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 2010-01-19 21:37, Steven Edwards wrote: > 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. > > _______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
