Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 25th Jun 2007 22:44 UTC
Permalink for comment 250561
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/15/13 23:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
you get a new OS thats incompatible with anything and
you have to rent or crack it to make it work.
In this day and age of the DMCA, the end user is a criminal, nine times out of ten. It's a bit sad, but true. Technically, since I watch DVD's on my linux computer, I'm a criminal. Ah, C'est la vie.
Ok, I've a few points to make. First, if by 'one os' you mean one copy, you're right. It's not. And since Microsoft created the OS in question, they legally can say you had to smear yourself with mud and dance half naked in the streets of Baghdad for each copy of the OS you install. It's their product, you don't have to buy it if you don't like the terms.
Secondly, it is logical to take an OS and evolve it. However, when you do that it becomes a 'derivative work'. In plain English it means no matter what changes you make to it, it's still based off something else, and hence, you need to make sure it's ok with the guys who first wrote it before showing people the work you did to it. Thankfully there's wonderful Open Source OSes that are quite willing to let you do just this. It's a shame Microsoft isn't as open to it as we would like, but really... did you expect them to be? I didn't.
This is what I really wanted to comment on. I venture to say that what you claim is impossible. ReactOS has been trying to do what would need to be done to achieve what you claim for years... and they're still working on it. You see, without the source code, there is _no way_ to make improvements to Longhorn. Ok, this isn't entirely true, but to do it would have been so mind blowingly painful that progress would be slow. And in two years... who's really going to want Longhorn? Heck Vista's hardly 6 months old and no one wants it anymore...
I'm really confused here. IF they went with ReactOS, they would first need to work on ReactOS enough that they could solve the remaining issues with ReactOS. (Like increasing compatibility. Then they could work on shining up the GUI. Since ReactOS was written from the ground up, and is based on the much slimmer, more utilitarian win98/2k GUI... what bloat are you talking about?