the wharf rat wrote:
> In article <C4A96491.CA06A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>> If the hardware is not, in some way, focused and even controlled
>> then it will cease to be compatible...
>
> Sure. Look at what happened with SCSI. Since there was no
> focus or control by Microsoft it's not like I can install some crappy
> old Tekram SCSI card and a 2/4GB DAT drive and expect it to work
> perfectly.
>
> Not on Windows at any rate. Works fine on Linux of course.
> Thank God Microsoft is out there protecting me from being able to run
> legacy hardware by providing focus and control.

SCSI is king on Servers, not Desktops. Any *Windows Server* product has full
support for them, always have.

Rick wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:07:50 -0700, Damian wrote:
>
>> Rick wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:47:01 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:39:00 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:05:53 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> bob wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:50:08 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The only thing pathetically flawed, is your argument. Crawl
>>>>>>>>> back under your bridge troll.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He kinda lost the argument by saying linux had captured 0.6% of
>>>>>>>> the desktop, huh. Probably it's below 0.2% don'tcha think.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .8%:
>>>>>>> <http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1.95%:
>>>>>>> <http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3.7%:
>>>>>>> <http://w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These are all based on web statistics as opposed to units sold.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are those "Must Click On This Link Daily" links posted on every
>>>>>> linux site in the world? That's about the only way linux would
>>>>>> ever see 1% of the desktop.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see you didn't actually read the references.
>>>>
>>>> Read a different one instead... This one is full of linux
>>>> references: http://asianideas.com/maosredbook.html
>>>
>>> So much for any credibility you might have had.
>>
>> Your cult cites are somehow better than Chairman Mao's?
>
> Since when is W3Schools a cult?
>
> Since when is Net Applications a cult?
>
> Since when is w3counter a cult?

Idiot child, *linux is a cult* and it makes you stupid.

Linonut wrote:
> * Damian peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> Rick wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:39:00 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>
>>> I see you didn't actually read the references.
>>
>> Read a different one instead... This one is full of linux references:
>> http://asianideas.com/maosredbook.html
>
> Another "Linux is Communism" troll.

I believe him.

Damian wrote:
> the wharf rat wrote:
>> In article <C4A96491.CA06A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>,
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> If the hardware is not, in some way, focused and even controlled
>>> then it will cease to be compatible...
>> Sure. Look at what happened with SCSI. Since there was no
>> focus or control by Microsoft it's not like I can install some crappy
>> old Tekram SCSI card and a 2/4GB DAT drive and expect it to work
>> perfectly.
>>
>> Not on Windows at any rate. Works fine on Linux of course.
>> Thank God Microsoft is out there protecting me from being able to run
>> legacy hardware by providing focus and control.
>
> SCSI is king on Servers, not Desktops. Any *Windows Server* product has full
> support for them, always have.
>
>

Yes, but ANY Linux operating system will support it. Not just the ones
made specifically for servers which you have to pay more for. (not that
you have to pay anything for Linux to begin with.)

In article <g62g16$52c$1@news.tornevall.net>,
Damian <nospam@rabid-dog.net> wrote:
>
>SCSI is king on Servers, not Desktops. Any *Windows Server* product has full
>support for them, always have.
>

Sure about that? Try picking a random SCSI controller - hell,
try picking a random SATA controller - from the parts box and booting
Windows from it.

Can't detect a disk drive, can it? Huh?

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:09:18 -0700, Damian wrote:

> Rick wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:07:50 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>
>>> Rick wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:47:01 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:39:00 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:05:53 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> bob wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:50:08 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The only thing pathetically flawed, is your argument. Crawl
>>>>>>>>>> back under your bridge troll.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He kinda lost the argument by saying linux had captured 0.6% of
>>>>>>>>> the desktop, huh. Probably it's below 0.2% don'tcha think.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> .8%:
>>>>>>>> <http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1.95%:
>>>>>>>> <http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3.7%:
>>>>>>>> <http://w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> These are all based on web statistics as opposed to units sold.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are those "Must Click On This Link Daily" links posted on every
>>>>>>> linux site in the world? That's about the only way linux would
>>>>>>> ever see 1% of the desktop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see you didn't actually read the references.
>>>>>
>>>>> Read a different one instead... This one is full of linux
>>>>> references: http://asianideas.com/maosredbook.html
>>>>
>>>> So much for any credibility you might have had.
>>>
>>> Your cult cites are somehow better than Chairman Mao's?
>>
>> Since when is W3Schools a cult?
>>
>> Since when is Net Applications a cult?
>>
>> Since when is w3counter a cult?
>
> Idiot child, *linux is a cult* and it makes you stupid.

So, you cannot answer the questions, and you are stupid, too.

Since when did Google, the Cities of Largo and Chicago, ILM, Disney, and
NASA join a cult?

--
Rick

Rick wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:09:18 -0700, Damian wrote:
>
>> Rick wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:07:50 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:47:01 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:39:00 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:05:53 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> bob wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:50:08 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The only thing pathetically flawed, is your argument. Crawl
>>>>>>>>>>> back under your bridge troll.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He kinda lost the argument by saying linux had captured 0.6%
>>>>>>>>>> of the desktop, huh. Probably it's below 0.2% don'tcha think.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> .8%:
>>>>>>>>> <http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1.95%:
>>>>>>>>> <http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3.7%:
>>>>>>>>> <http://w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> These are all based on web statistics as opposed to units
>>>>>>>>> sold.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are those "Must Click On This Link Daily" links posted on every
>>>>>>>> linux site in the world? That's about the only way linux would
>>>>>>>> ever see 1% of the desktop.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see you didn't actually read the references.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Read a different one instead... This one is full of linux
>>>>>> references: http://asianideas.com/maosredbook.html
>>>>>
>>>>> So much for any credibility you might have had.
>>>>
>>>> Your cult cites are somehow better than Chairman Mao's?
>>>
>>> Since when is W3Schools a cult?
>>>
>>> Since when is Net Applications a cult?
>>>
>>> Since when is w3counter a cult?
>>
>> Idiot child, *linux is a cult* and it makes you stupid.
>
> So, you cannot answer the questions, and you are stupid, too.

No, it's a known fact that *linux* makes you stupid. I use Windows.

>
> Since when did Google, the Cities of Largo and Chicago, ILM, Disney,
> and NASA join a cult?

The day they installed linux.
<aside, 'talk about stupid'>

* relic peremptorily fired off this memo:

> Linonut wrote:
>> * Damian peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>
>>> Rick wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:39:00 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I see you didn't actually read the references.
>>>
>>> Read a different one instead... This one is full of linux references:
>>> http://asianideas.com/maosredbook.html
>>
>> Another "Linux is Communism" troll.
>
> I believe him.

Then you're just as idiotic.

(Where do these lunatic fringers come from?)

--
The difference between reality and unreality is that reality has so
little to recommend it.
-- Allan Sherman

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:36:32 -0700, Damian wrote:

> Rick wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:09:18 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>
>>> Rick wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:07:50 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:47:01 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:39:00 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:05:53 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> bob wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:50:08 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The only thing pathetically flawed, is your argument. Crawl
>>>>>>>>>>>> back under your bridge troll.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> He kinda lost the argument by saying linux had captured 0.6%
>>>>>>>>>>> of the desktop, huh. Probably it's below 0.2% don'tcha think.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> .8%:
>>>>>>>>>> <http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1.95%:
>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3.7%:
>>>>>>>>>> <http://w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> These are all based on web statistics as opposed to units sold.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are those "Must Click On This Link Daily" links posted on every
>>>>>>>>> linux site in the world? That's about the only way linux would
>>>>>>>>> ever see 1% of the desktop.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I see you didn't actually read the references.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Read a different one instead... This one is full of linux
>>>>>>> references: http://asianideas.com/maosredbook.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So much for any credibility you might have had.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your cult cites are somehow better than Chairman Mao's?
>>>>
>>>> Since when is W3Schools a cult?
>>>>
>>>> Since when is Net Applications a cult?
>>>>
>>>> Since when is w3counter a cult?
>>>
>>> Idiot child, *linux is a cult* and it makes you stupid.
>>
>> So, you cannot answer the questions, and you are stupid, too.
>
> No, it's a known fact that *linux* makes you stupid.

You might want to tell that to engineers at NASA, city employees in
Chicago and Largo, the teachers and students at the University of
Florida, and a host of others.


>I use Windows.

... and that's the only thing you can understand.

>
>
>> Since when did Google, the Cities of Largo and Chicago, ILM, Disney,
>> and NASA join a cult?
>
> The day they installed linux.
> <aside, 'talk about stupid'>


Idiot.
--
Rick

"Rick" <none@nomail.com> stated in post
RLadnfrqLeY6QBnVnZ2dnUVZ_sjinZ2d@supernews.com on 7/21/08 12:04 PM:

>>> So, you cannot answer the questions, and you are stupid, too.
>>
>> No, it's a known fact that *linux* makes you stupid.
>
> You might want to tell that to engineers at NASA, city employees in
> Chicago and Largo, the teachers and students at the University of
> Florida, and a host of others.

If you think they should know then why don't *you* tell them? Weird how
often you want others to do things for you - for free no less!


--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
Feel free to ask for the recipe.

Linonut wrote:
> * relic peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> Linonut wrote:
>>> * Damian peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>>
>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:39:00 -0700, Damian wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I see you didn't actually read the references.
>>>>
>>>> Read a different one instead... This one is full of linux
>>>> references: http://asianideas.com/maosredbook.html
>>>
>>> Another "Linux is Communism" troll.
>>
>> I believe him.
>
> Then you're just as idiotic.

You're just mean.

>
> (Where do these lunatic fringers come from?)

(The linux cults?)

"Ben" <beno1990******.com> wrote in message
news:g60t3g$6uf$1@news.mixmin.net...
> Rick wrote:
>> Hopefully, in the near future, vendors will no longer feel compelled to
>> add Windows based models.
>>
>>
>
> I'd love to see that happen, truth be told. And it's not just about Linux
> for me. It's about genuine competition. I'd like to see at least 4
> different OSs on the desktop market in good competition. I just think
> Linux should be one of those 4.

I understand what you're saying and in a way it sounds good. But in another
way it also sounds impractical. Having 4 major OS's all competing for
marketshare would be a pain for developers and manufacturers in some ways.

It's bad enough (as in difficult and complicated enough) properly developing
for and supporting a single OS. Trying to write a product to support 4
different operating systems would be expensive for the smaller companies.

In a way this is exactly the reason why MS-DOS became hugely popular as it
did. (It certainly wasn't technical superiority.) It was because for the
first time there was a "standard platform" and OS that hardware/software
could be developed for that was used by the majority of computer users. You
didn't have this fragmented mess where 8.6% used one OS and 11.3% used
another OS but 10.0% used yet another OS. With so many OS's each having it's
small market segment it was difficult to decide what platform(s) to support.

There are advantages to having large percentages of people running the same
OS. What would it be like if there were 4-5 "choices" for electrical service
and each electric company had it's own voltage and frequency. An "appliance"
that you use with one power company wouldn't be compatible with the
voltages/frequency of another power company.

Obviously it's less than ideal to have a single (monopoly-like) supplier for
the OS that ninety-something percent of the population uses. But the other
extreme (having many different/incompatible OSes) isn't also without
problems.




> Also, if ReactOS is a success, that might knock down the Windows market
> share a little by those who want a Windows binary compatible OS for free.

I never heard of ReactOS. The problem with these attempts is that Windows
changes too quickly for the project to keep up.





** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Ezekiel wrote:
>
> I understand what you're saying and in a way it sounds good. But in another
> way it also sounds impractical. Having 4 major OS's all competing for
> marketshare would be a pain for developers and manufacturers in some ways.
>
> It's bad enough (as in difficult and complicated enough) properly developing
> for and supporting a single OS. Trying to write a product to support 4
> different operating systems would be expensive for the smaller companies.
>
> In a way this is exactly the reason why MS-DOS became hugely popular as it
> did. (It certainly wasn't technical superiority.) It was because for the
> first time there was a "standard platform" and OS that hardware/software
> could be developed for that was used by the majority of computer users. You
> didn't have this fragmented mess where 8.6% used one OS and 11.3% used
> another OS but 10.0% used yet another OS. With so many OS's each having it's
> small market segment it was difficult to decide what platform(s) to support.
>
> There are advantages to having large percentages of people running the same
> OS. What would it be like if there were 4-5 "choices" for electrical service
> and each electric company had it's own voltage and frequency. An "appliance"
> that you use with one power company wouldn't be compatible with the
> voltages/frequency of another power company.
>
> Obviously it's less than ideal to have a single (monopoly-like) supplier for
> the OS that ninety-something percent of the population uses. But the other
> extreme (having many different/incompatible OSes) isn't also without
> problems.

This is where having OSs using open standards comes in. The Single Unix
Specification and POSIX have set a groundwork for future such standards,
which would mitigate the problem of compatibility between platforms.

>
>
>
>
>> Also, if ReactOS is a success, that might knock down the Windows market
>> share a little by those who want a Windows binary compatible OS for free.
>
> I never heard of ReactOS. The problem with these attempts is that Windows
> changes too quickly for the project to keep up.
>

Agreed, but I'm hoping it still might steal some of the market share
away if it gets widespread attention once it's complete.

"Ben" <beno1990******.com> wrote in message
news:g62u4a$p4n$2@news.mixmin.net...
> Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>> I understand what you're saying and in a way it sounds good. But in
>> another way it also sounds impractical. Having 4 major OS's all competing
>> for marketshare would be a pain for developers and manufacturers in some
>> ways.
>>
>> It's bad enough (as in difficult and complicated enough) properly
>> developing for and supporting a single OS. Trying to write a product to
>> support 4 different operating systems would be expensive for the smaller
>> companies.
>>
>> In a way this is exactly the reason why MS-DOS became hugely popular as
>> it did. (It certainly wasn't technical superiority.) It was because for
>> the first time there was a "standard platform" and OS that
>> hardware/software could be developed for that was used by the majority of
>> computer users. You didn't have this fragmented mess where 8.6% used one
>> OS and 11.3% used another OS but 10.0% used yet another OS. With so many
>> OS's each having it's small market segment it was difficult to decide
>> what platform(s) to support.
>>
>> There are advantages to having large percentages of people running the
>> same OS. What would it be like if there were 4-5 "choices" for electrical
>> service and each electric company had it's own voltage and frequency. An
>> "appliance" that you use with one power company wouldn't be compatible
>> with the voltages/frequency of another power company.
>>
>> Obviously it's less than ideal to have a single (monopoly-like) supplier
>> for the OS that ninety-something percent of the population uses. But the
>> other extreme (having many different/incompatible OSes) isn't also
>> without problems.
>
> This is where having OSs using open standards comes in. The Single Unix
> Specification and POSIX have set a groundwork for future such standards,
> which would mitigate the problem of compatibility between platforms.

It's an idea. I've used POSIX and we call it "the standard that isn't." For
example... are mutexes recursive in posix? By this I mean if a thread holds
a mutex can that same thread lock the same mutex again for a 2nd time. On
some platforms you can and on other platforms you can't. This was never
defined but it should have been because it's rather critical. Other areas of
posix in search of a standard are memory-mapped-files and atomic operations.

Another solution (that I don't like) but is worth mentioning is to use
something like Java or Python which is OS independent. In theory at least.
("Write once, debug everywhere.")


>>> Also, if ReactOS is a success, that might knock down the Windows market
>>> share a little by those who want a Windows binary compatible OS for
>>> free.
>>
>> I never heard of ReactOS. The problem with these attempts is that Windows
>> changes too quickly for the project to keep up.
>>
>
> Agreed, but I'm hoping it still might steal some of the market share away
> if it gets widespread attention once it's complete.

I didn't know anything about ReactOS so I did a search on it. Call me
skeptical but this doesn't sound encouraging to me:

<quote>
The ReactOS project began in February 1998, started by developing the kernel
and basic drivers.

0.4
Version 0.4 is expected to have a 50% compatible Windows NT Kernel, SMB
support, initial audio support, Winlogon, support for USB input devices,
support for the 5 most common network cards, and networking improvement.
</quote>

After more than 10 years of development version 0.4 is yet to be released
and when it's finally released (someday) it will "supprt the 5 most common
network cards" and have initial support for audio. I don't have any big
hopes of this taking away any measurable market share from Microsoft anytime
soon.






** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Ezekiel wrote:
> "Ben" <beno1990******.com> wrote in message
> news:g62u4a$p4n$2@news.mixmin.net...
>> Ezekiel wrote:
>>> I understand what you're saying and in a way it sounds good. But in
>>> another way it also sounds impractical. Having 4 major OS's all competing
>>> for marketshare would be a pain for developers and manufacturers in some
>>> ways.
>>>
>>> It's bad enough (as in difficult and complicated enough) properly
>>> developing for and supporting a single OS. Trying to write a product to
>>> support 4 different operating systems would be expensive for the smaller
>>> companies.
>>>
>>> In a way this is exactly the reason why MS-DOS became hugely popular as
>>> it did. (It certainly wasn't technical superiority.) It was because for
>>> the first time there was a "standard platform" and OS that
>>> hardware/software could be developed for that was used by the majority of
>>> computer users. You didn't have this fragmented mess where 8.6% used one
>>> OS and 11.3% used another OS but 10.0% used yet another OS. With so many
>>> OS's each having it's small market segment it was difficult to decide
>>> what platform(s) to support.
>>>
>>> There are advantages to having large percentages of people running the
>>> same OS. What would it be like if there were 4-5 "choices" for electrical
>>> service and each electric company had it's own voltage and frequency. An
>>> "appliance" that you use with one power company wouldn't be compatible
>>> with the voltages/frequency of another power company.
>>>
>>> Obviously it's less than ideal to have a single (monopoly-like) supplier
>>> for the OS that ninety-something percent of the population uses. But the
>>> other extreme (having many different/incompatible OSes) isn't also
>>> without problems.
>> This is where having OSs using open standards comes in. The Single Unix
>> Specification and POSIX have set a groundwork for future such standards,
>> which would mitigate the problem of compatibility between platforms.
>
> It's an idea. I've used POSIX and we call it "the standard that isn't." For
> example... are mutexes recursive in posix? By this I mean if a thread holds
> a mutex can that same thread lock the same mutex again for a 2nd time. On
> some platforms you can and on other platforms you can't. This was never
> defined but it should have been because it's rather critical. Other areas of
> posix in search of a standard are memory-mapped-files and atomic operations.
>
> Another solution (that I don't like) but is worth mentioning is to use
> something like Java or Python which is OS independent. In theory at least.
> ("Write once, debug everywhere.")

POSIX, Java, Python, etc. all give us, as I say, a /groundwork/ for
platform independent programming. It's true that POSIX has some problems
across operating systems it's implemented on, and Java has to be
debugged in every OS you run a Java program in. However, if the desktop
market had richer competition, I'm sure companies would feel more reason
to invest money into perfecting these specifications.

>
>
>>>> Also, if ReactOS is a success, that might knock down the Windows market
>>>> share a little by those who want a Windows binary compatible OS for
>>>> free.
>>> I never heard of ReactOS. The problem with these attempts is that Windows
>>> changes too quickly for the project to keep up.
>>>
>> Agreed, but I'm hoping it still might steal some of the market share away
>> if it gets widespread attention once it's complete.
>
> I didn't know anything about ReactOS so I did a search on it. Call me
> skeptical but this doesn't sound encouraging to me:
>
> <quote>
> The ReactOS project began in February 1998, started by developing the kernel
> and basic drivers.
>
> 0.4
> Version 0.4 is expected to have a 50% compatible Windows NT Kernel, SMB
> support, initial audio support, Winlogon, support for USB input devices,
> support for the 5 most common network cards, and networking improvement.
> </quote>
>
> After more than 10 years of development version 0.4 is yet to be released
> and when it's finally released (someday) it will "supprt the 5 most common
> network cards" and have initial support for audio. I don't have any big
> hopes of this taking away any measurable market share from Microsoft anytime
> soon.
>

ReactOS isn't perfect, I admit, but it has potential. The biggest
problems it has are a lack of attention (as you said, you'd never heard
of it until I mentioned it) and a restrictively small development team.

>
>
>
>
>
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **