![]() ![]() ![]() ReactOS' development had advanced to the point where some of the missing holes were now filed while others existed that the project did not completely understand. However, Martin succeeded and his shell has been with us up to about 2014.Įventually however, the very methods by which Martin achieved a usable shell meant that that shell was becoming more limiting. Martin was forced to effectively recreate much of the functionality that the OS was supposed to provide in the shell itself to create something usable, relying very little on shell32.dll. The challenges he faced at the time were immense as ReactOS was considerably less mature. Martin Fuchs was the one that answered the call when ReactOS needed a graphical shell for its 0.2.0 release. The problem was that since ReactOS was so new, shell32.dll and other such libraries essential for a usable explorer either did not exists or were mere stubs. However, the devs expressed a desire to have a shell similar to what Windows provides. 3.3 About the shell: Why don't you add KDE4 to ReactOS?Ĭommit history (Source code can be found in: /reactos/base/shell/explorer)Ĭommit history (Source code can be found in: /reactos/base/shell/filebrowser)Ĭommit history (Source code can be found in: /reactos/dll/win32/browseui)Ĭommit history (Source code can be found in: /reactos/dll/win32/shell32)Ĭommit history (source code can be found in rosapps/applications/explorer-old)īefore version 0.2, ReactOS would just boot to a command prompt.3.2 Are there any other themes I can use?.3.1 Why doesn't ReactOS have a modern UI?.It may seem crazy and there are probably a variety of security issues with running unsupported software, but for some people the risk will be worth it. There is also a lot of software that people depend on but which is either EOL or the original software vendor is defunct, and React OS can provide a compatible environment to run that software on regardless of what Microsoft chooses to do with more recent versions of Windows. There are probably tons of other weird devices out there that are beyond their official EOL and require some previous version of Windows to continue to be used. React OS could allow her to continue using this otherwise functioning printer until she runs out of ink and cannot buy any more cartridges. For example, my mother owns a perfectly functional printer and spent quite a lot of money on ink cartridges, only to have the manufacturer refuse to provide drivers beyond Windows 7 (and never bothered supporting anything but Windows). What makes you think being more popular, as popular, or even a fraction as popular as Windows (which is used on billions of devices) is a goal? I doubt the ReactOS devs themselves would want to get that close to even just binary blobs from Microsoft, but if it gets far enough along, I could see users scrapping together systems like this, maybe for retro games or something. Another benefit of ReactOS's architecture vs Wine is you could, in principle, directly copy at least some system-level DLLs/software from Windows (2000/XP) and get something akin to Windows 2003/XP running on a modern and up-to-date kernel, possibility with much newer hardware support. ![]() If someone really wanted to, I bet you could run ReactOS's shell on top of Wine, fullscreened on Linux.Ī thought I had after finishing this. ReactOS's remaining advantages are driver support for Win2k, and the whole explorer shell and start menu environment. ![]() Linux is a really good kernel for almost everything, and with io_uring the last big deficit (async i/o) may be fixed. This is why IMO for running application software, Wine will always be superior. The fact Wine is running on a separate kernel is essentially 100% transparent to all but a handful of programs that intentionally poke the kernel, either for undocumented functionality or to e.g. The only programs that can safely talk to the kernel are core OS components, which in turn provide a user-facing stable ABI through the use of DLLs. If you look at the list of NT system calls you can see how frequently they've changed. That portion of the OS could (and in practice often is) switched out and replaced without the user-facing portions being aware. One of the more beautiful aspects of Windows is you actually rarely interact with the kernel at all. relatively little investment compared to migrating to an OS on another kernel ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |