ReactOS Forum

On this website distrowatch.com it mentions ReactOS with links. It also list "packages" but I see these packages are for Linux?
should I contact them instead?

mmns944n6 wrote:On this website distrowatch.com it mentions ReactOS with links. It also list "packages" but I see these packages are for Linux?
should I contact them instead?

Let me say it this way: the devs won't care about all this stuff, at least, not to the point they'll bother to do anything about it.

I suggest you do it yourself, yes... though I can't give any(re)assurances as to what the reaction of the higher ups might be if they perceive it as being too meddling or whatever. There was already a debate on selling ROS-DVD's but without giving a warning that it's alpha (which I thought is the most important), though it rather was about them having to explicitly say they weren't supported by ROS (form the devs stance). Point is and was: not all suggestions are welcomed. Then again, I don't see anything wrong with what you propose, so it probably won't create any waves, as long as you don't expect them to put any effort in it.

That said: are you sure the packages have nothing to do with Reactos?

I think that the devs are well aware of the listing on DistroWatch.com. jedi-to-be posted about it's ranking on DistroWatch in this thread viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13744; it's now down to 43.

I have looked on DistroWatch.com and can only see links to reactos.org! Have you a link to the files in question?

The packages are a bit below in here: http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=reactos

Distrowatch seems to be mostly Linux-oriented, but it also has BSD, Haiku and other opensource operating systems/distributions, so there's also ReactOS. Since it's Linux-oriented, there are packages expected which are standard on Linux.

mmns944n6 wrote:On this website distrowatch.com it mentions ReactOS with links. It also list "packages" but I see these packages are for Linux?
should I contact them instead?

Magic 8 Ball says, "Reply hazy try again."

I am even more puzzled than the Magic 8 Ball. I do not understand your inquiry. What do you intend to contact distrowatch.com about? Who else do you believe you should contact instead?

If you believe the operators of distrowatch.com have inaccurate or obsolete information about ReactOS, nothing prevents you from finding the correct information and passing it yourself to the operators of distrowatch.com.

If you have a specific question about ReactOS, perhaps about building or installing ReactOS in a Linux environment, the ReactOS.org Support forum is a good place to ask your question. You may also browse the ReactOS.org Wiki for information about ReactOS. Both the ReactOS forum and wiki have search boxes. You may also download the latest release, 0.3.17, or the latest Daily Build from the ReactOS.org home page.

@middings, I know how it goes here with the 1-post accounts, but this one is actually a completely valid question, if only in less than perfect English. See my link in previous post, it does look a bit confusing.

Webunny wrote:

mmns944n6 wrote:On this website distrowatch.com it mentions ReactOS with links. It also list "packages" but I see these packages are for Linux?
should I contact them instead?

Let me say it this way: the devs won't care about all this stuff, at least, not to the point they'll bother to do anything about it.

I suggest you do it yourself, yes... though I can't give any(re)assurances as to what the reaction of the higher ups might be if they perceive it as being too meddling or whatever. There was already a debate on selling ROS-DVD's but without giving a warning that it's alpha (which I thought is the most important), though it rather was about them having to explicitly say they weren't supported by ROS (form the devs stance). Point is and was: not all suggestions are welcomed. Then again, I don't see anything wrong with what you propose, so it probably won't create any waves, as long as you don't expect them to put any effort in it.

That said: are you sure the packages have nothing to do with Reactos?

Second warning. Next time you are tryin to air your grief in a response to a thread that has nothing to do with your complaints about the project, it will be an automatic ban. We already told you more than once!

I'm keeping track of this distrowatch thingy already for a few years, and I can tell you: for many years ReactOS was absolutely invisible. It could be "found" if you were to search under "other OS". We can be "happy to have such problems".

As to the packages - yes, they ARE Linux-specific. Something like "libgnome" makes no sense on ReactOS whatsoever.

That said, a few of the other OSes have the same issue - the distrowatch people apparently then just remove the nonsensical packages:

http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=kolibri

http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=risc

EmuandCo wrote:

Webunny wrote:

mmns944n6 wrote:On this website distrowatch.com it mentions ReactOS with links. It also list "packages" but I see these packages are for Linux?
should I contact them instead?

Let me say it this way: the devs won't care about all this stuff, at least, not to the point they'll bother to do anything about it.

I suggest you do it yourself, yes... though I can't give any(re)assurances as to what the reaction of the higher ups might be if they perceive it as being too meddling or whatever. There was already a debate on selling ROS-DVD's but without giving a warning that it's alpha (which I thought is the most important), though it rather was about them having to explicitly say they weren't supported by ROS (form the devs stance). Point is and was: not all suggestions are welcomed. Then again, I don't see anything wrong with what you propose, so it probably won't create any waves, as long as you don't expect them to put any effort in it.

That said: are you sure the packages have nothing to do with Reactos?

Second warning. Next time you are tryin to air your grief in a response to a thread that has nothing to do with your complaints about the project, it will be an automatic ban. We already told you more than once!

If you look back, you'll see that the link to both issues both came from distrowatch, and in both instances it deals with what to do about it. I was merely stating the fact that suggesting some action is not always appreciated or acted upon by the devs/PR. Which is (certainly on the forum) true, in a purely factual manner. This has nothing to do with 'airing your grief' this time.

Webunny wrote:
Let me say it this way: the devs won't care about all this stuff, at least, not to the point they'll bother to do anything about it.

I suggest you do it yourself, yes... though I can't give any(re)assurances as to what the reaction of the higher ups might be if they perceive it as being too meddling or whatever. There was already a debate on selling ROS-DVD's but without giving a warning that it's alpha (which I thought is the most important), though it rather was about them having to explicitly say they weren't supported by ROS (form the devs stance). Point is and was: not all suggestions are welcomed. Then again, I don't see anything wrong with what you propose, so it probably won't create any waves, as long as you don't expect them to put any effort in it.

The above commentary constitutes an attempt on your part to air your grievances in an off-topic manner. The warning stands. We will not be offering any further explanations on this warning seeing as those explanations have generally been ignored by you. If the situation arises that would warrant a third warning, it will be an automatic ban.

Regarding the "packages" on distrowatch, their site is set up to apply that labeling system to any operating system they track regardless of whether it is a Linux distro or not. Note how the BSDs have a "linux" package despite obviously not having the Linux kernel. As such there is nothing to contact them about, since changing the page would require a reworking of their site structure.

Z98 wrote:

Webunny wrote:
Let me say it this way: the devs won't care about all this stuff, at least, not to the point they'll bother to do anything about it.

I suggest you do it yourself, yes... though I can't give any(re)assurances as to what the reaction of the higher ups might be if they perceive it as being too meddling or whatever. There was already a debate on selling ROS-DVD's but without giving a warning that it's alpha (which I thought is the most important), though it rather was about them having to explicitly say they weren't supported by ROS (form the devs stance). Point is and was: not all suggestions are welcomed. Then again, I don't see anything wrong with what you propose, so it probably won't create any waves, as long as you don't expect them to put any effort in it.

The above commentary constitutes an attempt on your part to air your grievances in an off-topic manner. The warning stands. We will not be offering any further explanations on this warning seeing as those explanations have generally been ignored by you. If the situation arises that would warrant a third warning, it will be an automatic ban.

Regarding the "packages" on distrowatch, their site is set up to apply that labeling system to any operating system they track regardless of whether it is a Linux distro or not. Note how the BSDs have a "linux" package despite obviously not having the Linux kernel. As such there is nothing to contact them about, since changing the page would require a reworking of their site structure.

"There was already a debate " is not an utterance of grievances, but a statement of fact. One seems to deem every reference to it as a default complaining, but in that case I would like to know how to reference to it (I mean; the debate WAS there) *without* it being deemed to be 'airing my grievances'? According to me, it's rather personally focussed, since, if the above was said by anyone else than me, even in the exact same wording, it would not have been eligible for warnings and bannings - or at least, one would be hard pressed to claim he was 'airing his grievances', in that case. But soit, no use in trying to be rational about this with you, since I know it's futile. In fact, any further clarification, let alone protest, could well be deemed the right excuse to ban me outright, which, imho, is the whole point of suddenly becoming so stringent with everything I post these days. (Come on; as if others never give references to former posts or even go off topic, yet, all without warnings and banning-threats...)

As for your explanation on the distrowatch site, as far as I've checked, I think you are right. I didn't say the parent poster would get a positive reply, I just said he maybe wouldn't get a reply, since, let's face, things like that aren't really high priority for the devs. In this instance, he ultimately got one from you/PR, which is what he wanted, I guess. I think, thus, the answer to his question is: no, there is no need for contacting them. (?)

Webunny wrote:I would like to know how to reference to it (I mean; the debate WAS there) *without* it being deemed to be 'airing my grievances'?

One issue here is that it didn't need to be mentioned, as this topic has nothing to do with the debate you're referring to.

Webunny wrote:According to me, it's rather personally focussed, since, if the above was said by anyone else than me, even in the exact same wording, it would not have been eligible for warnings and bannings - or at least, one would be hard pressed to claim he was 'airing his grievances', in that case.

Another issue is wording. I think that no matter who did it, "the devs won't care about all this stuff" followed by a reference to a debate which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but which displays an instance of the poster getting into an argument with the official representatives of the project, would be a warning/ban inducing offence. To get the same point across while using some tact so as to not get in trouble, you could have said: "I doubt that the devs here will care about this issue, but if you want to contact DistroWatch and ask them to fix it, go ahead, though they might not do anything about it either."
And a third issue is history. I think the reason that it looks to you like it's personal, is that nobody else on the forums (right now) is in the precarious position of having repeatedly (and recently) pissed off the site admins (and you only have yourself to blame for being there yourself).

