Re: [ros-dev] Arwinss

[Kamil Hornícek]

Please don't make this debate even more confusing by mentioning DirectX. As 
you could have noticed by now, we are actually using wined3d for DX support 
now (it's been two years already). The last part ouf our implementation 
(ddraw) was disabled in trunk few months ago.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: King InuYasha
To: ReactOS Development List
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Arwinss


On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:47 AM, KJK::Hyperion <hackbunny(a)reactos.org> 
wrote:

Timo Kreuzer wrote:
>   Wine emulates the kernel through a server. Of cause we
> don't use it,
>  because it has a totally different design. 

Says who? So far, and only counting official implementations, Win32 has
been implemented as:
 - a shared-memory user mode subsystem (Windows 95, 98)
 - a RPC user mode subsystem (Windows NT 3)
 - a kernel mode subsystem (Windows NT 4 and later)
 - ??? (Windows CE)


>   We have an NT kernel and
>  every kernel developer would eat me alive if I tried to put a single
>  line of wine code into our kernel. It's considered crap there. 

Wine code has to pass quality reviews and test suites. ReactOS code only
has to pass the warmth-and-fuzziness test. Wine can prove their code is
right, ReactOS is based on code that feels right

The idea that Wine code is better than ReactOS code really needs to die.
Compared to theirs, our code is sloppy, highly unprofessional and often
inexplicable. We copy the form but tend to completely miss the intent.
Wine development is test-driven and entirely based on intent and end
results, while our development model is, apparently, to dick around in
our spare time pretending we work at Microsoft


>   How do you expect display drivers to work at all?

NT display drivers used to run in user mode with the same identical API,
and probably the same ABI. I'm sure Aleksey will do just fine


>   More hacks on top of the huge pile of hacks? And how
> do you deal with
>  missing functionality in wine code? Shove more code in there? Or ignore
>  it, like if wine doesn't need it, we also don't need it? Or again fork
>  the code? 

I would sell my mother to Carthage for even a fraction of the kind of
application support that Wine enjoys, thank you. My only gripe with
arwinss is that Aleksey beat me to the first landmark controversial side
project

_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev



Ok, a little more confused now. You said that the idea that Wine code is 
better than ReactOS code needs to die, but you turn around and basically 
state that Wine code IS better than ReactOS code. Did you mean that the idea 
that ReactOS code is better than Wine code? Because if that is what you 
meant, then I agree.


The arwinss branch is very interesting. Does this mean that Wine DirectX 
code can be shared because more Wine code is being used for the core 
components? Or is ReactX still necessary, even with arwinss?



_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev