FSF - priority-projects
Moderator: Moderator Team
FSF - priority-projects
I have come across this FSF website and ReactOS is not listed there. Would it be of benifit to the ReactOS project if it were!
Please keep the Windows classic 9x/2000 look and feel.
The layman's guides - debugging - bug reporting - compiling - ISO remaster.
They may help you with a problem, so do have a look at them.
The layman's guides - debugging - bug reporting - compiling - ISO remaster.
They may help you with a problem, so do have a look at them.
- EmuandCo
- Developer
- Posts: 4734
- Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:52 pm
- Location: Germany, Bavaria, Steinfeld
- Contact:
Re: FSF - priority-projects
FSF hates us for not fighting to kill windows and it's architecture. Will not happen.
ReactOS is still in alpha stage, meaning it is not feature-complete and is recommended only for evaluation and testing purposes.
If my post/reply offends or insults you, be sure that you know what sarcasm is...
If my post/reply offends or insults you, be sure that you know what sarcasm is...
Re: FSF - priority-projects
While the above is somewhat an exaggeration, the FSF does not approve of the project's neutral stance regarding proprietary software and so would never list us for that reason.
Re: FSF - priority-projects
Also, even if the FSF would approve the project, it wouldn't be a priority for the FSF, as they don't really care about the actual architecture (they don't hate the Windows architecture, either), but they do care about having a working, free (as in speech) system. And that already exists, and there are several of them, and most of them also ship in proper FLOSS-only flavours, so that niche is spectacularly filled, from the POV of the FSF. See how GNU/Hurd isn't listed either. Again, that's because they already have a working FLOSS OS.
I don't think they care about the architecture used, it's far more along the lines of what Z98 said. They are against proprietary software, and ReactOS is neutral about it, and one of the biggest reasons to use it is if you depend on some closed software that isn't ported (otherwise, you could theoretically port it yourself), so they probably see it as promoting the use of proprietary software. That says nothing about them liking or not the architecture, and AFAIK their moral doesn't claim any value of good or evil to such thing.EmuandCo wrote:FSF hates us for not fighting to kill windows and it's architecture. Will not happen.
-
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 11:57 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Contact:
Re: FSF - priority-projects
A bit off-topic, but one reason I dislike the FSF: They don't realise that not everybody wants to take a look at, or cares about, the source code.mrugiero wrote:I don't think they care about the architecture used, it's far more along the lines of what Z98 said. They are against proprietary software, and ReactOS is neutral about it, and one of the biggest reasons to use it is if you depend on some closed software that isn't ported (otherwise, you could theoretically port it yourself), so they probably see it as promoting the use of proprietary software.
Just think of ReactOS as the XP beta, Whistler.
Re: FSF - priority-projects
They do realize that, they specifically say people who can't program can still feel assured that those who can are able to review and modify the source, whereas with proprietary programs you're stuck with what you've got, spyware and all.The_French_Rat wrote: A bit off-topic, but one reason I dislike the FSF: They don't realise that not everybody wants to take a look at, or cares about, the source code.
Though on-topic, I do think it's a bit hypocritical of the FSF, as GNU was only meant to be a Unix because it was the most popular thing, and several people have said it would probably have been NT-based if it were started a few years later.
Re: FSF - priority-projects
They do realize that. They never state everyone should look at the code, they state everyone should have the right to if they want to. If you want to never come accross the source code, you can pay someone to do so for you. You do when you buy a Windows license, and you do when you donate to a FLOSS project.The_French_Rat wrote:A bit off-topic, but one reason I dislike the FSF: They don't realise that not everybody wants to take a look at, or cares about, the source code.mrugiero wrote:I don't think they care about the architecture used, it's far more along the lines of what Z98 said. They are against proprietary software, and ReactOS is neutral about it, and one of the biggest reasons to use it is if you depend on some closed software that isn't ported (otherwise, you could theoretically port it yourself), so they probably see it as promoting the use of proprietary software.
And where is the hypocrisy? They chose the UNIX architecture, but surely they didn't choose a closed source license. They chose something that worked and made a free implementation. They now have something that works, so they don't feel the need to reinvent the wheel, and that makes sense, priority wise. If your organization is about free software, but not about a specific way of working, the priority is having a system you can use that is free. ReactOS wouldn't be a priority in this scenario for the basic fact that it is a different way of doing things for which they already have filled the niche. People who support ReactOS will consider it a better way, of course. But better is not necessarily the priority, when you can already work with what you got and there are several areas where you are lacking. For the OS POV, the FSF mission is already accomplished, we've got a usable, working implementation of an OS that enables you to work virtually in every scenario. Is it the best? Certainly not in every scenario, but it still provides the basic functionality needed.Konata wrote:They do realize that, they specifically say people who can't program can still feel assured that those who can are able to review and modify the source, whereas with proprietary programs you're stuck with what you've got, spyware and all.The_French_Rat wrote: A bit off-topic, but one reason I dislike the FSF: They don't realise that not everybody wants to take a look at, or cares about, the source code.
Though on-topic, I do think it's a bit hypocritical of the FSF, as GNU was only meant to be a Unix because it was the most popular thing, and several people have said it would probably have been NT-based if it were started a few years later.
Re: FSF - priority-projects
ActuallyKonata wrote:GNU was only meant to be a Unix
and many of GNU packages run happily on other platforms. Even the kernel, heart of the OS, was supposed to be different, but things did not happened this way. So we got a more conservative-one, rather than a revolutionary-one. Is it good or bad is anybody say, but, as mrugiero points out, it is already here and do a (good) job, so no point to waste more time on that. Especially since FSF have a bitter experience with the delays in the development of the other, "real", kernel.GNU's Not Unix
Finally, *nix services can be run on top of NT kernel, so the rest of the GNU packages can, potentially, run on top of ROS with (minimal) modifications. The implementation of such a system is left as an exercise to the reader.
Re: FSF - priority-projects
oldman wrote:I have come across this FSF website and ReactOS is not listed there. Would it be of benifit to the ReactOS project if it were!
Well... it's about 'high priority' open source projects. (high priority for them, that is, in establishing a fully 'independent' open source ecosystem) It sort of makes sense they don't put ROS in there. It's primarily focussed on breaking the real or quasi-monopoly of closed-source programs that are widely used but don't have an open-source equivalent yet.
For OS'es, I think they consider that there are enough other, open source variants already around (BSD, Linux, Haiku, ROS, etc.) Even when Windows is still dominant in the PC-market, there are enough alternatives and equivalents in Open Source available.
Re: FSF - priority-projects
I agree with most of your post, but I'm not sure if the GNU name as GNU's Not Unix is meant as "we don't follow the Unix philosophy/standards" but rather as "this is an independent implementation of a Unix-like OS with some freedom to vary some things, and a lot of freedom to be modified". More like a statement made to point out there was no copyright infringement and that it was free software. Again, maybe I need better history lessons, but that's how I always thought it was meant to be read.fred02 wrote:ActuallyKonata wrote:GNU was only meant to be a Unixand many of GNU packages run happily on other platforms. Even the kernel, heart of the OS, was supposed to be different, but things did not happened this way. So we got a more conservative-one, rather than a revolutionary-one. Is it good or bad is anybody say, but, as mrugiero points out, it is already here and do a (good) job, so no point to waste more time on that. Especially since FSF have a bitter experience with the delays in the development of the other, "real", kernel.GNU's Not Unix
Finally, *nix services can be run on top of NT kernel, so the rest of the GNU packages can, potentially, run on top of ROS with (minimal) modifications. The implementation of such a system is left as an exercise to the reader.
Re: FSF - priority-projects
Yes, I agree with you, the interpretation it a moot point. For myself, I read it as "GNU's is not (only) Unix" or "GNU's is not (only for/about) Unix".
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 80 guests