[patchworks]

The idea has been self censored by the author.



@forum mod: lock the 3ad.

This post has been edited by patchworks: 03 May 2008 - 06:19 AM

[jimmsta]

I don't think it'll be very possible, but then again, if there's a will, there's a way.

Count Me In!

Things to consider:
ReactOS
Wine
Linux Kernel

[patchworks]

Well, ReactOS is an NT clone.
Wine & Linux are not so mutch compatible with drivers.

The unique way would be E/OS LX, but "is based on parts of linux, freebsd, reactos and wine sources" so it just could help.

Anyway my idea have a different approach that allows you to have a fully functional system since 0.0.0.0.0.1

[Rhelic]

Nothing to see here people, move along.

Everything you could possibly want is already available, here are some quickies/popular ones:
LiteStep - a shell alternative
OpenOffice / Star Office - word processing & spreadsheets
A ton of open source media player like apps.
A ton of open source text editors
FireFox - web browsing

Of course now it's time for monkey wrench throwing... Using open source just for the sake of it being open source is mindless!

I could also add that while there's nothing wrong with using open source apps, I do, but isn't it an oxymoron to become a open source zealot but yet still use Windows. If you're going to be a zealot, then go to Linux while you're at it.

This post has been edited by Rhelic: 24 October 2005 - 02:01 PM

[Fredledingue]

Rhelic, You misunderstood his goal. It's not about using open source for the sake of sport.

If someone wants to write, let's say a replacement dll for w98 (the Graahl beeing rewriting the kernel) let's put his creation in the compilation, easily available for everyone, all the new stuffs in one place!

Some w98 files are open sources, others are not, but it's not forbidden to write repacements for the original ones. Doing so will avoid having hacks of hacks on the limits of legality.
(Now, in the packs available here we are limited to files officialy issued by M$.)

Little by little, maybe in 20 years we will have a w98 open source, written by passionate geeks at 90%...

[eidenk]

Quote

Little by little, maybe in 20 years we will have a w98 open source, written by passionate geeks at 90%...

Well, if the same patent laws that apply for other sectors of industry apply also to the software industry (and I believe there is no reason they should not), then Windows 95 source code will be public domain in 2015.

Quote

Some w98 files are open sources, others are not, but it's not forbidden to write replacements for the original ones.

I think you confuse open source and freely redistributable here.

@rhelic : I quite agree with your all of your views about open source. I also believe that many open source devellopers are in fact working for free for the corporate. It's the corporate who benefits the most from open source I believe. Linux on servers being the most obvious example.

This post has been edited by eidenk: 24 October 2005 - 03:17 PM

[jimmsta]

Huh... I didn't know that E/OS was publicly available, let alone released... guess I'm behind the times somewhat.

I'll take a look at it, and see what can be improved upon, as long as it doesn't take all day to accomplish...

[TravisO]

Fredledingue, on Oct 24 2005, 02:40 PM, said:

Little by little, maybe in 20 years we will have a w98 open source

Anybody still running Win9x in 20 years is either a historian or insane, stop sniffing glue people, Win98 isn't that great.

eidenk, on Oct 24 2005, 02:56 PM, said:

Windows 95 source code will be public domain in 2015

Perhaps except MS isn't required to hand out the code, nor will they as they don't want other OSs to have Windows compatibility.

This post has been edited by travisowens: 24 October 2005 - 10:50 PM

[patchworks]

Quote

If you're going to be a zealot, then go to Linux while you're at it.

I'm not a zealot 'cause i don't have a server ah home (Linux is _only_ for servers, in my opinion).
I don't like so mutch windows (i'm an old OS/2 fan), but if it will be open, many other OSes could benefit.

Quote

Anybody still running Win9x in 20 years is either a historian or insane, stop sniffing glue people, Win98 isn't that great.

On the other side, if is open source it can evolve to a better stage...

Anyway, remember that i'm not a developer and this is just an idea.

This post has been edited by patchworks: 25 October 2005 - 05:18 AM

[aussiecanuck46]

Linux is definitely not just for servers. Windows has various versions, some for servers and some for workstations. Linux does not. Any Linux machine can offer services to other machines, or not.

By the time Microsoft's licensing rights on Windows 95 expire so much will have developed that it won't be worh the time to redevelop it as a non-propriety solution. The yet-to-be-released Windows Vista will be history by then. You might as well start work on OS/3.

[Fredledingue]

Eidenk,

Developers who would want to replace a component that is not open-sourced by M$, will have to start from scratch. If it's open source, they can use the existing code and improve it.

And the result code of a modified open source, is bound by agreement to be open source too. Of course it doesn't means it's freely distributable but I still don't know of a unofficial service pack that was payware.

I think that when program become open source, the owner almost always specify that recompiled versions cannot be sold. That means they must be freely distributed unless of course, they reach an agreement with the owner for some commercial exploitation.

[eidenk]

Quote

Developers who would want to replace a component that is not open-sourced by M$, will have to start from scratch.

So far I don't know of any Windows (whatever version) component that has been open-sourced by MS. Please let us know if you know any .

Quote

And the result code of a modified open source, is bound by agreement to be open source too. Of course it doesn't means it's freely distributable but I still don't know of a unofficial service pack that was payware.

What is the point you are trying to make here ?

I always thought open source software could be freely distributed by anyone provided no fee is charged for the software and it includes the source code.

Quote

I think that when program become open source, the owner almost always specify that recompiled versions cannot be sold. That means they must be freely distributed unless of course, they reach an agreement with the owner for some commercial exploitation.

I know that there are different types of licences, GPL, LGPL and probably others. I think some are extremely strict and totally forbid the use of the code in any commercial application. Those who put together and distribute commercial Linux distros for example seem to fall in the category you say.

Is there an owner of the code in open-source ? I would think that anyone who open-source a piece of code does not own it anymore.

I wonder if MS could not empeach anyone to use Win9x code commercially in the future by open-sourcing it before it falls in the public domain.

But does open-source code also fall into the public domain after a while and hence its use becoming totally free (also usable commercially by anyone) ?

I find open source very confusing.

[Fredledingue]

eidenk,

I know for sure that M$ has started open)sourcing some of their code. TBS, I don't know if it involves W98 parts or only periferic softwares.

[Rhelic]

The only open source Microsoft has (and will ever have) is new utils, and they currently all revolve around .Net development like side features for Visual Studio. Almost all of them are housed somewhere on http://GotDotNet.com and some quick ones I've seen are:
WebMatrix (a full blown ASP.Net IDE)
two different 'Code Snippet Editors' (for Visual Studio 2005)

MS will not "open source" their OS code because it still exists in newer versions of windows for compatibility reasons. MS DOS may not be used as the boot-up for Win2x,XP,2003,etc but it still exists inside command.com or some DLL.

Also give up this concept you guys have about "public domain", I don't think you understand what it means. There is no magic date that comes and MS has to give out the source code. All it means is that one day somebody can attempt to reverse engineer the code, without worrying about being sued, but I'll tell you now that's next to impossible, even for uber geeks. And IIRC

Also recreating the 'under the hood' part of Windows 9x only leads to 2 places, Linux or Win 2000. So anybody even attempting this is re-creating the wheel and goes back to my original point where you should jump to Linux or upgrade to 2000 or newer. Yes there are tons of improvements that can be done to 9x, and they are called Win 2000. So by improving 9x, that's where you'd be heading anyways.

This post has been edited by Rhelic: 27 October 2005 - 08:47 AM

[saugatak]

Rhelic is right.

Win98 is crap. Why bother spending any time and effort on it. By the time you can legally do so, why would you want it in the first place.

If you're going to replace OS components with open-source versions, do it with Win2k. Win 2k came out in 99 so you'll have to wait 1 year longer to do it legally, big whoop.

Also, since so many corp. use Win2k, if you get it going you may actually end up with corporate support.

WinXP is not that much better than Win2, if at all (some would say WinXP is a step back because it adds so much useless crap to the OS).

[eidenk]

Quote

Also give up this concept you guys have about "public domain", I don't think you understand what it means. There is no magic date that comes and MS has to give out the source code.

Well there should be I think. For example, when a drug company patents a new molecule they have created, their exclusive rights for manufacturing and selling that molecule lasts only for twenty years. After that anyone can manufacture and market the molecule. But it's also valid for glues and whatever else whatever the developement and licensing costs. And hence you have branded and generic drugs for example. So why shouldn't this apply to software ?

Quote

MS will not "open source" their OS code because it still exists in newer versions of windows for compatibility reasons. MS DOS may not be used as the boot-up for Win2x,XP,2003,etc but it still exists inside command.com or some DLL.

See above. Other example : Dupont did invent PTFE and patented the name Teflon for it but today, because of what I explain, not only you can buy pans coated with PTFE labelled Teflon and manufactured by Dupont but you also can buy pans coated with PTFE not labelled Teflon and manufactured by other companies than Dupont. It is not because a company still commercialize a product after the expiration of their exclusive rights that they maintain those exclusive rights. The only exclusive rights they can keep is the use of their brand name.

Quote

Yes there are tons of improvements that can be done to 9x, and they are called Win 2000.

Is this true ? Win2000 is an improved WinNT not an improved Win9x. NT 3.51 coexisted with 95. NT 4 with 98 and 2000 with ME.

[Fredledingue]

The goal is not the re-invent the wheel but to have several windows/dos compatible OS'es concurencing each others.
Mac and Linux don't realy make concurence to M$ because those who would turn to Mac or Linux would have not only give up windows, but all the softwares they used so far, (except for the rare case when a version exists for these OS'es).
Only alternative windows compatible OS'es can make a serious concurence to M$. And it's good for M$ because it force them to constantly improve their product. (note the singular)

To do that, there are two ways:

1/reinventing the wheel: Those who tried that, except Linus, never went very far. You can read on their website that soon the new version will support e-mail client. Last update: dec. 2002. How encouraging...

2/changing what's already there: new component for existing windows OS.
Until now, only M$ has been done that to critical w98 parts. Proof that such process is paradoxaly positive for M$.
First it set the long term value of their product(s ?). Poeple know that in seven years, there are chances that there will still be updates for the OS they buy today.
Second it's R&D. Doing that they may find new ideas for something new.

Aleternative Windows also revelates the demand of some M$ potentialy renewed clients. The need for something else than mainstream XP.
We are all here, at the "Unofficial Win98 SE Service Pack" forum because we want an OS the way we want it and not the way it was forced upon us.

[RJM]

I don't think they will ever release the source code. