Ok guys...

[Richard Campbell]

Ok, after my slight anger on IRC, i've decided to write a constructive 
email and post it here.  Please note this is my opinion, though others 
may agree with me.

First of all, Martin, let me say i have the utmost respect for you and 
your work.

However, it has come to my attention that the explorer clone is starting 
to become a mess.  It has too many 'features' built in.  The compaints i 
have are:

1)  Too many 'ways' to browse a users computer.  You have all those 
buttons at the toolbar, why not just make those features into shell 
extensions or at the very LEAST compiletime options.  Explorer needs 
only 1 way to browse directories/files.  (Which should be whichever way 
that closely resembles microsoft's windows, and by all means winefile 
and explorer should be seperate applications.)  Among the features that 
need to go are:  The web support, Registry browser, NT Object File 
System or whatever the hell it's called, The 'shell browser' or whatever 
it is, The little bar above the Status bar should go.  The Interface 
shouldn't be MDI, as microsoft's is not.
2)  The toolbar has nothing useful.  The windows explorer toolbar has 
back, forward, and up buttons for example, to browse the users 
computer.  Our explorer has none of these.
3)  The web support needs to go.  I don't know what all was done, but 
web support causes alot of potential vulnerabilities.  Just look at 
microsoft's windows, and even IF it didn't, loading IE/mozilla every 
time explorer starts is a WASTE.

Normally i'd stand back, work on my own explorer clone, but this IS 
ReactOS, our goal is to clone windows, we need to keep our UI as 
consistent as possible with microsoft's.  If you sit down a user in 
front of our current explorer, he/she would be most definitely lost.  
While i would  say hide the features, they'd still be there, increasing 
application size, code complexity, memory requirements, dependencies, 
and slowing the app down, and this isn't an ideal solution.

Solution:  I really think we should clone the Windows NT 4.0 explorer, 
with quicklaunch, but nothing more.  Make everything else addins or 
compiletime options.  The interface really should be more similar to the 
windows version of explorer, with nothing new to confuse users, etc.  
This will make explorer less buggy and faster, it will also consume less 
RAM.  Currently explorer is even slower then microsoft's own explorer.  
Granted it is an alpha version, but still, these 'new features' are 
still getting injected every once and a while, making things even worse, 
when time/energy would be better spent working on shell32 or fixing 
bugs/optimizing explorer and code cleanup.

Don't get me wrong, i think explorer is great, it's a marvelous piece of 
work.  And my opinion is one of many, but keep in mind i'm not speaking 
for the supergeeks here, i'm speaking for the power users and regular 
users, the customer support reps and myself.

Take care, and please don't flame me, martin, or anyone else.
Richard.

[Eric Kohl]

"Richard Campbell" <eek2121(a)comcast.net> wrote:

>   1)  Too many 'ways' to browse a users
> computer.  You have all those
>  buttons at the toolbar, why not just make those features into shell
>  extensions or at the very LEAST compiletime options.  Explorer needs
>  only 1 way to browse directories/files.  (Which should be whichever way
>  that closely resembles microsoft's windows, and by all means winefile
>  and explorer should be seperate applications.)  Among the features that
>  need to go are:  The web support, Registry browser, NT Object File
>  System or whatever the hell it's called, The 'shell browser' or whatever
>  it is, The little bar above the Status bar should go.  The Interface
>  shouldn't be MDI, as microsoft's is not. 
I absolutely agree with you. Registry and object tree do _not_ belong into
the hands of the average user.


>   2)  The toolbar has nothing useful.  The windows
> explorer toolbar has
>  back, forward, and up buttons for example, to browse the users
>  computer.  Our explorer has none of these. 
IMO, back, forward and up buttons should be implemented because they provide
useful features.


>   3)  The web support needs to go.  I don't know
> what all was done, but
>  web support causes alot of potential vulnerabilities.  Just look at
>  microsoft's windows, and even IF it didn't, loading IE/mozilla every
>  time explorer starts is a WASTE. 
Yep!!


>   Solution:  I really think we should clone the Windows
> NT 4.0 explorer,
>  with quicklaunch, but nothing more.  Make everything else addins or
>  compiletime options.  The interface really should be more similar to the
>  windows version of explorer, with nothing new to confuse users, etc.
>  This will make explorer less buggy and faster, it will also consume less
>  RAM.  Currently explorer is even slower then microsoft's own explorer.
>  Granted it is an alpha version, but still, these 'new features' are
>  still getting injected every once and a while, making things even worse,
>  when time/energy would be better spent working on shell32 or fixing
>  bugs/optimizing explorer and code cleanup. 
Agreed!


Regards,
Eric

[Jeff Smith]

I agree with most of the topic, and the things I disagree on are that I
myself find web intergration to be a powerful toom in Windows (tho at time
it's is just another security hole)  if you get that feature removed,
atleast make it an easily installibale addin for the user, so that altho it
stilll poses a potential security hole, thoses isues can be dealt with as a
hole is found. and the User can have a ReactOS expieriance that more
closesly resembles Windows.

other then that, I agree make it resemble windows as closesly as possible...
mimic the user interface if posible...  personally I'd like to see it so
real, that if it wasn't for the logo's, it would appear to be Windows so
that the user  doesn't get into thinking he's going to have to learn a new
operating system,  that he/she would be comfortable in knowing that
everything will work the same in ReactOS as it does in Windows.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Campbell" <eek2121(a)comcast.net>
To: <ros-general(a)reactos.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 2:01 AM
Subject: [ros-general] Ok guys...


>   Ok, after my slight anger on IRC, i've decided to
> write a constructive
>  email and post it here.  Please note this is my opinion, though others
>  may agree with me.
>
>  First of all, Martin, let me say i have the utmost respect for you and
>  your work.
>
>  However, it has come to my attention that the explorer clone is starting
>  to become a mess.  It has too many 'features' built in.  The compaints i
>  have are:
>
>  1)  Too many 'ways' to browse a users computer.  You have all those
>  buttons at the toolbar, why not just make those features into shell
>  extensions or at the very LEAST compiletime options.  Explorer needs
>  only 1 way to browse directories/files.  (Which should be whichever way
>  that closely resembles microsoft's windows, and by all means winefile
>  and explorer should be seperate applications.)  Among the features that
>  need to go are:  The web support, Registry browser, NT Object File
>  System or whatever the hell it's called, The 'shell browser' or whatever
>  it is, The little bar above the Status bar should go.  The Interface
>  shouldn't be MDI, as microsoft's is not.
>  2)  The toolbar has nothing useful.  The windows explorer toolbar has
>  back, forward, and up buttons for example, to browse the users
>  computer.  Our explorer has none of these.
>  3)  The web support needs to go.  I don't know what all was done, but
>  web support causes alot of potential vulnerabilities.  Just look at
>  microsoft's windows, and even IF it didn't, loading IE/mozilla every
>  time explorer starts is a WASTE.
>
>  Normally i'd stand back, work on my own explorer clone, but this IS
>  ReactOS, our goal is to clone windows, we need to keep our UI as
>  consistent as possible with microsoft's.  If you sit down a user in
>  front of our current explorer, he/she would be most definitely lost.
>  While i would  say hide the features, they'd still be there, increasing
>  application size, code complexity, memory requirements, dependencies,
>  and slowing the app down, and this isn't an ideal solution.
>
>  Solution:  I really think we should clone the Windows NT 4.0 explorer,
>  with quicklaunch, but nothing more.  Make everything else addins or
>  compiletime options.  The interface really should be more similar to the
>  windows version of explorer, with nothing new to confuse users, etc.
>  This will make explorer less buggy and faster, it will also consume less
>  RAM.  Currently explorer is even slower then microsoft's own explorer.
>  Granted it is an alpha version, but still, these 'new features' are
>  still getting injected every once and a while, making things even worse,
>  when time/energy would be better spent working on shell32 or fixing
>  bugs/optimizing explorer and code cleanup.
>
>  Don't get me wrong, i think explorer is great, it's a marvelous piece of
>  work.  And my opinion is one of many, but keep in mind i'm not speaking
>  for the supergeeks here, i'm speaking for the power users and regular
>  users, the customer support reps and myself.
>
>  Take care, and please don't flame me, martin, or anyone else.
>  Richard.
>  _______________________________________________
>  ros-general mailing list
>  ros-general(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
>

[jh]

Surely power users and IT managers would love a full featured explorer and ordinary users
just want something more simple. So why not have a lite version of rosexplorer as standard
and a full featured rosexplorer on disc for those who require more from an explorer.

Keep up the good work Martin and don' t be put off by any criticism.


regards
jh

[Martin Fuchs]

Hello Richard,

>   Ok, after my slight anger on IRC, i've decided to
> write a constructive
>  email and post it here.  Please note this is my opinion, though others
>  may agree with me. 
Yep - constructive mails are always a good thing.  :-)


>   First of all, Martin, let me say i have the utmost
> respect for you and
>  your work.
>
>  However, it has come to my attention that the explorer clone is starting
>  to become a mess.  It has too many 'features' built in. 
I agree with you in that the current explorer implementation is not really
intended for "average users". It's more a bit experimentally, I am trying
out
many extra features, which could enhance its functionality. This explains
the
many different toolbar buttons you can see there.


>   The compaints i have are:
>
>  1)  Too many 'ways' to browse a users computer.  You have all those
>  buttons at the toolbar, why not just make those features into shell
>  extensions or at the very LEAST compiletime options.  Explorer needs
>  only 1 way to browse directories/files.  (Which should be whichever way
>  that closely resembles microsoft's windows, and by all means winefile
>  and explorer should be seperate applications.)  Among the features that
>  need to go are:  The web support, Registry browser, NT Object File
>  System or whatever the hell it's called, The 'shell browser' or whatever
>  it is, The little bar above the Status bar should go.  The Interface
>  shouldn't be MDI, as microsoft's is not. 
I prefer MDI like in WINFILE, as it reduces the number of windows you
have to manage on your desktop. It packages them into one common
frame window, so you don't need an extra app window for any open folder.


>   2)  The toolbar has nothing useful.  The windows
> explorer toolbar has
>  back, forward, and up buttons for example, to browse the users
>  computer.  Our explorer has none of these. 
Well, there are "back" and "forward", but they work only for the web
integration at the moment. An "Up" button is currently missing, yes.


>   3)  The web support needs to go.  I don't know
> what all was done, but
>  web support causes alot of potential vulnerabilities.  Just look at
>  microsoft's windows, and even IF it didn't, loading IE/mozilla every
>  time explorer starts is a WASTE. 
The explorer loads the IE/Mozilla plugin only when opening a window
to display web content. At explorer startup it only links to a few
functions in OLEAUT32.DLL, it doesn't call any of them. I you think
this is better, we can even make them link at runtime using LoadLibrary().
But I don't think this makes a big difference.


>   Normally i'd stand back, work on my own explorer
> clone, but this IS
>  ReactOS, our goal is to clone windows, we need to keep our UI as
>  consistent as possible with microsoft's. 
There are also people with a different view of things:
Why should one use just another operating system than the "good old
MS Windows" if he doesn't get any improvement in comparison to that?
Even if it isn't yet compete, and stable. Yes, it's free software
compared to closed source MS Windows. (no more fully true since
last week ;-) But that's the only point.
To attract more users we have to present them more features/functionality/
usability than Microsoft.


>   If you sit down a user in
>  front of our current explorer, he/she would be most definitely lost. 
Not all users are "dumb" users. They will accomodate very fast to anything
new if it's usefull.


>   While i would  say hide the features, they'd still
> be there, increasing
>  application size, code complexity, memory requirements, dependencies,
>  and slowing the app down, and this isn't an ideal solution.
>
>  Solution:  I really think we should clone the Windows NT 4.0 explorer,
>  with quicklaunch, but nothing more.  Make everything else addins or
>  compiletime options.  The interface really should be more similar to the
>  windows version of explorer, with nothing new to confuse users, etc.
>  This will make explorer less buggy and faster, it will also consume less
>  RAM.  Currently explorer is even slower then microsoft's own explorer.
>  Granted it is an alpha version, but still, these 'new features' are
>  still getting injected every once and a while, making things even worse,
>  when time/energy would be better spent working on shell32 or fixing
>  bugs/optimizing explorer and code cleanup. 

OK - here is my solution:

Let's use preprocessor directives (e.g. #ifndef _LEAN_EXPLORER) to disable
extended functionality in explorer. This way we can maintain one codebase
to create

a.) a simple, small, lean and mean version of explorer.
b.) a full fledged version containing additional functionality.


Of course it would also be possible to create a separate module with
only explorer source code - no MDI, winefile, Web or whatever. There
is the advantage of being able to optimize it separate. But this way
we will have to maintain both versions separate and fix any bugs two
times.


By the way:
I plan to implement a new look & feel for explorer, more like that of
KDE, XFCE and friends. This would be switchable at runtime and of course
only integrated in the bigger b.) version of explorer.


>   Don't get me wrong, i think explorer is great,
> it's a marvelous piece of
>  work.  And my opinion is one of many, but keep in mind i'm not speaking
>  for the supergeeks here, i'm speaking for the power users and regular
>  users, the customer support reps and myself.
>
>  Take care, and please don't flame me, martin, or anyone else.
>  Richard. 

Regards,

   Martin

-- 
Martin Fuchs
martin-fuchs(a)gmx.net

GMX ProMail (250 MB Mailbox, 50 FreeSMS, Virenschutz, 2,99 EUR/Monat...)
jetzt 3 Monate GRATIS + 3x DER SPIEGEL +++ http://www.gmx.net/derspiegel +++

[Mark Grosberg]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Martin Fuchs wrote:

>   last week ;-) But that's the only point.
>  To attract more users we have to present them more features/functionality/
>  usability than Microsoft. 
Actually, I have to speak up and disagree with this. One of the main
reasons I would love to move to ReactOS is to get rid of all that stuff.

Example: My girlfriend needed a new computer and was an avid NT4 user.
Sadly, the new hardware I bought for her had SATA and a bunch of other
stuff she wanted but it wouldn't work with NT4. So I had to switch her to
XP. I spent a long time trying to disable all those features and get her
back the exact NT4 look she wanted with no luck.

Microsoft being a commercial company with shareholders and a very high
pulic presence needs to constantly add new features, if nothing else to
appease their shareholders.

Even I can barely tolerate XP's interface (really perferring NT4 over
anything else). I mean, if I want to find a file I don't want the damn
paper clip (or dog or whatever the hell it is). NT4's find dialog was
elegant and simple. Now I have to have a friggin' cartoon character make
me feel like a three year old.

Feature creep is not necessary to draw in users. And the kinds of users
that want a paper clip to guide them through opening a folder shouldn't be
using ReactOS, Windows, or Mac OS X (IMHO).

>   Not all users are "dumb" users. They will
> accomodate very fast to anything
>  new if it's usefull. 
Exactly my point. The power users don't want a lot of that stuff. Most
power users want a consistent, simple interface that is intuitive. I don't
care if I have to mouse around a little (I'm a power user, I've mastered
the mouse); but cluttering up the interface with "easy to reach" and
redundant controls is nothing but a detraction to usability.

>   Let's use preprocessor directives (e.g. #ifndef
> _LEAN_EXPLORER) to disable
>  extended functionality in explorer. This way we can maintain one codebase
>  to create 
Ick. In my experience preprocessor directives result in code that falls
apart.

[Aliberti Emanuele]

Mark Grosberg wrote:
>   Exactly my point. The power users don't want a lot
> of that stuff. Most
>  power users want a consistent, simple interface that is intuitive. I don't
>  care if I have to mouse around a little (I'm a power user, I've mastered
>  the mouse); but cluttering up the interface with "easy to reach" and
>  redundant controls is nothing but a detraction to usability. 
The old rule in Windows programming was "whatever can be done, should 
also be done with the keyboard", which seems to have been dropped after XP.

Emanuele

[Martin Fuchs]

On 15.02.2004 18:00:57 Mark Grosberg wrote:
> >   Let's use
> > preprocessor directives (e.g. #ifndef _LEAN_EXPLORER) to disable
> >  extended functionality in explorer. This way we can maintain one codebase
> >  to create 
>  
>  Ick. In my experience preprocessor directives result in code that falls
>  apart. 
What's your alternative solution?

I will create a branch "lean-explorer" in the explorer directory, so you can
look at it and say, if it's worth moving it into a separate directory.

