System utilities on ROS

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

EmuandCo
Developer
Posts: 4294
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Germany, Bavaria, Steinfeld
Contact:

Re: System utilities on ROS

Post by EmuandCo » Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:18 am

zydon wrote:ps - ROS project should be redefined not as Binary compatible, but as a Core and it's Environment compatible to the NT OS.
Why should we??!
Image
ReactOS is still in alpha stage, meaning it is not feature-complete and is recommended only for evaluation and testing purposes.

erkinalp
Posts: 824
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:55 pm

Re: System utilities on ROS

Post by erkinalp » Wed Jul 09, 2014 11:42 am

He most probably forgets that ReactOS is developed by thousandth of man-time of MS Windows division and wants more than API/ABI/UX of Windows. I do not agree, however.
-uses Ubuntu+GNOME 3 GNU/Linux
-likes Free (as in freedom) and Open Source Detergents
-favors open source of Windows 10 under GPL2

middings
Posts: 1005
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: System utilities on ROS

Post by middings » Wed Jul 09, 2014 5:12 pm

zydon wrote:ps - ROS project should be redefined not as Binary compatible, but as a Core and its Environment compatible to the NT OS.
Wow. Making such a big wish shows your enormous confidence in ReactOS's eventual success, zydon.
erkinalp wrote:He most probably forgets that ReactOS is developed by thousandth of man-time of MS Windows division and wants more than API/ABI/UX of Windows.
Perhaps. Or he thinks you ReactOS devs are supermen, gods of programming!

zydon
Posts: 160
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 9:03 am

Re: System utilities on ROS

Post by zydon » Wed Jul 09, 2014 5:24 pm

EmuandCo wrote:
zydon wrote:ps - ROS project should be redefined not as Binary compatible, but as a Core and it's Environment compatible to the NT OS.
Why should we??!
Because what has been produced so far, was more than what was claimed as a binary and driver compatible.

ROS should have it's own UI and it's own API architecture. Not a copies of MS Windows system binaries which is exchangeable between ROS and Windows. What should be happened when ROS run Win32 apps is it interpret those Win32 API calls and use it's own API engine to get the job done. The different is ROS should have an API Interpreter take charge when running Windows Application.

Those MS DLL alike files just a bunch of API interpreter script (or ROS owned API translator opcode) and just doesn't work under Windows system.

While the UI should be a different resulted a careful research and development that how ROS UI should be to match the idea of naming it ReactOS. ReactOS should have ReactUI. Not MS Windows UI. Isn't that MS Windows UI is copyrighted?

I guest, I don't have to say more why I suggest it should be redefined...

EmuandCo
Developer
Posts: 4294
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Germany, Bavaria, Steinfeld
Contact:

Re: System utilities on ROS

Post by EmuandCo » Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:32 pm

zydon wrote:Because what has been produced so far, was more than what was claimed as a binary and driver compatible.

ROS should have it's own UI and it's own API architecture. Not a copies of MS Windows system binaries which is exchangeable between ROS and Windows. What should be happened when ROS run Win32 apps is it interpret those Win32 API calls and use it's own API engine to get the job done. The different is ROS should have an API Interpreter take charge when running Windows Application.

Those MS DLL alike files just a bunch of API interpreter script (or ROS owned API translator opcode) and just doesn't work under Windows system.

While the UI should be a different resulted a careful research and development that how ROS UI should be to match the idea of naming it ReactOS. ReactOS should have ReactUI. Not MS Windows UI. Isn't that MS Windows UI is copyrighted?

I guest, I don't have to say more why I suggest it should be redefined...
Uuuh, nope. We don't aim for APP compatibility, but driver support, too. Your idea will make that impossible. We need low level compatibility with Windows and that's what we try to get. And nope, you cant fully copyright a UI, especially basic elements like a start menu or windows for apps.
Image
ReactOS is still in alpha stage, meaning it is not feature-complete and is recommended only for evaluation and testing purposes.

erkinalp
Posts: 824
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:55 pm

Re: System utilities on ROS

Post by erkinalp » Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:49 pm

However, it is possible to do whatever GNU did:Windows API/ABI+ReactOS specific extensions. You have to be sure you have not subtracting anything from Windows API otherwise binaries designed for Windows will fail.
-uses Ubuntu+GNOME 3 GNU/Linux
-likes Free (as in freedom) and Open Source Detergents
-favors open source of Windows 10 under GPL2

mrugiero
Posts: 482
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 9:12 am

