Arwinss presentation

[Aleksey Bragin]

	All,
today I would like to officially announce the (sub)project I was  
working on for the last half a year, and make a call to developers to  
participate.

ReactOS has been around for about 11 years, and it's been growing  
each year since then. The demand for an open source Windows- 
compatible operating system is huge: geek, servers, netbooks,  
accounting, point of sales, CAD... The list could go on and on.

Time goes by, new versions of Windows operating systems are being  
released. ReactOS usability still has not reached any significant  
value. Not to say ReactOS didn't even officially enter the Beta  
stage. Separately, there are many achievements: audio support  
appeared, bootloader is able to boot real Windows, some Windows  
binary drivers could be loaded and work in ReactOS, networking is  
being improved every day, the kernel is being actively worked on too.  
But all of that does not really matter for the end user. For a user  
it's important that a web-browser loads websites, instant messenger  
client connects and works, [Microsoft/Open] Office shows documents,  
email client gets new messages.

This bare usability is what's still missing, and if ti continues to  
be like this, I am afraid our project won't be of much use in another  
10 years. Certainly, I became very concerned and started analyzing  
situation. Being opensource project without major commercial  
sponsors, there are certain limitations as to what could be done to  
improve the situation, so mainly it's a matter of picking right  
priorities and properly managing (motivating) existing human resources.

The part of ReactOS which plays major role in compatibility and  
usability is Win32 subsystem. Right now, it's a huge monster which  
requires a lot more human resources than we have now. It's very hard  
and time consuming to reach even Windows 2000 level of compatibility  
with current amount of participating developers, and high entry level.

I came up with something which could solve this problem: Arwinss. To  
better explain what it is, I made a special presentation (URL to  
slides in PDF format is in the end of this email). Please imagine  
myself talking through it as I didn't perform/record it.

Now, after you read through the presentation, I would like to make a  
proposal to all developers (even newcomers, who never worked on  
ReactOS before). Let's make an Arwinss week, or Arwinss month. Every  
developer could definitely find a few hours during a week to hack  
Arwinss. Entry level is rather low, there are some basic docs about  
Arwinss in the wiki, and I am happy to consult about details.

If I could make this new subsystem out of nothing (out of Wine and  
ReactOS) almost alone (Kamil and Smiley help is very valued and  
appreciated!) within a few months, imagine what we could do all  
together?

With the best regards,
Aleksey Bragin.

The presentation: (links to further information are in the  
presentation too)
http://www.reactos.org/media/docs/2010/arwinss.pdf

[Gabriel ilardi]

That's a long email :)
I second the call out for help too, please devs, could we focus for at least a month to
try fix the remaining issues in arwinss and see what comes out ?
I've been testing arwinss and I think it's got a huge potential to be a working
OS.
I think that all devs that work and have worked in current win32k have done a great job,
but we are running out of time, with so little resources there
are little choices to make, keep this way taking a lot of time to reach our goal
(it'll be too late probably), or optimize what we have to get there faster.
This is the humble opinion of a simple fan, tester, patcher, translator of ros (registered
since 2003 but following the project since 2002 in fact) in the hope of getting some
inspiration from all the team.
Please try to make this a constructive discussion, the only intention here is to have a
working ReactOS faster.

Thank you all in advance.

Gabriel.
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Non sei a casa? Prova il nuovo Web Messenger
http://www.messenger.it/web/default.aspx

[Marius Przybylski]

What are the disadvantages to using ARWINSS as Win32 subsystem ?

"Entry level is rather low" - What are the requirements for Arwinss developer ?



