Oh.. I get it.. I thought you meant NT vs Unix.
I guess we may close the subject then :)
(I'm a usermode guy mostly, and I puke when I have to write for Linux,
since they don't have things like GDI, et cetera.)
Best Regards
// Neo
On 2016-05-23 04.21, ros-dev-request(a)reactos.org wrote:
> Il 22/05/2016 14:18, David Quintana (gigaherz) ha scritto:
>> I believe Riccardo referred to people developing apps for
>> ReactOS/NT5, when they can write them for NT6 instead.
> That's what I meant.
>
> I also agree with you, Neo, that NT, even version 5, is overall a
> better architecture than Linux.
> However, I agree with gigahertz that discussing this isn't all that
> useful: good != not obsolete.
>
> Best regards,
> --- /Riccardo Paolo Bestetti/
Ah.. Ok, I'll peruse it soon as I get a chance.
Best Regards
// Neo
On 2016-05-22 18.42, Timo Kreuzer <timo.kreuzer(a)web.de> wrote:
> I created an epic with a few subtasks regarding ReactOS versioning:
> https://jira.reactos.org/browse/CORE-11288
>
> Timo
On 2016-05-18 02.10, Riccardo Paolo Bestetti <riccardo.kyogre(a)live.it>
wrote:
> It's not like developers are gonna pick up again an old (and,
> honestly, bad!) architecture just because it is made free, when *here
> and now* we already have a better alternative.
Bad architecture ? Compared to Linux ? I refute that on the strongest.
F.ex: Linux lacks, even to this day, a unified graphics API like GDI
(X-Windows notwithstanding), and window manager.
Instead they have a plethora of disparate kludges and hacks on top of
X-Windows, all more or less cumbersome to use.
The API flora of the Windows architecture should, by rights, make Linux
programmers green with envy ;-)
(Why do you think the WinE project was born in the first place?)
Best Regards
// Neo
Excuse my extremely late thoughts on this issue..
Perhaps they're moot already.
Regarding pt.3 in Timo's very succinct post (a year ago),
I see a possibility in a "proxy" scheme as follows..
The "standard" dlls knows the 6.x APIS, while implementing the "base"
5.2 functions, and forward newer APIs incrementally to versional
"add-on" dlls.
This ought to avoid bloat, both RAM and disk-wise.
// "Proxy" kernel32.dll knows APIs up to X.Y
kernel32.dll!Some52API_1 :: Built-in // "Base" APIs
kernel32.dll!Some60API_2 -> rkernel32_60.dll // Additional APIs only
kernel32.dll!Some61API_3 -> rkernel32_61.dll // Additional APIs only
For DLL_PROCESS_ATTACH the ROS loader could provide
kernel32.dll et.al. with version info, gleaned from the exe,
through lpvReserved, in case version specific init is needed.
In case the exe has no version info, fall back to 5.2.
Dito for the other "standard" dlls.
Was this what you had in mind?
(PS. I'm not privvy to the mechanics of SxS,
but I think they replace the entire dlls, wholesale.. right?)
Best Regards
// Neo
On 2016-05-20 17.57, ros-dev-request(a)reactos.org wrote:
> From: Ros-dev [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] On Behalf Of Timo Kreuzer
> Sent: 18 May 2016 20:28
> To: ReactOS Development List<ros-dev(a)reactos.org>
> Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Pale Moon drops ReactOS support
>
> Looks like I have to chime in here.
>
> We have been discussing this before and I wonder that Alex is not heavily opposing the idea of randomly adding new exports to our user mode DLLs. It is a well known fact that applications check for existance of exports to decide how to behave, so ... not going to go over this again.
>
> To addess this issue I suggested to implement a compatibility layer. And there was a detailed discussion about that on this mailing list.
> https://www.reactos.org/pipermail/ros-dev/2015-March/017216.html
>
> Please take your time to read the whole thread again so we can avoid wasting time, talking about the same things again.
>
> Timo
>
> ...
>
> Did you read it? Ok, then we can continue;-)
>
> Some remaining questions:
> 1. Does our SxS / ActiveCtx work properly, and does it work with registry/appcompat db? Otherwise what do we need to make it work? Aleksey?
> 2. How do we organize the DLLs? I would suggest to unite some core DLLs into "ros-kernelbase.dll" or something and gdi32/user32 into ros-win32.dll and export all functions from those, using forwarder DLLs through SxS. At the same time we should reorganize the code, organizing it the way that MS API sets do it. And also move the stuff out of the "dlls" folder into "win32core" or something.
> 3. How do we handle ntdll? Can we use SxS for ntdll as well? Obviously we cannot load the original ntdll with it, but we can probably load versioned wrapper ntdlls and resolve imports to those.
>
> Timo
>
> Am 18.05.2016 um 17:01 schrieb Ged Murphy:
>> >Okay, considering no other devs are chiming in on this, and Alex and I had a similar view, I'd like to propose that we move towards a more hybrid system and remove the rule that APIs that weren’t in 2k3 shouldn't be added.
>> >
>> >Proposal:
>> > 1) Add all user mode APIs directly into the code base, and do away with the 'kernel32_vista' libraries we have.
>> > 2) Start to add kernel APIs which aren’t reliant on a particular feature. Rtl APIs are the obvious one as Alex highlighted, missing syscalls or enums for 'get/set info' APIs are another obvious one.
>> > 3) Features from later versions of NT can be added (e.g. IO cancelation, UEFI, ASLR, etc). The supporting APIs should only be added when the underlying support is in place. (i.e. don't stub NT6 APIs)
>> > 4) Continue to report as NT5.2/win2k3 for now. We can consider bumping usermode to report something newer at a later stage.
>> > 5) In the short term add a simple compatibility mode which can provide a different OS version for whitelisted processes. The front end could be similar Win7's ' compatibility tab in the file properties, however it wouldn't use shimeng.dll, apphelp.dll, etc, it would just modify the versioning APIs.
>> >
>> >IMO the above is a quick win to get newer apps running. Apps that
>> >check for OS version by looking for APIs should now be happy due to
>> >#1. Apps which call VerifyVersionInfo / GetVersion / etc can be
>> >tricked into thinking they're running on a later OS due to #5
>> >
>> >David mentioned a compatibility shim would open the doors to NT6, but I don't think we should be using it for this purpose. A compatibility shim should behave more like the Windows one, that is it should provide 'hacks' to a more modern codebase to get older apps to work (e.g. 9x APIs, missing flags, bugs some apps rely on, etc).
>> >I do think the compatibility shim is worthwhile technology to add, but
>> >I think we should use it as intended instead of trying to make it look
>> >into the future as well as the past. (btw, didn't Alex write a tool
>> >for dumping the shim db in Windows which shows all the 'hacks' MS
>> >apply??)
>> >
>> >Comments please.
>> >
>> >Ged.
>> >
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Ros-dev [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] On Behalf Of Alex
>> >Ionescu
>> >Sent: 17 May 2016 19:05
>> >To: ReactOS Development List<ros-dev(a)reactos.org>
>> >Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Pale Moon drops ReactOS support
>> >
>> >The project doesn't have to be hard-coded to NT5. For example, I am building a UEFI loader/bootmgr based on Windows 10, because 2003 doesn't boot on UEFI systems.
>> >
>> >That being said, I don't see any good reason for us not to still mainly focus on 2003 for the kernel. The kernel is NOT what's preventing apps from working, or hardware from working. What's preventing that from working is:
>> >
>> >1) Lacking user-mode APIs, and in some cases Rtl APIs (sure, implement
>> >Win 10 ones!)
>> >2) Lacking hardware support for things like UEFI (I'm working on it), AHCI (we have a student working on it), USB 3 (someone can implement this...but USB 2 barely works), etc..etc..etc..
>> >
>> >Find me a single device driver that*only* works on NT 6... Server
>> >2003 is still a support MS OS, so by definition there's still drivers for it.
>> >Best regards,
>> >Alex Ionescu
>> >
--
There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world,
and that's an idea whose time has come. [Victor Hugo]
No, they are... Not we ;)
Same thing would happen if you try to run e.g. a Vista exe on NT4.
// Neo
On 2016-05-20 22.52, Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo <elhoir(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Pale Moon drops ReactOS support
> Date: 2016-05-20 22.51
>
> 4th scenario - App is actually "buggy" and doesnt check for any
export. We´re fucked up :P
No, they are... Not we ;)
Same thing would happen if you try to run e.g. a Vista exe on NT4.
// Neo
On 2016-05-20 22.52, ros-dev-request(a)reactos.org wrote:
> Subject:
> Re: [ros-dev] Pale Moon drops ReactOS support
> From:
> Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo <elhoir(a)gmail.com>
> Date:
> 2016-05-20 22.51
>
> To:
> ReactOS Development List <ros-dev(a)reactos.org>
>
>
> 4th scenario - App is actually "buggy" and doesnt check for any
> export. We´re fucked up :P
>
I don't believe I said 'let's add random exports to our DLLs'. In
fact, in your old thread, I was totally FOR your idea, I even wrote
that the only sane way of doing it is with the app compat work.
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Timo Kreuzer <timo.kreuzer(a)web.de> wrote:
> We have been discussing this before and I wonder that Alex is not heavily
> opposing the idea of randomly adding new exports to our user mode DLLs. It
> is a well known fact that applications check for existance of exports to
> decide how to behave, so ... not going to go over this again.
>
> To addess this issue I suggested to implement a compatibility layer. And
> there was a detailed discussion about that on this mailing list.
> https://www.reactos.org/pipermail/ros-dev/2015-March/017216.html
>
> Please take your time to read the whole thread again so we can avoid wasting
> time, talking about the same things again.
>
> Timo
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
The project doesn't have to be hard-coded to NT5. For example, I am
building a UEFI loader/bootmgr based on Windows 10, because 2003
doesn't boot on UEFI systems.
That being said, I don't see any good reason for us not to still
mainly focus on 2003 for the kernel. The kernel is NOT what's
preventing apps from working, or hardware from working. What's
preventing that from working is:
1) Lacking user-mode APIs, and in some cases Rtl APIs (sure, implement
Win 10 ones!)
2) Lacking hardware support for things like UEFI (I'm working on it),
AHCI (we have a student working on it), USB 3 (someone can implement
this...but USB 2 barely works), etc..etc..etc..
Find me a single device driver that *only* works on NT 6... Server
2003 is still a support MS OS, so by definition there's still drivers
for it.
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo
<elhoir(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> "companies and such support NT5?"
>
> where "support NT5", i meant "drop support for NT5", sorry
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo
> <elhoir(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> And why does few developers, companies and such support NT5? Because MS
>> dropped support for those systems. But if ReactOS revives that support,
>> maybe companies will support us.
>>
>> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Riccardo Paolo Bestetti
>> <riccardo.kyogre(a)live.it> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd like to drop my two cents, just because I really believe in this
>>> project's filosofy. Since things have gotten pretty hot in the past,
>>> especially when someone who is not a developer intervened in a discussion,
>>> let me apprise you that my only intention it to bring in the point of view
>>> of a potential user that really wants to see ReactOS happen and isn't
>>> emotionally attached to the work that has been done.
>>>
>>> The reality is that very very few manufacturers and developers still
>>> support NT5 and all of them are going to drop support in the next few years.
>>> This is just a fact. NT5 is legacy software and there's nothing no one can
>>> do about that.
>>>
>>> I've followed this project and this mailing list for the past five years
>>> and in this time I've upgraded all of the computer systems of my father's
>>> business to Windows 7 and then to Windows 10, because all the pieces of
>>> software they run dropped support for NT5, one after another. They still
>>> have a single machine in the whole building running Windows XP, for legacy
>>> software, and honestly they don't use it very often. In my school, pretty
>>> much the same. And even if someone, for whatever reason, intends to run NT5
>>> for 10 more years, why should (s)he re-setup all the systems again to run
>>> ReactOS instead of keeping Windows XP?
>>>
>>> The point is, you can either implement the architecture that runs all of
>>> the computer in building, or the architecture that runs that one legacy
>>> machine. And even that would happen if and only if you can achieve 100%
>>> compatibility with all of NT5 and Windows XP bugs and quirks and give people
>>> a really good reason to reinstall the OS on such machines, and sorry that's
>>> just not gonna happen.
>>>
>>> I get why some of you may want to stick to NT5, but you have to be aware
>>> that if you do that ReactOS will never be used in the real world. No reason
>>> to stick to NT5 is good enough, since no one out there needs or wants NT5.
>>> Hell, it would probably be easier for a business to switch from NT6 to
>>> GNU/Linux than to go back to NT5.
>>>
>>> Again, these are just the two cents of a guy that works in the field.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> --- Riccardo Paolo Bestetti
>>>
>>>
>>> Il 16/05/2016 16:42, Ged Murphy ha scritto:
>>>
>>> But you’re missing the point. The problem is that modern software is
>>> leaving XP behind and focusing on Win7 as a minimum recommended requirement.
>>>
>>> What use is ReactOS if none of the modern browsers or applications will
>>> run on it? It limits the OS to being a compatibility solution for older
>>> software, or a POS device. No one really wants to see that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think the best solution to start with is to keep reporting as 5.2 in
>>> the kernel, but allowing developers to start moving to the NT6 model. An
>>> mish-mash of NT5 and NT6 can co-exist as long things are done sensibly. e.g.
>>> adding IO cancelation to our NT5 kernel isn’t going to make us incompatible
>>> for XP’s drivers, but it allows us to implement an NT6 feature which hugely
>>> benefits the OS. Other obvious candidates are unimplemented areas such as
>>> the fltmgr . Why implement the 2k3 fltmgr when we can implement a later
>>> fltmgr model which still loads older filter drivers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Usermode should also still report as win2k3 (at least in the short term),
>>> but start to add NT6 APIs directly into the codebase instead of using a
>>> shim. We then maintain a whitelist of processes that don’t run on ros due to
>>> a minimum requirement issue, and they get a modified result from
>>> VerifyVersionInfo (and friends) to a later OS version.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The above changes keep things pretty simple to start with, and allow us
>>> to move forward almost immediately with very little infrastructure work.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ged.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Ros-dev [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] On Behalf Of Javier
>>> Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo
>>> Sent: 15 May 2016 22:55
>>> To: ReactOS Development List <ros-dev(a)reactos.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Pale Moon drops ReactOS support
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Being runnable only on old computers"
>>>
>>> I think this is a bad understanding of the problem....
>>>
>>> By such statement, it seems that ReactOS will only work on old computers.
>>> And thats not true.
>>>
>>> ReactOS may work in any computer where there is hardware drivers for.
>>> And, as such, any software written for XP/2k3/ReactOS will work in that
>>> computer.
>>>
>>> And afaik, manufacturers are still releasing drivers compatible with XP
>>> :) (nVidia, for example....)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ros-dev mailing list
>>> Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ros-dev mailing list
>>> Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ros-dev mailing list
> Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
Hello all,
As most of you know, I have been busy setting up a two-way Git mirror of
our ReactOS repository using SubGit.
Testing was done in the recent weeks by multiple people using a sandbox
repository and the results looked pretty well. Therefore, SubGit was
considered ready for prime time and I started a first import of our
ReactOS repository.
The only problem with this: Even without mirroring branches, the Git
repository became a 5.5GB monster (from the 750MB of our current git-svn
mirror). This size was totally not clonable as shown in testing.
The proposed solution: Git offers a garbage cleaner using "git gc
--aggressive". And hell yeah, it reduced the size to a nice 500MB repo.
While that optimization was running and SubGit was not syncing, two
revisions were committed: r71350 and r71351.
Without expecting any problems, I resumed SubGit mirroring and then
things started to get weird: Apparently, SubGit totally lost traction of
the SVN repository and instead of syncing the two new revisions, it
committed one in r71352 that _replaces_ trunk by r71349.
This is one of the worst commits possible, as it forces SVN clients to
redownload everything when updating their working copies.
Even more, it shows me that a clear separation of permissions for the
SVN Server and SubGit isn't sufficient. SubGit can and actually did harm
to our repository this way. This is exactly what I was warned of and
what now happened...
I'm sure everybody can understand that I cannot continue with the SubGit
installation under these circumstances. We cannot put our repository at
risk, especially now that we're in the mid of GSoC.
This way, SubGit has definitely shown that it's not ready for our
repository.
I deeply apologize for this trouble and especially to the critics who
remained right. And of course to Hermes, whose name SubGit abused for
making the guilty commit.
Right now, I'm restoring the repository to r71351 using backups and
"svnadmin dump". This effectively erases r71352 from SVN history.
As r71352 was only online for 10 minutes, I believe it's better to get
rid of that commit in SVN history rather than having everyone suffer
from it.
Again, I deeply apologize!
With best regards,
Colin
