Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ReactOS

reactos.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 141 posts

Re: ReactOS

#111

Post by gogopuppygogo »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #96
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lack of commercial purpose of ReactOS (and Wine) and it's primary goal of interoperability, plus the fact that it doesn't really damage the value of the original Windows platform, means it's probably a very easy case of fair use. Android isn't fair use, is a massive commercial endeavour, and has obliterated the value of mobile Java, while breaking interoperability with Java. Oracle winning the case will not be ki…

Oracle purchased Java (and MySQL) 2 years after Google made Android a huge success, specifically for litigation purposes. It's not like Oracle designed Java, and then Google stole it. Java was supposed to be open. It was designed for this intent. Oracle bought it to destroy everything Java was supposed to be, and to prey on anyone who used Java for what it was designed to do. When you can no longer innovate, you liti…

Oracle has never been “innovative” they just know how to generate revenue. That’s demonstrably more important to stay alive in tech.

Re: ReactOS

#113

Post by mixmastamyk »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #110
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lack of commercial purpose of ReactOS (and Wine) and it's primary goal of interoperability, plus the fact that it doesn't really damage the value of the original Windows platform, means it's probably a very easy case of fair use. Android isn't fair use, is a massive commercial endeavour, and has obliterated the value of mobile Java, while breaking interoperability with Java. Oracle winning the case will not be ki…

Being able to run the Windows platform for free obviously damages the value of the Windows platform for Microsoft.

Nothing to worry about for the foreseeable future.

Re: ReactOS

#114

Post by samatman »

babypuncher wrote: post #89
jupp0r wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> else we'll endlessly repeat ourselves rewriting the same programs over and over again Doing this is ok. We are also rewriting the same books all over again. Knowledge is forgotten and reinvented and rediscovered. You see this in computer science and programming all the time, but also in other fields. Rather than the programs themselves, preserving the concepts and learnings is much more important. Don’t get me wron…

The equation is different with video games, but I generally agree with you on everything else. There isn't much value in using Word Perfect 5.1 today beyond historical preservation.

My mother edited four or five academic books on Word Perfect 5.1, and the easiest way to generate offset copy for them would be to boot it up and print them again on an HP LaserJet 4000, just like last time.

These will most likely never see another printing, granted. But generalizing across all books published this way, I'm sure this situation will actually arise in the future.

Re: ReactOS

#115

Post by asddubs »

IncRnd wrote: post #33
pizza234 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO, the is a monumental underestimation of the man-hours put into make Windows as compatible as it is, even ignoring the fact that Microsoft's engineers are/were highly skilled. I like the ReactOS idea, but I think it will take decades to be compatible enough - and I'm even talking about enough. If the objective was to run obsolete software, I personally had to distribute resources, I'd just do assign them to Wine.…

> I like the ReactOS idea, but I think it will take decades to be compatible enough - and I'm even talking about enough. It has been under development for decades. That is more than twice the time it took to develop Windows 95. I've tried ReactOS a few times over the years, and it has never worked for me. I know of two specific examples of ReactOS code that as of a couple years ago were identical with Windows code. T…

not really a fair comparison, windows 95 had the advantage of not having to be developed from the ground up to retain perfect binary compatibility with blindows 95

Re: ReactOS

#116

Post by russelg »

rnd0 wrote: post #50
IncRnd wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I like the ReactOS idea, but I think it will take decades to be compatible enough - and I'm even talking about enough. It has been under development for decades. That is more than twice the time it took to develop Windows 95. I've tried ReactOS a few times over the years, and it has never worked for me. I know of two specific examples of ReactOS code that as of a couple years ago were identical with Windows code. T…

>I know of two specific examples of ReactOS code that as of a couple years ago were identical with Windows code. Cool; if they're specific then you ought to be able to cite them for the rest of us.

https://github.com/reactos/reactos/blob/59b78b4756da02e275e3... Is just one example.

Re: ReactOS

#117

Post by marttt »

yaseer wrote: post #7

Does anybody use ReactOS regularly? What's your experience with it? Very curious to see how far it's come for practical usage.

My goal is to get Avid Pro Tools 7 working on bare metal ROS. Partially successful attempts thus far: install is going smoothly, but the software doesn't launch. I get the nostalgic Blue Screen of Death and usually end up re-installing the entire OS. I assume it is a driver issue since PT of that era (2007-ish) requires a dedicated audio interface (the Mbox).

But I need PT a few times a year, so I'll keep trying.

I can also state that compared to version 0.4.7 (the first one I tried, iirc), the current non-nightly build 0.4.13 ran way more smoothly for me, at least on the GUI side. Issues with mouse stalling are gone, etc.

The "EPIC WIN!" threads on the ROS forum [1, 2] are fun to follow. Based on that, the OS seems to be quite usable for a range of cases.

I also liked the "What's the point?" threads [3, 4]. My respect to the developers for taking the time and patience to explain.

All in all, I keep hoping and installing new versions. I like how clean the system feels -- or, maybe this is the case with many systems when you don't bother to add Internet connectivity. Without wifi, every OS feels quiet and calm.

Greetings to ROS devs!

1: https://reactos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10972&start=12...

2: https://reactos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=20185

3: https://reactos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=19782&start=60

4: https://reactos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=20031&start=30

Re: ReactOS

#119

Post by rnd0 »

russelg wrote: post #116
rnd0 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I know of two specific examples of ReactOS code that as of a couple years ago were identical with Windows code. Cool; if they're specific then you ought to be able to cite them for the rest of us.

https://github.com/reactos/reactos/blob/59b78b4756da02e275e3... Is just one example.

Odd, here's the commit history for that file: https://github.com/reactos/reactos/commits/master/ntoskrnl/k...

What I'm wondering is if you just chanced upon a submission that wasn't actually accepted into the tree at any point?

Perhaps because it literally says:

>/* This part was copied from Windows source /

> / We should obfuscate this somehow? */

And looks sketchy as hell?

I'm not part of their project (just a fan) and my knowledge of git/github is shaky at best -but that's the way it looks from where I'm standing.

Also, I'm not seeing the original windows source code itself; only a comment.

Re: ReactOS

#120

Post by pwdisswordfish4 »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #58
croes wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need fair use for something that isn't copyright worthy like an API. It's like claiming you copied a book if the chapter headlines are identical.

> You don't need fair use for something that isn't copyright worthy like an API. This is true. However, bear in mind, Google argued that 1. APIs weren't copyrightable and 2. that if they were , their usage was fair. In this ten year court nightmare, they've lost fair use and of course, are likely about to lose on copyrightability. If the Supreme Court rules for Oracle, Android is copyright-infringing, it's already fa…

> If the Supreme Court rules for Oracle, Android is copyright-infringing

You mean was copyright-infringing. Harmony was dropped years ago, and Android has been rebased onto Oracle's own anointed, conflict-free codebase.

And you dodged the previous question where the commenter was asking for an honest assessment of mobile Java. You responded to a question that wasn't answered by talking about being unable to undo the past—which only makes sense if they had been pressing you for an answer to what would happen if Google called it a wrap on Android today, but that wasn't the question. Which brings us to another thing.

People who complain about Google's use of the Java APIs can't seem to get their arguments straight. That includes Gosling + the subset of the Sun/Oracle fan club who sat on the stand during trial + and the perennial commenters who parrot the same talking points on Hacker News. They (you) all complain about Android ripping off Java (to the tune of a multi-billion dollar copyright infringement lawsuit), but invariably the argument comes around to the real thing that's bothering them and which they try to wrap up in a bunch of claims about infringement—and what's actually got everyone (besides the money grubbers) fuming is the intentional incompatibility—in other words, that Android didn't copy enough! You wanna try squaring that circle? Which brings us to another another thing.

Android today is now based on the "proper" codebase, as mentioned above. How? Because it's open source. And it's been open source the whole time. It uses a different open source license, but it's open source nonetheless. Which means no one actually ever needed to get Sun or Oracle's permission to do anything. All the incompatibilities of Android? There's nothing that keeps the same breaking changes from being made in our hypothetical world where Android used the blessed license instead of the one from their preferred implementation. That difference does not suddenly force the hand of Google—or anyone—to keep dragging around Oracle/Sun's failed attempt at a mobile platform and maintaining compatibility with it.* It's GPL. Modifications are allowed. So reset from the beginning, bypass the Harmony detour, and everything still plays out exactly the same. Sun's platform still starts off where it was the whole time, in the gutter, and in that vacuum, Android becomes a thing, with incompatible APIs and all. And Oracle's infringement angle now disappears completely. Even if you're deluded enough to tell yourself that the platform Sun cooked up had a real shot (it didn't) before Google "obliterated" them, the market looks the same as it does today in favor of Android. So how much of those imaginary losses are actually the result of any infringement? I'll fill in the blank: the answer is none.

* Which is another thing...

Post reply on HN