Back to Website

Version compatibility

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

Version compatibility

Postby oldman » Fri Jan 12, 2018 11:08 am

A layman's guide to compiling - debugging - bug reporting.
oldman
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 1:23 pm

Re: Version compatibility

Postby karlexceed » Fri Jan 12, 2018 4:45 pm

:D
karlexceed
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 6:17 pm

Re: Version compatibility

Postby ROCKNROLLKID » Fri Jan 12, 2018 7:20 pm

Very early work and still missing a ton of nt6+ compatibility, but still quite an accomplishment. Congratulations guys.
ROCKNROLLKID
 
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:19 am

Re: Version compatibility

Postby reactosuser7 » Mon Jan 15, 2018 7:00 am

ROCKNROLLKID wrote:Very early work and still missing a ton of nt6+ compatibility, but still quite an accomplishment. Congratulations guys.


I asume that ' One-Core API ' is helping ReactOS in this task.

From https://www.reactos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16187 :

*removed*
reactosuser7
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:53 pm

Re: Version compatibility

Postby learn_more » Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:09 pm

reactosuser7 wrote:
ROCKNROLLKID wrote:Very early work and still missing a ton of nt6+ compatibility, but still quite an accomplishment. Congratulations guys.


I asume that ' One-Core API ' is helping ReactOS in this task.

From https://www.reactos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16187 :
*removed*

not at all, and please stop linking to it.
learn_more
Developer
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2014 10:00 pm

Re: Version compatibility

Postby Konata » Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:10 am

How did I miss this? This is incredible :D

This makes me want to ask a semi-related question. So, aside from implementing APIs, how much work would go into making ReactOS a complete NT6 instead of just emulation layers? What would be left after Windows 7 mode is completed? Aside from obvious stuff like UAC and moving the user out of User0. What kind of core system changes are yet to be done? I mean obviously after Server 2003 compatibility is achieved so the target system can be moved to NT6.
I hope I don't come off as impatient or ungrateful asking this, it just got me thinking is all. I'm overjoyed by this development! I didn't expect it to happen without changing the target to NT6 first.
Konata
 
Posts: 390
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 8:54 pm

Re: Version compatibility

Postby dsp8195 » Wed Jan 17, 2018 9:20 pm

UAC is garbage. TrustedInstaller is garbage. Symlinks are garbage that made impossible to install NT6 onto FAT32, not to mention that directory redirections only added unneeded and unwanted complexity with virtually zero benefits, including the security aspect. Administrating or repairing NT6+ is a total nightmare.

Everything that forced power users to wrestle with file permissions and file management in general in NT6 is better not to be implemented at all. Or at least not implemented in such a way so it wouldn't be possible to disable nor permanently remove it from the system in question.
dsp8195
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 5:35 am

Re: Version compatibility

Postby Konata » Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:14 pm

dsp8195 wrote:UAC is garbage. TrustedInstaller is garbage. Symlinks are garbage that made impossible to install NT6 onto FAT32, not to mention that directory redirections only added unneeded and unwanted complexity with virtually zero benefits, including the security aspect. Administrating or repairing NT6+ is a total nightmare.

Everything that forced power users to wrestle with file permissions and file management in general in NT6 is better not to be implemented at all. Or at least not implemented in such a way so it wouldn't be possible to disable nor permanently remove it from the system in question.


I think if the project ever wants to gain ground in the business world, it's going to need security measures. If that's the case, may as well go with what Microsoft already designed. I agree that more options to disable some UAC features and other security features in general would be nice, but outright not adding those security features that Windows sysadmins are already trained in and expect to be there will be pretty disappointed. Me included. At least for me, it's not an opinion, I need those features, it's not something I can afford settle with. I really like to think ReactOS has the potential to be more than just something to run games on, the potential to actually power high-grade servers and business solutions.

I don't know if the team plans to add features like UAC. I also don't know if they plan to have all the security features disabled. They didn't add a CLI boot option to ReactOS outside of the extremely-limited recovery console (not since I last checked, anyway), so I don't know if they'll allow disabling security features either. Maybe a developer can tell us if there's any plans at all, yet. I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't, given NT6 isn't the target yet, so there isn't much of a need to talk about stuff like that right now. There's currently way more pressing matters and all.
Konata
 
Posts: 390
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 8:54 pm

Re: Version compatibility

Postby val » Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:37 am

dsp8195 wrote:UAC is garbage. TrustedInstaller is garbage. Symlinks are garbage that made impossible to install NT6 onto FAT32, not to mention that directory redirections only added unneeded and unwanted complexity with virtually zero benefits, including the security aspect. Administrating or repairing NT6+ is a total nightmare.

Everything that forced power users to wrestle with file permissions and file management in general in NT6 is better not to be implemented at all. Or at least not implemented in such a way so it wouldn't be possible to disable nor permanently remove it from the system in question.

What a valuable opinion. Judging by the concentration of the word "garbage" per line, this power user does know the real value of his/her opinion. I am sure those who really do something for this project would not get confused with it too.
And yet:
Symlinks are garbage that made impossible to install NT6 onto FAT32

:lol:
I like FAT for its simplicity and speed, and it still has its strong place (phones, thumb drives, SD cards, EFI system partition). But anyone willing to install OS on FAT shouldn't be given access to administering anything other than their phones.
val
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 5:22 am

Re: Version compatibility

Postby learn_more » Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:44 pm

val wrote:
dsp8195 wrote:UAC is garbage. TrustedInstaller is garbage. Symlinks are garbage that made impossible to install NT6 onto FAT32, not to mention that directory redirections only added unneeded and unwanted complexity with virtually zero benefits, including the security aspect. Administrating or repairing NT6+ is a total nightmare.

