[0] https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/wikis/Clean-Room-Guide... (last "Don't" entry)
LLMs have likely seen the leaked Windows source code lets be honest...
Firstly, neither OpenAI nor Anthropic is profitable, by a wide margin — investors are going to get impatient at some point.
Secondly, people that aren't enthusiastic about this whole thing are already experiencing something of an AI fatigue with all the AI features violently shoved into them by most software products they use. Being involuntarily subjected to slop in various online spaces can't be good either.
Thirdly, remember NFTs? So many people swore they were The Future™... until they weren't. But at least in that case it was much more obvious how stupid the whole idea is. The scale of the hype was also several orders of magnitude less.
So while OpenAI or Anthropic are maybe not profitable today, they've got at least 5 years to figure it out. And there is already talk of inserting ads into the "chat", but hopefully that does not work!
But really, LLMs are useful (yes, sometimes only in appearance, but sometimes for real), and with that, there will continue to be investment into them until they are made profitable.
"In January 2006, concerns grew about contributors having access to leaked Windows source code and possibly using this leaked source code in their contributions. In response, Steven Edwards strengthened the project’s intellectual property policy and the project made the difficult decision to audit the existing source code and temporarily freeze contributions."
The allegations have been taken seriously and since then the procedure for accepting contributions include measures to prevent such further events from occurring. If you or anyone else happen to have any plausible suspicion, then please report it to the ReactOS team, otherwise keeping alive this kind of vague and uncertain connection between some Windows code leakage and ReactOS fits the very definition of FUD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt Please stop.
I keep seeing it pop up over the years. Never substantiated.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50464#c6
Which isn't really a discussion, it just ends with the same question "why not?".
I think the myth that Windows is easier needs to die. The builds targeted at Windows users are very easy to use; You would likely go into the Command Prompt as much as you would with Windows, and the "average person" spends more time on their non-windows phone than they do in Windows.
I am a 30+ years Windows developer, who thought he would never move, but who migrated literally a week ago, the migration was surprisingly painless and the new system feels much more friendly, and surprisingly, more stable. I wrote it up on my blog, and was going to follow it up with another post about all the annoyances in my first full week, but they were so petty I didn't bother.
In a few weeks you will bump into something that isn't simple and friendly and you will curse that stupid linux. Something that trivially works in windows and is impossible or insanely hard in linux. That is often the time people go back. Old habits die hard.
But still you are 100% right. Windows is not easier. I know because I went from dos to linux and only occasionally dabbled in windows. And I have exactly the same sort of trouble as soon as I try to do something non trivial in windows. Including bumping into stuff that should be trivial but suddenly is impossible or insanely hard.
For years I have seen people say that windows is easier, while actually windows is just more familiar.
My (completely non computer savvy) parents and in-laws are on ubuntu/mint since 2009 and it was the best decision ever to switch them over. And they don't understand why people say linux is hard either (though my father in law still calls it 'Ubantu Linox' for some reason :-P )
At the start I had a small doubt if I should push them to macOS (OSX at the time) as then apple's fanatical dedication to userfriendlyness paid off. But I decided against it because I didn't feel like paying apple prices for my own hardware and it seemed ill advised to manage their systems while not using it myself. I'm very glad about that because apple has gone downhill immensely since ~2009 (imo)
Linux experience is ok, when one knows UNIX and is technically skilled.
So normal people have stores with other people that they can talk to when they have problems, or just drag their computer into the store.
With Linux it is always the relative that happens to be around, or drive in on purpose, and had to manually install the <insert favourite distro> of the day.
Oh come on. Play fair. You are perhaps the single HN commentator whose input I most respect, because so many of your opinions overlap my own...
But that is not fair or right.
GNU/Linux desktops (and laptops) on sale:
https://itsfoss.com/get-linux-laptops/
Fairly prominent Linux-only hardware vendors doing R&D:
https://www.tuxedocomputers.com/en
A pure Linux-only consumer PC on mainstream sale:
https://store.steampowered.com/steamdeck
A compatible 3rd party machine of the same design:
https://www.lenovo.com/gb/en/p/handheld/legion-go-series/leg...