- Marius Przybylski





Dnia 16 stycznia 2010 22:44 Aleksey Bragin <aleksey(a)reactos.org> napisał(a):

>   	All,
>  today I would like to officially announce the (sub)project I was  
>  working on for the last half a year, and make a call to developers to  
>  participate.
>  
>  ReactOS has been around for about 11 years, and it's been growing  
>  each year since then. The demand for an open source Windows- 
>  compatible operating system is huge: geek, servers, netbooks,  
>  accounting, point of sales, CAD... The list could go on and on.
>  
>  Time goes by, new versions of Windows operating systems are being  
>  released. ReactOS usability still has not reached any significant  
>  value. Not to say ReactOS didn't even officially enter the Beta  
>  stage. Separately, there are many achievements: audio support  
>  appeared, bootloader is able to boot real Windows, some Windows  
>  binary drivers could be loaded and work in ReactOS, networking is  
>  being improved every day, the kernel is being actively worked on too.  
>  But all of that does not really matter for the end user. For a user  
>  it's important that a web-browser loads websites, instant messenger  
>  client connects and works, [Microsoft/Open] Office shows documents,  
>  email client gets new messages.
>  
>  This bare usability is what's still missing, and if ti continues to  
>  be like this, I am afraid our project won't be of much use in another  
>  10 years. Certainly, I became very concerned and started analyzing  
>  situation. Being opensource project without major commercial  
>  sponsors, there are certain limitations as to what could be done to  
>  improve the situation, so mainly it's a matter of picking right  
>  priorities and properly managing (motivating) existing human resources.
>  
>  The part of ReactOS which plays major role in compatibility and  
>  usability is Win32 subsystem. Right now, it's a huge monster which  
>  requires a lot more human resources than we have now. It's very hard  
>  and time consuming to reach even Windows 2000 level of compatibility  
>  with current amount of participating developers, and high entry level.
>  
>  I came up with something which could solve this problem: Arwinss. To  
>  better explain what it is, I made a special presentation (URL to  
>  slides in PDF format is in the end of this email). Please imagine  
>  myself talking through it as I didn't perform/record it.
>  
>  Now, after you read through the presentation, I would like to make a  
>  proposal to all developers (even newcomers, who never worked on  
>  ReactOS before). Let's make an Arwinss week, or Arwinss month. Every  
>  developer could definitely find a few hours during a week to hack  
>  Arwinss. Entry level is rather low, there are some basic docs about  
>  Arwinss in the wiki, and I am happy to consult about details.
>  
>  If I could make this new subsystem out of nothing (out of Wine and  
>  ReactOS) almost alone (Kamil and Smiley help is very valued and  
>  appreciated!) within a few months, imagine what we could do all  
>  together?
>  
>  With the best regards,
>  Aleksey Bragin.
>  
>  The presentation: (links to further information are in the  
>  presentation too)
>  http://www.reactos.org/media/docs/2010/arwinss.pdf
>  
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>

[Jérôme Gardou]

Could this be pushed to write a rosd3d driver? Take all d3d dlls from 
wine and write a wined3d compatible dll?
Also, users could make a choice between wine and ReactOS implementation...

Marius Przybylski wrote:
>   What are the disadvantages to using ARWINSS as Win32
> subsystem ?
>
>  "Entry level is rather low" - What are the requirements for Arwinss developer
> ?
>
>
>
>  - Marius Przybylski
>
>
>
>
>
>  Dnia 16 stycznia 2010 22:44 Aleksey Bragin<aleksey(a)reactos.org>  napisał(a):
>

[Kamil Horníček]

What would be the advantage of such an approach? We now use only Wine DX 
libs anyway and wined3d seems to do its job just fine.
This would go directly against the whole arwinss idea = use tested and known 
to work code from Wine and only spend valuable dev time on parts that are 
reactos specific.

Kamil

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jérôme Gardou" <jerome.gardou(a)laposte.net>
To: "ReactOS Development List" <ros-dev(a)reactos.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 2:31 AM
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Arwinss presentation


>   Could this be pushed to write a rosd3d driver? Take
> all d3d dlls from
>  wine and write a wined3d compatible dll?
>  Also, users could make a choice between wine and ReactOS implementation...
>
>  Marius Przybylski wrote:
> >   What are the disadvantages to using ARWINSS as
> > Win32 subsystem ?
> >
> >  "Entry level is rather low" - What are the requirements for Arwinss 
> >  developer ?
> >
> >
> >
> >  - Marius Przybylski
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  Dnia 16 stycznia 2010 22:44 Aleksey Bragin<aleksey(a)reactos.org> 
> >  napisał(a):
> >  
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Jérôme Gardou]

Because there still exists some features of D3D that OpenGL has not or 
that some manufacturers implement in their D3D drivers but not in their 
opengl ICD.

