The Open Windows Project 409
kuros writes: "Apparently,
these guys feel the time has come for a MS Windows clone.
The Open Windows Project aim is to create a 100% Microsoft Windows compatible operating system that is totally "free" of Microsoft proprietary code. As its name implies, O.W. will be completly open source and freely re-distributable.
Open Windows will draw from current open source projects to expedite its production. These include: GXExplorer, FreeDOS, ReactOS and WinE. You may have seen similar projects that intend to use a modified version of Linux, etc. Open Windows will not be a Linux distribution; it will be written Windows compatible from the ground up." Without all the APIs, is this even feasible? (And after that, is it desirable?)
Re:write it right... (Score:2)
A competent hacker would, though. It's all about ego.
Simon
Re:OpenSTEP clone GNUSTeP as case history. (Score:2)
Sadly, this isn't true, either. Can we say Windows 2000? What is it, really, but NT w/a gratuitously altered API? MANY apps that work under NT or 9x don't work under 2K (including a number of MS's...). They can get away with this, quite simply, because they have the dominant market share. They can pressure acceptance by comp. manufacturers, which leads to the average consumer buying into it, and then buying new software. Those of us in the know...well, we don't use Windows anyway, so we have effectively no inpact.
Re:Why, oh why? (Score:2)
also not that important. Why? Because Windows users are not server
operators. Uptime is not nearly as important for the typical PC user.
Also, most Windows users turn their boxes on and off regularly
anyway.
Whoa! Hold on a mo. For Win 3.1/95/98 this might be a fair defence,
but it is not OK for Win NT which was always meant to be a server OS.
The early NT boxes were egregiously missold as being something they
were not.
Re:Plausible, practical. (Score:2)
I Have the asnwer!!! (Score:2)
2. Start cloneing the current state of the MacOS
3. Take 10 years to complete the job
4. Change the look and feel of your new os to the look and feel of the current version of windows (windows 2010)
5. You now have a perfet clone of the current microsoft windows
Re:I dunno (Score:2)
It just seems more and more, to me, the O.W. group doesn't have a realistic goal. Its not like this is the first time someone has tried to clone Windows. I don't see them creating a "100% clone" that is any closer to what any of the other projects of this type. Defiantly not in a reasonable amount of time.
---
Reality Check (Score:2)
The thing to realize is that probably 2/3's of the work is done. Wine has gotten very good lately. Add a boot loader, a native filesystem handler, a scheduler, and I'm sure a couple of other things I'm forgetting to Wine, and you are /very close/ to a Windows clone. Most of the missing pieces could probably be got very quickly and simply by grafting Wine ontop of a bare Linux kernel.
Now, I suspect that, like Wine, it will tend to have a lot of bugs and be really slow. But the project is really quite doable.
(Just for the record: it is a complete and total waste of time. But a doable waste of time.)
--
Re:"OpenWindows" is taken (Score:2)
> My biggest problem I have with GNU/Linux culture is that 90% of its devotees...
> Get a clue, you l337 bastards.
In the sig:
> All generalizations are false.
Just had to point that out. No offense intended, old-school Solaris user; that just struck me as funny.
xyzzy
Is it just me... (Score:2)
Open each of these sites in a separate browser window, and flip between them:
http://openwindows.sourceforge
and
http://www.microsoft.com [microsoft.com]
Even the two graphics, while unrelated (Windows Media Player 7, and the OpenWindows question mark icon) seem oddly similar...
Pack mentality (Score:2)
But you overlook one little thing:
That Other System is run by about 95% of the rest of the world.
I don't much like Windows either, guys -- I agree that there are much better desktop operating systems [be.com]. But the sheer size of Windows is a card it can play against all others. If someone managed to come up with a decent clone of it, and one that was reasonably stable and fast, then as an aside -- with no work on their part -- they'd also get a universe of applications to run on it, and hundreds of millions of users that already know how to use it.
Would it be sub-optimal? Sure. Would hardcore geeks like us prefer it to Linux? Doubtful -- maybe as a games platform or as something to make the Gnu/Linux weenies happy ;) [gnu.org] -- but it's something those hundreds of millions of others might appreciate way more than Linux.
Further, I thought one of the better possible outcomes of the anti-trust trial [slab.org] would be an open API and possible clones. Hey presto, looks like people have gotten started already. Why do you have a problem with that? Even if it can't make a perfect & enhanced & stabilized version of Windows -- which, I admit, is a long shot -- it would have a possibly much greater side effect: it would be competition for Microsoft . Isn't that supposed to be a good thing? What are you all complaining about, anyway?
Why from scratch, and not use a Linux kernel? (Score:2)
Software-wise, Windows 2000 is 80% compatible with Windows 9x (drivers doesn't count).
Yet, their kernels are not very similar - one based on DOS, another on VMS.
In fact, Windows NT was originally a concept of putting Win32 API on top of a VMS-based kernel, and it works (sort of).
So, WINE is already doing what's done by NT. At best, it will achieve NT-like compatibility with Windows apps. So WHY, would we want to rebuild the wheel if there's tons of them out there that's good? (are you sure you can make better kernels than FreeBSD's?)
If Microsoft can wrap a Win32 API on top of a VMS-like kernel, and Apple can wrap a MacOS API on top of a BSD kernel, why can't we wrap a Win32 API on top of our Linux kernel?
Better put the otherwise-wasted effort to improve WINE. That day will arrive.
Why not linux based? (Score:2)
IMO, the efforts of these guys should be directed in helping out the Wine folks. Make an "Openwindows" Linux distribution which is super small, and at the most write a GUI which matches WinXX, then run Wine to give you the applications support.
----------------
Programming, is like sex.
Re:Why? (or is it why not?) (Score:2)
Might I suggest CoriolisOpen Press' SAMBA Black Book? One of the best books I've found for SAMBA. Something was definitely mistuned on you server, as no way should SAMBA be using that much resources. In particular, chck out pages 439 - 442 (Configuring Samba for Optimal Performance)
Also, try the resources available from samba [samba.org] (www.samba.org), including subscribing to the mailing lists.
In terms of your problems with the Linux LUG, I can suggest the Greater New Hampshire Linux Users Group [gnhlug.org] as an excellent one for answering questions. Feel free to subscribe to their mailing list (directions on their home page), we do serve the "Greater" New Hampshire.
jeff
Installs and system files (Score:2)
Like mfc, msvcrt, comctl, etc. I know some of these are runtime libraries and breakwares, but I assume it's okay for the os to intermingle with these? Are there any legal or practical difficulties with the mixture?
Would it need to be able to use MS upgrades, security fixes?
IE 4 raises a whole 'nother crapload of potential problems--active desktop and all that. A bunch of progs won't install without insisting that those components are there, and if not, gladly offering to place it for you. More potential security and instability...
Like I said, I haven't studied WINE, so I don't know how it handles these probs.
Anyway, DirectX should be a real hoot to reprogram--unless the MS version runs without mods.
__
Remember DR-DOS? (Score:2)
A long, long time ago, Microsoft shipped MS-DOS. A separate company, Digital Research, created another operating system called 'DR-DOS'.
Now, DR-DOS was completely 100% compatible with MS-DOS, it was faster than MS-DOS, and it was cheaper. Hardware companies were starting to look at DR-DOS as a replacement for MS-DOS.
Microsoft saw a potential loss of revenue, so it posted its latest Beta of Windows 3.1 with special code: if it was running under DR-DOS, rather than MS-DOS, it would start with an error screen.
Reviewers of the time saw the error message, and strongly advised against running Windows 3.1 under DR-DOS. Hardware companies decided not to purchase DR-DOS. And, in the end, DR-DOS became nothing more than a footnote in history.
One part of the court case documentation can be found here [drdos.com] , and the parent directory contains links to more documentation.
What does this mean to Open Windows? Simple. If they succeed in creating a system that -is- 100% Microsoft-compatible, so that people can run, say, Microsoft products... Microsoft will change the products on them, so that they are no longer compatible.
Backwards development? (Score:2)
Speaking from recent experience, I offer the following advice:
First find something you want to do. Start scratching the itch. When there's enough functionality to be interesting and somewhat usable, give it a web page. Keep the web page current even though nobody visits. Submit the URL to a search engine or link to it from a known page so people start finding it via search queries.
If you have something worthwhile on your hands, the rest will take care of itself. Your users will spread the URL around for you. Watch the referrer logs and see.
Once in awhile, sit down and document all those things you've been meaning to. Make it possible for other people to understand how it works. Then you'll start drawing in fellow developer-minded people, and it will grow.
Note - nowhere in here did I say "make a fancy web page and then hype it like crazy"... that should happen when you get to 1.0 after all the other stuff has been accomplished.
Oh, and read esr's CatB paper. It worked for me.
Re:If your friend jumped off a bridge . . (Score:2)
take the fs for example. fat. go look at how it works on a technical level - and just skip bemoaning the 8.3 thing, it has a more fundamental flaw then that. look at the name - it uses a *table*!
a totally forked codebase. which windows - 95, 98, me, ce, nt, 2k? all of which have subtly (and not so subtly) different api's (and on a driver level, who boy!)
here's a few facts: the open windows project Is A Waste Of Time. the open windows project Will Not Succeed, in fact it's doubtful if it will Ever Boot.
i mean just think: it's taken linux 9 years to even come close to challenging it's competitors: other unicies. in that time the posix spec has been pretty constant. what's a place that's lagging? drivers. they're changing swiftly and they're not well documented.
now what is open windows trying to do? oh, that's right, implement an os that isn't documented, changes rapidly/randomly, that uses hardware that isn't documented and that changes rapidly. dumb, dumb, dumb.
Re:Why from scratch, and not use a Linux kernel? (Score:3)
Re:Linux *still* doesnt cut it. (Score:2)
You're probably conducting some sort of sociological experiment. See how people will moderate up what they don't understand, as long as you sound like you know what you're talking about.
I guess you win.
--
Off to a great start... (Score:2)
OpenWindows is a trademark of Sun Microsystems.
Re:How compatible? (Score:5)
True to form for Microsoft. They can't make the system stable, but they can make it crash in the color of your choice.
--
Um, about reimplementing the ENIAC... (Score:3)
ENIAC-on-a-chip [upenn.edu]
I salute their magnificent insanity!
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
Enforcing development (Score:2)
Now, an oppressive para-military force is available from the Free Software Foundation that will change software development forever.
GNU Gestapo shows up at software companies and enforces the development of good programs for free Operating Systems like GNU/Linux, GNU/Hurd, and FreeBSD.
Re:Why, oh why? (Score:5)
For a game system running nothing important for a single user, a well executed version of windows which would run the games and the associated Windows drivers without paying tribute to Redmond seems like a Good Thing. Impossible, perhaps, but it _would_ be nice.
I agree with some of your points about Windows being ill thought-out for anything I would want to use a computer for. But the part about the OS assuming it's smarter than the users? Well, for some folks that's true. I've reached the point I can keep my linux box running fairly well. Some folks are willing to give up a lot of flexibility and convenience to avoid having to learn.
I guess my point is that there _is_ a place for this sort of operating system, though it's no place I'd like to be. Whether they can pull it off and duplicate Windows I have no clue, but I think that a lot of manufacturers would be happy to bundle a fully functional, free Win98 clone with their cheap pc's this year. Next year, of course, the trendy, buzz-word-compliant software from Microsoft won't run on Win98, if these guys have succeded. I think _that's_ the weakest point of the whole plan: If their effort succeds, it will be like CPM: an anachronism. Microsoft will see to that.
Two final thoughts: First, Microsoft has been able to keep its users on the upgrade treadmill by not supporting the old versions, discouraging hardware manufacturers from building drivers for the old versions, and so on. If this were ready _now_, I think that a lot of people might see this as a way to step off the upgrade path, and stick with a familiar evil. You could still get bugfixes for GNU-Win98 after "WinMillenium" comes out, at least.
Second, I have to wonder: how many of the technically sophisticated people who program at these very low levels for fun will _really_ want to spend their hobby hours slavishly imitating Windows? Will this ever attract a critical mass of programmers?
I certainly wish them luck.
Nels
Re:This is great!! -- YES IT IS!!! (Score:2)
I first must commend these guys on a truly incredible feat that they are attempting to perform. I would tell them to disregard all of these people who say "quit wasting your time" or "why not just use linux if you want an alternative." I am an avid linux user and I remember when many said these very things to me when I started using linux. People would say "linux is going to go nowhere" or "who will develop for it... just use windows." etc...etc...etc...
Many of us who use linux quickly forget that we used to hear those things and it is a shame when people try to stump your efforts with "why don't you just use XXXX instead". Linux became what it is today because of people who stood by their OS and didn't care what the status quo OS was. They did it because they believed in something and developers the world over joined in the effort. They coded despite the overwhelming odds against them. Now, they must do the same. The support and developers that they need will come in good time and join in their efforts.
I hope to not be dependent on MS Windows for some of the things I do on a daily basis. Their project, will allow many of us to run windows programs on a compatible OS without all the restrictions MS puts on us. I love linux, however, I enjoy BeOS and Mac's as well. I like variety, and I like to see MS scared out of their pants because of projects like linux and projects like this. If nothing else, open source will allow us to share. We will be able to take their api's and use them with wine or use whatever they develop and port some of the functionality to linux. We will all benefit if they succeed.
Finally, I want to say a few things about open source. Open source is about freedom, not control. Open source means nobody can tell me how to run my system. Open source means choice. It's about the little guy... it's about the proverbial "David" slaying "Goliath." Big corporations like MS will realize that we won't take their strong-armed tactics or anti-competetive practices.
I could go on and on... you get the picture. I will probably stick to unix/linux no matter what but, I know many who would drop MS windows if something compatible were available. I say these guys should keep up the good work and push forward no matter what the odds.
best of luck openwin team!!
Re: (Score:2)
Freedows (Score:5)
Re:Why, oh why? (Score:3)
Windows is *not* a bad idea.
1. There is no security model because we don't need one. What?! Well, I'm sitting here in a house, anybody who walks by is a relative, so I've got nothing to worry about there. I don't have a static IP or run a server. The network is read-only. I am both user and admin. A security model integrated into the OS would just be cruft. We don't need no steenking chmod.
2. The designers of Windows didn't sit around making assumptions about the intelligence of users. They simply set out to make things easy. There is a subtle distinction there.
3. I'm not aware of any OS that can be separated from the UI. Exactly what would *NIX without a shell look like? :)
OK, enough rebuttals to your arguments, here are some of my own: *NIX people often fail to understand the circumstances underwhich Windows evolved. In fact, the keyword here is *evolved*. Windows evolved from DOS, which was originally designed to run on woefully underpowered PCs. *NIX had the luxury of running on some pretty powerful hardware right from the start. It wasn't until the 386 that *NIX on a PC even began to be practical.
DOS/Win is the real hobbiest OS. When MS was serving the PC community, *NIX was still just for business.
The fact that Windows crashes as often as it does is, surprisingly, also not that important. Why? Because Windows users are not server operators. Uptime is not nearly as important for the typical PC user. Also, most Windows users turn their boxes on and off regularly anyway.
In other words, 90% of the PC users are not using Windows because they are "brainwashed". Windows is a *good* idea.
That said, I agree that attempts to duplicate Windows are misguided. Because it is an evolved system, they are doomed right from the start, not having participated in the last 20 years of evolution. They can also never overcome the fact that Windows is a de-facto standard. Also, the Free Software philosophy is either unimportant or at odds with many Windows developers, who like the MS bu$iness model very much.
Or, to paraphrase a quotation that the *NIX community loves to cite: Those who fail to understand Windows are condemned to reinvent it--poorly.
100% Clone eh? (Score:2)
VaporWare (Score:2)
How compatible? (Score:4)
I for one can think of _nothing_ better to do with my time than to try to reverse engineer an inferior OS, only to 'finish' it just as windows dominance starts to fade.
Not that I'm negative by nature, but cm'on!
Moving targets are hard to shoot (Score:2)
This project will die a slow and painful death, because it shoots at a moving target. In the spirit of "it ain't a bug, it's a feature", Microsoft can add subtle changes to APIs, add things that seem like bugs but are needed to support functionality, and otherwise force users of Real Windows[tm] to upgrade to the point that all the apps everyone is using are incompatible with wine, openwindows, or any other code that has to play catch up.
Case in point: Does WINE run Office2K? Now, WINE might run Office N where N is old, and some people will try to convince you thats all you need (or that you can use a Corel, Applix, or Sun product instead of Word). But if most of the files you need to read are in Office2K (or some later, purposefully incompatible MS format) then you are screwed. Even if you use linux for scientific computing or a webserver, you are going to be forced back to the MS Windows/Office paradigm to do collaborative writing (or reading) with the majority of folks who don't want to try anything new with their computers.
I'm not happy with this situation, but I don't see much that can be done about it. It is like when you try out an alternative (like Applix or Wordperfect) and notice that the file converters only really do a good job on text. Why aren't formulas, graphics, and formatting converted, too? It is not just diminishing dollar returns from buyers to getting the converter perfect, there are also vastly increasing costs in terms of programmer time -- and a open source project will feel these even if it doesn't care about the dollars. Add to this the disconcerting knowledge that in 2 years, almost surely Microsoft will change the file formats again -- to give you "features" or maybe give their competitors bugs, and the task of an independent windows (or even office suite) seems like a lost cause.
Finally, you see, the lawyers will be unnecessary. Since the project will either fail under the weight of the already huge and buggy windows API, or under the game of catchup trying to follow purposeful, proprietary Microsoft changes, it is best for Microsoft not to call the lawyers out of their hole.
Instead, you'll see "another silent victory for innovation". And more hyped ads about Microsoft having the more reliable, faster, easier to use product.
All trademarks used on this page are owned by their owners.
Re:Why, oh why? (Score:2)
rm /bin/sh and find out for yourself. My point, actually, is that you can have one, some, or none of a number of available interfaces. With winDOS that is not the case.
In fact, the keyword here is *evolved*.
You don't have to tell me twice. It's obvious that there was no actual design effort put into that pile of crap.
In other words, 90% of the PC users are not using Windows because they are "brainwashed".
That's right. They're using it because it came with their computer and either they're unaware of alternatives or installing software - any software - is too difficult for them. So they use the OS that came with their computer until it breaks, then they get a new computer.
DOS/Win is the real hobbiest OS.
Nonsense. It's clearly targeted at business and the ignorant. Hobbyists are well aware of, and often make use of, various alternatives.
Windows evolved from DOS, which was originally designed to run on woefully underpowered PCs.
Most of the underpowered aspect came from limitations of DOS itself. By 1986 or so DOS, not the hardware, was the limiting factor. That was only about 25% of the way into the history of this "OS." The true hardware limitations of the architecture are still in place thanks to Intel's worship of backwards-compatibility. So you end up with an underpowered OS trying to work around archaic bits of hardware. Both were designed in the early 80s, and neither has ever left that era. Yet that same misdesigned hardware now can run several OS's originally designed for more powerful hardware. Why has Microsoft failed to catch up?
Your point about evolution is well taken. There are known disadvantages to evolution of, for the prime example, life. Much of the human brain, for example, is wasted space. It holds the R-complex and limbic systems, which are really just reptile and mammalian brains, respectively. They hold no knowledge or useful information, but are still there because of evolution. If you want a sillier example, think about the appendix and tailbone. As humans, thinking beings, we have the luxury of tearing down existing designs when improving them. Nature does not have this luxury, which is why we are stuck with vestigial parts and primitive brains. We should take advantage of this opportunity to actually design our creations, several times if necessary, and get them right as much as possible from the start. Evolved software always ends up with the distinctly bad odour of cruft and backwards-compatibility with hardware and other software that should have died out aeons ago. Why apologize for those who make that mistake?
Re:How compatible? (Score:3)
Dreamweaver
Freedows? (Score:2)
I dunno (Score:2)
I wonder if their intentions are to just see if it can be done. If you think about it, what is the point of making a free Windows clone? So you can run Microsoft Office? If attempts like Wine can't get the APIs perfect, then is a project like this going to succeed? I think if we look at it from the point of view, "where can we get with it," then yes, a project like this is worthwhile. It seems to me it would be a mistake to have hopes of a high amount of usability.
BTW, I like how they even went so far as to make their page look my Microsoft's homepages...
---
Re:How compatible? (Score:2)
> > Actually, you can make the Windows BSOD other colors.
> True to form for Microsoft. They can't make the
> system stable, but they can make it crash in the
> color of your choice.
And then to make it truly Microsoftesque, they don't document this "feature" anywhere either; you have to illegally reverse-engineer it on your own to figure it out.
Yours WD "burnt-out" K - WKiernan@concentric.net
looks like there's not a lot to this project: (Score:2)
Wow. Where have we heard that before? The "initial enthusiasm" is starting to wane before they even have a single release? Sounds like the legendary "Freedows project". If anything, these ambitious "I want to build an OS" projects prove that it is easy to emulate Microsoft in one regard: generation of vapor and hype.
These folks are looking to recruit programmers, but they don't have a project, a CVS repository, or even any code -- just an idea. That's really ridiculous.
It's as if these developers woke up one morning and thought "Hey, I've got a great idea! I can't implement it, but I can make web sites! I'll make a web site and programmers will flock to implement it for me for free!"
This is really no different than the "Hey, I've got a great idea! I have no product/profits, but I'll generate a lot of hype, IPO, and become rich" which caused the stock bubble to burst. It's really unfortunate that the community, so rich with good projects, has encouraged this sort of "crying 'wolf'" even with no profit motive.
~wog
Name clash and FreeDOWS (Score:5)
Two things to say:
-David
Re:No, of course it isn't ... (Score:2)
claviola@rj.sol.com.br, uin# 55799523 */
Re:Why, oh why? (Score:2)
Remember, the mouse was intended to slow a user down
Can you cite a source for that? Whether or not the mouse slows you down or speeds you up depends on how you use it.
Speed-up example: Double-clicking a program to launch it vs. actually typing in the command.
Slow-down example: del *.txt (when the directory has 1000 text files in it).
I've found there are some things the mouse does well, and some things the keyboard does better.
For example, when I need to highlight text, I do it with the mouse rather than moving the cursor with the keyboard and using shift-arrow. This is faster because the mouse can leap over text without any repeat-rate restrictions (and yes, my repeat rate is maxed out). But then when I copy the text, I ctrl-C ctrl-V, because that is plainly faster than the menu.
So, if the mouse was intended to slow users down, it was not successful.
Re:A Stupid Dumb Waste Of Time (Score:2)
Don't you think that reinventing windows in a better way would be a cool new technology that would make windows irrelevant?
write it right... (Score:3)
kick some CAD [cadfu.com]
umm... (Score:3)
--
Re:Why, oh why? (Score:2)
Which got me thinking, *NIX is evolved too, it's just a different branch. Remember what people were saying here about X being "crufty"?
Re:Why, oh why? (Score:2)
I agree with most of what you say, to coin a cliche, "Horses for courses".
However:
Uptime is not nearly as important for the typical PC user. Also, most Windows users turn their boxes on and off regularly anyway.
Pardon? I dont think so - ask any user who has to reboot their Windows box 2 or 3 times in a working day, and see what they think about uptime not being important.
Really though, everybody used to expect a certain standard from computers. These days, even Joe Blow Windows user is starting to lower these standards.
Re:No, of course it isn't ... (Score:2)
It's the crazy ideas that change the world.
Yes, some crazy ideas change the world. Others simply fail miserably, as I predict this one will.
on free OS efforts (Score:2)
Then came along Alliance OS [allos.org]. Seems a lot of disgruntled Freedows developers migrated to that project after Freedows flopped. It was the same idea, based on the Stanford Cache Kernel paper, except it didn't seem so intent on emulating Windows (though it allowed for writing a layer of compatibility). It seemed really to be going somewhere, with regular status updates, a web page for every subteam, apparently they even had a 1MB source archive. Unfortunately, about half a year ago, the status updates just stopped. The page is still up, you can check it out, but I'm afraid we can consider that one RIP as well. How sad.
I can speak from personal experience when I say that it's easy to look at the success of major open source projects and forget that the authors of them weren't home-educated, CS degree-less adolescents like I am. They were serious computer programmers who knew their stuff before they began. These projects didn't happen by magic, and they weren't effortless fun. Success takes real work. No one will magically write the next vim in a weekend.
I hope that OS development based on the Stanford Cache Kernel comes to be one day. Though I don't know enough about OS internals to understand the merits of it, from the way the FAQs for these projects would talk about it it sounds like a great idea.
Perhaps OS innovation doesn't belong in the open source community. Linux wasn't innovation, it was re-implementation. Maybe writing an open source OS at all is too much. Linus just happened to pick the perfect time in history, where interest was high enough and communication easy enough that a vacuum was filled. No new OS project these days will ever attract the mindshare Linux did (and still does).
I'd almost suggest that if these guys want something to do, that they go and grab the Alliance tarball and start hacking away, but their FTP server seems to be indefinitely down. Ah well...
--
Re:Why, oh why? (Score:3)
UNIX started out on a PDP-7, hardware that was less powerful than even the original IBM PC. BSD versions ran just fine on PDP-11 machines with 64k or 128k of RAM and fairly sluggish processors. Xerox PARC had also some version of Smalltalk on early PC hardware, including GUI. People had multitasking systems with hierarchical file systems even on 8bit processors.
In fact, it appears that even IBM had a good multitasking OS ready for the IBM PC. But they couldn't ship it because they had been under investigation by the justice department for tying software and hardware sales.
The limitations of the original PC hardware (which, themselves, were a result of IBM's greed unwillingness to cut into its own business) are no excuse for the lousy design of DOS or Windows.
That's because volume and marketing from IBM drove the cost down, not because of any technical features of DOS/Windows.
The story of Windows is similar. Systems like the Atari ST, the Macintosh, and the Amiga also showed that you could do a lot better than Windows when it came to designing a Windows-like OS (simple, no protection, etc.). Windows again was technically the bottom of the barrel and only caught on because of greed and strategic errors by their competitors, and aggressive marketing and cut-throat business tactics by Microsoft.
Re:How compatible? (Score:3)
MessageBackColor=#
MessageTextColor=#
where the #s can be replacd with values fropm the following table:
0 = black
1 = blue
2 = green
3 = cyan
4 = red
5 = magenta
6 = yellow/brown
7 = white
8 = gray
9 = bright blue
A = bright green
B = bright cyan
C = bright red
D = bright magenta
E = bright yellow
F = bright white
This sucks! (Score:4)
___
freedows (Score:2)
Why the neagativity? (Score:2)
There are incredible benifits if this turns out to be even moderatly succesful. First of all, it there was an open source OS that made windows irrelevant, then open source would go from being something on the fringe and an "upcoming trend in software" to the standard, and people would realize that they wouldn't have to settle for anything less.
I think that the thing that most people really don't like about Microsoft is their unethical and monopolistic buisness tactics. I think that both windows and linux (and I am sure other OS's which I haven't tried ) have some great features and things that need to be improved (windows more than most as far as anything under the covers). Something like this, if successful would really cause microsoft to take a hit, and maybe even make a better OS. One of the indirect benifits of Linux is that it is causing Micrsoft to actually compete with someone instead of going at their own pace, and giving people just enough to keep upgrading or using windows. Any competition is good competition, I imagine this could have the same effect.
As for the time it would take, I am sure it would be substantial, but the hardest part for me when writing a program is just being sure about exactly what I want. A benifit about this is that you know how everything should react and look, so all the design is already done.
I think it would be great if slashdot could get an interview with these guys.
(No I am not sticking up for windows, I like linux alot better, and am still trying to learn it well enough to use it exclusivly)
Legal problems with redistributable DLLs (Score:3)
Lurking in the shadows is a critical stumbling block for any attempt to make a "pure" emulator (100% non-Microsoft code): the redistributable DLLs that ship with applications. These include the C runtime sytem (MSVCRT.DLL), the Microsoft Foundation Classes (MFC42.DLL), and the OLE runtime system (OLE32.DLL, OLEAUT32.DLL). The license terms for these DLLs state explicitly that they may only be installed on Microsoft operating systems.
So any emulator has to reinvent these DLLs from scratch. And don't forget there are about 20+ versions of each one, and some apps run only with specific versions, i.e. DLL Hell.
This is why a pure emulator is never going to fly.
p.s. standard IANAL disclaimers.
Re:I want to reverse-engineer the paperclip (Score:2)
Adolescent software developers ... (Score:2)
Re:How compatible? (Score:2)
A Dick and a Bush .. You know somebody's gonna get screwed.
If your friend jumped off a bridge . . (Score:3)
This is the core question. ms has done a fine job a cludging together a heap of backward compatibility and bloat that somehow manages to boot. We should be learning from the glaring failures in windows as we point, laugh and learn. Programers should learn new things everyday, but not the same things.
I think their news says it all: (Score:3)
Attention would-be artists.
OW is looking for artwork. We want
your ideas for startup/shudown and
off screens. We will accept
submissions until 15 August. At that
time the public will vote on the
winning screens. So what will it be?
Minimalist? Extravagant?
You makethe call! Submissions must be
640x480 at 256 colors (16 color
beauties will also be accepted). Send
you compressed entry (jpeg, png, or
zipped bitmap) to
openwindows_2000@yahoo.com
Website making great progress
The Open Windows website is making
great progress adding a news
section, a cleaner look and a great
public face for the project.
Open Windows News
The Open Windows News System has
been installed successfully. Now the
team leaders can post public news.
I'm afraid time has shown that any project concerned with a news system, development of their web site, and startup and shutdown screens (!) before having LOTS of code to show, doesn't have much promise.
I mean really:
From: <linus@torvolds.net>
Date: Jun 30, 1993
Hello, I have an idea for a great OS. I have a website up, and a news system, and I just drew startup and shutdown screens. They're really cool. So anyway, I was thinking I'd write an OS. Who wants to jump on board?
Linus
--
Win compatible Linux would be better (Score:2)
The bigger disadvantages with linux for the average user is that it's still rather complicated, and the software is still limited (atleast in some areas, e.g. games).
If there was a Linux distribution where you could run win programs, and have a GUI looking like windows, it would really draw a crowd. There could even be multiple presets in the GUI: one just like Windows, one a bit more like Linux, and one hardcore Linux..
Projects that already exist (Score:4)
Freedows: www.freedows.org [freedows.org]
Alliance OS: www.allos.org [allos.org]
(Alliance OS broke off from Freedows because of lack of progress and dissatisfaction with the "management"; see the Slashdot article above).
ReactOS (an NT clone): www.reactos.com [reactos.com]
Re:Reality Check (Score:2)
--
Re:Why, oh why? (Score:2)
Yup. Obviously if it cost a lot of money to make, and can make other people lots of money, it _must_ be good!
Go home, Microserf.
Hmm (Score:2)
I think this sounds like a really cool idea - but my gut feeling is that eventually the group will realize that the job is just too monumental to complete. On the other hand, obviously these guys must know what they're doing, so I would imagine that other projects (such as Wine) could greatly benefit from their help. Perhaps their efforts would be better spent doing that, and here's why:
First - what is the point, really? Most "True Geeks (tm)" would rather run Linux, *BSD, or something along those lines instead of Windows. All that would be changed would be the underlying code. Okay, it would be free - but it would still be Windows on the surface.
On the other hand, perhaps their target audience is not geeks but your typical Joe user. Sure, he would rather use a free-beer version of Windows than the commercial version, but would he really have the option to do so? It would be difficult (though perhaps not impossible) to convince OEMs to use a Windows clone - and that would really be the only way to get people to use it, since 99% of (okay, no idea of the exact percentage, but it should be high) PCs are shipped with Windows already on it - they're forced to pay for it anyways.
Third - (okay, my last point didn't have a number, but regardless...) - This goes back to "What is the point?" Let's assume that they manage to perfectly clone Windows and that the new code is squeaky-clean (or at least significantly cleaner than Microsoft's legacy code). What about the applications? If they aren't willing to clone Office and Internet Explorer as well, there will still be plenty of bugs, unexplained system crashes, system slowness, and all the other features we've come to love.
And finally - how can they create a perfect clone without access to Microsoft's APIs? Part of the requirements of making a clone are cloning all of the defects, too. Many applications probably depend on bugs in Windows libraries.
So I think that this sounds like a great idea on the surface, but in reality their efforts should probably be focused on something more worthy of their time. I would hate to see them realize that their project was irrelevant and give up after spending months, or years, on this behemoth of a project, and regret all the time they wasted.
Re:and the point is.... (Score:3)
I've been saying this for a while... Think of how good Linux would be if there wasn't soo many people trying to go in every direction with a distribution based on everything in the world? I wish some people would just be alirght with themselves by just contributing to a project instead of running their own. Don't get me wrong, I think variety is great, but there is a lot of wasted talent on some projects because of things like this. OpoenWindows? Why can't they just contribute majorly to the WINE project? Why can't they run something similar so they can help it out? Oh welps...
No, of course it isn't ... (Score:5)
Look at how much trouble the WINE guys are having just implementing a wrapper around the win32 API. Now OpenWindows would have to do that, plus write more or less the equivalent of the entire linux kernel, plus X, plus GNOME. Ummm ... good luck, guys :).
The linux kernel was a monumental feat, and it was only possible because it implemented a well-known, standardized API (POSIX). Building a kernel around a poorly defined, constantly changing API like windows' is impossibly difficult, even if you could muster the same manpower that linux has.
Also, unless they want to write their own drivers (another monumental effort), they would also have to re-implement windows' binary driver interface, which presumably is even harder to get a grip on. Incidentally, this also means that OpenWindows would be as unstable as the real one, since a lot of the bugs in windows are caused by crappy third-party drivers :).
Building an OS from scratch is hard enough; copying someone else's is really, really hard. Try something easier, guys ...
15 minutes of Slashdot Fame (Score:2)
Having done that, I'd say they should celebrate their resounding success and pack it in.
Slight change in objective? (Score:2)
If someone is going to do this, I think they should initially focus on replacing slow/buggy Microsoft components with fast/non-buggy versions released under the GPL (to keep Microsoft from appropriating them).
Once these new components were of sufficient quality the word would get out that Hey, you can improve the speed/stability of Windows by installing these files instead of the Microsoft originals.
Eventually, the installed base of the GPL'd versions would be sufficient that you could begin to make proprietary enhancements (i.e., full Windows compatibility would be a subset of the functionality) to these GPL'd components and have other GPL'd programs take advantage of them.
This would result in a package that is:
If this sounds familiar it is because it is. It is commonly known as embrace, extend, extinguish which is a double-edge sword.
If all this was Objective One of the project, then if it somehow failed to achieve Objective Two (a full implementation of Windows), it still would not have been a wasted effort.
As to the obvious counter attack from Redmond of changing things in response: Microsoft is much more constrained because of their installed customer base and cannot make completely arbitrary changes to core routines. As a result, they cannot be more agile than the GPL group.
-- OpenSourcerers [opensourcerers.com]
community (Score:2)
Re:Hmm (Score:2)
Why is this whole thing taken from the stand point of the geek? Wake up and smell the 15 year old coffee, geeks are not the sole market for computers anymore.
Just to have an alternative os that would run a directx game would advance the status of open source for the general public light years ahead.
Within my various business endeavours, I have adopted the motto, "the best tool for the job". Does that mean Linux in every situation...no. Would I recommend Linux, BSD, whatever to either a family with kids or a senior citizen who just wants surf and send email. No
Unfortunately, I've found that under few situations is linux the best solution for the desktop. Windows is a "mature" desktop system that fits about 95% of popular needs. Is it overpriced...Yes. Is it highly unstable...yes and no. Given it's shortcommings and its usage, do we as knowledgable technology prfessionals expect and demand enterprise class uptimes from a desktop OS?
I say that linux or any other OS will ever capture the hearts and minds of the general public until it can run the hottest games as soon as they come out. That, my friends, is where the money and the success lies.
True... (Score:2)
Re:Why? (or is it why not?) (Score:3)
That said, partitioning, formatting, and installing Windows really isn't any easier than Linux. Your USB mouse wouldn't have worked during the install for Windows 2000 any better than it didn't work during the install for Linux, but you'd have a realistic shot at getting it to work afterwards.
Before I get flamed to death for that statement, yes, I realize that you can get a wide range of hardware to work in Linux, if you have the time to track down drivers and can comprehend the installation procedure. In my experience, the more expensive your hardware is, the more likely it is to work with Linux. Go for the name-brand stuff, avoid USB like the plague, and don't buy a single product, with the exception of CPU's and motherboards that isn't at least six months old, or you won't find any support for it in your shrink-wrapped distribution.
Yesterday, I took down my Linux server at work, and replaced it with a Windows 2000 server. Yes, I'll probably get flamed for this, but I had a specific reason, Samba. Eight months ago, I set up a Red Hat Linux server to act as a file server for my Windows users. It was rock-solid stable, the machine would never crash, but transfers at 100 Megabits would eat up 70% of the CPU time on a PIII-500 with 192MB of RAM. This would render the GUI unusable, and the Samba status window I had running in X would die as well.
I updated to the newest version of Samba, I read the man pages, I even got up in front of my local Linux Users Group to ask for help and suggestions. All I got were some snide remarks about "Well, that's Samba for you..." and some shrugged shoulders. So yesterday, I took down the venerable Linux box, uptime of 98 days, since I put it in the new rack, and replaced it with a Windows 2000 Server which requires less than 10% of the CPU for a 100 Megabit transfer.
---
Why? (or is it why not?) (Score:2)
They said their intital goal is compatability. As far as that goes, nobody is going to be interested. I mean, all y'all who are running Windows, didn't it come with your computer whether you wanted it or not, or didn't you pirate, err... borrow it?
However, if they manage to get to phase two, IMPROVING it, I'm all for it. The idea of being able to choose between many different free distributions of Windows like you can with Linux appeals to me. This of course presumes that Red Hat Windows, etc, will be stable (Hell, I'd even care less about the Blue Screen of Death if it came in different colors).
Propping Linux here is preaching to the choir, but my limited newbie experience with Linux [geocities.com] has been underwhelming thus far. I KNOW that Linux kicks ass, but unfortunately, not at anything that I care about. I likeWord97. GIMP is still Photoshop's bitch. Corel Linux is slower than Win95 at everything (at least on my p166).
I'm not bashing Linux, and I'm not advocating Windows. Both are different, and both need work (IMHO). For me, this open Windows clone project is a great idea.
....
OpenSTEP clone GNUSTeP as case history. (Score:5)
(digging about in back of brain, and odds are people who KNOW the histry far better will correct my preceptions)
It was a small group of people, who turned out to be dedicated. My inital reaction was "Oh look, another well-meaning project" And it seemed to me, the project didn't go anywhere. But lo and behold, they got the code to where it was almost useful to others, and these others used the code and submitted changes. And then the new code became useful to others and on and on.
Stumbling blocks:
1) Lack of full disclosure of the Windows API.
2) Microsoft has the ability to change its API at will. They have MANY more programmers than this project will to totally re-write code if they choose to.
I'm betting the project will end up like the 'lets clone the newton API" projects. If no one sits down and keeps turning out code/results, the project will go no where.
"OpenWindows" is taken (Score:3)
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
Re:write it right... (Score:2)
The real question is why would you care to write such a thing. It's not really useful from a geek point of view since Windows 98 is not really useful from a geek point of view. It's not an effecent way to get a video game system since Wine could just be ixed up to make games run better. Finally, your duplicating one of the worst operating systems sold today. If you want to make a GPL version of a commercial operating system then copy something useful like BeOS.
Still, I suppose someone will enjoy duplicating Windows 98. I wish them luck, but I just hope they don't distract too many developers from importent projects like Wine.
Re:If your friend jumped off a bridge . . (Score:5)
Windows is a massive operating system, and it is indeed a large hack - a miracle that it works as well as it does. I'm personally running a copy of Windows ME and 2000 on various computers I own, and I'm impressed that they have managed to keep so much code through so many incarnations of this OS and STILL maintain almost 100% compatibility among their entire product line.
About this project. They're not using any legacy Windows code. They're not trying to hack together a lot of crap and bloat and just keep all the old code while shoving new stuff in. This entire project is, hopefully, going to be about completely reprogramming Windows in the best way possible. That means keeping it efficient, not having to deal with old code that you'd rather keep, etc. In this process, the coders WILL be learning from the "glaring failures" in windows and hopefully show MS a thing or two about how to do it right given some dedication.
I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that these people will learn massive amounts of information, and have to think of no small number of clever hacks and tricks as they go along. We should be saluting these guys - if they succeed, and their OS is open source in the end, it could be forged into something that is the best of both Windows and Linux - an OS that is truly accessible to the masses, very easy to use, very powerful, and very stable. Is this not, essentially, the reason we hoped that the MS antitrust trial would result in the gov't forcing MS to open-source windows? So that we could take it and turn it into something _better_ than linux or Win 98?
Don't beat on these guys, they're not taking programming tips from MS design teams - they're trying to acheive the same result in a totally different way. Once that happens, the possibilities may very well open up right in front of us.
Keep your fingers crossed...I will for a few years.
Why (Score:2)
Bold, colorful announcements are a dime a dozen and do not deserve our attention and praise.
Re:If your friend jumped off a bridge . . (Score:2)
But nobody every runs all windows binaries.
If a program doesn't run properly, the people giving you support can send you a patch to the program OR the operating system, whatever is simpler. This could be a tremendous boon, since for most people there is going to be one or two programs that are absolutely critical.
Of course, if that program is Office, I very much doubt Office will ever run reasonably well in any clone or compatability library, due to secret APIs.
Re:Win compatible Linux would be better (Score:2)
It's whatever the user wants it to be.
Very desirable -- the world deserves a laugh (Score:2)
This won't work though if the project is at the mercy of injunctions. It needs to have a distributed base in several countries where MS hasn't extended strong tendrils into government, plus a floating US presence just to annoy the hell out of them.
And of course it should be faithful to the MS way by embracing and extending MS's own standards.
That should be fun to watch.
what about the users? (Score:2)
My point is that it will not enhance the speed and ease of migration from windows to unix platform for the users. It will confuse and noway can a new windows system starting development now catch up with windows today. So why not take the ressources planned to be invested on put efforts into improving wine, windows compatibility on unix. when they first can run their killer/must have/no present serious alternative applications on unix, they will have completed first stage. And from there they have only one way to go.
Yes the open systems/unixes are the future in my eyes. They are capable of providing as real solutions. We should collect our efforts on compatibility between all open unixes.. linux, *bsd, solaris etc. When we stand together, we stand strong. Remember.. we geeks are responsible for making the IT solutions for the non-geeks. Lets do it with honour.
Re:Even if it seems possible, it will be impossibl (Score:2)
Re:give it up (Score:2)
My God, it's filled with Jackasses. (Score:2)
I really like the idea behind this project and thing if managed properly and done correctly will work out very well. Windows is an extremely well documented system which would allow a clone maker to write their own libraries and such which operated the same as their closed source counterparts. Just look at the Mesa project, they set out to write an open sourced version of OpenGL which worked in the same way and could do all of the same thing and for the most part they have done just that. The Open Windows project is the same basic idea, you use the documentation that exists to write you own code that responds the same way but is written by you rather than Microsoft. Microsoft encourages developers to program to the API rather than the hardware or the low level system because it allows them to upgrade the kernel drivers and libraries without nuking the system. How many times have a Linux kernels been released that broke programs because system calls or functions had changed? Such a system also allows for a group to put together a more efficient way to run Windows applications. In the end it doesn't matter what OS you have, the OS isn the least important part of the computer. The important part is the applications that actually get work done.
Re:The Case of the Missing Karma (Score:2)
Especially considering that anyone who uses the r-utilities deserves to have their box 0wn3d.
How is this better than Wine? (Score:2)
What can this provide that you wouldn't get from a full implementation of Windows services in Wine, or running DOS apps via DOSEMU or VMWare?
Aside from the sarcastic remarks about instability, I can only imagine one thing--use of Windows device drivers. Seems like reverse-engineering and rewriting specific drivers would be less effort.
Re:write it right... (Score:4)
Now we could really test the cathedral and the bizarre. If it is open, hopefully the bugs will be discovered quickly.
Now others have said that most "geeks" would want to use Linux or Free BSD, which is probably true. But this would be a good chance for the "non-geek" community to use open source OS, since the focus here is not to make an efficient OS, but to may a user friendly one. This has been the biggest complaint about Linux and BSD as well as all Unix OS.
Now if your non-geek friend needs help with their Non MS Windows, you would be more incline to help. And if you find a bug, you might just fix it, or at least notify those that are working on it.
So, although I don't ever plan on using this, but if I would find someone who does, I would certainly want to play with it.
Best of luck to those guys.
Steven Rostedt
Why, oh why? (Score:5)
The concept of an OS that makes the fundamental assumption that it's smarter than the user is a bad idea. The concept of an OS without a security model is a bad idea. The concept of an OS that cannot be separated from its user interface is a bad idea. Why are these people reimplementing something that has so many fundamentally bad ideas in it?
The hardware equivalent of this is going back and reimplementing the ENIAC. It's slow, it's hard to use, it's obsolete, and it's, well, archaic. We've moved on. You'd think it's possible to have learned something in 20 years. Apparently not. A perfect example comes courtesy of their web site: they plan to use the FAT filesystem. They claim that it's familiar and well understood. That it may be, but so are a dozen other filesystems. If you're going to select a filesystem based on familiarity and simplicity, why not choose the Minix fs? Or the version 7 fs? Or ext2? These filesystems have been documented thoroughly in books, in presentations, and in readily available code. The kicker, of course, is that they all offer substantially more features and performance than FAT. They are fundamentally better-designed filesystems. There is absolutely no reason one could not, were one so inclined, implement WinDOS using one of those filesystems in a manner which is entirely transparent to the user.
Because of the obvious irrationality this group exudes, an example of which is discussed above, I'm seriously questioning whether this is simply a hoax. It makes no sense to do this at all. Windows is a fundamentally inferior operating system. The world has moved on. It's bad enough to reinvent the wheel, but it's excusable if you are simply enhancing a previous, working, round wheel (ie all the reimplementations of Unix and Unix-like operating systems). This is taking a triangular wheel and trying to reimplement it faithfully. What gives, guys?
Re:Is it desirable? (Score:3)
This brings up a good point - why not just try to build on OS that runs DOS/Win* games? Forget Office - I'm sure there are plenty of people out there w/a win partition just so they can play. Cook up a lean, mean, windows butt-kicking, game playing machine & then we're talkin'.
Re:I dunno (Score:4)
Hmm.. mabey that can be their motto, Microsoft has "Where do you want to go today" and they can have "Where can we get with it", or mabey "What purpose does it serve?"
Back on topic: Being that most popular applications have been ported to other OS's (*nix, MacOS.x, etc.), you may be thinking "why would we need a Micro$oft clone?" Well, this would be the most direct competition to MS, as all MS software would run on it, as well as non MS software written for windows. And since we already know that MS is the most popular desktop OS, a free 100% compatible OS could allow computer manufactures to lower prices by not having to include the price of an OS. This is good for everybody. The advantage of using a Win9x clone is that it could smoothly intigrated into the mainstream, as most people are already familliar with the Win9x environment. Thus business could install this on all their systems at a fraction of the cost, and not have to pay for employee training on the new OS. But the biggest advantage is still the direct compitition to MS, after all, how could they compete with free? For the record, I'm not against Linux, MacOSx, BSD, etc. They are wonderful operating systems. I'm just trying to be realistic. If somebody produced an almost transparent Win9x clone, it would have the best shot of hitting mainstream. I just hope that they don't copy the bugs!
Unix - style (Score:2)
Re:OpenSTEP clone GNUSTeP as case history. (Score:3)
Not true. Windows' one and only advantage over everything else is the size of its third-party software base. If they were to gratuitously change the API enough to break a clone, they would also break apps. Do that, and no one will be able to think of a reason for using Windows.
---
Uh? (Score:2)
and shutdown screen artworks will most likely
stuck with those for all of its limited lifespan.
I mean, hey, building an OS is abit more
complicated that grabbing and parsing an HTML
page.
I'd rather qualify this as a plug that as a hoax.
It may give these guys some cash in banners. And
if they begin to violate MS intellectual property
rights, open source will, again, be drawn as a
cybercrime paradise.
Re:Why, oh why? (Score:2)
Same argument applies to Linux - lots of people to make, and can make lots of other people money, therefore it must be good. Just as long as it's not making the people who created it lots of money, it's all fine and dandy, right?
Go home, Microserf.
Oooh... I bet that stung. Couldn't you come up with a better insult? Or at least put a $ sign in the "Micro$erf"?
Simon
Plausible, practical. (Score:2)
1) Windows comptability would kick ass in an OSS OS. Not matter what people say, Windows still has the best apps.
2) It might result in a better windows than windows. If the designers of this new OS can take some liberties and leave out support for Win16 stuff, then the whole thing can a true, non-bloated OS capable of running Win32 applications (which btw. are the only ones worth running and the ones that don't already run on stuff like Wabi.) Also, it should be possible to rearchitecture the internals of this OS for speed and efficiency. As Microsoft has shown (with NT), Windows applications are tied to the API, but not so much to the underlying OS. The fact that most major applications survive the transition to NT intact means that the resulting OS needn't look at all like Win9x or NT. Although applications don't access the OSs internals, drivers are pretty dependant on them, so rearchitecturing the OS may lead to driver incomptability.
3) This would probably be a good OS for games. First, games tend to be pretty API complient. DirectX offers most of the features that a game designer needs from an OS, and DirectX itself is fairly well documented. Because of DirectX, there are fairly few Win32 calls in most games. If this new OS could be rearchitectured to mesh well with DirectX, then it would immediatly gain support since games are big business in the consumer sector.
4) From a comptability standpoint, it all depends. If MS doesn't object to them using DirectX and OLE/COM, then the project won't have to many compatability troubles. Its going to be a legal challange more than anything else, especially if they leave out support for older technologies. Most of MS's newer APIs are well documented, so replicating them shouldn't be terribly hard. However, if MS manages to stop them from using OLE/COM and DirectX (since they are closed APIs) then the project is useless. All the apps worth running on Windows use those two technologies. (I mean why do you think NT 4.x was a less than great seller in the consumer market? It's faster, more stable, but lacks good DirectX support.)
5) It's surprising they didn't mention WINE. Apparently they have replicated some Windows libraries, and that will undoubtadly help these guys. Also, the relative success of Wine is a good sign. It shows that applications aren't terribly dependant on the undocumented aspects of Windows, and that an OS replicating the API might work.
6) There's all kind of legal issues at work here.
A) MS might be forced to open up the Windows code/APIs. While this is years away, if it happens, it will coincide with the probably point of maturity for this project. Thus, any missed bits could be incorporated in.
B) MS might sue.
C) MS might play the "API of the day" game like it did with IBM. But they might be prevented from doing that by the DOJ.
7) The project sounds like a big task. However, I think the biggest mistake they can do is to replicate Windows 100%. The inclusion of FreeDOS in the projects listed page is a bad sign. This OS should NOT contain DOS/Win16 comptability. Most new applications don't use any of those outdated APIs, and it really isn't worth the effort, because things like DosEMU and Wabi exist. Also, native alternatives to older apps like that exist. If they go the track of 100% comptability, I'm afraid they might end up being simply an OSS version of Windows with worse comptability and comprable speed and efficiency.
Hoax (Score:3)
Re:Freedows (Score:3)
Plan the future by looking at the past (Score:3)
What they really should do is invest the development time in WINE. Look how long it's taken Wine to get this far. Kudos to the Wine team, but we're still very far from being able to execute all our 'doze apps in Linux.
Or they should start writing an Open-Source Win2K, because by the time they have a semi-functional Windows 98, Windows 2002 will start shipping.
Will MS apps cooperate? (Score:2)
Now, I have to use Win NT 4 at work, and I was having a lot of problem with Adobe Illustrator crashing (you now, things like "illegal memory access" or "this program tried to execute an illegal instruction and has been shut down").
The WinNT admin referred to a rumour along the lines of "the boys at Micro$oft keep some of the API info secret, so that apps from other software vendors are less stable than those made by Micr$oft".
In other word, Micro$oft makes an OS, and keeps back the API information you need to write a stable application. This makes Micro4oft's own applications look better than the competitors'.
It becomes a vicious circle that any proprietary OS maker can pull off once the user base gets up to critical mass. Get the users dependent on the OS because you practically give away the apps with the OS, then screw the competitors by making it hard for competitors' apps to run reliably.
So, along comes a bunch of guys who say:
Of course Micro$oft doesn't want that... (Well, I suppose that if Micro4oft is split into two entirely separate companies,one for OS and the other for apps, the apps company won't care, as it will still make sales... but the OS company will be up shit creek without a paddle...)
However, what's to stop the apps from asking the OS to identify itself (equivalent of doing a uname -a), or looking specific bits of the code to see if it is running under the M$ Real Thing rather than a Free Better More Solid OS?
OK, so Bill got his knuckles rapped when WinDoze (was it 3.1?) gave spurious error messages when it was run over Dr DOS instead of MS-DOS. But the way the US Patents Circus is going, what's to stop Billy boy from patenting some [simple,bizarre,useless] algorithm that is systematically called by every M$ app? If the OpenWindowz Boyz are prevented from using that algorithm, every M$ app will complain and/or refuse to cooperate (so what's changed, you might ask)