9 Oct
2005
9 Oct
'05
11:11 a.m.
Should I call for a VOTE, or is it OK having a top level module for all
Win32 related pieces?
Please, comment.
Thank you in advance.
--
:Emanuele Aliberti
9 Oct
9 Oct
11:53 a.m.
Emanuele Aliberti wrote:
Should I call for a VOTE, or is it OK having a top
level module for
all Win32 related pieces?
Please, comment.
Thank you in advance.
So you say we should have all win32 releated stuff twice in the tree ?
Where would the advantage be ?
Maarten Bosma
12:55 p.m.
Maarten Bosma wrote:
So you say we should have all win32 releated stuff
twice in the tree ?
Where would the advantage be ?
Sorry, I forgot to say the magic word: I did mean *moving* out of the
trunk/reactos all win subsystem related stuff. The target module should
be trunk/windows or, if (c) issues should emerge, trunk/win.
Win32 would remain the dominant subsystem. I am not against Win32, that
shuold be clear. I simply want to make the tree cleaner (the core in a
module, a subsystem a module etsim.).
--
:Emanuele Aliberti
4:08 p.m.
From: Emanuele Aliberti
Win32 would remain the dominant subsystem. I am not against
Win32, that shuold be clear. I simply want to make the tree
cleaner (the core in a module, a subsystem a module etsim.).
The one thing that distinguishes ReactOS from other open source operating
systems is its application support. There is no other open source OS with
the number of applications available (potentially :-)) as ReactOS. Take out
Win32 and what you're left with is an OS which can only run native apps,
bringing it down (in terms of application support) to the realms of BeOS and
SkyOS.
I have no problems with a reorganization which would make Win32 a separate
entity in the repository, but I do feel rather strongly that the default
build (and install) should include Win32. I'm not sure I like the idea of
moving it to /trunk level. I thought beginning this year concensus was
reached on http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php/New_Tree_Structure ?
Gé van Geldorp.
4:24 p.m.
Ge van Geldorp wrote:
I agree with the fact that Win32 should be able to be "compiled-out",
but I don't think we should get to the point where it's in a separate
branch. We had unofficialy discussed that stuff in its own branch is
"non-core". And Win32 is very much -core- to NT. I'm also pretty sure
that we can find a way to integrate both a compatible, cloned CSRSS/SMSS
model with your wish to have more powerful MuSession functionality. It
isn't a black and white question, and I'm sure both can be supported (at
the very worst, there will simply have to be some run-time code paths
for IfReactOS/IfWindows). That being said, I think the tree layout that
everyone worked on does a good enough separation job, by having
/dll/win32/* in a separate folder.
From: Emanuele
Aliberti
Win32 would remain the dominant subsystem. I am not against
Win32, that shuold be clear. I simply want to make the tree
cleaner (the core in a module, a subsystem a module etsim.).
The one thing that distinguishes ReactOS from other
open source operating
systems is its application support. There is no other open source OS with
the number of applications available (potentially :-)) as ReactOS. Take out
Win32 and what you're left with is an OS which can only run native apps,
bringing it down (in terms of application support) to the realms of BeOS and
SkyOS.
I have no problems with a reorganization which would make Win32 a separate
entity in the repository,
That's what /dll/win32 does.
but I do feel rather strongly that the default
build (and install) should include Win32.
Agreed.
I'm not sure I like the idea of
moving it to /trunk level. I thought beginning this year concensus was
reached on http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php/New_Tree_Structure ?
Gé van Geldorp.
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
5:51 p.m.
Alex, I am really sorry. We can not communicate about it.
Alex Ionescu wrote:
Ge van Geldorp wrote:
I agree with the fact that Win32 should be able to be "compiled-out",
but I don't think we should get to the point where it's in a separate
branch. We had unofficialy discussed that stuff in its own branch is
"non-core". And Win32 is very much -core- to NT. I'm also pretty sure
that we can find a way to integrate both a compatible, cloned
CSRSS/SMSS model with your wish to have more powerful MuSession
functionality. It isn't a black and white question, and I'm sure both
can be supported (at the very worst, there will simply have to be some
run-time code paths for IfReactOS/IfWindows). That being said, I think
the tree layout that everyone worked on does a good enough separation
job, by having /dll/win32/* in a separate folder.
--
:Emanuele Aliberti
From:
Emanuele Aliberti
Win32 would remain the dominant subsystem. I am not against Win32,
that shuold be clear. I simply want to make the tree cleaner (the
core in a module, a subsystem a module etsim.).
The one thing that distinguishes ReactOS from
other open source
operating
systems is its application support. There is no other open source OS
with
the number of applications available (potentially :-)) as ReactOS.
Take out
Win32 and what you're left with is an OS which can only run native apps,
bringing it down (in terms of application support) to the realms of
BeOS and
SkyOS.
I have no problems with a reorganization which would make Win32 a
separate
entity in the repository,
That's what /dll/win32 does.
but I do feel rather strongly that the default
build (and install) should include Win32.
Agreed.
I'm not sure I like the idea of
moving it to /trunk level. I thought beginning this year concensus was
reached on http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php/New_Tree_Structure ?
Gé van Geldorp.
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
5:49 p.m.
Ge van Geldorp wrote:
You overread my words, it seems. I definitely need one more class of
English language: Alex, again, says I want μSessions in CSR, which I
twice said I dislike. This means I can't speak English. Period.
From: Emanuele
Aliberti
Win32 would remain the dominant subsystem. I am not against
Win32, that shuold be clear. I simply want to make the tree
cleaner (the core in a module, a subsystem a module etsim.).
The one thing that distinguishes ReactOS from other open source operating
systems is its application support. There is no other open source OS with
the number of applications available (potentially :-)) as ReactOS. Take out
Win32 and what you're left with is an OS which can only run native apps,
bringing it down (in terms of application support) to the realms of BeOS and
SkyOS.
I have no problems with a reorganization which would
make Win32 a separate
entity in the repository, but I do feel rather strongly that the default
build (and install) should include Win32.
That is exactly what "dominant subsystem" means.
I'm not sure I like the idea of
moving it to /trunk level. I thought beginning this year concensus was
reached on http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php/New_Tree_Structure ?
Sorry. I saw the discussion stop and never reopened that page. I assumed
(wrongly) that no consensus was reached about that subject. And never
read the comments by Alex, with whom I mostly disagree.
Gé van Geldorp.
Really sorry for the noise.
--
:Emanuele Aliberti
7:08 p.m.
From: Emanuele Aliberti
You overread my words, it seems. I definitely need one more
class of English language: Alex, again, says I want µSessions
in CSR, which I twice said I dislike. This means I can't
speak English. Period.
Of course it is very possible that I was the one who misunderstood something, English
isn't my native language either. What I was trying to point out is that the Win32
subsystem is special. I'm absolutely not opposed to setting up things so you can
build, install and run ntoskrnl without the Win32 subsystem, I just think that 99% of the
uses of ReactOS would include Win32. So, in my view it makes sense that building with
Win32 is the default and should be the easiest configuration to build. If you meant that
too (and I think you do), then great, we agree.
Really sorry for the noise.
Aren't you taking this a bit too personal?
Gé van Geldorp.
12:14 p.m.
It would be advantageous to first have a discussion and then a vote.
It makes sense that Win16 be separate too so why not call the module
win32 instead?
-----Original Message-----
From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] On Behalf Of
Emanuele
Aliberti
Sent: 9. oktober 2005 13:12
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: [ros-dev] svn://svn.reactos.org/trunk/windows
Should I call for a VOTE, or is it OK having a top level module for all
Win32 related pieces?
Please, comment.
Thank you in advance.
--
:Emanuele Aliberti
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
1:06 p.m.
Casper Hornstrup wrote:
It would be advantageous to first have a discussion and
then a vote.
I support discussing it, since also further coding by me in
reactos/subsys/csr depends on that choice.
My initial bare implementation of the CSR was different than the actual
code by Alex Ionescu. He used NT 5.1 as a model. I tried to clean it,
not cloning it.
Probably developers should, at the end of the discussion, vote about it,
about keeping subsystem separate and support modules as neutral as
possible, or cloning MS design. Making a top level trunk/windows and
moving there the Win32 subsystem pieces, that now are under
trunk/reactos, perhaps is a simple consequence.
It makes sense that Win16 be separate too so why not
call the module
win32 instead?
I'd avoid that, imho. The same should also apply for a
trunk/reactos-i386 and a trunk/reactos-ppc...
--
:Emanuele Aliberti
11 Oct
11 Oct
10:47 p.m.
By naming it win32, are you aware of the already moving 64bit train?
By that coming awful compromises as Win32 on Win64, Com-reg dublicatgion
and maybe one source compatible just win- subsystem
Oh, that's all awful with this naming.
BTW I do also like the (original) idea of freely exchangeable sub
system. That sayd it will also be the case that win32 is the
primary+default delivered and compiled personality.
Casper Hornstrup schrieb:
It would be advantageous to first have a discussion and
then a vote.
It makes sense that Win16 be separate too so why not call the module
win32 instead?
-----Original Message-----
From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] On Behalf Of
Emanuele
Aliberti
Sent: 9. oktober 2005 13:12
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: [ros-dev] svn://svn.reactos.org/trunk/windows
Should I call for a VOTE, or is it OK having a top level module for all
Win32 related pieces?
Please, comment.
Thank you in advance.
--
:Emanuele Aliberti
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
6973
days inactive
6975
days old
11 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Alex Ionescu -
Casper Hornstrup -
Emanuele Aliberti -
Ge van Geldorp -
Maarten Bosma -
Robert