The funny side of it is that I use wineD3D on my laptop, because intel 
drivers suck!
Jérôme.

Kamil Horníček a écrit :
>   What would be the advantage of such an approach? We
> now use only Wine DX
>  libs anyway and wined3d seems to do its job just fine.
>  This would go directly against the whole arwinss idea = use tested and known
>  to work code from Wine and only spend valuable dev time on parts that are
>  reactos specific.
>
>  Kamil
>

[Jose Catena]

Great work Aleksey!
I'm completely convinced by your presentation. Now a usable ReactOS becomes
highly viable.
I will be working on the kernel, but I heartly support the move to Arwinss.

Jose Catena
DIGIWAVES S.L.

-----Original Message-----
From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of Aleksey Bragin
Sent: Saturday, 16 January, 2010 22:45
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: [ros-dev] Arwinss presentation

[Gregor Schneider]

Now that I understand the driver concept behind arwinss I think that arwinss
is the right approach for the project.
Looking at the current development approach win32 user and kernel components
will not be finished anytime soon and will probably never work 100%. We're
just missing specialised developers to achieve that.
Furthermore mixing Wine and ReactOS codes on function level like done in
those components complicates matters dramatically and consumes energies that
could be used in better ways.

Summing that up: I like the idea, should indeed be a big push for
application compability.
Actually I'm surprised we don't see a big controversial discussion around
this idea like everyone expected.

Concerning the picture on page 25 of the presentation: I remember having
seen the start menu side bar cropped like this before in some of my tests.
Was it StretchDIBits, or rather StretchBlt? I'll find out.

Best regards,
Gregor Schneider

P.S: Quite interesting how the press judged this announcement: "ReactOS
about to restart" is what I read today on a german technology news page.

[Aleksey Bragin]

Thanks!

Press as usual likes flashy topics, so of course everyone edited the  
news text as he liked, but I like it. ReactOS needed some kick, it  
was quite sad to see some kind of stagnation (even though everyone  
did their best, it's just lack of human resources for specific tasks).

If we make arwinss (or however it's going to be branded) succeed  
quickly, it's the best ever road to switch to beta with huge apps  
support, and put resources into more interesting things like real  
hardware bringing up, file systems support, and finally, after so  
many years, actually start using our OS. It would be fantastic to  
notice "ReactOS" in general web/whatever statistics sum ups.

On Jan 19, 2010, at 10:03 PM, Gregor Schneider wrote:

>  
>  Now that I understand the driver concept behind arwinss I think  
>  that arwinss is the right approach for the project.
>  Looking at the current development approach win32 user and kernel  
>  components will not be finished anytime soon and will probably  
>  never work 100%. We're just missing specialised developers to  
>  achieve that.
>  Furthermore mixing Wine and ReactOS codes on function level like  
>  done in those components complicates matters dramatically and  
>  consumes energies that could be used in better ways.
>
>  Summing that up: I like the idea, should indeed be a big push for  
>  application compability.
>  Actually I'm surprised we don't see a big controversial discussion  
>  around this idea like everyone expected.
>
>  Concerning the picture on page 25 of the presentation: I remember  
>  having seen the start menu side bar cropped like this before in  
>  some of my tests. Was it StretchDIBits, or rather StretchBlt? I'll  
>  find out.
>
>  Best regards,
>  Gregor Schneider
>
>  P.S: Quite interesting how the press judged this announcement:  
>  "ReactOS about to restart" is what I read today on a german  
>  technology news page.