Another thing - if you really care about code size and optimization don't use GCC, but
VC++ or even better Intel's compilers. MinGW GCC bloates executable size and isn't
very goof at optimizing.

To make ReactOS faster there should at least be enabled DMA transfers in the IDE driver.
This are the real problems I see at the moment.

Regards,

   Martin

[Vizzini]

On Mon, 2004-02-16 at 02:14, Martin Fuchs wrote:
>   Another thing - if you really care about code size and
> optimization don't use GCC, but VC++ or even better Intel's compilers. MinGW GCC
> bloates executable size and isn't very goof at optimizing. 
I'd like to get ReactOS buildable on non-GCC compilers one of these
days.  ATM, though, perf is the least of our problems.

>   To make ReactOS faster there should at least be
> enabled DMA transfers in the IDE driver. This are the real problems I see at the moment.
Thanks for the reminder.  I'll look into it one of these days, unless
Eric or someone else beats me to it.

 -Vizzini

[Tom Lee Mullins]

Martin Fuchs wrote:

>  On 15.02.2004 18:00:57 Mark Grosberg wrote:
>   
>
> > >  Let's
> > > use preprocessor directives (e.g. #ifndef _LEAN_EXPLORER) to disable
> > > extended functionality in explorer. This way we can maintain one codebase
> > > to create
> > >       
> > >  
> > Ick. In my experience preprocessor directives result in code that falls
> > apart.
> >     
> >  
> What's your alternative solution?
>
> I will create a branch "lean-explorer" in the explorer directory, so you can
> look at it and say, if it's worth moving it into a separate directory.
>
> Another thing - if you really care about code size and optimization don't use GCC, but
> VC++ or even better Intel's compilers. MinGW GCC bloates executable size and isn't
> very goof at optimizing.
>
> To make ReactOS faster there should at least be enabled DMA transfers in the IDE driver.
> This are the real problems I see at the moment.
>
> Regards,
>
>    Martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> ros-general mailing list
> ros-general(a)reactos.com
> http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
>
>   
>  
Was OpenWatcom ( http://www.openwatcom.org ) considered? (just curious).

TomLeeM

-- 
* * * * *BigWarpGuy / TomLeeM* * * *
 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * eComStation * * * * * * * *
 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*   the os for the internet generation *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * http://www.ecomstation.com * * * *
 * * * * *  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

[Mark IJbema]

On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 03:37:04PM +0100, Martin Fuchs wrote:
>   I prefer MDI like in WINFILE, as it reduces the number
> of windows you
>  have to manage on your desktop. It packages them into one common
>  frame window, so you don't need an extra app window for any open folder. 
Well, i don't :( Why not just make this an option like windows does?
('open each directory in new window'). Great work on the explorer though
:)

Mark

[ilmcuts]

Martin Fuchs wrote:

>  To attract more users we have to present them more
> features/functionality/
> usability than Microsoft.
>  
There are always alternative shells like Litestep </plug> or geoshell 
which could potentially be shipped with ROS. ;)

[Gunnar André Dalsnes]

>   
>  1)  Too many 'ways' to browse a users computer.  
What's the Shell button for BTW? I don't understand it's purpose as it
seem to do the same as the Explorer button? 

>   and by all means winefile 
>  and explorer should be seperate applications 
As i see it, the ros file-explorer is currently a winfile clone. I would
rather have a ros file-explorer that is similar to NT4/Win2000 and have
the (more advanced and full featured) winfile-like file-explorer as a
separate app. So i guess i agree?

>   Registry browser, NT Object File System or whatever
> the hell it's 
called

In any case, it would be easy to provide this functionality in
separate/optional shell namespace extension contained in
explorer.exe/shell32.dll image (or maybe this is how it works
allready?).

>   The Interface 
>  shouldn't be MDI, as microsoft's is not. 
I agree.

>   2)  The toolbar has nothing useful.  The windows
> explorer toolbar has 
>  back, forward, and up buttons for example, to browse the users 
>  computer.  Our explorer has none of these. 
Yeah, we need that.

>   3)  The web support needs to go.  I don't know
> what all was done, but 
>  web support causes alot of potential vulnerabilities.  Just look at 
>  microsoft's windows, and even IF it didn't, loading IE/mozilla every 
>  time explorer starts is a WASTE. 
I agree. I loved the old NT4 explorer. Nothing fancy but does what it's
supposed to and super fast.

>   Solution:  I really think we should clone the Windows
> NT 4.0 
>  explorer, 
>  with quicklaunch, but nothing more.  
Yes!

>   Make everything else addins or 
>  compiletime options.  
I prefer addins contained in the explorer.exe/shell32.dll/etc. image. I
HATE compiletime options! Compiletime options is what ros/windows is NOT
about!

>   The interface really should be more 
>  similar to the 
>  windows version of explorer, with nothing new to confuse users, etc.  
>  This will make explorer less buggy and faster, it will also 
>  consume less 
>  RAM.  
I agree.

-Gunnar

[Michael]

Yes, they are too many ways to get on the drives. Perhaps disabling the
shell or Explorer-button?
The FAT and object-windows could the exported in plugins, I don't think
that a normal user could use it...
Same for the Browser-Window

But registry-plugin should be loaded by default, because for many users
it would be usefull and wouldn't harm the others
I like the MDI-Interface, because so you have all windows in on place.
Perhaps it should even be a NC-clone, because you can work much faster
with it.

I don't think that it should be a pure Explorer-Clone, because we
needn't to clone all mistakes from M$...

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: ros-general-bounces(a)reactos.com
[mailto:[e-mail]] Im Auftrag von Richard Campbell
Gesendet: Sonntag, 15. Februar 2004 10:02
An: ros-general(a)reactos.com
Betreff: [ros-general] Ok guys...

Ok, after my slight anger on IRC, i've decided to write a constructive 
email and post it here.  Please note this is my opinion, though others 
may agree with me.

First of all, Martin, let me say i have the utmost respect for you and 
your work.

However, it has come to my attention that the explorer clone is starting

to become a mess.  It has too many 'features' built in.  The compaints i

have are:

1)  Too many 'ways' to browse a users computer.  You have all those 
buttons at the toolbar, why not just make those features into shell 
extensions or at the very LEAST compiletime options.  Explorer needs 
only 1 way to browse directories/files.  (Which should be whichever way 
that closely resembles microsoft's windows, and by all means winefile 
and explorer should be seperate applications.)  Among the features that 
need to go are:  The web support, Registry browser, NT Object File 
System or whatever the hell it's called, The 'shell browser' or whatever

it is, The little bar above the Status bar should go.  The Interface 
shouldn't be MDI, as microsoft's is not.
2)  The toolbar has nothing useful.  The windows explorer toolbar has 
back, forward, and up buttons for example, to browse the users 
computer.  Our explorer has none of these.
3)  The web support needs to go.  I don't know what all was done, but 
web support causes alot of potential vulnerabilities.  Just look at 
microsoft's windows, and even IF it didn't, loading IE/mozilla every 
time explorer starts is a WASTE.

Normally i'd stand back, work on my own explorer clone, but this IS 
ReactOS, our goal is to clone windows, we need to keep our UI as 
consistent as possible with microsoft's.  If you sit down a user in 
front of our current explorer, he/she would be most definitely lost.  
While i would  say hide the features, they'd still be there, increasing 
application size, code complexity, memory requirements, dependencies, 
and slowing the app down, and this isn't an ideal solution.

Solution:  I really think we should clone the Windows NT 4.0 explorer, 
with quicklaunch, but nothing more.  Make everything else addins or 
compiletime options.  The interface really should be more similar to the

windows version of explorer, with nothing new to confuse users, etc.  
This will make explorer less buggy and faster, it will also consume less

RAM.  Currently explorer is even slower then microsoft's own explorer.  
Granted it is an alpha version, but still, these 'new features' are 
still getting injected every once and a while, making things even worse,

when time/energy would be better spent working on shell32 or fixing 
bugs/optimizing explorer and code cleanup.

Don't get me wrong, i think explorer is great, it's a marvelous piece of

work.  And my opinion is one of many, but keep in mind i'm not speaking 
for the supergeeks here, i'm speaking for the power users and regular 
users, the customer support reps and myself.

Take care, and please don't flame me, martin, or anyone else.
Richard.
_______________________________________________
ros-general mailing list
ros-general(a)reactos.com
http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general