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@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.