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

NTFS now supported in ReactOS LiveCD

reboot.pro

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 47 posts

Re: NTFS now supported in ReactOS LiveCD

#11

Post by rmsaksida »

RexRollman wrote: post #2

I love the idea of ReactOS but it is moving so slowly that I don't see how they can ever be a relevant alternative to Windows. Is my impression wrong?

While it might be true that ReactOS moves slowly, I love the fact that it's still moving. In the age of Windows 10, OS X and impending mobile domination, there are still people who care about reimplementing Windows NT. I don't know if there are many users out there, but even if there is a single one, working on ReactOS must be gratifying for its developers.

Re: NTFS now supported in ReactOS LiveCD

#12

Post by wfjackson »

higherpurpose wrote: post #6

Is this infringing on any of Microsoft's patents? And if not, why is Microsoft allowed to collect royalties from Android OEMs who support the FAT file system?

It's quite possibly infringing, but it's unlikely to become a target for a lawsuit unless it starts making a lot of money or starts hurting a good percentage of sales of MS products.

Re: NTFS now supported in ReactOS LiveCD

#13

Post by lsiebert »

The real benefit of ReactOS is things like security and support for legacy proprietary medical applications for hardware interfaces into medical devices that on only run on old Windows machines, that can't be updated anymore.

Re: NTFS now supported in ReactOS LiveCD

#14

Post by iso-8859-1 »

RexRollman wrote: post #2

I love the idea of ReactOS but it is moving so slowly that I don't see how they can ever be a relevant alternative to Windows. Is my impression wrong?

I would be so happy if I could just get a bug-free open-source NT4. While ReactOS will probably never be a competitor to the most current Windows, surely it will catch up to NT4, given enough time.

Re: NTFS now supported in ReactOS LiveCD

#15

Post by wfjackson »

lsiebert wrote: post #13

The real benefit of ReactOS is things like security and support for legacy proprietary medical applications for hardware interfaces into medical devices that on only run on old Windows machines, that can't be updated anymore.

I wouldn't want to risk legacy proprietary medical applications for hardware interfaces into medical devices to be running on an API re-implementation layer that could easily be missing functionality, quirks and bug-for-bug compatibility.

Re: NTFS now supported in ReactOS LiveCD

#16

Post by RachelF »

gbl08ma wrote: post #10
RexRollman wrote: post #2

I love the idea of ReactOS but it is moving so slowly that I don't see how they can ever be a relevant alternative to Windows. Is my impression wrong?

That was my impression in 2011 already. Back then I wrote a blog post (in my then-much-worse English) with, admittedly, a bit of Microsoft hatred[1]. However, most of the points I mention are still valid, I think. Of course there have been new releases since 2011, but nothing exactly groundbreaking, at least in the eye of a casual follower like me. Relatively recently, they have run a IndieGoGo campaign and have made…

It is nice to see that ReactOS are still developing, but I think that their time to make a big impression was 7 years ago. The world has moved on from being a Microsoft-centric place.

Perhaps if the Chinese or Russians decided to use it as an alternative OS, it would have worked?

Re: NTFS now supported in ReactOS LiveCD

#17

Post by fsiefken »

Nice, speed, memory and performance wise is ReactOS more efficient then XP or nlited XP on virtualbox or qemu? For example, if efficient you could run it on a cheap android tablet onder bochs, qemu or dosbox and use it as a workstation if lxde/xfce linux would not be good enough.

Re: NTFS now supported in ReactOS LiveCD

#18

Post by dabockster »

wfjackson wrote: post #15
lsiebert wrote: post #13

The real benefit of ReactOS is things like security and support for legacy proprietary medical applications for hardware interfaces into medical devices that on only run on old Windows machines, that can't be updated anymore.

I wouldn't want to risk legacy proprietary medical applications for hardware interfaces into medical devices to be running on an API re-implementation layer that could easily be missing functionality, quirks and bug-for-bug compatibility.

This.

As for most security cases, the best security is at the network level. Endpoint protection can protect after detection, while a good firewall will burn anything that moves in the wrong way.

Re: NTFS now supported in ReactOS LiveCD

#19

Post by vezzy-fnord »

I think a lot of people ignore the fact that the ReactOS and Wine projects have a symbiotic relationship. Work on ReactOS will lead to improvements on Wine, and vice versa.

So it's still a useful project for the common user, even if the final product of a fully functional Windows NT clone is still far from being realized.

But actually - there's another, even more interesting use for ReactOS that I'm surprised has yet to be attempted.

A lot of people seem to praise the NT kernel on an architectural level for its microkernel-like features and object system, but it's buried between the cruft that forms the rest of the Windows stack. A free software reimplementation like ReactOS could actually allow for people to exploit the untapped potential of the NT kernel by fusing it with other userlands. Think in the vein of GNU/kFreeBSD. Perhaps a FreeDOS one? Either way, the novelty value is certainly high.

Re: NTFS now supported in ReactOS LiveCD

#20

Post by Moto7451 »

wfjackson wrote: post #15
lsiebert wrote: post #13

The real benefit of ReactOS is things like security and support for legacy proprietary medical applications for hardware interfaces into medical devices that on only run on old Windows machines, that can't be updated anymore.

I wouldn't want to risk legacy proprietary medical applications for hardware interfaces into medical devices to be running on an API re-implementation layer that could easily be missing functionality, quirks and bug-for-bug compatibility.

The funny thing is that this scenario exists already in the OS/2 software world: http://www.ecomstation.com/
Post reply on HN