A Kernel Engineer at Microsoft's Answer to “What Do You Think about ReactOS?” • Hacker News Board

Re: A Kernel Engineer at Microsoft's Answer to “What Do You Think about ReactOS?”

#171

Post by yjftsjthsd-h » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 1:46 PM UTC

GreenToad5 wrote: post #94

Why would any paying customer use ReactOS over windows? There is no support (security patches automatically supplied ETC). Windows 10 is evergreen and new feature appear quite often. Microsoft loses exactly zero dollars a year because of ReactOS. People who don't want to pay for windows just pirate it. Those who do pay, get it buldled with a computer or laptop that they purchase, or are corporations who need support.…

> Why would any paying customer use ReactOS over windows? [...] Windows 10 is evergreen and new feature appear quite often.

Yes, exactly. Windows likes to update. Some of us want a simple system to run Windows programs/drivers that just works and doesn't demand you upgrade constantly to the latest version with all-new features that you don't have any use for. Granted, *nix+WINE is usually better for this, but there may be times when ReactOS is the better option.

Re: A Kernel Engineer at Microsoft's Answer to “What Do You Think about ReactOS?”

#172

Post by mapcars » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 1:48 PM UTC

axelriet wrote: post #70

Thanks for the link, o for a bunch of new followers on Quora today and was wondering why :) There are lots of good answers in this thread. In particular, someone took the time to look at the code, and that person wrote it only took them minutes to find similarities that make my opinion difficult to dismiss. About the lack of documentation, consider that only a tiny fraction of the kernel’s internals surface in the DD…

Why wouldn't you reply to ReactOS devs here pointing that what you are saying is clearly wrong?

Re: A Kernel Engineer at Microsoft's Answer to “What Do You Think about ReactOS?”

#173

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 1:52 PM UTC

whereistimbo wrote: post #60

icegreentea2 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment is from one dude in late 2017 - it probably doesn't mean shit. Like dude is talking about "there is absolutely no way on earth this was written from a clean sheet only from the available public documentation.", but that's not the bar for reverse engineering systems. It is legal (if you do it right anyways) to examine, use, and disassemble software in the process of reverse engineering.

What about EULA then? I know in some cases it is not enforceable, but I think it might apply in case of reverse engineering.

If the EULA is a valid contract, and if you can prove someone involved accepted it before participating, you might have an action for breach of contract against that person, but if what they did wouldn't have been a violation of copyright on its own, the EULA won't change that.

Re: A Kernel Engineer at Microsoft's Answer to “What Do You Think about ReactOS?”

#174

Post by jle17 » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 1:56 PM UTC

tjpnz wrote: post #38

Comments like these are eerily similar to what Microsoft had been saying for years about Linux - at best they had been infringing on patents but I seem to also recall accusations of the kernel containing proprietary Windows source code. This is just one individuals opinion but I would be really interested in seeing them provide more specifics - especially given the amount of MS source that has leaked/been open source…

I don't recall accusations of Linux using Windows code, but these accusations (especially the "one has only to eyeball the code to see it was stolen") are reminiscent of the SCO troll-case, which was (indirectly but very likely intentionally) financially backed by Microsoft.

Without specific proof demonstrating that there is no way one could have come to write that code from publicly available information they are just FUD.

Re: A Kernel Engineer at Microsoft's Answer to “What Do You Think about ReactOS?”

#175

Post by redder2 » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 1:58 PM UTC

amrrs wrote: post #153

jeditobe wrote: post #148

Hello from ReactOS team! We don't use the leaked code from MS, We don't use Windows Research Kernel, We thank you for the PR campaign you have stared 'pro bono' for our project! ;D

Why would you call it a PR campaign if it wasn't favoring you? Just curious.

You never heard of "all publicity is good publicity"?

Re: A Kernel Engineer at Microsoft's Answer to “What Do You Think about ReactOS?”

#176

Post by bildung » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 2:05 PM UTC

jeditobe wrote: post #163

axelriet wrote: post #70

Thanks for the link, o for a bunch of new followers on Quora today and was wondering why :) There are lots of good answers in this thread. In particular, someone took the time to look at the code, and that person wrote it only took them minutes to find similarities that make my opinion difficult to dismiss. About the lack of documentation, consider that only a tiny fraction of the kernel’s internals surface in the DD…

One small correction. On quora, you state that there is no such thing as public documentation for the NT kernel internals. There IS public documentation for the NT kernel internals. It is called Windows Internals Book ( https://amzn.to/2xCQla5 ) and has survived its’ 7th Edition

And one of the authors of said book is also quite a prominent member of the ReactOS team.

Re: A Kernel Engineer at Microsoft's Answer to “What Do You Think about ReactOS?”

#177

Post by brown9-2 » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 2:06 PM UTC

WhitneyLand wrote: post #143

axelriet wrote: post #70

Thanks for the link, o for a bunch of new followers on Quora today and was wondering why :) There are lots of good answers in this thread. In particular, someone took the time to look at the code, and that person wrote it only took them minutes to find similarities that make my opinion difficult to dismiss. About the lack of documentation, consider that only a tiny fraction of the kernel’s internals surface in the DD…

Do you think senior management at MS believes your comments are a good idea or at best benign? Or do you think all the details of your comments have just not yet fully reached VP level, legal, and PR? I'm thinking they'd disapprove. That's just a guess, maybe they think it's fine and great. However, it may be worth at least considering another possibility. Does your company want random technical employees, making non…

What is the point of comments like this besides aiming to seem smarter than the original poster? If you get your way then you would stifle open discussion and information.

Re: A Kernel Engineer at Microsoft's Answer to “What Do You Think about ReactOS?”

#178

Post by whereistimbo » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 2:10 PM UTC

bildung wrote: post #176

jeditobe wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One small correction. On quora, you state that there is no such thing as public documentation for the NT kernel internals. There IS public documentation for the NT kernel internals. It is called Windows Internals Book ( https://amzn.to/2xCQla5 ) and has survived its’ 7th Edition

And one of the authors of said book is also quite a prominent member of the ReactOS team.

Did he work for Microsoft though? If yes, I wonder what kind of interaction between him and Mark Russinovich.

Re: A Kernel Engineer at Microsoft's Answer to “What Do You Think about ReactOS?”

#179

Post by jdsully » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 2:12 PM UTC

lacampbell wrote: post #164

The evidence of the Microsoft employee boils down to "our secret code that only we can see totally shows react OS ripped us off. We cant show you it but believe us guys". I wasn't born yesterday

To be fair he did say you could compare with the leaked versions.

Re: A Kernel Engineer at Microsoft's Answer to “What Do You Think about ReactOS?”

#180

Post by pizza234 » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 2:18 PM UTC

jeditobe wrote: post #148

Hello from ReactOS team! We don't use the leaked code from MS, We don't use Windows Research Kernel, We thank you for the PR campaign you have stared 'pro bono' for our project! ;D

OP wrote "If any of the presumed authors wants to chime in and explain the similitudes, I’m happy to change my mind".

Since you're from the team, could you provide some example explanations? Technical arguments are surely significant, rather than a purely rhetoric answer.