ReactOS 0.3.15 Released 252
Beardydog writes "From the ReactOS.org bulletin, 'The ReactOS project is proud to announce the release of version 0.3.15. A culmination of over a year of development, 0.3.15 incorporates several architectural enhancements to create a more compatible and conformant implementation of the NT architecture. Perhaps the most user visible enhancement is initial support for USB devices, both storage and input.'"
Re:Why aren't there more contributors to this proj (Score:4, Insightful)
In what way is it broken by design?
Re:Why aren't there more contributors to this proj (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why aren't there more contributors to this proj (Score:2, Insightful)
And that's different from a Linux framebuffer driver how?
Re:Why aren't there more contributors to this proj (Score:2, Insightful)
It's obsolete, due to virtualization.
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
You're missing the point of ReactOS. It's like Wine, except actually an OS. If one day Windows bites the dust you can have this project for any legacy code, if you really needed to run something, and it could be patched and maintained forever. To be fair, yes this is a hobby OS, but to say that with disdain diminishes the value of a hobby.
Re:Why aren't there more contributors to this proj (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why aren't there more contributors to this proj (Score:2, Insightful)
He means a relevant number of desktops, not three chucklefucks in their basement.
Re:Why aren't there more contributors to this proj (Score:5, Insightful)
The graphic routines reside in kernel space?
An absolute necessity for performance reasons. They tried doing it in userspace in NT4 and it just couldn't keep up.
the drivers can kill the kernel?
Windows 7 moved a lot of drivers to userspace. Yes, some code will still be run in the kernel. Some code is run in the kernel on Linux. The solution is for that code to be written well, not to give up and pretend that kernel mode doesn't exist.
Re:Why aren't there more contributors to this proj (Score:5, Insightful)
The registry gets a lot of hate, but I don't see how it is worse than the alternative, which is tons of different .ini files (or equivalent) for each application and setting. At least on Windows, it's generally understood that settings should be exposed in some way in the GUI and that for all but the most advanced features, saying "go edit the registry" isn't really a good solution. On Linux, forcing users to manually edit config files is routine.
Re:Why aren't there more contributors to this proj (Score:2, Insightful)
Who said anything about using only hobbyist labor? Those companies that use those tools would probably save themselves money in the long run if they commissioned an open replacement.
Re:Why aren't there more contributors to this proj (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok boss, I need a few million bucks to have some guys write a replacement for this $5000 a year software. Or did you want me to just buy windows 8 and the software?
Re:Why aren't there more contributors to this proj (Score:5, Insightful)
The registry gets a lot of hate
Yeah. And then those same people who keep hating windows registry go and implement the same thing for Gnome, in a even more crappy way than windows did.
Gnome is, AFAIC, the current bane of Linux.
Re:Why aren't there more contributors to this proj (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why aren't there more contributors to this proj (Score:5, Insightful)
I concur. Insofar as the registry removes the need for a metric crapton of config files, I am in favor of it, but it stops there. The manner in which they implemented it and documented it has turned it from something potentially useful into something even worse than 200 config files.
If they had done it right, they could have standardized good practices, and even allowed for the creation of useful configuration management utilities. Since they didn't do it right, it's just a pile of confusing and useless crap that you can't avoid.
Re:Why aren't there more contributors to this proj (Score:5, Insightful)
You are not forced to edit config files any more often than windows forces you to make manual registry changes...
The primary reason that technical people will choose to edit config files instead of using the gui is because it's much easier to explain in either a textual (website, forums) or vocal method. Telling someone to transcribe what you're talking about is infinitely easier than trying to explain over the phone how to navigate a gui, and in a textual medium you can even include examples which the user can cut/paste.
Also text based config files usually have comments where you can explain why you made a change, or where the authors of the program can explain what settings do and give examples. The registry has nothing like this.
Text based configs are also very easy to back up and store in a revision control system, that way you can roll back changes, see what/when changes were made etc.
Re:Why aren't there more contributors to this proj (Score:2, Insightful)