Everything that forced power users to wrestle with file permissions and file management in general in NT6 is better not to be implemented at all. Or at least not implemented in such a way so it wouldn't be possible to disable nor permanently remove it from the system in question.

What a valuable opinion. Judging by the concentration of the word "garbage" per line, this power user does know the real value of his/her opinion. I am sure those who really do something for this project would not get confused with it too.
And yet:
Symlinks are garbage that made impossible to install NT6 onto FAT32

:lol:
I like FAT for its simplicity and speed, and it still has its strong place (phones, thumb drives, SD cards, EFI system partition). But anyone willing to install OS on FAT shouldn't be given access to administering anything other than their phones.

+1
learn_more
Developer
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2014 10:00 pm

Re: Version compatibility

Postby dsp8195 » Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:05 am

Sorry to burst your bubble, Val, but personal insults will led you nowhere.

Over my life I've met a metric ton of scenarios where UAC, TrustedInstaller, the symlinks and even NTFS itself caused various breakages or outright bricked the devices. Aside doing my job as an admin, I've been repairing stuff of my friends, my family and friends of their friends. I've seen:

* Devices infected with trojans and rootkits despite the UAC and TrustedInstaller still being turned on - both of them actively prevented obviously malicious files from being deleted and their services to be disabled - it was frustrating and annoying as heck.
* NTFS drives logically falling apart after sudden power outage - the only way of restoring those was with third-party application that read the intact copy of MFT and pulled the files onto another hard drive, one by one. This barely ever happened with FAT32 (in my practice - just once, and the drive in question was physically dying).
* Symlinks that were locking the system into endless loop on either file search or mere Explorer loading the Desktop.

I'm happy™ that you never experienced anything bad with them. I did and I don't want to experience the same things with ReactOS. Period.
dsp8195
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 5:35 am

Re: Version compatibility

Postby dizt3mp3r » Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:23 am

dsp, Val's comments are often infused with venom or derogatory comments, snide comments that are insiduously meant to put someone down. It is an unfortunate side of his character. We would say he wasn't brought up well.

With regard to UAC, it is a shoddy security model. However, it has to be implemented if ReactOS is going to be taken seriously as a drop-in replacement for Windows - and that is what the world will expect.

There are better security models that we could apply but we can't have one and the other. We have to decide whether to have a security model or not and if we have one it unfortunately has to be UAC.

I would suggest a thorough implementation of UAC with all its usability/implementation faults even though I hate it. Bugs and quirks could be ironed out. Additional controls could be added that mean that some features of UAC could be improved. I'm not suggesting any improvements here as it is too early.

NT5 has not yet been reached and I feel redesigning NT6 is premature given that NT5 compatibility/stability has not yet been achieved. Let's rein in the NT6 horses and return them to the stable.

Question for you: If you had a supported version of XP and it could run NT6 programs would you be happy? It may be enough to simply achieve that.
dizt3mp3r
 
Posts: 1055
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 5:54 pm

Re: Version compatibility

Postby dsp8195 » Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:45 pm

dizt3mp3r wrote:Question for you: If you had a supported version of XP and it could run NT6 programs would you be happy? It may be enough to simply achieve that.

Yes. And this is exactly what I've achieved on my rig so far. Not in their entirety, but thanks to cross-compiled libs from Wine and a bit of HEX editing, I've managed to run plenty of "newer" applications on XP x64 SP2 with virtually no problems. Hope ROS will eventually be able to do the same with no need of manual patching.
dsp8195
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 5:35 am

Re: Version compatibility

Postby Konata » Sat Jan 20, 2018 5:38 am

dsp8195 wrote:* Devices infected with trojans and rootkits despite the UAC and TrustedInstaller still being turned on - both of them actively prevented obviously malicious files from being deleted and their services to be disabled - it was frustrating and annoying as heck.


So misusing a feature means that feature just shouldn't exist? Microsoft is full-aware of how Windows could be better secured, they came up with the best compromise they could between average user interaction and letting programs even do anything in the first place.

* NTFS drives logically falling apart after sudden power outage - the only way of restoring those was with third-party application that read the intact copy of MFT and pulled the files onto another hard drive, one by one. This barely ever happened with FAT32 (in my practice - just once, and the drive in question was physically dying).


FAT32 is a bare-bones filesystem that is extremely prone to file corruption. It's missing features that are considered critical and absolutely necessary by modern filesystem driver standards, at least to run a desktop operating system on, especially one as heavy-duty as Windows NT. You're saying FAT32 better over NTFS because of one little NTFS bug? Are you mad? With that kind of logic, why even use Windows? That has a few glitches, I think it's better if we just throw the whole thing away and go back to using Altair 8800 switches to input our program directly.

I don't know why you even responded with this.
Konata
 
Posts: 390
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 8:54 pm

Re: Version compatibility

Postby dizt3mp3r » Sat Jan 20, 2018 1:31 pm

they came up with the best compromise they could between average user interaction and letting programs even do anything in the first place.


I'm not convinced by this one line though I'd accept the rest of what you said.

Should we just accept that we've all had negative experiences with Windows 'features' and that all that negative experience is relevant in the context. We all know that Microsoft could have done it better and that is why were are here? If ReactOS could improve on the implementation as well as replicate it then we would be in a better place...

UAC will be the outcome I am certain but with some minor tweaks to make it very slightly more relevant, I suppose that is what we should be considering rather than jousting over an opinion here or there.
dizt3mp3r
 
Posts: 1055
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 5:54 pm

Next

Return to General Discussion and Feedback

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests