Re: [ros-kernel] Forward: "ReactOS is too limited"

[Joachim B. <jmb...@gm...>]

Now I will pipe in here...

Jason Filby <jas...@ya...> writes:

> --- Nick Date <nic...@ya...> wrote:
>>I was reacting. The reason ReactOS was being slated was, I suspect,
>>because Linux people see ROS as a threat rather than an ally. They
>>see a potentially superior and more mainstream-compatible kernel
>>and they poo their pants.
>
> I don't know how all Linux people perceive ReactOS, generally I think
> a lot of them don't know everything about what we're doing. At
> wineconf it was surprising how many people didn't know much about
> what we were doing. However, they were very interested to listen. It
> doesn't really matter if some (and you can't generalize about all of
> them) people in the Linux community see us as a threat (_if_ they
> do). I think we should just focus on promoting ourselves as an ally
> with them.

I am an "ardent" linux user. And I also have to support Win(mostly 2k)
boxen in my "commercial" life (icky administration stuff).

>>I went to the forum with no preconception and I was flamed by about
>>3 people who blatantly spent their entire lives with their eyes
>>glued to a "VDU".
>
> Well, that's their lose, and we know that. But I'm very sure not all
> people who use Linux are flamers.
>
>>Maybe ROS is too "Windozey" for Linux users? I don't know, but I
>>don't think you should have to have a degree in Computer Science to
>>install an OS (which is why I use Win XP).

Looking at the neighbouring thread about the Posix subsystem, I will
try a guess at the reasons the hostile attitude might come from.

Linux *administrators* got used to powerful features of the command
line; my administrating of said winboxen would take at least twice as
long without cygwin available (copy all files meeting certain criteria
from here to there *keeping their relative pathnames* is something cmd
and the explorer are not really good at - ideas welcome).

Cygwin would *almost* be an solution if win's console werent utterly
broken (by design). Please do not try to argue with me on that, repeat
after me, win's console (as it is implemented today in 2k) is UNUSABLE
for a command line power user. (Selection behaviour, size change
restrictions are the major showstoppers). OK so maybe I can run the
cygwin shell in an XTerm with it all sitting on 55+ compatibility
layers, but the fact remains that the not-worked-around basic OS
concept in that area is broken.

So the last thing 'we unix administrators' would like to see created
is a compatible alternative to windows which is improved in enough
areas to be interesting to end users/decision makers (price, maybe?);
but still completely lacks usability in 'our' sense. That's why 'we'
(I, at least) would like to see reactos go in the usable (for us)
direction. [There is no we].

With that in mind, people like me with an admittedly limited
understanding of the inner workings of either reactos or NT get a
little edgy when people say things that sound like "let's not overdo
this posix thing, if windows apps ( can interact with posix apps / see
the posix namespace / may use posix semantics with syscalls ) that
will break compatibility of apps written to that concept with the
original windows".

I certainly wouldn't mind an open OS that can run M$-Ware, but if in
that OS the concious design decision is made that all apps developable
for that OS must also run under Windows - i.e. it is conciously
limited in certain areas - I certainly wonder about its usefulness. A
"windows compatibility certification mode" (or just "win32ss visible
only mode"), maybe per-process, would certainly be useful - but if I
want to do "cmd.exe -c type diskimage > \dev\fd0" why won't you let
me?

I wrote about similar aspects of that frustration before - I *know*
the OS can do it (rename/delete open files, kill services, ...); but
the UI/API just won't let me. Sometimes it does by making you bend
over backwards (in the resource kit ISTR a service killer which does
what it does by introducing an RPC interface to the relevant functions
- which is also open to the network...), but not through the standard
path. I don't mind a "Yes I'll shoot myself in the foot now, do it
anyway" '--really-do-this-against-the-specs' flag, but being forbidden
to do things at all is, indeed, limiting.


If something in here could be interpreted as a flame please note that
it is not intended as such and probably a result of English not being
my mother tongue.

BTW: If anyone feels like seriously thinking abouth some of these
'limitations' I could certainly flesh out a wishlist for 'doze from an
unix administrator's point of view.


So long,
   Joe

-- 
"I use emacs, which might be thought of as a thermonuclear
 word processor."
-- Neal Stephenson, "In the beginning... was the command line"