[ros-diffs] [tkreuzer] 46998: Disable gdi batch for SelectObject with fonts. Fixes font regression.

[James Tabor]

Not surprised!

I guess ReactOS new polices are for hiding the real issues and not
fixing them and revert all the correct code. Since the kernel rewrites
and the new order of coding, these oddities have now surfaced. The
TEB, is inaccessible from kernel mode as in bug 5265 and 5314, and the
strange processes access issues in bug 5310. This revert silliness
will result in moving the project back to post windows 95 architecture
(arwinss). ReactOS is about moving forward and taking chances with
innovations from learned information then moving away to make it work
even better. Personally, I hope someone will take up where this left
off and move on.

Good luck!

Reference:

http://www.reactos.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5265
http://www.reactos.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5310
http://www.reactos.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5314

[Andrew Faulds]

There seems to be a lot of debate recently, but I don't see an 0.3.12.

Sent from my iPod
Andrew Faulds

On 23 Apr 2010, at 02:47, James Tabor [e-mail] wrote:
> Not surprised!
>
> I guess ReactOS new polices are for hiding the real issues and not
> fixing them and revert all the correct code. Since the kernel rewrites
> and the new order of coding, these oddities have now surfaced. The
> TEB, is inaccessible from kernel mode as in bug 5265 and 5314, and the
> strange processes access issues in bug 5310. This revert silliness
> will result in moving the project back to post windows 95 architecture
> (arwinss). ReactOS is about moving forward and taking chances with
> innovations from learned information then moving away to make it work
> even better. Personally, I hope someone will take up where this left
> off and move on.
>
> Good luck!
>
> Reference:
>
> http://www.reactos.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5265
> http://www.reactos.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5310
> http://www.reactos.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5314
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Aleksey Bragin]

You had enough time to try and fix this. If it's not fixed, then it's  
going to be temporarily commented out until this new (correct) code  
works.
I know how hard it was for the kernel, but if our OS turns out into a  
perfect modern and cool OS architecture-wise which can't render text  
correctly.. Who needs that? One or two developers?

Some real usage would be beneficial, not only self-ertaintaining. At  
the very last, after so many years.

I don't really understand the logic of enabling the code (correct  
piece of one) which does NOT work. Either make it work or don't  
enable it until it works. That's the principe for everyone who wants  
to develop ReactOS. Otherwise it's gonna rot in http:// 
web.archive.org instead of becoming a mainstream OS.

WBR,
Aleksey.

On Apr 23, 2010, at 5:47 AM, James Tabor wrote:
> Not surprised!
>
> I guess ReactOS new polices are for hiding the real issues and not
> fixing them and revert all the correct code. Since the kernel rewrites
> and the new order of coding, these oddities have now surfaced. The
> TEB, is inaccessible from kernel mode as in bug 5265 and 5314, and the
> strange processes access issues in bug 5310. This revert silliness
> will result in moving the project back to post windows 95 architecture
> (arwinss). ReactOS is about moving forward and taking chances with
> innovations from learned information then moving away to make it work
> even better. Personally, I hope someone will take up where this left
> off and move on.
>
> Good luck!
>
> Reference:
>
> http://www.reactos.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5265
> http://www.reactos.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5310
> http://www.reactos.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5314

[Aleksey Bragin]

Well, let's clear it up once and for all. I don't want this topic to  
be brought again and again.

On Apr 23, 2010, at 5:47 AM, James Tabor wrote:
> ReactOS is about moving forward and taking chances with

"The main goal of the ReactOS project is to provide an operating  
system which is binary compatible with Windows.", this is from our  
website, and it's not something new really.

ReactOS is about making an OS which works. It has been this way since  
the moment it was founded.
ReactOS is NOT:
  1. about comparing epeens;
  2. NOT a fundamental research project (those are done by  
universities and often funded by government);
  3. NOT a theoretical OS project (at least the kernel architecture  
we use has been developed by other people, ReactOS doesn't aim  
creating a totally new architecture, though it may be a target of  
some branch);
> innovations from learned information then moving away to make it work
> even better. Personally, I hope someone will take up where this left
> off and move on.

James, what is your goal with ReactOS project? Maybe I and other  
people don't understand it? Explain it then to us, inspire us.
However, if your goal is theoretical OS research, then please  
understand that it's not ReactOS primary objective and never was.  
It's fine and appreciated that you do this, but you can't demand your  
results to be used without any quality assurance at all.

ReactOS is a unique and very important project which could get  
immediate usage throughout whole world. My own interest in ReactOS is  
purely practical at the moment: I want a free, opensource, Windows- 
compatible OS which I can install on my machines.  My research  
interests are different (functional/logical languages, parallel  
computations, to name a few), I have publications about those and I  
am preparing a Ph.D. thesis. I'm not going to invent a new kernel  
architecture right now, I haven't got even one publication related to  
the kernel mode architecture and design (well, except maybe being a  
scientific editor of a russian edition of "Beautiful Architecture"  
book).
> Good luck!