[ros-dev] Arwinss presentation

Tue Jan 19 21:56:51 CET 2010

I'm all for ARWINSS (and yes, I'm still alive). I think it's good to
have something that's up and running in a near future so that ros
developers can focus on other things.
As for the whole double delopment, I'm not so sure. One will always be
depricated somehow, unless you have a lot of people maintaining it.
Sure, we can keep the old one for reference maybe, but I don't think it
has to be an installation decision taken by the user.
-Gregor
On 2010年01月19日 21:37, Steven Edwards wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Colin Finck <mail at colinfinck.de> wrote:
>>> Maybe because we already had this one in July:
>> http://www.reactos.org/pipermail/ros-dev/2009-July/011896.html
>>>> As I'm not a Win32k dev, I shouldn't argue about technical details. But I
>> still don't believe that all the points expressed in e.g.
>> http://www.reactos.org/pipermail/ros-dev/2009-July/011933.html are suddenly
>> invalid, so that we can easily say that Arwinss is "the better
>> architecture". For me, it looks like the slides want to give this
>> impression.
>>>> Of course, I also want to see ReactOS going forward and Arwinss can surely
>> help for now. But simply accepting it as our new official Win32k
>> architecture.... I don't think we can make it that easy after all previous
>> opinions.
>>> There is no reason things cannot be developed in parallel. Samba 3 and
> Samba 4 have been in parallel development for how long now? I mean, we
> don't want to drive anyone away from ReactOS development, or throw out
> the work everyone is doing on the current win32k.sys and friends. Why
> could we not have the best of both worlds. Sure i would add a little
> bit of extra time to the build time and to build both subsystems. It
> should be possible to add some infrastructure to allow for the user to
> pick or switch the subsystem they are using.
>>