And of course retail GNU/Linux machines that cost 1/4 of a cheap Apple Mac and yet have outsold them by revenue not number of units for nearly a decade now:
https://www.google.com/chromebook/shop-chromebooks/
Yes this is absolutely happening. This is a real international market with sales in the hundreds of millions of units. This is not some tiny obscure niche that can be skipped over.
I am sure it even applies to laptops like T and P series too.
And Dell was the pioneer of the big makes with XPS 13 (and they still seem to do them: https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-laptops/xps-13-laptop/s...).
> So normal people have stores with other people that they can talk to when they have problems, or just drag their computer into the store.
Which of those online stores have a physical address for the normal people to do as per my comment?
Linux forums have enough complaints about those fairly prominent Linux-only vendors, even though they are suppose to control the whole stack.
And they also fall into each having their own <favourite distro>, the other part of the comment that you missed as well.
Normal people aren't using SteamDecks for their daily computing activities.
I use Linux in various forms since 1995, and yet I am tired from trying out such alternatives, the only things that makes me consider it again is breaking the dependency on US tech, and even that isn't really happening, given how much from Linux contributions are on the pockets from US Big Tech.
May we have a link, please?
ReactOS covers a lot more of the Windows API than Wine does (3x the line count and defines a lot more routines like 'RtlDoesFileExists_UstrEx'). Now, this is not supposed to be a public API and should only be used by Windows internally, as I understand it.
But it is an example of where ReactOS covers a lot more API than Wine does or probably ever will, by design. To whom (if anyone) this matters, I'm not sure.
[0] https://github.com/reactos/reactos/blob/master/sdk/lib/rtl/p...
[1] https://github.com/wine-mirror/wine/blob/master/dlls/ntdll/p...
IIRC, there is also US court precedent (maybe Sony v. Connectix?) that protects the practice of reverse-engineering external hardware/software systems that programs use in order to facilitate compatibility. WINE risks losing this protection if they stray outside of APIs known to be used (or are otherwise required) by applications.
[2] https://github.com/evmar/retrowin32/blob/main/win32/dll/kern...
It's worth noting that 30 years ago, there was a definite advantage to an open source operating system which could reuse proprietary Windows drivers - even Linux had a mechanism for using Windows drivers for certain types of hardware. Nowadays, Linux provides excellent support for modern PC hardware with little to no tinkering required in most cases. I have seen many cases where Linux provided full support out-of-the-box for a computer, whereas Windows required drivers to be downloaded and installed.
Running MS SQL 2008 R2 and MS Server 2016 in production here.
What "modern software support" do I lack here?
There is a growing list of software that which has discontinued support for Windows 10 on the latest versions (or the Server versions thereof). I'm not sure if your example of running a ~16 year old version of SQL Server on Server 2016 demonstrates.
To my original post - if you only need to run an old version of a software package, then an old version of Windows is fine. Just because something is old, it doesn't mean that it is not useful.
We do not need updates here?
Last time I bought a portable hard drive it was formatted as NTFS.
But by now, as I also wrote in the other thread on this, ReactOS should be seen as something more like GNU Hurd. An exercise in kernel development and reverse engineering, a project that clearly requires a high level of technical skill, but long past the window of opportunity for actual adoption. If Hurd had been usable by say 1995, when Linux just got started on portability, it would have had a chance. If ReactOS had been usable ten years ago, it would also have had a chance at adoption, but now it's firmly in the "purely for engineering" space.
I understand your angle, or rather the attempt of fitting them in the same picture, somehow. However, the differences between them far surpass the similarities. There was no meaningful user-base for Unix/Hurd so to speak of compared to NT kernel. There's no real basis to assert the "kernel development" argument for both, as one was indeed a research project whereas the other one is just clean room engineering march towards replicating an existing kernel. What ReactOS needs to succeed is to become more stable and complete (on the whole, not just the kernel). Once it will be able to do that, covering the later Windows capabilities will be just a nice-to-have thing. Considering all the criticism that current version of Windows receives, switching to a stable and functional ReactOS, at least for individual use, becomes a no-brainer. Comparatively, there's nothing similar that Hurd kernel can do to get to where Linux is now.
Hurd was not a research project initially. It was a project to develop an actual, usable kernel for the GNU system, and it was supposed to be a free, copyleft replacement for the Unix kernel. ReactOS was similarly a project to make a usable and useful NT-compatible kernel, also as a free and copyleft replacement.
The key difference is that Hurd was not beholden to a particular architecture, it was free to do most things its own way as long as POSIX compatibility was achieved. ReactOS is more rigid in that it aims for compatibility with the NT implementation, including bugs, quirks and all, instead of a standard.
Both are long irrelevant to their original goals. Hurd because Linux is the dominant free Unix-like kernel (with the BSD kernel a distant second), ReactOS because the kernel it targets became a retrocomputing thing before ReactOS could reach a beta stage. And in the case of ReactOS, the secondary "whole system" goal is also irrelevant now because dozens of modern Linux distributions provide a better desktop experience than Windows 2000. Hell, Haiku is a better desktop experience.
Yet, there are still too many desktop users that, despite the wishful thinking or blaming, still haven't switched to neither Linux, nor Haiku. No mater how good Haiku or Linux distributions are, their incompatibility with the existing Windows simply disqualifies them as options for those desktop users. I bet we'll see people switching to ReactOS when it will get just stable enough, yet long before it will get as polished as either Haiku or any given quality Linux distribution.
ReactOS aims to be a system that runs Windows software and looks like Windows. But, it runs software that's compatible with WinXP (because they target the 5.1 kernel) and it looks like Windows 2000 because that's the look they're trying to recreate. Plenty of modern software people want to run doesn't run on XP. Steam doesn't run on XP. A perfectly working ReactOS would already be incompatible with what current Windows users expect.
UI wise there is the same issue. Someone used to Windows 10 or 11 would find a transition to Windows 2000 more jarring than to say Linux Mint. ReactOS is no longer a "get the UI you know" proposition, it's now "get the UI of a system from twenty five years ago, if you even used it then".
That look and feel is the easy part. That can be addressed if it's really an issue. The hard part is the compatibility (that is given by many still missing parts) and stability (the still defective parts). The targeted kernel matters, of course, but that is not set in stone. In fact, there is Windows Vista+ functionality added and written about, here: https://reactos.org/blogs/investigating-wddm although doing it properly would mean rewriting the kernel, bumping it to NT version 6.0
I'm sure there will indeed be many users that will find various ReactOS aspects jarring for as long as there are still defects, lack of polish, or dysfunction on application and kernel (drivers) level. However, considering the vast pool of Windows desktop users, it's reasonable to expect ReactOS to cover the limited needs for enough users at some point, which should turn attention into testing, polish, and funding to address anything still lacking, which then should further feed the adoption and improvement loop.
"No, people will never be switching to ReactOS. For some of the same reasons they don't switch to Linux, but stronger."
To me, this makes sense maybe for corporate world. The reasons that made them stick with Windows has less to do with familiarity or with application compatibility (given the fact that a lot of corporate infrastructure is in web applications). Yes, there must be something else that governs corporate decisions, something to do with the way corporations function, and that will most likely prevent a switch to ReactOS just as it did to Linux based distributions. But, this is exactly why I intentionally specified "for individual use" when I said "switching to a stable and functional ReactOS, at least for individual use, becomes a no-brainer". For individual use, the reason that prevented people to switch to Linux is well known, and ReactOS's reason to be was aimed exactly at that.
Sure, but that userbase also already has a way of using the NT kernel: Windows. The point is that both Hurd and ReactOS are trying to solve an interesting technical problem but lack any real reason to use rather than their alternatives that solve enough of the practical problems for most users.
With the contempt of a lot of the Win10/11 features, there's some chance it could see adoption, if that's an actual goal. But the effort is huge, and would need to be sufficient for wide desktop installs much sooner than later.
I think a couple of the Linux + WINE UI options where the underlying OS is linux, and Wine is the UI/Desktop layer on top (not too disimilar from DOS/Win9x) might also gain some traction... not to mention distros that smooth the use of WINE out for new users.
Worth mentioning a lot of WINE is reused in ReactOS, so that effort is still useful and not fully duplicated.
That's not going to happen in any way that matters. If ReactOS ever reaches Win7 compatibility, that would be at a time when Win7 is long forgotten.
The project has had a target of Windows 2000 compatibility, later changed to XP (which is a relatively minor upgrade kernel wise). Now as of 2026, ReactOS has limited USB 2.0 support and wholly lacks critical XP-level support like Wifi, NTFS or multicore CPUs. Development on the project has never been fast but somewhere around 2018 it dropped even more, just looking at the commit history there's now half the activity of a decade ago. So at current rates, it's another 5+ years away from beta level support of NT 5.0.
ReactOS actually reaching decent Win2K/XP compatibility is a long shot but still possible. Upgrading to Win7 compatibility before Win7 itself is three plus decades old, no.
The history of most FOSS projects after being running for a while.
Yeah, they can even run modern games, which ReactOS can't. It can't even run on modern hardware properly.
It's a nice project, though. Good progress for a hobby project, and it's still going after 30 years!
Last time was about a month ago. It's still easier to list what works than what doesn't, but I like seeing progress. Ethernet works with some random Windows driver. The integrated GPU doesn't, but installing the driver doesn't make it bsod on startup any more, so that's an improvement. I've seen people have more success with discrete GPUs. Sound card doesn't work because it's too new.
The thing with these kinds of projects that target a vast existing library of software is that the progress feels slow for a long time, but at some point there's enough compatibility for people to try to use it for real, and this is when compatibility starts improving rapidly. I feel like ReactOS is close like never before to that point. I really want it to succeed.
I like the idea of there being more alternatives Operating Systems that aren't just a Linux distro. Operating Systems like Haiku and ReactOS I think are great for being a direction that isn't Linux. It's not that Linux is bad, but it's a slow moving change-resistant juggernaut that isn't going to be a place where innovation will thrive.
To that point I hope that more people study ReactOS and get a sense for the Microsoft/IBM philosophy of doing a desktop operating system (which is completely different from the Linux/Unix way). I hope we someday see new operating system projects that use these learnings.
- 2027, the year of ReactOS
- 2028, the year of Haiku
- 2029, the year of TempleOSI mean, I get trying something different and/or sticking to a legacy, but there's also being usable to today's users.
I wonder how well it runs on XP-era hardware, Thinkpads, etc. I have several for running period games and software, but it'd be super cool to run ReactOS instead and be able to hack on the OS.
The project has insisted on creating Windows Server 2003. Probably very little of the software you want to run works on Windows Server 2003. Certainly no modern web browser will.
There has been some movement in recent months though. They have a 64 bit version. They are implementing NT6 APIs. They are implementing UEFI. They are looking at WDDM drivers. The have synced with Wine 10.
If ReactOS can produce a version that can run a modern browser and maybe a half-way recent Office suite, I think a lot of people would change their mind about the potential.
If they can support modern GPU drivers, it is possible they could even gain some traction in that space. Lots of work to do but not impossible.
I realize ReactOS has a potentially wider useful scope (I think device driver compat is part of what they're attempting to do, so it'd offer a solution to keeping niche HW running) but I think it's just a smaller audience.
Preservation. It ensures WinNT survives as a platform even if Microsoft abandons it, which some would argue the present state of Win11 counts as doing.
As for new software - I think it's open to debate just how much new Win32 software will be created after a hypothetical abandonment by Microsoft of Windows.
I have no ads or any other nonsense on my computer. i can do an OBS screenshare on discord if you'd like to verify that. https://i.imgur.com/xldGfTc.png and also https://i.imgur.com/BkO4z9T.png to deflect that claim, too -> https://i.imgur.com/59hmp45.png
however, i should note that i actually don't like windows 11 at all, but for different reasons. for the first two years or so, third party apps would crash to desktop if a folder had a literal "@"[0] in the name. That was patched on the "big patch" that a lot of people complained about, about 8-10 months ago.
Currently i have another issue, for brevity's sake, i'll just list these two. If i reboot, but don't log in, my computer will freeze. if i log in fast (within about 5 seconds of the login screen accepting input (enter, mouseclick, etc)), and get to the desktop, if i walk away, computer will freeze. My computer freezes (hard freeze, reset button/power button to fix) if it is idle. it's the silliest thing i've ever seen, surpassing even crashing with "@" in the directory name.
my fix? I run an idle game (nomad idle or idle pins) and that stops it from crashing forever. But once a month i wake up to a hard-locked computer because of an automatic update + reboot.
ugh.
[0] i think the newer windows terminal and/or the newer powershell API used to assume an "@" was something else, on powershell, it turns green and autofills stuff like "@Alias" and "@args". My assumption is they didn't sanitize it and let powershell hook everything when that's just silly. Windows 11 is silly.
but why do you ask? if you got some idea that affects asus, and have a link, may i see it?
Wine[1] is the de facto compatibility layer with NT executables. Driver compatibility is too complex and obscure to worth the while. Often information is undocumented or hard to get.
There are a few implementations of windows behaviors at kernel level for a few subsystems features, ntsync, samba, ntfs, etc. they can be used by wine to improve compatibility or performance
The issue with NT is the driver ecosystem. You'd have to reimplement a lot of under-documented NT behavior for NT drivers to behave themselves, and making that work within the Linux kernel would require major architectural changes. The userland is also where a lot of magic happens for application compatibility.
Afaik, you partially can.
example: ntsync
For example, with ELF/UNIX, the basic ELF binfmt is barely any more complex than what you'd probably expect the a.out binfmt to be: it maps sections into memory and then executes. Dynamic linking isn't implemented; instead, similar to the interpreter of a shell script, an ELF binary can have an interpreter (PT_INTERP) which is loaded in lieu of the actual binary. This way, the PT_INTERP can be set to the well-known path of the dynamic linker of your libc, which itself is a static ELF binary. It is executed with the appropriate arguments loaded onto the stack and the dynamic linker starts loading the actual binary and its dependencies.
Windows is totally different here. I mean, as far as I know, the dynamic linker is still in userland, known as the Windows Loader. However, the barrier between the userland and kernel land is not stable for Windows NT. Syscall numbers can change during major updates. And, sometimes, implementation details are split between the kernel and userland. Now, in order to be able to contribute to Wine and other projects, I've had to be very careful how I discover how Windows internals works, often by reading other's writings and doing careful black box analysis (for some of this I have work I can show to show how I figured it out.) But for example, the PEB/TIB structures that store information about processes/threads seems to be something that both the userland and kernel components both read and modify. For dynamic linking in particular, there are some linked lists in the PEB that store the modules loaded into the process, and I believe these are used by both the Windows loader and the kernel in some cases.
The Windows NT kernel also just takes on a lot more responsibilities. For example, input. I can literally identify some of the syscalls that go into input handling and observe how they change behavior depending on the last result of PeekMessage. The kernel also appears to be the part of the system that handles event coalescing and priority. It's nothing absurd (the Wine project has already figured out how a lot of this works) but it is a Huge difference from Linux where there's no concept of "messages" and probably shouldn't be.
So the equivalent of the Windows NT kernel services would often be more appropriate to put in userland on Linux anyways, and Wine already does that.
It would still be interesting to attempt to get a Windows XP userland to boot directly on a Linux kernel, but I don't think you'd ever end up with anything that could ever be upstreamed :)
Maybe we should do the PE binfmt though. I am no longer a fan of ELF with it's symbol conflicts and whatnot. Let's make Linux PE-based so we can finally get icons for binaries without needing to append a filesystem to the end of it :)
Of course, this is a little silly. It would require massively rethinking many aspects of the Linux userland, like the libc design. However, I honestly would be OK with this future. I don't really care that much for ELF or its consequences, and there are PE32+ binaries all over the place anyways, so may as well embrace it. Linux itself is often a PE32+ binary, for the sake of EFI stub/UKI.
(You could also implement this with binfmt_misc, sure, but then you'd still need at least an ELF binary for the init binary and/or a loader.)
(edit: But like I said, it's a little silly. It breaks all kinds of shit. Symbol interposition stops working. The libdl API breaks. You can't LD_PRELOAD. The libpthread trick to make errno a thread local breaks. Etc, etc.)
Meanwhile the actual process of loading a PE binary is relatively trivial. It's trivial enough that it has been implemented numerous times in different forms by many people. Hell, I've done it numerous times myself, once for game hacking and once in pure Go[1] as a stubborn workaround for another problem.
Importing an entire Wine install, or even putting the effort into stripping Wine down for this purpose, seems silly.
But I suppose the entire premise is a little silly to begin with, so I guess it's not that unreasonable, it's just not what I am imagining. I'm imagining a Linux userland with simply no ELF at all.
[1]: https://github.com/jchv/go-winloader - though it doesn't do linking recursively, since for this particular problem simply calling LoadLibrary is good enough.
If you want it the other way around you could look at the newest symbol the library wants.
I'm realizing now that I forgot an important detail in all of this: the metadata of the library existed as part of the metadata that the filesystem itself tracked rather than something in the contents of the file itself. This metadata doesn't seem to exist on Linux (which library C only supports if running via Proton rather than any native Linux version of the game). I could imagine it might be possible for this to be set as some sort of extended attribute on a Unix filesystem, but in practice it seems that the library will have this extended filesystem metadata when downloading the DLL onto a Windows machine (presumably with an NTFS filesystem) but not a Linux one.
The dynamic linker will literally tell you this, if you ask it.
> the metadata of the library existed as part of the metadata that the filesystem itself tracked rather than something in the contents of the file itself.
So does this metadata has anything to do with the file at all, or could I also attach it to e.g. an MP4 file? If that is the case than the difference is that the distributor for MS Windows did add the attribute and the distributor for GNU/Linux did not, it doesn't have anything to do with the platform.
EDIT:
> (which library C only supports if running via Proton rather than any native Linux version of the game
So library C isn't even an ELF shared object, but a PE/COFF DLL? Then that complaint makes even less sense.
On the other hand, the Windows NE/PE VERSIONINFO resource is mostly informational in nature. I think early on in the life of Windows, it was often used to determine whether or not the system library shipped by an installer was newer than the installed version, so that program installers could safely update the system libraries when necessary without accidentally overwriting new versions of things with older versions. That's just simply a problem that ELF shared objects don't try to solve, I reckon, because there aren't usually canonical binaries to install anyways, and the problem of distributing system libraries is usually left up to the OS vendor.
Actually though, there is another mechanism that Linux shared objects often use for versioning and ABI compatibility: the filename/soname. Where you might have a system library, libwacom.so.9.0.0, but then you also have symlinks to it from libwacom.so.9 and libwacom.so, and the soname is set to libwacom.so.9.
There is, of course, no specific reason why ELF binaries don't contain metadata, and you could certainly extend ELF to contain PE-style resources if you want. (I remember some attempts at this existed when I was still getting into Linux.) It may be considered "bad practice" to check the runtime version of a library or program before doing something, in many cases, but it is still relatively common practice; even though there's no standard way to do it, a lot of shared objects do export a library function that returns the runtime version number, like libpng's png_access_version_number. Since distributions patch libraries and maybe even use drop-in replacements, there is obviously no guarantee as to what this version number entails, but often it does entail a promise that the ABI should be compatible with the version that is returned. (There is obviously not necessarily a canonical "ABI" either, but in most cases if you are dealing with two completely incompatible system/compiler ABIs there isn't much that can be done anyways, so it's probably OK to ignore this case.)
So I think the most "standard" way to embed the "version" of a shared object on Linux is to export a symbol that either returns the version number or points to it, but there is no direct equivalent to the PE VERSIONINFO standard, which may be a pain when the version number would be useful for something, but the developers did not think to explicitly add it to the Linux port of their software, since it is often not used by the software itself.
But I personally wouldn't agree with the conclusion that "shared objects on GNU/Linux do not have a finite version" as a matter of course; I think the more conservative thing to say is that there is not necessarily a definite version, and there is not necessarily a "canonical" binary. In practice, though, if your copy of libSDL is an almost-unmodified build of the source tree at a given version 3.0.0, it is entirely reasonable to say that it is "definitely" libSDL 3.0.0, even though it may not refer to an exact byte-for-byte source tree or binary file.
Or another point of view, if you put a lot of money into it, it becomes a commercial endeavour - would it still be for a good cause?
More armchair internet commenter devil's advocate discussion starters than any opinions of mine to be honest. But, there's a lot of projects that would benefit from no-strings-attached donations.
Our main features are:
* ReactOS is able to run Windows software
* ReactOS is able to run Windows drivers
* ReactOS looks-like Windows
* ReactOS is free and open source
It's interesting you mention Linux being a headache — it is, but there is an order of magnitude more people working full-time on just the Linux desktop experience than have ever even tried running ReactOS. That ratio would have to flip before the latter has a hope of being a useful Windows replacement. We’re much more likely to see Wine able to run 100% of Windows before ReactOS gets there.
how no?
> It's interesting you mention Linux being a headache — it is, but there is an order of magnitude more people working full-time on just the Linux desktop experience than have ever even tried running ReactOS
and hows that going these days? still a nightmare? basic functionality introduced maybe 50 years ago now, and the linux world is still working out the kinks with GUIs, probably part of the reason TUIs are becoming popular.
for completeness, "backward" is "movement"
Wish they had a sponsorship listing on their GH page... I poked around and couldn't find one
>$1,000,000,000,000.00
They could give this project $10,000,000 per year for a decade and not notice. we're talking "slap on the wrist fine" levels of money here.
If I were an executive at those places and somebody proposed ReactOS to replace our foundation, I'd assume they were joking/trolling and would laugh (and genuinely find it funny)
this is "we have a market cap of 61,271,506 times the median household income in the USA, we can afford to peel off 1/500,000th (0.0002%) of our market cap per year to make this project awesome because we like this project and want to see it grow"
Together, we could bankroll Minix3 as well.
I'll throw in a few of the billions I made when I read this paper by "Satoshi Nakamoto" in 2009 and decided to turn over my dozen SETI@home machines to mining his imaginary internet money.
I wanna sponsor 9front. Merge in whatever we can salvage from Inferno, make a 64-bit Dis runtime, and Inferno's version of Rio which is a lot more comprehensible.
I want a VM that can run diskless Linux microVMs so I can just run a Linux binary and have it open and display a GUI in a new Equis window.
It is unfortunate it doesn't even run on SerenityOS anymore.
This does at least partially eliminate the appeal. e.g. SerenityOS has its own decoders for PNG, JPEG and other image formats and they are not bad, but the boring libpng, etc. were adopted instead.
It should be a net positive if not everybody uses the same implementations of everything.
Interestingly, if you run https://html5test.co in Ladybird, you get a score of over 500. This is better than Firefox 60.
UNIX is also basically irrelevant unless you are talking about macOS technically being UNIX, so I agree with the kids.
The idea that Linux is a monoculture is also hilarious to me. That umbrella includes things like RHEL, SteamOS, Bazzite, Android, Chromebooks, Gnome, KDE, dwm, i3, your robot vacuum, car infotainment systems..."Linux" is the exact opposite of a monoculture.
Also it isn't as if BSD, FreeRTOS, Aix, INTEGRITY, SmartOS, Illumos, QNX,... don't exist.
It’s also not a culture at all because it’s a kernel.
This is more a limitation on the architecture - virtually nobody has power arch hanging around to play on.
His skills are applied to being essentially the product manager of the Linux kernel, just like any other senior engineer of his age and experience.
It's better that he not write code because he can have greater impact steering the direction of the kernel and reviewing others' work.
I'm also not sure why you don't like the guy on such a personal level. He only made Linux and git because he didn't have an alternative that worked for him. What did he ever do to you?
I watched the video of him hanging out with Linus from Linux Tech Tips and I thought he seemed like a relatively personable guy. Maybe he's somewhat opinionated on technology and wrote an angry email or two but certainly not a bad person.
working in it right now. and I can guarantee you anyone acting like linus better have made themselves indispensable because you wont last long lashing out like a 13 year old in emails to people. im still amazed he managed to convince a woman to like him
And the difference between him and your typical product manager is his email chains are public.
bit of an undersell... hes famous for it. people have left kernel dev because of it. difference between him and your typical product manager are the internet fanbois who treat him like a god. typical product managers have soft skills. typical product managers are beholden to things like polity, common courtesy etc.
kinda sums up my point. respect is earnt, and certainly not acting how he does. so hes also a hypocrite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfv0V1SxbNA&t=248s&pp=ygUMbG...
seeing people give linus the credit for the kernel whilst ignoring the millions of man hours of other peoples time that made also went it (the majority of linux dev effort actually) reminds me of the numpties that think elon musk is literally knocking out rocket ship schematics and then having the spacex engineers rush off to implement his genius insight
Of course Microsoft could still claim that someone used a leaked Windows build as the source so any LLM use would be a ticking time bomb.
However, I don't think copyright lawyers will care. "They're also committing a crime" doesn't mean you're free to do what you want. That applies especially in ReactOS vs MS, because if ReactOS succeeds, it will compete directly with Microsoft.
And ReactOS uses GitHub Copilot: https://github.com/reactos/reactos/pull/8516
There's also such thing as being responsible (for an outcome), which in case of litigation means being culpable. Microsoft here is the sole actor that has any control on the GitHub Copilot, on what it was fed with, and thus - on its output (which would be the base of their accusation if they sue). How do you imagine such a case could be made to look like it would have any legal standing?
But Microsoft has the rights to the code, so they do not commit a crime by broadcasting it.
Assuming a ReactOS developer used Microsoft / Github Copilot to work on this codebase, then if Microsoft attempts to sue (themselves?) over their own Copilot tool injecting their own copyrighted code into a user's codebase, then that would be next-level irony right there.
I would chip in my $100 to fund whatever side of that legal battle is necessary just so I could see that case be argued in court.
No need to assume. It's a certainty: https://github.com/reactos/reactos/pull/8516
"if Microsoft attempts to sue (themselves?) over their own Copilot tool injecting their own copyrighted code into a user's codebase"
Such an attempt can't make sense, given that the model used by ReactOS is in Microsoft's control and thus Microsoft alone is the one responsible for the model's behavior. They won't sue, thus much is clear.
More like end of Copilot.
If an LLM model has been fed leaked code, then that is a general problem for that model and for its use for anything. Singling out its use for an open-source project and denouncing that as a potential problem while otherwise keeping quiet about it just makes no sense. Just take legal action against the model if there's anything plausible to warrant that, don't weaponize it against open-source projects.
With the project essentially implementing the entire API method by method, the chances of LLMs repeating some of the leaked source code would be tremendous.
A one-directional fork of ReactOS might be able to make some fast progress for a few people who desperately need certain programs to work, but I don't think the project will benefit from LLMs.
But, if any such model got fed with leaked code, then how is this a specific open-source project's problem and not of all projects (either open-source or private) that got to ever use that model?
Then, (having thought this just now) how can an argument relying on (legally) undisclosed information be used against anything public? Isn't the onus on the party having the undisclosed information to prove that it preceded the public one? How can that precedence be trusted by an independent judging party if the undisclosed information (source-code and systems managing that source code) is and always has been in the hands of the accusing (thus biased) party?
1. Just use Windows 11. Yes, it sucks and MS occasionally breaks stuff - but at least hardware and software vendors will develop their code against Win 11 and test it. In other words, you have the highest likelihood that your computer will work as expected with contemporary Windows applications and drivers.
2. Use an older version of Windows. If you want to use old hardware or software, odds are you will get the best experience with whatever version of Windows they were developed/tested against. You have to accept the lack of support for modern software, and you will need to take appropriate security measures such as not connecting it to the internet - but at the same time, it's unlikely that your Windows 98 retro gaming rig is your only computer, so that's probably an acceptable tradeoff.
3. Run WINE on top of Linux (or some other mature open source operating system). This might not be a good solution for the average person, but ticks the box for people who feel strongly pro-open source, or anti-Microsoft. Since Windows compatibility is dictated by Windows' libraries and frameworks and not the kernel, compatibility is likely to be comparable to ReactOS.
I am not saying that this covers every possible use case for ReactOS, but I would posit it covers enough that the majority of people who might contribute or invest into ReactOS will instead pick one of the above options and invest their time and energy elsewhere.