19 Jan
2010
19 Jan
'10
8:56 p.m.
I'm all for ARWINSS (and yes, I'm still alive). I think it's good to
have something that's up and running in a near future so that ros
developers can focus on other things.
As for the whole double delopment, I'm not so sure. One will always be
depricated somehow, unless you have a lot of people maintaining it.
Sure, we can keep the old one for reference maybe, but I don't think it
has to be an installation decision taken by the user.
-Gregor
On 2010-01-19 21:37, Steven Edwards wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Colin Finck
<mail(a)colinfinck.de> wrote:
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.
There is no reason things cannot be developed in parallel. Samba 3 and
Samba 4 have been in parallel development for how long now? I mean, we
don't want to drive anyone away from ReactOS development, or throw out
the work everyone is doing on the current win32k.sys and friends. Why
could we not have the best of both worlds. Sure i would add a little
bit of extra time to the build time and to build both subsystems. It
should be possible to add some infrastructure to allow for the user to
pick or switch the subsystem they are using.