must be done at the same time? I just dont see ReactX as vital at the moment. I mean you do realize that MS is simply going license all of its software for windows only, the moment we gain any marketshare?
And why dont we modify the USB stack from the linux kernel?
The developers already tried modifying the USB stack from Linux. After two years it still wasn't working. The architecture between NT and Linux is far too different to conveniently use do something like that. Hell, it took arty two years just to adapt the BSD network stack to ROS and while it's working, it has some major issues.
Again, this is an open source project. People work on what they feel like working on. You're forgetting that to make RX run, we also need to get the win32 subsystem into shape, since basically all of the DX functions resolve down there.
MS already tried something similar to lock out Office updates from Wine. Crossover took them to court over the issue and won. That's a pretty good demonstration of how effective that course of action is.
Again, this is an open source project. People work on what they feel like working on. You're forgetting that to make RX run, we also need to get the win32 subsystem into shape, since basically all of the DX functions resolve down there.
MS already tried something similar to lock out Office updates from Wine. Crossover took them to court over the issue and won. That's a pretty good demonstration of how effective that course of action is.
Stop stirring and wise up to some home truths...
Also, the project aims to provide a fully compatible XP clone (although i doubt it'll ever be fully compatible, that is the ideal to strive for) and for many that does include the UI, which is for most people the only contact with the OS, thus an integral part of it. You need to realise not everyone is going to be like you, I mean bbLean may work for you, but why should your personal preference really matter that much to the project?
Besides, if I wasn't mistaken most of the work going on at the moment is in the kernel, getting it compatible stable etc. You've seen ROSExplorer right? Does it really seem like dev's are sweating their asses of getting a premium filebrowser?... (yes i'm talking about the new one as well, that one actually has less code than the old one since it's based largely in the shell API that has to be there)
linuxgx you need to realize that, while what you say makes sense from a strategy point of view, most of the developers probably aren't coding from a unified strategy point of view, they're just working on what they like doing, such is the nature of opensource coding, and always will be.linuxgx wrote: Dont get me wrong I'd like to see the whole NT system cloned at some point, but why does that mean that everything must be done at the same time?
Also, the project aims to provide a fully compatible XP clone (although i doubt it'll ever be fully compatible, that is the ideal to strive for) and for many that does include the UI, which is for most people the only contact with the OS, thus an integral part of it. You need to realise not everyone is going to be like you, I mean bbLean may work for you, but why should your personal preference really matter that much to the project?
Besides, if I wasn't mistaken most of the work going on at the moment is in the kernel, getting it compatible stable etc. You've seen ROSExplorer right? Does it really seem like dev's are sweating their asses of getting a premium filebrowser?... (yes i'm talking about the new one as well, that one actually has less code than the old one since it's based largely in the shell API that has to be there)
My understanding is that there is only one developer really working on it, try telling him to stop doing what he loves so more 'vital' things can receive his unenthusiastic attention.linuxgx wrote: I just dont see ReactX as vital at the moment.
There is more to windows software than MS's software. Or do you think that MS would try and force software vendors to gain 'permission' to use their API's and thereby force them to put a 'windows only' clause in their license agreement... that would actually ruin them... not to mention being completely in violation of anti-trust laws.linuxgx wrote:I mean you do realize that MS is simply going license all of its software for windows only, the moment we gain any marketshare?
Cool. Perfect solution. 4-5 of the devs shall work on what linuxgx calls - "vital parts", whereas the rest....?
I`m sure it will speedup the development process so much...
Sorry linuxgx, but your 'solutions' only look simple. They are flawed in their very basis.
What else, you seem not to have any idea on actual ROS development process. If we count out winesyncs, rosbe commits and arch porting, most of the development focus is on Win32k/GDI... at least since 0.3.3 when the big rewrite of those components have actually begun.
I`m sure it will speedup the development process so much...
Sorry linuxgx, but your 'solutions' only look simple. They are flawed in their very basis.
What else, you seem not to have any idea on actual ROS development process. If we count out winesyncs, rosbe commits and arch porting, most of the development focus is on Win32k/GDI... at least since 0.3.3 when the big rewrite of those components have actually begun.
Ok everyone Linuxqx asked a good question why is reactx vital now. So far everyone just throwing junk as a answer.
Z98 gave the best answer.
cppm also somethings are not being worked on because they are not important now.
Haos control you self.
Number 1 problem Direct X required kernel features. Number 2 Direct X in XP has stability problems because safe guards were removed. We have enough stability problems in reactos.
Now problem we need test cases and everything else to make Direct X work correctly even in wine. Problem is exactly the same on the Reactos side but even harder the internals of the reactos kernel has to support loading and running drivers with direct x features. Wine can only load MS Direct X keeping some of its own parts.
ReactX project first goal is to get the kernel side correct. Greatlord is doing well. So far MS Direct X parts are starting to work that don't work in wine at all due to lack of kernel features.
It is best for a working video system that direct x and gdi and other methods of getting to video card get sorted out as one set.
Basically you cannot have working MS Direct X on wine without Reactx part of project. The numbers of applications that use direct X is massive.
ps. Also since Reactx requires kernel parts its the time now to work on it while reactos is still in alpha so reactos so any instability problems caused by development of it does not effect the Beta or release creation.
The only major thing being worked on that could be targeted is the ros explorer rewrite but that is only being done because the old ros explorer has be slowing down testing.
Next PS. Haos sorry to say the licensing of parts for windows use only is what MS has been doing to wine in targeted places. Most people don't read MS .NET 1 2 and 3 licenses. You cannot run them on Ros without a MS licensed OS on the machine. So what linuxqx is talking about with the licensing windows only is happening now. Note MS is a little more sneaky license the lower used parts windows only. Without them you cannot run the applications above them. linuxqx timeline is out. It has already happened.
Z98 gave the best answer.
cppm also somethings are not being worked on because they are not important now.
Haos control you self.
Number 1 problem Direct X required kernel features. Number 2 Direct X in XP has stability problems because safe guards were removed. We have enough stability problems in reactos.
Now problem we need test cases and everything else to make Direct X work correctly even in wine. Problem is exactly the same on the Reactos side but even harder the internals of the reactos kernel has to support loading and running drivers with direct x features. Wine can only load MS Direct X keeping some of its own parts.
ReactX project first goal is to get the kernel side correct. Greatlord is doing well. So far MS Direct X parts are starting to work that don't work in wine at all due to lack of kernel features.
It is best for a working video system that direct x and gdi and other methods of getting to video card get sorted out as one set.
Basically you cannot have working MS Direct X on wine without Reactx part of project. The numbers of applications that use direct X is massive.
ps. Also since Reactx requires kernel parts its the time now to work on it while reactos is still in alpha so reactos so any instability problems caused by development of it does not effect the Beta or release creation.
The only major thing being worked on that could be targeted is the ros explorer rewrite but that is only being done because the old ros explorer has be slowing down testing.
Next PS. Haos sorry to say the licensing of parts for windows use only is what MS has been doing to wine in targeted places. Most people don't read MS .NET 1 2 and 3 licenses. You cannot run them on Ros without a MS licensed OS on the machine. So what linuxqx is talking about with the licensing windows only is happening now. Note MS is a little more sneaky license the lower used parts windows only. Without them you cannot run the applications above them. linuxqx timeline is out. It has already happened.
Either we clone Dx, or we go for the WINE solution - Dx calls translated to opengl. No more choices.
Apparently linuxgx would choose WINE soultion... But you guys are missing few things...
- for the sake of binary compatibility, that we try to use as an advertisement, dx->opengl translation is not enough. Those kernel features will have to be implemented sooner or later... I also am afraid of performance issues.
- Dx stability issues in XP? Again you should talk with GreatLord about it, before speaking up. Its not Dx being unstable, alas really being transfered to kmode for better performance. On the other side, any crash in kmode is fatal. The real source of stability problems with Dx were hacky gpu drivers, often hooking into core Windows components, expecting some values to be present. Those were mostly ATI and worst of all - Nvidia. Also, if you would speak with GreatLord, you`d know that we are going after the safer solution, same as in Win2k and Vista - Dx being contained in usermode, with addition of exception handling. On the other hand, you oiaohm confirmed yourself that WINE approach isnt exactly stable itself...
- dx/rx accelerated video rendering is a nice gadget, but not as important as gaming support;
PS response: still we shouldn`t encourage license breaking publicly on our forum...
Apparently linuxgx would choose WINE soultion... But you guys are missing few things...
- for the sake of binary compatibility, that we try to use as an advertisement, dx->opengl translation is not enough. Those kernel features will have to be implemented sooner or later... I also am afraid of performance issues.
- Dx stability issues in XP? Again you should talk with GreatLord about it, before speaking up. Its not Dx being unstable, alas really being transfered to kmode for better performance. On the other side, any crash in kmode is fatal. The real source of stability problems with Dx were hacky gpu drivers, often hooking into core Windows components, expecting some values to be present. Those were mostly ATI and worst of all - Nvidia. Also, if you would speak with GreatLord, you`d know that we are going after the safer solution, same as in Win2k and Vista - Dx being contained in usermode, with addition of exception handling. On the other hand, you oiaohm confirmed yourself that WINE approach isnt exactly stable itself...
- dx/rx accelerated video rendering is a nice gadget, but not as important as gaming support;
PS response: still we shouldn`t encourage license breaking publicly on our forum...
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests