ReactOS On ARM/Raspberry Pi - Ros-dev

11 Jan 2013

Hi All,

Before I reach the point where I am thinking the same way as everyone else,
which will inevitably happen (The Borg - resistance is futile), I wanted to
get some thoughts out:

A question that many have asked is, "Why not port ReactOS to ARM?"

The answer is usually something like, "We cannot afford the resources to
port to ARM."

I think on the contrary, the opposite might be true: 

1.       There is a hoard of developers over on the Raspberry Pi  site right
now who would enjoy seeing ReactOS on the RaspPi.

2.       There are device manufacturers who would like to free themselves
from the Apple/Google/Microsoft triumvirate and iOS/Android/Windows Phone 8
lock-in. Samsung recently announced its intent to explore other operating
systems. 
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57455054-94/would-samsung-ever-leave-androi
d-new-ceo-drops-hints/

3.       The operating systems are not exactly easy to develop for. I have
read credible articles that  Android is a mess from a development
perspective. ReactOS would be the operating system of choice for
straightforward development.

4.       There are embedded systems companies who struggled in vain to get
Windows CE to behave like "Big Windows", but were unsuccessful because
restrictions in the Windows CE kernel. Many of them switch to Linux, but
quite a few still use some form of embedded Windows, and would welcome an
open-source Windows-like OS.

5.       The United States Military has very large base of software that
they would like to put on lower-power systems (ARM) that is written for
Windows/i386. They are currently trying to port this software to Linux, with
varying degrees of success, not because they like Linux, but because they
need as much of the software to be open as possible. They would be
particularly attracted by the open-source nature of ReactOS, because the USA
national security vetting process requires that certain classes of software
be reviewed, line by line, by a certain US security agency. The singular,
totally exposed nature of ReactOS makes it attractive in this regard.

6.       ReactOS.ORG would likely receive real money from device
manufacturers. Even a few dollars per-device would add-up very quickly.

7.       There is NO mobile platform right now, among the Big Three, that
allows true, native, C/C++ development. Each of these platform plays a game
where the native code is invoked by some shell, even in the case of Windows
Phone 8, despite Microsoft's claim that Windows Phone 8 supports native
development. [It depends on what your interpretation of native development
is.]

ARM device manufacturers are all stuck in the same boat. Most of these
companies are actually not very good at OS design. Think about it: Nokia was
a multi-billion-$US company that was using an operating system (Symbian)
that was so broken and toxic to innovation that it almost drowned their
company. What did they do to fix this problem? They adopted a closed OS from
Microsoft. Manufacturers, actually, do not like having closed software. It
eliminates their opportunity for differentiation. If ReactOS were made to
run on a single manufacturer's device, the other manufacturers would become
nervous, and insist on having the same access as does their competitor.
There is nothing wrong with making these manufacturers pay a small fee to
support the ReactOS Foundation, and they would gladly pay it, if we
developed killer applications for their devices.

Of course, because most of ReactOS, in theory, should be portable, software
working on ARM is software working on x86_32/x86_64. I would also like to
mention here that there are a lot of developers who would much rather have a
stable kernel, and a paucity of user-mode applications, versus an unstable
kernel, and a plethora of user-mode applications. User mode applications
will be created by the hoard, *if* the kernel is stable. If the kernel is
not stable, the incentive to do anything else is greatly reduced.

This is the opportunity I see. My biological clock is telling me that 2013
is the year to pursue this effort. The market is waiting. But an effort like
porting to ARM should not be done haphazardly or opportunistically. It
should be done with deliberation and intent. 

Just my opinion.

-John