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
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
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@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@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
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 Braginaleksey@reactos.org napisał(a):
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@laposte.net To: "ReactOS Development List" ros-dev@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 Braginaleksey@reactos.org napisał(a):
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
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
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@reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] On Behalf Of Aleksey Bragin Sent: Saturday, 16 January, 2010 22:45 To: ReactOS Development List Subject: [ros-dev] Arwinss presentation
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.
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.
You sir are what i would call a visionary who makes his dreams work. I wish you the best of luck.
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@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
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
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Colin Finck mail@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.
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@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.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Colin Finck mail@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
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Ged Murphy gedmurphy@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Colin Finck mail@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...
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@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
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@gmail.comwrote:
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@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@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
performance, and probably compatibility
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:18 AM, Sir Gallantmon ngompa13@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@gmail.comwrote:
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@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@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:11 PM, James Tabor jimtabor.rosdev@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.
Good catch!
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Steven Edwards winehacker@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:11 PM, James Tabor jimtabor.rosdev@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.
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
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@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@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
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... It was news to me too....
Ged.
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.
I blame andrewweb.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Aleksey Bragin aleksey@reactos.orgwrote:
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@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
why?
Sent from my iPod Andrew Faulds (andrewweb)
On 21 Jan 2010, at 18:50, Alwyn Tan alwyn.tan@gmail.com wrote:
I blame andrewweb.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Aleksey Bragin aleksey@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@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@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
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.
-
Aleksey Bragin -
Alwyn Tan -
Andrew Faulds -
Brian -
Colin Finck -
Gabriel ilardi -
Ged Murphy -
Gregor Gullwi -
Gregor Schneider -
James Tabor -
Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo -
Jose Catena -
Joshua Bailey -
Jérôme Gardou -
Kamil Horníček -
Marius Przybylski -
pay7n＠o2.pl
-
Sir Gallantmon -
Steven Edwards -
Timo Kreuzer