Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th Jan 2010 16:06 UTC, submitted by fireball
ReactOS The ReactOS project aims to be an open source Windows NT-compatible operating system which can run Windows applications and utilise Windows drivers. Obviously, this is quite a daunting task, and as such, progress has been relatively slow. As a result, project coordinator and kernel developer Aleksey Bragin has proposed a rather drastic solution.
Thread beginning with comment 404659
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Hmmm
by jgagnon on Mon 18th Jan 2010 18:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmmm"
jgagnon
Member since:
2008-06-24

But, what does ReactOS offer that WINE (or the like) cannot solve? Or virtualization for that matter? Run XP/2000/98/95 in a VM and your problem is solved, for the most part.

Again, I am not trying to convince anyone that ReactOS should not be made, I just don't think it will ever be a platform of choice for development of Windows applications. So that makes me ask the question of "Why?". It's the relevance question. I understand full well the motivation for making something for the challenge of it, but if the end result is for others to use it then there has to be a reason to draw them in.

On a side note, people still running 15 year old unsupported software on a 15 year old unsupported operating system probably need to consider their costs in maintaining that system versus rewriting it for a more current architecture. Why fix it if it isn't broken? Because sometimes it costs more to keep it unbroken that it does to replace it, especially over time. Not to mention that replacing it may have other benefits that could never be reaped from the old software.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Hmmm
by fireball on Mon 18th Jan 2010 18:19 in reply to "RE[2]: Hmmm"
fireball Member since:
2006-07-15

But, what does ReactOS offer that WINE (or the like) cannot solve? Or virtualization for that matter? Run XP/2000/98/95 in a VM and your problem is solved, for the most part.

Virtualization requires a valid license for the OS (including 98 and 95, they are not vaporware).

Wine is a compatibility layer, not an OS.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Hmmm
by jgagnon on Mon 18th Jan 2010 18:23 in reply to "RE[3]: Hmmm"
jgagnon Member since:
2008-06-24

Agreed, but there are many free operating systems on which you can run WINE. So I believe my question still stands.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Hmmm
by Laurence on Mon 18th Jan 2010 22:55 in reply to "RE[2]: Hmmm"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

But, what does ReactOS offer that WINE (or the like) cannot solve? Or virtualization for that matter? Run XP/2000/98/95 in a VM and your problem is solved, for the most part.


Because you still need a licence for Windows if you virtualize it and WINE isn't an OS.

Again, I am not trying to convince anyone that ReactOS should not be made, I just don't think it will ever be a platform of choice for development of Windows applications. So that makes me ask the question of "Why?". It's the relevance question. I understand full well the motivation for making something for the challenge of it, but if the end result is for others to use it then there has to be a reason to draw them in.


The whole point of ReactOS is it's a Windows clone and can run Windows apps.

So drawing developers in is a moot point as they're already there (in a manner of speaking)

On a side note, people still running 15 year old unsupported software on a 15 year old unsupported operating system probably need to consider their costs in maintaining that system versus rewriting it for a more current architecture. Why fix it if it isn't broken? Because sometimes it costs more to keep it unbroken that it does to replace it, especially over time. Not to mention that replacing it may have other benefits that could never be reaped from the old software.


I agree with you but the problem is many people can't look past the now.

To fix something that's not currently a problem (ie the "it's working at the moment so why should I care?" mentality than many budget holders have) costs money now. So some managers would rather wait until the proverbial sh*t hits the fan before investing into a solution to fix something that might never happen (despite how likely that it will happen).

Reply Parent Score: 3