ReactOS 0.1.0 Released 278
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.
Re:But Windows NT is not 2k... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:no gui (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: no gui (Score:3, Insightful)
And remember that it's already hard to buy new NT4 licenses and it will become even harder when MS completely stops selling them (except from eBay, of course).
Yes, a free (as in bird, not as in Willy) replacement for NT4 could save quite a lot of companies that did "embedded NT4" and the like on their products until they had time to reimplement it for something less braindead.
Is this a worthwhile project? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
XFree86 for ReactOS (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:But Windows NT is not 2k... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:no gui (Score:3, Insightful)
Excuse my pessimistic bashing, but how would one proceed in "configuring" the IIS or other apps. This would basically only allow running software specifically designed for command-line use (like a seti-client
And with these real NT4 headless boxes - well there's always VNC, which will allow to setup and administer the box as if you were actually sitting in front of it woth mon/key/mouse attached.
Re:How can this possibly be usefull? (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft has been able to buck this trend for over a decade with their unique mix of copyrights, trade secrets and customers locked into large investments of Win32/Office data and code. Microsoft competes on cost, but not against other companies. It competes against its customers' barriers to exiting the Windows corral. Each project that can create a new crack in those barriers reduces the cost Microsoft can charge for their software, thus saving money for the public at large.
Re:Senseless. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: no gui (Score:3, Insightful)
A "free" machine that could run IIS would be a killer in some Windows shops.
And how, exactly, would this be possible? IIS is not a separate product from Windows.
Re:Is this a worthwhile project? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
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..
Re:legal trouble ahead? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:The OS world from the 'GO' perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
"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.
I'll take a stab. (Score:2, Insightful)
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...
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.
Re:legal trouble ahead? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
The infirnite amount of developers. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Is this a worthwhile project? (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps I'm reading more into it than is actually there, but here goes:
I've never heard RMS talk, but I've read quite a bit that he's written. :)
Anyway, he writes that he wanted a free operating system so that people wouldn't have to use proprietary OSs.
That's what he writes. But based on other things that he says, namely on issues such as the LInux/Bitkeeper issue, the original TrollTech issue, and so forth, it appears that he actually wants to end the era of proprietary software. In that case, the logical conclusion then, is that he intended to destroy UNIX as proprietary software by destroying the proprietary software model.
I'm taking a certain liberty with the conclusion, I realize, but it does stand to reason, even if it's somehow false.
On to the other part. UNIX was the first chosen, and I've read where he has stated that he didn't know whether or not they would pursue others. There seems to be hints that he did intend to somehow implement all proprietary OSs in a free fashion, somehow. Maybe he's just come right out and said it, I don't know. I wish I could give a link or something, though.
However, if the original intention was to provide a free OS, and UNIX was chosen based on its popularity (and other factors), then it stands to reason that with Windows' popularity being what it is that perhaps Windows should be chosen as well. In that sense, then, ReactOS is similar in both substance and spirit. I do not know if that was the intention of the project or not, hwoever, and that ultimately determines the truth of my statement.