Z98 wrote:Regarding the "packages" on distrowatch, their site is set up to apply that labeling system to any operating system they track regardless of whether it is a Linux distro or not. Note how the BSDs have a "linux" package despite obviously not having the Linux kernel. As such there is nothing to contact them about, since changing the page would require a reworking of their site structure.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on such a change requiring "a reworking of their site structure" as the OS's that Aeneas linked (KolibriOS and RISC OS) do not list the irrelevant packages.
I would guess that the packages appear by default, but can be manually removed, but obviously ReactOS' listing has not had them manually removed. Thus I think that if someone wants to contact them about it, that would probably be a good idea.

Go for it, mmns944n6! see what DistroWatch says about it.

Strange, one would have presumed a major BSD like FreeBSD would have had the stuff removed by default. Unless they lumped all Unix-like systems under one category that defaults it to being shown.

justincase wrote:

Webunny wrote:I would like to know how to reference to it (I mean; the debate WAS there) *without* it being deemed to be 'airing my grievances'?

One issue here is that it didn't need to be mentioned, as this topic has nothing to do with the debate you're referring to.

Webunny wrote:According to me, it's rather personally focussed, since, if the above was said by anyone else than me, even in the exact same wording, it would not have been eligible for warnings and bannings - or at least, one would be hard pressed to claim he was 'airing his grievances', in that case.

Another issue is wording. I think that no matter who did it, "the devs won't care about all this stuff" followed by a reference to a debate which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but which displays an instance of the poster getting into an argument with the official representatives of the project, would be a warning/ban inducing offence. To get the same point across while using some tact so as to not get in trouble, you could have said: "I doubt that the devs here will care about this issue, but if you want to contact DistroWatch and ask them to fix it, go ahead, though they might not do anything about it either."
And a third issue is history. I think the reason that it looks to you like it's personal, is that nobody else on the forums (right now) is in the precarious position of having repeatedly (and recently) pissed off the site admins (and you only have yourself to blame for being there yourself).

Z98 wrote:Regarding the "packages" on distrowatch, their site is set up to apply that labeling system to any operating system they track regardless of whether it is a Linux distro or not. Note how the BSDs have a "linux" package despite obviously not having the Linux kernel. As such there is nothing to contact them about, since changing the page would require a reworking of their site structure.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on such a change requiring "a reworking of their site structure" as the OS's that Aeneas linked (KolibriOS and RISC OS) do not list the irrelevant packages.
I would guess that the packages appear by default, but can be manually removed, but obviously ReactOS' listing has not had them manually removed. Thus I think that if someone wants to contact them about it, that would probably be a good idea.

Go for it, mmns944n6! see what DistroWatch says about it.

Let's agree to disagree. Both were issues linked by distrowatch, and in both instances, there were questions what should and could be done. It's natural to reference what happened in a similar occurrence. If someone mentions a case of a shipwreck, and you make a reference to another shipwreck, one is hardpressed to claim there is no similarity or it's 'off-topic' - EVEN if the other person is not talking about the same shipwreck. And the wording was pretty neutral btw; I didn't say "the devs will not care about this issue" but "I can't give any (re)assurances as to what the reaction of the higher ups might be if they perceive it as being too meddling or whatever." Which is completely true, or do you deny that and think I could give assurances in such a case? I didn't even mention any pejorative adjectives anywhere, I just mentioned my stance back then, and the devs stance, within that debate where there was also raised a question about a link on distrowatch. Both viewpoints can be applied in this case too, so there you have yet another similarity.

But anyway, let's drop it, because we both know it's going nowhere.

In any case, now that there is some response to it, it seems diverging possibilities arise. The question rather is, should anyone notify distrowatch about it? The parent poster still didn't got an answer, so I think it's best - since there is no room for any off-topicness (as it were) - to just address this issue directly, now that devs/PR actually responded to it. He proposes to contact them. Should he; yes or no? If it doesn't matter (aka, it's just not of interest to the devs), I would venture to say: let him do so. If one rather does not wish so, it's good to give a clear answer as well. If one (devs/PR) prefers to take contact themselves (which I doubt will be the answer), it's best to let the parent poster know as well.

Dude, can you never let anything go? It's like if anyone in the world disagrees with you, you have a compulsive need to argue with them. You received a warning -- which the forum administrators have a right to issue -- so heed the warning and move on with your life. Or do you intend to argue until you get banned, since the ban would be a badge of honor for standing up to the tyranny of the freedom-of-speech-hating commies who banned you? Your rebuttals take the thread off topic, so please -- once again -- find somewhere more appropriate to air your grievances and keep the discussion in this thread to the topic of distrowatch.