Lame? Working with it could potentially jeopardize projects people are involved with. Presumably the ROS developers stay well clear.Love4Boobies wrote:It has leaked. "Poison" your mind? Man, you're lame
well first sorry for my late reply..but is possible to rebuild it...if it's a simple NT 1.0 kernel with a full HAL can it be compiled or assemled in a way that you can build a simple windows or sth like thatThymeCypher wrote:ProjectOZ is an operating systems project environment that uses the native kernel interfaces of Windows to provide simple, clean, user-mode abstractions of the CPU, MMU, trap mechanism, and physical memory that can be used to perform experiments in operating systems principles. ProjectOZ comes with a basic OS (BasicOZ) built on top of the SPACE abstractions.
Essentially, it sounds to me like it is nothing more than a simple NT 1.0 kernel with a full HAL. The purpose is isn't to rebuild windows or understand NT, rather to try new things (As my dumb @$$ has been doing since I found this site) with developing operating systems, and possibly stumble upon a black hole of speed and power never before tapped by an OS. That or find the hidden choc-o-chip cookie found in every processor through the HAL. Either way, it's probably the source for NT 1.0 with the HAL partially compiled.
It's not so much a case of like Windows as hate Linux.Brynet-Inc wrote: If you like Windows for some unexplainable reason, join the ReactOS project..
. Let's not turn this into a Linux/Windows war.
It's impossible to know if there are just as many holes in Windows as Linux.lcowles wrote:most *nix users over 12 just recognise it as an alternative choice there aare just as man glaring holes in linux as in windows, OSX and QNX + all others, if there was ever a perfect OS it never became public.
Oh, Stevesteveklabnik wrote:It's impossible to know if there are just as many holes in Windows as Linux.lcowles wrote:most *nix users over 12 just recognise it as an alternative choice there aare just as man glaring holes in linux as in windows, OSX and QNX + all others, if there was ever a perfect OS it never became public. [sic]
True. Of course, Microsoft has the unfortunate circumstance of having the larger market share and thus the most public notice of their bugs. Linux was certainly not written to be marketable, and therefore shares its own mess of embarrassing bugs and questionable design decisions. The history of both is very interesting, of course, and good knowledge to have. Of course. If I thought Linux was great, I wouldn't be writing an OS, now would I?Wilkie wrote:Oh, Steve
. Windows having a larger market means that the mistakes they admit to get a lot more press, but they have the advantage of not having to admit mistakes. Linux, on the other hand, admits every mistake publicly. Well, every mistake that's found, anyway. I'm sure that there's some people at the NSA who're keeping some exploits hush-hush.
I can assure you that they don't. This place is mostly for hobbyists while developers from MS are professionals OS developers. It's more like we would ask Microsoft for help.Wilkie wrote:ot: I suddenly wonder if Microsoft reads these forums, contributes, and/or asks for help in the technical realm of things.
Hahaha. You must be yoking. Bill Gates wrote MSDOS in his garage, and the quality of the whole project was not professional, but the worst kind of hack you can imagine. Later code from MS does not make me think they have left the amateuer state yet.OSwhatever wrote:I can assure you that they don't. This place is mostly for hobbyists while developers from MS are professionals OS developers. It's more like we would ask Microsoft for help.Wilkie wrote:ot: I suddenly wonder if Microsoft reads these forums, contributes, and/or asks for help in the technical realm of things.
As berkus said, this is not true. Tim Patterson wrote it (as QDOS, to run MS-Basic) in an office at Seattle Computer Products (in four months), SCP licensed it (as 86-DOS), and Microsoft merely expanded it.rdos wrote:Bill Gates wrote MSDOS in his garage...
They have managed to create what companies pay money for. That's usually significantly different from what "geeks" expect from an OS, or what would technically constitute a "good" OS.Later code from MS does not make me think they have left the amateuer state yet.
That's where I agree.Besides, you won't become a professional OS-developper just by signing-up with Microsoft. It takes talent.
I never understood the hatred towards Microsoft among many software developers. Microsoft have problems and some products have been bad. However, I wouldn't call Microsoft kernel engineers incompetent. What I read about Windows and the kernel, there are solutions that I like. Windows OS is a huge project and requires a lot of resources and high level of organization. Microsoft handles this adequately and I've seen much worse cases. There must be a reason a vast majority chooses Windows instead Linux and it can't only be because of aggressive marketing.rdos wrote:Hahaha. You must be yoking. Bill Gates wrote MSDOS in his garage, and the quality of the whole project was not professional, but the worst kind of hack you can imagine. Later code from MS does not make me think they have left the amateuer state yet.
Besides, you won't become a professional OS-developper just by signing-up with Microsoft. It takes talent.
And I'm sure there are professional programmers here. At least I'm a professional programmer with 25 years experience.
That implies you weren't interested in computers during the 80'ies and 90'ies, either due to lack of interest or lack of age.OSwhatever wrote:I never understood the hatred towards Microsoft among many software developers.
