On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Colin Finck <m...@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. -- Steven Edwards "There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo _______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
