Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Announcements GNU is Not Unix Microsoft

ReactOS 0.1.0 Released 278

Posted by timothy from the and-for-your-39th-os dept.
JasonFilby writes "ReactOS 0.1.0 has been released! ReactOS is an Open Source effort to develop a quality operating system that is compatible with Windows NT applications and drivers. In this release, among other new features and fixes, especially worth mentioning are the ability to boot from CD and self-hosting capabilities (ReactOS can be compiled on ReactOS)." ReactOS has been in progress for a while, often tied to other projects with the aim of seamlessly replacing Windows: you can download an image of Bochs 2.0 with ReactOS 0.1.0 preloaded from the download and changelog page.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ReactOS 0.1.0 Released More

ReactOS 0.1.0 Released

Comments Filter:

  • But Windows NT is not 2k... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Jace of Fuse! ( 72042 ) on Sunday February 02, 2003 @04:43PM (#5211494) Homepage
    From the site, the focus seems to be on 4.0, not 2K/XP. While this will be great for those who have a huge amount of time and effort invested in implimenting an NT4.0 environment, it doesn't make much sense for someone who has migrated to 2K/XP to move back to ReactOS.

    I do think this is really cool though, and I plan to keep my eye on this. With any luck it'll come far enough to start implimenting 2k/Xp compatibility.

    • Re:But Windows NT is not 2k... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rodgerd ( 402 ) on Sunday February 02, 2003 @04:50PM (#5211531) Homepage
      NT 4 is a good, stable target that encompasses the bulk of the Win32 API that is also in Win2k and WinXP. Once they've got that right, rolling forward to Win2K and up should be trivial - getting the basic microkernel and servers right will likely be the hard part.
    • I recently dug out my old P133, and booted to NT4.0 to remove the contents of the hard disk before installing a real OS (FreeBSD). I was amazed. NT4.0 is actually fast on that kind of hardware (subjectively as fast as Win2K or Linux/Gnome on a 1GHz Athlon). If ReactOS can produce this level of performance along with application compatibility with later versions of windows it will definitely have a place.

    • Re:But Windows NT is not 2k... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Chicane-UK ( 455253 ) <chicane-uk@@@ntlworld...com> on Sunday February 02, 2003 @05:21PM (#5211679) Homepage
      I did kinda think about the exact same thing.. though I guess it could be useful for people who are still running legacy NT4 systems, and want a system that will be continually updated and patched long after Microsoft finish supporting NT4.. which they are trying to do real soon.

      NT4 amazingly works very well for some people, and people don't see the need to go through expensive training and migration to Windows 2000 or Server 2003 if NT4 does the job.

  • legal trouble ahead? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MobyTurbo ( 537363 ) on Sunday February 02, 2003 @04:48PM (#5211518)
    I wonder if ReactOS, if they become successful, might end up in a bit of legal trouble from Microsoft. I'm sure MS has patents and copyrights up the wazoo on Windows NT, and is not afraid to take advantage of them. Remember how they arrogantly sued the company they bought MS-DOS from out of existence because they were worried they would add multitasking to it? Even though that company had some contractual rights to the IP MS purchased from them, which ReactOS hasn't.

    • Re:legal trouble ahead? (Score:5, Informative)

      by halftrack ( 454203 ) <jonkje@gEEEmail.com minus threevowels> on Sunday February 02, 2003 @05:17PM (#5211655) Homepage
      React OS isn't written based on Windows NT code so a lawsuit could be hard. In addititon Microsoft isn't all that heavy on suing people that tries to make MS stuff cross platform compatible. Wine, WineX, Crossover, Dosemu, Mono, countless .doc loaders/converters have been left pretty much untouched. I guess that's because they're not really seeking to profit/performe on Microsofts R&D rather supply an alternative.

      Lindows however who MS saw as a marketing threat since their sort of trying market and sell something that looks and souncs like Windows.
      • React OS isn't written based on Windows NT code so a lawsuit could be hard.
        This does not apply to patents.
        In addititon Microsoft isn't all that heavy on suing people that tries to make MS stuff cross platform compatible. Wine, WineX, Crossover, Dosemu, Mono, countless .doc loaders/converters have been left pretty much untouched. I guess that's because they're not really seeking to profit/performe on Microsofts R&D rather supply an alternative.
        That is precisely what ReactOS seems to aim for, as you say "an alternative", not a mere inefficient emulator or document convertor that helps support MS's dominance, but a clone. Assuming this ever progresses past the toy stage, MS will certainly try to keep people from using it; and if legal means, such as patents they have on NT, are the way to do it, they'll do it.
        • Really? There is no historical evidence to back your claim - the lawsuit against Lindows was on the basis of trademark infringement. The lawsuits against Sun, and vice-versa, are corporate meat-down match-ups, proving little and in the end signifying even less.

          Microsoft seems to pretty much ignore efforts like this because they are more interested in the future of computing, not the past, which is definitely where NT4 belongs. The reason they have gone after Linux hammer and tongs is because it cuts into their market heavily, whereas ReactOS is aimed at those who probably were customers at one time but are not anymore and most likely won't be again.

          I would be very, very surprised if Microsoft even gives a damn about the ReactOS project, since there is no way to provide the type of support that the customers that buy into NT and derivatives are used to dealing with.

          • Re:legal trouble ahead? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Daniel Phillips ( 238627 ) on Monday February 03, 2003 @02:13AM (#5213643)
            Microsoft seems to pretty much ignore efforts like this because they are more interested in the future of computing, not the past, which is definitely where NT4 belongs.

            Sorry, but that does not demonstrate a high level of cluefulness. 2000, XP, and all Microsoft OS products in the forseeable future, with the exception of Wince, are based on NT, just as the first 10 years of Windows was based on Dos.

            Microsoft ignores efforts like this until they begin to look like they might succeed, then they go looking through their bag of dirty tricks. Unfortunately for Microsoft, they have to burn a lot of karma to attack an open-source project, and the chance of being able to stamp out the source code itself is pretty much zero.

    • Re:legal trouble ahead? (Score:5, Funny)

      by mentin ( 202456 ) on Sunday February 02, 2003 @06:14PM (#5211971)
      Don't worry. By the time ReactOS reaches version 1.0, those patents will expire. Remember, patent is valid for 20 years only.

      • Re:legal trouble ahead? (Score:5, Funny)

        by hobuddy ( 253368 ) on Sunday February 02, 2003 @09:29PM (#5212716)

        Don't worry. By the time ReactOS reaches version 1.0, those patents will expire. Remember, patent is valid for 20 years only.

        Haha! We've already thought of this; here's our plan for accelerated development:

        Implement the ReactOS kernel as a GNU Hurd daemon, with built-in 3d graphics support based on the Duke Nukem Forever engine (running on top of WINE's DirectX layer).

        The built-in 3d engine will be used as the basis for an implementation of the Berlin windowing API, the suggested application interface to which is the Perl 6 virtual machine. We should have all of this up and running on the Indrema console within a mere three months!

        Then, we plan to hire Loki games to implement an X-Windows compatibility layer, and we've arrived!

        • Ahh, you realise most of the stuff in your comment is either Vaporware or stuff in progress. Implement the ReactOS kernel as a GNU Hurd daemon, with built-in 3d graphics support based on the Duke Nukem Forever engine (running on top of WINE's DirectX layer). What version of the Duke Nukem Foreven engine (1st DOOM engine based, 2nd Quake 1 Alpha based or the 3rd ?? Based) Then, we plan to hire Loki games to implement an X-Windows compatibility layer, and we've arrived! You realise Loki games is in Chapter 7 liquidation.

    • Re:legal trouble ahead? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by steveha ( 103154 ) on Sunday February 02, 2003 @07:40PM (#5212321) Homepage
      I'm sure MS has patents and copyrights up the wazoo on Windows NT, and is not afraid to take advantage of them.

      Microsoft isn't the nicest company on Earth, but they don't really have a history of using lawsuits to try to squash competition. I doubt the ReactOS guys need to fear this.

      Remember how they arrogantly sued the company they bought MS-DOS from out of existence because they were worried they would add multitasking to it?

      Actually, no, I don't remember this at all. Could you point me to a newspaper article or something?

      I did a web search, and all I could find was that Seattle Computer Products sued Microsoft (in 1986), not the other way around!

      http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11-502830.html [com.com]

      If Microsoft ever arrogantly sued Seattle Computer Products, I'd like to know more about it.

      steveha
    • First of all, there is almost nothing technologically new in Windows NT: its "innovations" in areas like file systems, access control, security, etc., have pretty much all been tried before. People don't use them by choice. Furthermore, IBM has created a pretty complete Windows clone as part of OS/2, and they didn't get into legal trouble, so there is little reason to believe that ReactOS would have any more problems.

  • Sheeesh.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 02, 2003 @04:48PM (#5211521)
    If you thought Mono was a legal minefield, this is has to be akin to strinking and flicking matches in dynamite wharehouse.

    • Re:Sheeesh.. (Score:5, Funny)

      by 21mhz ( 443080 ) on Sunday February 02, 2003 @05:17PM (#5211656) Journal
      ...in dynamite wharehouse.

      It's properly spelled worehouse.
    • Sure, some MS executives have said something like "we have lots of intellectual property in this great new technology", but every company that wants investors to drive up the stock price says that. Nobody has yet been able to produce any concrete, substantial intellectual property that Microsoft (or anybody else) holds in C# or .NET. The few patents that have surfaced have been peripheral and easy to work around. So, if you have concrete knowledge of this "legal minefield", please tell us all. Otherwise, please don't keep spreading FUD about Mono.

  • screenshots? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 02, 2003 @04:51PM (#5211535)
    Where are the screenshots?

    Oh, that's why.

    This isn't going to replace Windows anytime soon if it doesn't have a graphical interface of any sort.

    • Re:screenshots? (Score:5, Funny)

      by sheean.nl ( 565364 ) <(sheean) (at) (sheean.nl)> on Sunday February 02, 2003 @05:28PM (#5211709) Homepage
      Oh, you can see the ads already:

      ReactOS..

      Windows, but without the pretty windows to click on.

  • Could it be merged with wine?? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by t0qer ( 230538 ) on Sunday February 02, 2003 @04:56PM (#5211561) Homepage Journal
    While this is cool a bunch of guys with time on their hands figured out how to get binary compatility with NT, the one thing that holds people to NT now(XP/2k) is the direct X layer between hardware and OS.

    It's still a pretty good feat though and is noteworthy of frontpage news. If the authors are reading would you mind answering a few questions?
    1. What timeline do the authors see for adding a directX layer?
    2. Do you forsee using the wineX code for reference or will you rewrite it from scratch?

  • Embedded systems? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Autonymous Toaster ( 646656 ) on Sunday February 02, 2003 @04:57PM (#5211566) Homepage
    Is this actually intended to supplant Windows on the desktop, or is it more aimed at small embedded systems? Or alternately, is there a parallel project that aims to replace Windows CE for the latter? I know there are a lot of similarities between NT4 and CE.

    I am not personally a fan or a "user" (hah!) of Windows, but I have...friends...who might be interested in a "sidegrade" to an open-source embedded OS which is WinCE compatible. If nothing else we might be able to improve the security and reliability of embedded applications that have already been developed for Microsoft OSes. There is nothing worse than a small, single-purpose appliance - say for making toast - that can't perform reliably because the underlying OS is faulty, or constantly requires patches to assure peace of mind (hah!).

  • Whoa (Score:2, Funny)

    by Amsterdam Vallon ( 639622 )
    Microsoft Word XP, watch [reactos.com] your back!

    Don't forget to visit *nix.org [starnix.org].

  • The OS world from the 'GO' perspective (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Billy the Mountain ( 225541 ) on Sunday February 02, 2003 @05:05PM (#5211602) Journal
    This announcement of this OS may seem interesting, but if you play the endlessly fascinating game of Go, your insight can become more balanced. For example, When Microsoft was well on the way of total OS dominance, it was as if the board had many stones, but all in one corner. Then Linus Torvalds, almost absentmindedly, played a stone in the opposite corner that was mostly vacant and Microsoft and the rest of the world ignored it, so Linus played a few more stones. Soon there was a formidable structure that Microsoft and the rest of the world couldn't ignore. And that's where we are today. Now ReactOS comes along and plays a stone, but no matter where the stone is placed on the OS board, the position is weak.

    BTM
    • Good analogy... especially with the x-y axis as a measurement of the relationship between linux and windows. Now, expand the game of Go into the third dimension, with 19 levels of 19x19 square GO boards. (19^3 instead of 19^2). Perhaps this new stone is being played in the opposite corner from linux and windows, which is currently mostly vacant, and the rest of the world will ignore it until it reaches version 1.0...

