Design considerations

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

Floyd
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:45 am
Location: The frozen part of the USA

Re: Vorg

Post by Floyd » Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:32 am

FSX wrote:
psychicist wrote:As a Linux user primarily I'm used to a system-wide location (/etc) where default settings are saved and individual settings files in the home directory can override those. KDE and GNOME also have the idea of registries but they have been implemented a lot better since they are collections of folders and individual Text/XML files presented as a single registries and there is no single point of failure. Just delete the faulty settings and move on.
Sorry to slam your bubble with a sledgehammer, but ROS ain't Linux. You want that design idea? Stick with Linux, or code it in to a custom ROS build yourself.
that's a poor attitude especially considering it's been used with great success with Mac--and it could actually ease some problems windows faces.
pax mei amici amorque et Iesus sacret omnia

Reacter
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:57 pm
Location: Tornado Alley

Post by Reacter » Tue Jul 17, 2007 7:55 am

Windows binary Registry: fatter, maybe a bit faster, and cannot be edited with edit when that program you just installed decides to play games.
More ReactOS, please!

psychicist
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:39 pm

Re: Vorg

Post by psychicist » Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:42 am

FSX wrote:Sorry to slam your bubble with a sledgehammer, but ROS ain't Linux. You want that design idea? Stick with Linux, or code it in to a custom ROS build yourself.
I am not the one living in a bubble. I work with multiple operating systems every day side by side. I have never said that Unix is a perfect paradigm that trumps all others, though it's pretty close. I would like to see ReactOS become an operating system that lives up to the promise of security and stability that OpenVMS made and ease of use that Windows touts, essentially what WNT was supposed to be according to Dave Cutler.

There is no need for it to become another Linux. I just want the security and stability that Windows has never given me, which has caused me to abandon it for all but the most necessary functions. I advocate free operating systems such as GNU/Linux and ReactOS because over time they could replace proprietary operating systems, which has nothing to do with Windows vs Linux at all.
Floyd wrote:that's a poor attitude especially considering it's been used with great success with Mac--and it could actually ease some problems windows faces.
I am glad that there are some people around that can see that there are flaws with the Windows paradigm, as there are with the Unix one, and want to work to solve them to make it a better experience for all of us. The fact that I have seen some positive reactions from several posters has motivated me to at least take a look at the current source code and try to understand what it is all about.

I hope to be able to contribute to the development of ReactOS, again without wanting to turn it into Linux, but using the experience of good system design that I have learned through the years of using Linux, Solaris, BSD and Windows.
Reacter wrote:Windows binary Registry: fatter, maybe a bit faster, and cannot be edited with edit when that program you just installed decides to play games.
That's what I am trying to clarify. Microsoft made some design decisions that looked great when they were made, at least in the eyes of the developers. But now 15 years later those turn out to be detrimental to the stability, simplicity and performance of the operating system.

So I am asking why one would copy the same mistaken design when it is possible to improve on it through all that we have learned over the years. I am glad for ReactOS to take the best of Windows and remove the worse parts to make it better than the original.

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

Post by oiaohm » Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:15 pm

The idea works of individual files in Linux and Mac. Most likely will not work well with registry data. That is not to say that something useful is not there.

If we end up redoing how to handle registry looking at the file systems under the individual file configs on linux and mac os would be a good idea. The windows registry is very much like Fat. Fragementation resistance is missing. Good protections from being able to nuke self is kinda missing.

Note its why something works not that it works. That is important when trying to improve something else. Most likely not look anything like Linux or Mac. Head in sand we not linux is not the best response. Its more why does that work better or not.

Floyd
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:45 am
Location: The frozen part of the USA

Re: Vorg

Post by Floyd » Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:54 am

psychicist wrote: I am glad that there are some people around that can see that there are flaws with the Windows paradigm, as there are with the Unix one, and want to work to solve them to make it a better experience for all of us. The fact that I have seen some positive reactions from several posters has motivated me to at least take a look at the current source code and try to understand what it is all about.

I hope to be able to contribute to the development of ReactOS, again without wanting to turn it into Linux, but using the experience of good system design that I have learned through the years of using Linux, Solaris, BSD and Windows.
Reacter wrote:Windows binary Registry: fatter, maybe a bit faster, and cannot be edited with edit when that program you just installed decides to play games.
well i do like linux, but i also like how windows does things and handles ACLs and i even like Active Directory (not so much that you have to use AD in a domain, but it does simplify a whole lot of things and it actually works--but for smaller domains the smaller overhead of the NT4 domain worked best IMO). hopefully the implementation of an AD like component should get a huge booster shot in the arm; since samba 4 is supposed to be able to emulate a win2000 directory structure (that is, assuming they're cooperative and/or release the source code).

things that i would like to see in ROS (a lot of these are goals already):

- clean, logical directory structure -- no file or folder buckshot; this could be resolved by symbolic links/aliases much like vista already does

- either individual configs or some way to limit registry growth and fix times with queries and a way to deal with orphaned data

- windows like sharing and file permissions (regardless whether we use NTFS or not; any file system with NTFS-like features would be welcomed). also, the NT4 approach of RWDXFO made perfect sense to me. although 2000's seems more granular, it's essentially the same thing with the added bonus of being more confusing to most people that i've met. a linux NFS type system to directly hop on machines might be redundant but wouldn't get any arguments from me

- an easier way to theme the system other than .msstyles lock-in (why not .zip files like many other programs do it? like winamp or something and their .wsz files)

- directx support (reactx); with possible support for DX10

- don't abandon opengl either (vista is supposed to have dropped the opengl subsystem); although drivers add it when they are installed

- driver compatibility (right now WDM would cover most of it)

- binary compatibility with applications

- don't implement something just because MS does it; or at the least see if we can do it better while still maintaining compatibility -- i don't think the reasoning "well they do it" is a very good one (otherwise someone would try to clone MS Bob). this goes for anything we decide to implement, be it from linux, windows, be or whatever
pax mei amici amorque et Iesus sacret omnia

Haos
Test Team
Posts: 2954
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:42 am
Contact:

Post by Haos » Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:48 am

I dont know who pointed you to dropping OpenGL support. Vista has multiple issues over their way of emulating OGL through DirectX. It would be madness to copy such scheme...

Z98
Release Engineer
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 8:16 pm
Contact:

Post by Z98 » Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:33 pm

Haos wrote:I dont know who pointed you to dropping OpenGL support. Vista has multiple issues over their way of emulating OGL through DirectX. It would be madness to copy such scheme...
Also an inaccuracy. Vista has several ways of doing OpenGL. One's through DX, but graphics drivers ignore that route and do it direct to hw.

FSX
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 12:23 am

Post by FSX » Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:35 pm

Ya know, this could work. But they aren't gonna put it in normal ROS.

Floyd
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:45 am
Location: The frozen part of the USA

Post by Floyd » Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:03 pm

Haos wrote:I dont know who pointed you to dropping OpenGL support. Vista has multiple issues over their way of emulating OGL through DirectX. It would be madness to copy such scheme...
MS has it on their website that do OpenGL via a wrapper to DirectX (ICD)--which would limit OpenGL use until a 3rd party driver was installed. I haven't checked recently, but prior to the release of Vista that was also a bullet of concern on SGI's OpenGL website.

also, i can point out that my OpenGL screensavers worked "out of the box" with 2000 and XP; but they did not with vista (for the day i kept it on my system). though this could have been caused by something else.
Z98 wrote:Also an inaccuracy. Vista has several ways of doing OpenGL. One's through DX, but graphics drivers ignore that route and do it direct to hw.
before vista was released the threat to OpenGL was very real:
http://slashdot.org/articles/05/08/06/177251.shtml

but these were also put to rest:
http://www.neoseeker.com/news/story/6039/
pax mei amici amorque et Iesus sacret omnia

Floyd
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:45 am
Location: The frozen part of the USA

Post by Floyd » Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:19 am

FSX wrote:Ya know, this could work. But they aren't gonna put it in normal ROS.
they're not going to put what into normal ROS?
pax mei amici amorque et Iesus sacret omnia

Z98
Release Engineer
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 8:16 pm
Contact:

Post by Z98 » Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:56 am

*ahem*

Please merge your posts.

Anyways, the OpenGL issue is long settled. We already know we can't rely on MS for OpenGL and no one in their right minds do.

Haos
Test Team
Posts: 2954
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:42 am
Contact:

Post by Haos » Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:12 am

@Floyd

I know more/less what Vista did with OpenGL... i was asking why did you thought, that we`d do the similar thing?

Floyd
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:45 am
Location: The frozen part of the USA

Post by Floyd » Fri Jul 20, 2007 3:45 am

Z98 wrote:*ahem*

Please merge your posts.

Anyways, the OpenGL issue is long settled. We already know we can't rely on MS for OpenGL and no one in their right minds do.
i do try but i don't most of the time primarily because of time. i don't know why you'd rebuff someone because they have multiple posts on a forum (of all places). quoting posts and then going back to edit an original post is time consuming (because if you don't post quotes people get confused and don't know who you're talking to).

it's fine that it's settled but all i did was bullet a plea of "don't abandon opengl" (verbatim: - don't abandon opengl either (vista is supposed to have dropped the opengl subsystem); although drivers add it when they are installed); and then i merely responded when people asked why would i ask that? short answer: because MS considered doing just that. why it was drawn out so long is beyond me.
Haos wrote:@Floyd

I know more/less what Vista did with OpenGL... i was asking why did you thought, that we`d do the similar thing?
i wasn't sure that you would keep OpenGL, see my reply to Z98. i was saying that i hope ReactOS wouldn't. and the reason that it crossed my mind is that i have gotten the impression that the people that are designing React seem to want to copy MS' designs without putting much consideration as to why MS does it. cf. discussions on theming, interface, desktop/window management, layout of the "start" menu and virtually any other topic of design that has been discussed on this forum even so. with even a thread where a poster defended the folder buckshot in %WINDIR%.

MS wants to be the standard and so doesn't have much of a vested interest in supporting OpenGL. i was just expressing my desire to see OpenGL be supported in React.
pax mei amici amorque et Iesus sacret omnia

Haos
Test Team
Posts: 2954
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:42 am
Contact:

Post by Haos » Fri Jul 20, 2007 7:43 am

We want to achieve a high degree of binary compatiblity, but we dont want to copy their errors. This was more like a political/marketing decission, to remove native opengl support (at least of recent versions).

Z98:

I know of at least three methodes of doing the OpenGL in Vista:
- through Dx wrapper
- native opengl driver (only versions up to 1.2)
- GPU producer`s opengl driver;

Every of those solutions has it`s own drawbacks.

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

Post by oiaohm » Fri Jul 20, 2007 9:09 am

mesa3d.org opengl used in reactos. Long while ago had a direct X output , GDI method and using opengl addons from Nvidia and the like

Mesa3d support threw to opengl 2.1 in software is not exactly nice.

The alterations that Vista did were not even new. Mesa3d to direct X predates it by a few years.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Semrush [Bot] and 7 guests