19 Jan
2010
19 Jan
'10
9:54 p.m.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Ged Murphy <gedmurphy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Colin Finck <mail(a)colinfinck.de> wrote:
I don't see any real reason for maintaining both branches of win32
subsystem. Arwinss still aims to be driver compatible, right? So, what do we
gain by fully replicating the Win32 subsystem as Microsoft Windows does it?
The idea of using Wine code to further the levels of compatibility in
ReactOS is a good idea, and it has potential to make ReactOS a good choice
for "thin-client" and terminal server systems because of the X11 driver. I
personally prefer X11 SSH tunneling over VNC/RDP, because I don't need to
see the entire remote desktop, just the applications I want to run from
there. Additionally, Linux distros might include ReactOS and use their
virtualization solutions to integrate apps installed to ReactOS into the
overall Linux desktop. Nobody would ever really see the ReactOS desktop, but
ReactOS would ensure more complete compatibility with Windows apps and
games.
I think Arwinss should be the new official win32 subsystem, but meh...
Maybe because we already had this one in July:
http://www.reactos.org/pipermail/ros-dev/2009-July/011896.html
As I'm not a Win32k dev, I shouldn't argue about technical details. But I
still don't believe that all the points expressed in e.g.
http://www.reactos.org/pipermail/ros-dev/2009-July/011933.html are
suddenly
invalid, so that we can easily say that Arwinss is "the better
architecture". For me, it looks like the slides want to give this
impression.
Of course, I also want to see ReactOS going forward and Arwinss can surely
help for now. But simply accepting it as our new official Win32k
architecture.... I don't think we can make it that easy after all previous
opinions.
I agree with Colin on this.
I think arwinss is a great idea, but I still see it as a temporary solution
until the real win32 subsystem can match it.
Ged