      Orthogonality, folks... use it; love it...
    • Billy the Mountain writes:
      "This announcement of this OS may seem interesting, but if you play the endlessly fascinating game of Go, your insight can become more balanced. For example, When Microsoft was well on the way of total OS dominance, it was as if the board had many stones, but all in one corner. Then Linus Torvalds, almost absentmindedly, played a stone in the opposite corner that was mostly vacant and Microsoft and the rest of the world ignored it, so Linus played a few more stones. Soon there was a formidable structure that Microsoft and the rest of the world couldn't ignore. And that's where we are today. Now ReactOS comes along and plays a stone, but no matter where the stone is placed on the OS board, the position is weak."

      Perhaps, but I think you will agree that Microsoft's position is thick and slow. And there is death in the hane.

  • Is this a worthwhile project? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BrianUofR ( 143023 ) on Sunday February 02, 2003 @05:08PM (#5211617)
    I certainly don't want to start a flamewar here, but I'm not sure if I think this is a useful product. It sounds like the objective of this project is to create a free clone of Windows NT, so people have choice. In order for this to be useful, I need to be able to install an app on either Windows NT 4.0 or ReactOS X.Y, and have the application not know the difference, right?

    In order to make that work, the OS must look the same to the app. That means APIs and, at a higher level, the architecture, has to be the same. The reason we don't run any Windows NT based systems in production is that the architecture is flawed. It's a desktop OS with "enterprise" features tacked on. The fundamental architecture of NT is why it sucks, in my mind. To emulate that, even if you give it away for free, doesn't solve the security issues, the performance issues, etc etc.

    I have a lot of respect for these guys, kernel hacking from the ground up is tough stuff, but I'd rather see them contributing their talent to the Linux or BSD projects rather than copying a flawed architecture.

    Of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong.
    • I don't think that's the problem; weak architecture or no, if people use it a free alternative is a good idea.

      The problem with an NT workalike is that soon very few people will actually be using NT. It's kind of like those ambitious DOS projects.
    • Good troll, but I could definitely use it. I own tons of NT apps, and this would be cheaper (and easier) than buying another copy of NT. You troll about "flawed architecture" is irrelevant.

    • Re:Is this a worthwhile project? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AxelTorvalds ( 544851 ) on Sunday February 02, 2003 @06:34PM (#5212051)
      For crying out loud! Why do we keep assuming that opensource resources just transfer between products?

      If these guys weren't working on this, they probably wouldn't be working on anything.

      I think this is a hell of a project with a ton of potential. If there was a drop in windows replacement that runs windows apps, that's a killer app. Now they are years and years away from such a platform but from a pure oss ideological perspective this rocks. Anything that helps break the ties and allows for freedom is a good thing.

      • The infirnite amount of developers. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Per Abrahamsen ( 1397 ) on Monday February 03, 2003 @04:27AM (#5213999) Homepage
        > Why do we keep assuming that opensource resources just transfer between products?

        Because, to a large degree, it is true. And even to the degree it *isn't* true, we should try to encourage would-be developers to join an existing project, rather than start their own. There is no lack of free software projects, however there is a desperate lack if free software projects with enough developers to produce anything worthwhile.

        Of course, hobbyist programmers should do whatever they think is fun, even if it never produce anything useful to others. But that should not stop us oldbies encouraging them to join existing larger projects that may already have produced, or is likely to end up producing, something worthwhile. There is also a great fun seeing your code getting used. And while working with others can be annoying, it can also be rewarding, and it is a valuable skill to learn.
    • The reason we don't run any Windows NT based systems in production is that the architecture is flawed. It's a desktop OS with "enterprise" features tacked on. The fundamental architecture of NT is why it sucks, in my mind.

      Please, don't talk about things you don't know about. What you are commenting on is a questionable implementation, not a bad design. In fact, Windows is quite the opposite: an excellent system clogged up with poor, useless, superfluous or otherwise bad software

      I have a lot of respect for these guys, kernel hacking from the ground up is tough stuff, but I'd rather see them contributing their talent to the Linux or BSD projects rather than copying a flawed architecture.

      Personally, I've found Linux to suck. Really suck. I'll probably have to use it in the next years, as the last way to use a computer without selling my brain to IBM, Sun, Microsoft or Apple, but I'll never really like it. I'm a Windows guy. I've never used anything else (except trying Linux because of its supposed "coolness"), and I contribute (well... I try) to ReactOS because that's where my heart is

      The "but Linux is clearly superior!" attitude doesn't cut it - you have to explain why, and without any internals programming experience (as Microsoft's user interface doesn't make any justice to the underlying system) you simply lack the knowledge to do it

      • I'll take a stab. (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Ayanami Rei ( 621112 )
        I like 'em both.

        NT and linux, who'd thunk it!

        I like NT because it is probably the most "predictable" OS you can find; each installation is basically the same, especially within a company. Any changes are superficial, all you need to know is a few key version and service pack numbers and you've got a clear picture of the state of things.
        It is remarkably stable, especially if you don't buy crappy hardware. Because it hosts most of my favorite apps and games, I can live with myself having a few copies (legitimately, but not out of my own pocket... ;-P )

        And I like linux because when you have to get dirty with interfacing hardware, and no clear solution exists, you look to the source. I've had to do this too many times, and linux comes and saves my ass with bits and pieces scrounged from hither and yon, duct-taped up with perl, and boom, you have your custom widget for whatever-the-fuck was needed in a weeks time. My latest project: Palm Pilot m130 + otherwise useless P133 Dell Latitude = OGG player with IR remote for the car! w00t!!

        Plus, I like being able to squeeze the last bit of performance out of machine, and knowing its operation front to back. It makes me feel safer when deploying a critical service; being able to feel confident it will stay up, and if it fails, I can diagnose it quickly because of said transparency. Linux, when set up conservatively, can take a huge beating. I've had servers with half-bad RAM and frayed SCSI cables stay up and limp along until I checked the logs... (MEDIC MEDIC!!!)
        So what about linux leaves you with such a bad taste in your mouth?
        Interstingly enough, that quality is shared by another less free system: Solaris. The documentation is incredibly thorough; so good, up to the point of throughly recognizing and explaining its own shortcomings (NFS RPC, etc.).
        I wish Sun was more forthcoming with hardware docs. Alas, this is how they make their money. :-(

        • Great post man! :)

          I too use both NT and Linux. As far as Windows goes, I have used "NT based" Windows since 4.0, as I quickly learned that Win95 sucked big ones...

          Windows allows me to play games (woohoo! play time!). Especially after Win2000 came out. Finally, USB and newer DirectX was available. And, as long as you had good hardware with well-written drivers, NT is quite livable. However, WPA has turned me off to Windows. MS will never see a cent from me on XP. I had a chance to play with WinXP for a while (on a play-machine as I called it). I was able to trip WPA after some hardware changes. Annoying to say the least. I will stay on 2000 until it is no longer supported.

          I love Linux because of it's openness. Sure, it took me awhile to learn it. (Started with RedHat 5.2 when it came out). But, here I am some years later, able to use Linux for everything I need except scanning & games (my scanner has no Linux support last I tried... it's a USB Hewlett Packard 3300C USB, and not all games available for linux. WineX doesn't count in my book).

          Oh, you commented about linux taking a beating and still chugging along. One day, a fellow Linux user and I were playing with his dual celeron 400 machine (remember that cool abit mobo back when?) and he was probing around the insides trying to figure out where a noise was coming from. He accidentally unplugged an ide cable! (Yes, his hard drive was on that one) Linux didn't panic or anything. He plugged it back in... the machine didn't seem to notice the difference. (and he did have some background services running.) We had a good laugh on that one (I don't recommend hotswapping anything like that btw)

  • Uses FreeDOS (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 02, 2003 @05:10PM (#5211627)

    FWIW, some parts of ReactOS use FreeDOS [freedos.org] components. For example, the ReactOS cmd.exe is based on the FreeDOS "FreeCOM" (the FreeDOS command.com).

    Thought you'd like to know. If you're interested in the DOS parts of ReactOS, you're probably better off to download FreeDOS [freedos.org], which is more stable & mature anyway.

  • XFree86 for ReactOS (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    How hard would it be to port XFree86 to ReactOS? It would give you an instant GUI. OS/2 has XFree86, so it would seem ReactOS could have it too. It doesn't have to be the only GUI, but it would add a ton of functionality to ReactOS.
    • How hard would it be to port XFree86 to ReactOS? It would give you an instant GUI. OS/2 has XFree86, so it would seem ReactOS could have it too. It doesn't have to be the only GUI, but it would add a ton of functionality to ReactOS.

      Pretty easy. Just run it using Cygwin! *GRIN*
  • The guys working ReactOS might want to be careful. Spirent Communications has a product called REACT, very popular in the systems/OSS world for testing large communications system. And it's a software product. Were this to ever be popular, they might have some problems with it, figuring the way big companies love to sue nowadays.

    Do a little homework before picking those cool names, folks. Save you a lot of pain down the road.
    • You know, someday down the road there will be no names left to name anything. Then there will be the usual bickering of copyright BS. I can now understand why every homebrew linux app has some unpronouncable name. All the pronouncable ones are gone. Perhaps clownpenis.fart isn't too far away.

  • Senseless. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FreeLinux ( 555387 ) on Sunday February 02, 2003 @05:37PM (#5211760)
    First off, this is "supposed" to be a drop in replacement for Windows NT 4.0. Why? Even Microsoft is trying to abandon NT 4.0.

    But, Ok you want a drop in replacement for NT 4.0. So, where is the GUI? There is no GUI. Second, but perhaps most importantly, where is the file system support. This thing uses FAT32. Windows NT 4.0 can use FAT32 but, its primary file system is NTFS.

    How can they possibly call it a seamless replacement for NT 4.0 with no GUI and no NTFS file system. I'm sorry but, renaming FreeDos utilities to try to emulate the CMD.EXE shell is hardly a substitute for NT 4.0 and I won't even mention Windows 2000.

    • Re:Senseless. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by JasonFilby ( 100501 )
      Perhaps you missed the part where its written "Version 0.1.0".
    • nitpicking point here, but nt4 doesn't support fat32, just fat (and vfat w/ long filenames), hpfs, and ntfs.
    • you did notice that this is a 0.1.0 release right? you are aware that linux at the release point was next to useless.
    • It's version 0.1.0 . You have to start somewhere. Would you have preferred that they just announce that they are going to do it and wait to tell anyone where they're at until their product has advanced beyond Windows NT? That's not really the Open Source approach, is it?

    • Re:Senseless. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Gatton ( 17748 ) on Sunday February 02, 2003 @07:10PM (#5212200)
      For one thing you have to start somewhere. If you'd read the article you'd know that it isn't planned to be compatible with NT 4.0 only. They're thinking ahead and planning for all future iterations of NT (ie Win2k, XP etc.)

      Secondly, and I realize this has been mentioned by others already but I'll say it again, WHY are you berating a product at 0.1.0 for lacking features??? Your nick is FreeLinux, I wonder were you around for one of those .9x releases of Linux berating Linus for not having SMP or IDE support?

      I'm not a an OS or kernel hacker or any other type of programmer. But it seems to me this is exactly the type of project that many /. readers are interested in and if this intrigues even one talented OS programmer/enthusiast to contribute to the project then that's a good thing for ReactOS.

    • Re:Senseless. (Score:3, Informative)

      by soulsteal ( 104635 )
      Windows NT 4.0 doesn't have native support for FAT32. NT 4.0 only has support for FAT12, FAT16, and NTFS (version varying on SP level.)

      To have NT4 support FAT32, you need 3rd party software drivers like this [sysinternals.com].

    • Re:Senseless. (Score:2, Informative)

      by KJKHyperion ( 593204 )
      First off, this is "supposed" to be a drop in replacement for Windows NT 4.0. Why?

      Because it's the most realistical goal we could choose

      Even Microsoft is trying to abandon NT 4.0

      They're abandoning the product. Not the architecture. Nor the codebase. It's not the dead-end you think it is

      I'm sorry but, renaming FreeDos utilities to try to emulate the CMD.EXE shell is hardly a substitute for NT 4.0

      It's not "supposed to be", it "aims to be"

  • Finally! A useful OSS project! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NineNine ( 235196 ) on Sunday February 02, 2003 @06:35PM (#5212054)
    Well, I'm exaggerating a bit. VNC is useful. This is one I'm definitely trying. There's no way in hell I'm gutting my servers to move to a *nix, but if I can get a free copy of NT for servers, I'm all for it. I can see this, if it works as advertised, as becoming a *major* player in the server market, potentially dwarfing any Linux distros.
    • Because, of course, Apache, PHP, Squid, CVS, Linux and FreeBSD are all pointless hey...

      Just because *you* have no use for any of the above, it doesn't mean they're pointless.

      Over half [netcraft.com] of the internet's webservers run on apache, a large percentage of those use PHP. I'd put money on the fact that Squid caches more traffic than all the other web cache applications combined, and we all know that real [netcraft.com] web/ftp servers run either FreeBSD or Linux, if they don't run a commercial Unix.

      smash.

    • Oh and one more thing...

      You may get a free copy of the NT kernel, maybe even the core OS, with ReactOS, but what server apps are you going to run on it?

      Going to shell out for a copy of IIS or Exchange?

      Or are you going to turn to open source applications as well?

      If you go for the second option, you're most likely going to have exactly the same user interface for your applications (ie, configuring via text files), which somewhat nullifies the "ease of use" point of having an NT compatible OS.

      If you go for the first option... well.. the costs of Exchange or whatever MS calls the IIS suite these days (the name escapes me at the moment) make the cost for NT server look insignificant..

      Sure more drivers will be nice, however, if you pick your server hardware correctly these days, drivers aren't an usually an issue anymore - the main server devices you need are network cards and disk controllers - the manufacturers of which both seems to be supporting OSS development a lot better these days.

      smash.

    • I can see this, if it works as advertised, as becoming a *major* player in the server market, potentially dwarfing any Linux distros.

      I can see pigs flying too, but only when I take enough acid.

  • Why? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Old Wolf ( 56093 ) on Sunday February 02, 2003 @06:35PM (#5212057)
    My question: what's the point?

    We all know that NT4 microkernel is good and the reason it crashes so much is because people install drivers with bugs.

    The same drivers will crash, regardless of whether the rest of the system is open or not..
    • Think further. Did you seee any OS crashed while it resided on CD on the shelf?

      No system crash until it's installed and run. So, the new generation of very stable systems should not be installed and should not run. The most stable computer is the one with its power off.

  • Driver Development Kit (DDK) accessability (Score:4, Informative)

    by simonharvey ( 605068 ) on Sunday February 02, 2003 @09:51PM (#5212799) Homepage
    There might be a problem with using the Windows NT v4.0 driver model since microsoft is no longer distrubuted the Windows NT4 Driver DDKs on its website (they have been depreciated).

    The only thing to do is implement the Windows XP WDM that will be compatible with previous drivers
    see www.microsoft.com/ddk [microsoft.com] for details

    [But I do think they are building something with alot of potential]
  • It's hard to get excited about version 0.1 of an OS that will eventually be compatible with a retired [microsoft.com] OS.

    What's the point? Oooh, a free MS compatible OS. You know what? It's not worth it. It will never be 100% compatible right out of the box. If you figure in the time spent chasing down bug fixes, patches, etc, it would be more cost effective to just buy a copy of Windows. Don't want to give money to MS? Then buy stock in MS so you'll be an owner and profit from it. With your profits you can then support free software development efforts.
  • ...the invention of a round device capable of being mounted on a "carriage" was unvieled today. This new device promises to revolutionize the methods of transportation.

  • holy mother of god :P (Score:3, Funny)

    by linuxghoul ( 16059 ) on Monday February 03, 2003 @01:28AM (#5213515) Journal
    i just downloaded the prebuilt "bochs+freedos+freebios+reactos" distibution from the website onto my rh8.0 box, unzipped it and found that its for windows. My first reflex after seeing the bochs.exe was to run it under wine...and it worked FLAWLESSLY. So there i was, running a free clone of windows NT on a pc emulator (which uses cygwin.dll to run under windows) running under a windows (non) emulator running under linux on an AMD cpu...

    surreal, aye? i dunno if theres a point to this...just thot i'd let u guys in on the fun :P

    ps: btw, if any one tries it, and runs winhello.exe from the bin directory, and figures out how to get back to the reactos prompt from there, please msg below...

    Ghoul

Slashdot Top Deals

Without life, Biology itself would be impossible.

Close