[Brian]

You sir are what i would call a visionary who makes his dreams work. I wish
you the best of luck.

-- 
brian

[Timo Kreuzer]

I gave up on arguing. Instead I'll just use this to push my own ideas.

I also have a secret plan of a "Complete rewrite" that will "bring
ReactOS to the next level" not yet sure about the details, but I think
it will incorporate something like virtualization and cloud computing.

*muahahaha*



Gregor Schneider wrote:
>   Now that I understand the driver concept behind
> arwinss I think that arwinss
>  is the right approach for the project.
>  Looking at the current development approach win32 user and kernel components
>  will not be finished anytime soon and will probably never work 100%. We're
>  just missing specialised developers to achieve that.
>  Furthermore mixing Wine and ReactOS codes on function level like done in
>  those components complicates matters dramatically and consumes energies that
>  could be used in better ways.
>
>  Summing that up: I like the idea, should indeed be a big push for
>  application compability.
>  Actually I'm surprised we don't see a big controversial discussion around
>  this idea like everyone expected.
>
>  Concerning the picture on page 25 of the presentation: I remember having
>  seen the start menu side bar cropped like this before in some of my tests.
>  Was it StretchDIBits, or rather StretchBlt? I'll find out.
>
>  Best regards,
>  Gregor Schneider
>
>  P.S: Quite interesting how the press judged this announcement: "ReactOS
>  about to restart" is what I read today on a german technology news page.
>
>    
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Colin Finck]

Gregor Schneider wrote:
>   Actually I'm surprised we don't see a big
> controversial discussion around
>  this idea like everyone expected. 
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.

Best regards,

Colin

[Steven Edwards]

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Colin Finck <mail(a)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.

-- 
Steven Edwards

"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and
that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo

[Gregor Gullwi]

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(a)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.
>
>

[Ged Murphy]

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Colin Finck <mail(a)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.
>  
I agree with Colin on this.
I think arwinss is a great idea, but I still see it as a temporary solution
until the real win32 subsystem can match it.

Ged

[Sir Gallantmon]

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Ged Murphy <gedmurphy(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>  
>
>  On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Colin Finck <mail(a)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.
> >  
>  I agree with Colin on this.
>  I think arwinss is a great idea, but I still see it as a temporary solution
>  until the real win32 subsystem can match it.
>
>  Ged
>
>  
I don't see any real reason for maintaining both branches of win32
subsystem. Arwinss still aims to be driver compatible, right? So, what do we
gain by fully replicating the Win32 subsystem as Microsoft Windows does it?
The idea of using Wine code to further the levels of compatibility in
ReactOS is a good idea, and it has potential to make ReactOS a good choice
for "thin-client" and terminal server systems because of the X11 driver. I
personally prefer X11 SSH tunneling over VNC/RDP, because I don't need to
see the entire remote desktop, just the applications I want to run from
there. Additionally, Linux distros might include ReactOS and use their
virtualization solutions to integrate apps installed to ReactOS into the
overall Linux desktop. Nobody would ever really see the ReactOS desktop, but
ReactOS would ensure more complete compatibility with Windows apps and
games.

I think Arwinss should be the new official win32 subsystem, but meh...

[James Tabor]

The same thing with the kernel, we can use Linux instead! Create a
distribution with it and call it Lindows! Oh wait! That ship has set
sail and moved on~!

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Sir Gallantmon <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>  I don't see any real reason for maintaining both branches of win32
>  subsystem. Arwinss still aims to be driver compatible, right? So, what do we
>  gain by fully replicating the Win32 subsystem as Microsoft Windows does it?
>  The idea of using Wine code to further the levels of compatibility in
>  ReactOS is a good idea, and it has potential to make ReactOS a good choice
>  for "thin-client" and terminal server systems because of the X11 driver. I
>  personally prefer X11 SSH tunneling over VNC/RDP, because I don't need to
>  see the entire remote desktop, just the applications I want to run from
>  there. Additionally, Linux distros might include ReactOS and use their
>  virtualization solutions to integrate apps installed to ReactOS into the
>  overall Linux desktop. Nobody would ever really see the ReactOS desktop, but
>  ReactOS would ensure more complete compatibility with Windows apps and
>  games.
>  I think Arwinss should be the new official win32 subsystem, but meh... 
No

[Sir Gallantmon]

Well, you don't have to be unnecessarily sarcastically cruel about it. I use
all three major OSes and I use whatever fits to my needs. Most of the time,
Linux does fit my needs. But, I want to play PC games, which are usually
Windows games and their DRM schemes hook into the system deeper than Wine
allows, so ReactOS could work out there.

Anyway, you didn't give a reason to NOT use arwinss as the official win32
subsystem...

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 5:11 PM, James Tabor <jimtabor.rosdev(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

>   The same thing with the kernel, we can use Linux
> instead! Create a
>  distribution with it and call it Lindows! Oh wait! That ship has set
>  sail and moved on~!
>
>  On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Sir Gallantmon <ngompa13(a)gmail.com>
>  wrote:
> >  
> >  I don't see any real reason for maintaining both branches of win32
> >  subsystem. Arwinss still aims to be driver compatible, right? So, what do 
>  we
> >   gain by fully replicating the Win32 subsystem as
> > Microsoft Windows does 
>  it?
> >   The idea of using Wine code to further the levels
> > of compatibility in
> >  ReactOS is a good idea, and it has potential to make ReactOS a good 
>  choice
> >   for "thin-client" and terminal server
> > systems because of the X11 driver. 
>  I
> >   personally prefer X11 SSH tunneling over VNC/RDP,
> > because I don't need to
> >  see the entire remote desktop, just the applications I want to run from
> >  there. Additionally, Linux distros might include ReactOS and use their
> >  virtualization solutions to integrate apps installed to ReactOS into the
> >  overall Linux desktop. Nobody would ever really see the ReactOS desktop, 
>  but
> >   ReactOS would ensure more complete compatibility
> > with Windows apps and
> >  games.
> >  I think Arwinss should be the new official win32 subsystem, but meh... 
>  No
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>

[Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo]

performance, and probably compatibility

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:18 AM, Sir Gallantmon <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>  
>  Anyway, you didn't give a reason to NOT use arwinss as the official win32
>  subsystem...
>
>  On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 5:11 PM, James Tabor <jimtabor.rosdev(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
>
> >   The same thing with the kernel, we can use Linux
> > instead! Create a
> >  distribution with it and call it Lindows! Oh wait! That ship has set
> >  sail and moved on~!
> >
> >  On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Sir Gallantmon <ngompa13(a)gmail.com>
> >  wrote:
> > >  
> > >  I don't see any real reason for maintaining both branches of win32
> > >  subsystem. Arwinss still aims to be driver compatible, right? So, what 
> >  do we
> > >   gain by fully replicating the Win32 subsystem as
> > > Microsoft Windows does 
> >  it?
> > >   The idea of using Wine code to further the levels
> > > of compatibility in
> > >  ReactOS is a good idea, and it has potential to make ReactOS a good 
> >  choice
> > >   for "thin-client" and terminal server
> > > systems because of the X11 driver. 
> >  I
> > >   personally prefer X11 SSH tunneling over VNC/RDP,
> > > because I don't need 
> >  to
> > >   see the entire remote desktop, just the
> > > applications I want to run from
> > >  there. Additionally, Linux distros might include ReactOS and use their
> > >  virtualization solutions to integrate apps installed to ReactOS into the
> > >  overall Linux desktop. Nobody would ever really see the ReactOS desktop, 
> >  but
> > >   ReactOS would ensure more complete compatibility
> > > with Windows apps and
> > >  games.
> > >  I think Arwinss should be the new official win32 subsystem, but meh... 
> >  No
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  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
>

[Steven Edwards]

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:11 PM, James Tabor <jimtabor.rosdev(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>   The same thing with the kernel, we can use Linux
> instead! Create a
>  distribution with it and call it Lindows! Oh wait! That ship has set
>  sail and moved on~! 
Although Jim likes the hyperbole, he is right. Arwinss is a stop gap
solution that should eventually be deprecated except for the X11
module and used as a basis for verifying the 'correct' win32
subsystem.

-- 
Steven Edwards

"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and
that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo

[James Tabor]

Good catch!

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Steven Edwards <winehacker(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>   On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:11 PM, James Tabor
> <jimtabor.rosdev(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >   The same thing with the kernel, we can use Linux
> > instead! Create a
> >  distribution with it and call it Lindows! Oh wait! That ship has set
> >  sail and moved on~! 
>  Although Jim likes the hyperbole, he is right. Arwinss is a stop gap
>  solution that should eventually be deprecated except for the X11
>  module and used as a basis for verifying the 'correct' win32
>  subsystem.
>
>  --
>  Steven Edwards
>  
I'm for both! One will not replace the other... I have no idea how
that got started! Amazing!

Posted this before!

ReactOS is an unique project platform and to just have one sole
project is not what this project is about. What have we learn from
Arwinss to date, the source of our win32k issues is wine itself. (ref
r44800) It's an add on to X11, so wine thinks per process and not the
whole of it. Meaning, it draws based on one application and does not
consider the full X11 environment. So it's hacked to work. Arwinss
attempts to move beyond this and with wine using our kernel in itself
is amazing! This is why we have both now.
James

Reference:
http://www.reactos.org/archives/public/ros-diffs/2009-December/034538.html
FYI: Win32k was ported from wine.

[Joshua Bailey]

I'm not a developer, so I have no say in the matter, but if you want an outsider's
opinion, I 
would suggest implementing Arwinss for the near-term, so we have better software 
compatibility.  Software compatibility brings publicity, since people will actually be
able to
 do things with ReactOS that they couldn't do before, like run Win32 programs.  A lot
of 
the software I test has issues with Win32, and if Arwinss gets them running in the near-
term it'll show people the real potential of ReactOS.  Some of these people may be 
programmers, who can then funnel their interest in ReactOS towards contributing to 
development.

Arwinss is a stopgap measure.  Regardless of your personal differences in the matter, use

Arwinss to gather publicity and near-term compatibility, so development can be focused on

other issues, such as DirectX, USB support, or better filesystem support.  When the other

components are up and running, when we have a functioning ReactOS in beta, hopefully the 
publicity that will follow ReactOS's progress will have added to the pool of
developers.  This 
larger pool of developers will then have the manpower to re-implement a more
"native" Win32 
subsystem.   While everyone in an open-source project is technically free to go as they
please, 
perhaps the current pool of developers could have a gentleman's agreement to fix the
native 
Win32 when the rest of the Windows components are up and running.  Everybody seems to 
agree that the current Win32 is a monster, so use Arwinss to rally more troops to battle
the beast.

Even when the native Win32 is fixed, there may be a place for Arwinss where the optional
features it offers can be used.  Specialized deployments of ReactOS could take advantage
of Arwinss, though the main branch of ReactOS would re-implement the native Win32.  A
corporation that likes the X Server features of Arwinss might decide to sponsor ReactOS,
and that assistance could be used to progress the rest of the project as a whole. 
Don't forget 
native Win32, but let's see what opportunities Arwinss opens up for ReactOS.

Perhaps the choice between Arwinss and native Win32 could be made at install.  Arwinss
would be the recommended package until native Win32 is fixed.

For what it's worth, I'm looking forward to testing my personal list of benchmark
software 
against Arwinss.  :)

-Joshua Bailey

[Andrew Faulds]

I would agree it would be a nice idea to choose which at install-time,  
then it would be easy to test both, and would allow any arwinss-haters  
to get what they want.

Sent from my iPod
Andrew Faulds (andrewweb)

On 20 Jan 2010, at 04:42, Joshua Bailey <raptoremperor(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

>   I'm not a developer, so I have no say in the
> matter, but if you want  
>  an outsider's opinion, I
>  would suggest implementing Arwinss for the near-term, so we have  
>  better software
>  compatibility.  Software compatibility brings publicity, since  
>  people will actually be able to
>   do things with ReactOS that they couldn't do before, like run Win32  
>  programs.  A lot of
>  the software I test has issues with Win32, and if Arwinss gets them  
>  running in the near-
>  term it'll show people the real potential of ReactOS.  Some of these  
>  people may be
>  programmers, who can then funnel their interest in ReactOS towards  
>  contributing to
>  development.
>
>  Arwinss is a stopgap measure.  Regardless of your personal  
>  differences in the matter, use
>  Arwinss to gather publicity and near-term compatibility, so  
>  development can be focused on
>  other issues, such as DirectX, USB support, or better filesystem  
>  support.  When the other
>  components are up and running, when we have a functioning ReactOS in  
>  beta, hopefully the
>  publicity that will follow ReactOS's progress will have added to the  
>  pool of developers.  This
>  larger pool of developers will then have the manpower to re- 
>  implement a more "native" Win32
>  subsystem.   While everyone in an open-source project is technically  
>  free to go as they please,
>  perhaps the current pool of developers could have a gentleman's  
>  agreement to fix the native
>  Win32 when the rest of the Windows components are up and running.   
>  Everybody seems to
>  agree that the current Win32 is a monster, so use Arwinss to rally  
>  more troops to battle the beast.
>
>  Even when the native Win32 is fixed, there may be a place for  
>  Arwinss where the optional
>  features it offers can be used.  Specialized deployments of ReactOS  
>  could take advantage
>  of Arwinss, though the main branch of ReactOS would re-implement the  
>  native Win32.  A
>  corporation that likes the X Server features of Arwinss might decide  
>  to sponsor ReactOS,
>  and that assistance could be used to progress the rest of the  
>  project as a whole.  Don't forget
>  native Win32, but let's see what opportunities Arwinss opens up for  
>  ReactOS.
>
>  Perhaps the choice between Arwinss and native Win32 could be made at  
>  install.  Arwinss
>  would be the recommended package until native Win32 is fixed.
>
>  For what it's worth, I'm looking forward to testing my personal list  
>  of benchmark software
>  against Arwinss.  :)
>
>  -Joshua Bailey
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Ged Murphy]

James Tabor wrote:

> >   Although Jim
> > likes the hyperbole, he is right. Arwinss is a stop gap
> >  solution that should eventually be deprecated except for the X11
> >  module and used as a basis for verifying the 'correct' win32
> >  subsystem. 
>  I'm for both! One will not replace the other... I have no idea how
>  that got started! Amazing!
>
>  Posted this before! 
I'll show how this got started...
http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php?title=Arwinss&diff=27579&oldi…
It was news to me too....

Ged.

[Aleksey Bragin]

On Jan 20, 2010, at 11:14 AM, Ged Murphy wrote:

>   James Tabor wrote:
>
> > >   Although
> > > Jim likes the hyperbole, he is right. Arwinss is a stop gap
> > >  solution that should eventually be deprecated except for the X11
> > >  module and used as a basis for verifying the 'correct' win32
> > >  subsystem. 
> >  I'm for both! One will not replace the other... I have no idea how
> >  that got started! Amazing!
> >
> >  Posted this before! 
>  I'll show how this got started...
>  http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php? 
>  title=Arwinss&diff=27579&oldid=27578
>  It was news to me too.... 
I wrote that after seeing this:
http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php? 
title=Arwinss&diff=27396&oldid=27018
and similar changes there done when I was away.

As every piece of software, Arwinss (Wine32) is a stopgap between  
v1.0 and v3.0. When something better evolves, surely we'll use it.


WBR,
Aleksey Bragin.

[Alwyn Tan]

I blame andrewweb.

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Aleksey Bragin <aleksey(a)reactos.org>wrote;wrote:

>   On Jan 20, 2010, at 11:14 AM, Ged Murphy wrote:
>
> >   James Tabor wrote:
> >
> > > >   Although
> > > > Jim likes the hyperbole, he is right. Arwinss is a stop gap
> > > >  solution that should eventually be deprecated except for the X11
> > > >  module and used as a basis for verifying the 'correct' win32
> > > >  subsystem. 
> > >  I'm for both! One will not replace the other... I have no idea how
> > >  that got started! Amazing!
> > >
> > >  Posted this before! 
> >  I'll show how this got started...
> >  http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php?
> >  title=Arwinss&diff=27579&oldid=27578
> >  It was news to me too.... 
>  I wrote that after seeing this:
>  http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php?
>  title=Arwinss&diff=27396&oldid=27018
>  and similar changes there done when I was away.
>
>  As every piece of software, Arwinss (Wine32) is a stopgap between
>  v1.0 and v3.0. When something better evolves, surely we'll use it.
>
>
>  WBR,
>  Aleksey Bragin.
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>

[Andrew Faulds]

why?

Sent from my iPod
Andrew Faulds (andrewweb)

On 21 Jan 2010, at 18:50, Alwyn Tan <alwyn.tan(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>   I blame andrewweb.
>
>  On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Aleksey Bragin  
>  <aleksey(a)reactos.org> wrote:
>  On Jan 20, 2010, at 11:14 AM, Ged Murphy wrote:
>
> >   James Tabor wrote:
> >
> > >> Although Jim likes the hyperbole, he is right. Arwinss is a stop   
>  gap
> > > >   solution that should eventually be deprecated except
> > > > for the X11
> > > >  module and used as a basis for verifying the 'correct' win32
> > > >  subsystem. 
> > >  I'm for both! One will not replace the other... I have no idea how
> > >  that got started! Amazing!
> > >
> > >  Posted this before! 
> >  I'll show how this got started...
> >  http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php?
> >  title=Arwinss&diff=27579&oldid=27578
> >  It was news to me too.... 
>  I wrote that after seeing this:
>  http://www.reactos.org/wiki/index.php?
>  title=Arwinss&diff=27396&oldid=27018
>  and similar changes there done when I was away.
>
>  As every piece of software, Arwinss (Wine32) is a stopgap between
>  v1.0 and v3.0. When something better evolves, surely we'll use it.
>
>
>  WBR,
>  Aleksey Bragin.
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  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

Arwinss is a temporary solution.
It must be deprecated in favor of proper architecture in the future.
It must not force anyone to switch to new architecture.
Parallel development of Win32 and Arwinss is thus necessary.

- Marius Przybylski

[Jose Catena]

Technically Arwinss may not be the best possible architecture, but IMHO
right now is the only viable one in order to reach beta in reasonable time.

Sure, we will always see how a more "native" implementation could be more
efficient at the end, but the reality is that given the current human
resources it is not a realistic approach, it simply won't happen in many
years with the actual resources.

Arwinss allows us to use most of a working win32k subsystem (wine's) with
minimal effort, thus saving huge amount of work. So we can focus in
implementing other very needed areas to have a complete os.

Why to invest an huge resources that we don't even have to implement
something what is already done, better or worse? After we have the needed
partitions, filesystems, complete kernel compatibility, etc, if we have more
resources, we may consider t keep the the native win32k ss development, with
the advantage of having a complete and working system to compare and test
against, and most probably with more resources after we deliver an usable
system.

ReactOS goals are to achieve maximum windows compatibility at both
application and driver/kernel components. We don't have any part finished.
Arwinss solves with minimal effort the application APIs side that would
require he largest effort otherwise, so we can dedicate our very limited
resources to finish the other parts.

It is just my opinion, but I see it so clear. I hope you all understand
this: the best architecture can be the worst one if there is no a realistic
plan to develop it.

 

Jose Catena

DIGIWAVES S.L.