Re: System utilities on ROS

Post by mrugiero » Thu Jul 10, 2014 2:06 pm

zydon wrote: Because what has been produced so far, was more than what was claimed as a binary and driver compatible.
Yes, it is more. Mainly because the mission statement explicitly says more is expected: it is not just API/ABI compatible, but retains the Windows look and feel.
ROS should have it's own UI and it's own API architecture. Not a copies of MS Windows system binaries which is exchangeable between ROS and Windows. What should be happened when ROS run Win32 apps is it interpret those Win32 API calls and use it's own API engine to get the job done. The different is ROS should have an API Interpreter take charge when running Windows Application.
Then why not *insert your favorite kernel and userland* + WINE? The mission statement is quite clear: ReactOS is here to fill a niche, as every software is. ReactOS' niche is that of a free implementation of a Windows NT OS. This means applications should be able to run unmodified, natively, at the very least, and the possibility full, unnoticeable (except for trademarks), constant learning curve migration from a Microsoft Windows OS. If you change the goal to just being able to run Windows programs, then your niche is already full: WINE currently does a better job at that, and Linux currently does a better job at being stable enough to use WINE on top of it.
Also, any kind of translator just adds overhead, and that's undesirable.
While the UI should be a different resulted a careful research and development that how ROS UI should be to match the idea of naming it ReactOS. ReactOS should have ReactUI. Not MS Windows UI. Isn't that MS Windows UI is copyrighted?
The desktop metaphor can't be copyrighted, AFAIK. And again, if you go too flexible, you go where the niche is full, and that kinda dooms the project to oblivion, as there are currently working solutions that people will look under a better light than ReactOS.
erkinalp wrote:However, it is possible to do whatever GNU did:Windows API/ABI+ReactOS specific extensions. You have to be sure you have not subtracting anything from Windows API otherwise binaries designed for Windows will fail.
That could be a source of conflict, though, as one advantage of ReactOS could be for developers to avoid paying a Windows license. Picture this situation: I develop mainly on Linux, but I try to keep my apps cross-platform. This means I need to test on Windows, or something close enough. My application works in ReactOS. Although it is not a 100% guarantee that it will work on Windows, I can be sure that if it does work in one but not in the other, it's either ReactOS' or Microsoft's fault. However, if ReactOS has its own extensions, then just testing on ReactOS won't cut it: I might have accidentally assumed some ReactOS specific feature is actually a Windows feature, and I made use of it. I'll state my app runs on Windows based on the fact it worked marvelously on ReactOS, just to find my inbox full of hatemail the next day.
Having smashed the gunpowder, I'd like to add that I like the idea of ReactOS extensions, but only if developers make it clearly explicit. Maybe an option in the control panel to completely disable them on runtime, so the scenario I described can be easily fixed.

erkinalp
Posts: 824
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:55 pm

Re: System utilities on ROS

Post by erkinalp » Thu Jul 10, 2014 2:50 pm

GNU has an environment variable, POSIXLY_CORRECT, which turns off some conflicting extensions and only leaving the most trivial extensions and what POSIX wants if defined. We can do this that way, using the environment variable BEHAVE_LIKE_WINDOWS(no Windows programmer would name an environment variable like this, for sure), and checking for it in APIs extended. Since we have compatibility workarounds, we may present an option to turn these on and off via Control Panel and shortcut settings(This also counts as a compatibility woraround-it will grow into a huge DB like MS did and most software will run perfectly-without end user noticing whether extensions are used except he looks explicitly for it). It may also be leveled (undefined or 0:extensions off, 1:only non-conflicting extensions-default, 2:conflicting extensions without removing any functionality, 3:all extensions on). If you want Windows reimplementation, clear the variable and voilá. If you want software for both sides, stick with the default. If you want to use only sofware specifically developed for ReactOS, 2 or 3 may be your favorite setting.
-uses Ubuntu+GNOME 3 GNU/Linux
-likes Free (as in freedom) and Open Source Detergents
-favors open source of Windows 10 under GPL2

ReactFan
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 2:07 pm

Re: System utilities on ROS

Post by ReactFan » Thu Jul 10, 2014 3:20 pm

The current concept of the API is good especially that this issue has been made good progress and at this stage of development of the system would not considered because I think that it went back to little development of the system to the rear.

alexei
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 5:29 pm

Re: System utilities on ROS

Post by alexei » Fri Jul 18, 2014 4:18 pm

I started this topic because I want ROS to be compatible with MS-Windows at low level.
"System utilities" failing on ROS would indicate that ROS is significantly different and we should expect unpleasant surprizes :(

I would gladly accept cutting off some "features" (see http://www.nliteos.com/), in exchange for stability and security.
I want core stuff that is rock stable and fully compatible with MS.
I don't want "security updates", I want secure and stable system that does not need them.
Decent programs run on all Windows versions starting with W2K and don't need "installations".
If something doesn't work on my nLited W2003, I consider it poor quality and find replacement that works :)

On a personal note, I really hate W7 start menu, tabbed browsing, animated /transparent windows and other "kitsch".

mrugiero
Posts: 482
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 9:12 am

Re: System utilities on ROS

Post by mrugiero » Sat Jul 19, 2014 6:38 pm

alexei wrote: I don't want "security updates", I want secure and stable system that does not need them.
That doesn't exist, and it never will.

karlexceed
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 6:17 pm
Contact:

Re: System utilities on ROS

Post by karlexceed » Mon Jul 21, 2014 6:44 am

I really like the idea of extended functionality; in fact, I was thinking about it the other day while browsing the design forum regarding themes and other non-functional, aesthetic choices. It seems like this would be a great longer-term goal in order to bring ReactOS above and beyond "just" a Windows clone.

Features like RApps are already an example of this happening, even though it's a stand-alone executable. OSX is a copy of BSD with it's own executables running on top ;) .

Imagine having the ability to choose a shell from the control panel - log out and boom! you're running LiteStep or SharpEnviro. Or, extending RApps to be a full-featured package manager with GUI and CLI interface, capable of scripted installs that can check dependencies, download items, compile if necessary, etc.

I guess in my mind it's more along the lines of embracing the wider Windows open source development community by making the added functionality that they bring a core feature of ROS. Of course, this would be for a desktop-use distribution, not a bare minimum Windows-compatible distro. Imagine a media player - lay out all of the requirements for ROS, find all FOSS media players that could fit the bill, and then pick the ideal candidate. Pull it into the 'repo' for DesktopROS and install the top one by default, list the others as optional installs in RApps.

erkinalp
Posts: 824
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:55 pm

Distributions on ROS

Post by erkinalp » Mon Jul 21, 2014 7:10 am

At least three distributions will exist on ReactOS:
-ReactOS Core:bare minimum
-ReactOS Standard(a.k.a.project Thorium)
-ReactOS Community Edition
We already expect ClassicShell, gamer and KDE Plasma folks will make their own distributions.
-uses Ubuntu+GNOME 3 GNU/Linux
-likes Free (as in freedom) and Open Source Detergents
-favors open source of Windows 10 under GPL2

mrugiero
Posts: 482
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 9:12 am

Re: System utilities on ROS

Post by mrugiero » Mon Jul 21, 2014 2:11 pm

karlexceed wrote:OSX is a copy of BSD with it's own executables running on top ;)
Actually, it isn't. Aside from small parts, there is no unmodified BSD pieces in OSX. The kernel, contrary to what the BSDs use, is a microkernel based in the Mach architecture. It does run some subsystems based on those of the BSD kernel. Then, most of the big pieces of userspace (init system, display server) are in-house creations. The init system was open sourced just a few months ago, and even though some users like it and are porting it, there is no BSD distribution that I know of that plans to make it the official choice. What they DO have in common that is important is that they prefer the BSD license and other liberal licenses when it comes to pieces they want to open source, as opposed to GPL and other copyleft licenses.
Maybe the network stack is shared, but I'm not sure about it.

For the rest of the post, although I do like the idea, I think that belongs to the distributions. "Official" ReactOS should, IMO, be minimal and be closely compatible in all of usability. Added features, for some users, mean a learning curve they do not want, and customizability means variability they don't want, as it's easier to troubleshoot a strict setup, and it's easier to do that the default and then let the distributors who want something different to add the extra features than to expect the other one to remove them.

erkinalp
Posts: 824
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:55 pm

Re: System utilities on ROS

Post by erkinalp » Mon Jul 21, 2014 3:08 pm

mrugiero wrote:For the rest of the post, although I do like the idea, I think that belongs to the distributions. "Official" ReactOS should, IMO, be minimal and be closely compatible in all of usability. Added features, ... a learning curve they do not want, and customizability means variability they don't want, as it's easier to troubleshoot a strict setup, and it's easier to do that the default and then let the distributors who want something different to add the extra features than to expect the other one to remove them.
It is impossible to have zero learning curve transistion between two different (albeit similar) things. However, extra features will get the same documentation as regular ones(meaning they will be documented in detail) so the learning curve will remain almost straight and be very short. Ones having a hard time would seek for ReactOS Product Key :D
-uses Ubuntu+GNOME 3 GNU/Linux
-likes Free (as in freedom) and Open Source Detergents
-favors open source of Windows 10 under GPL2

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest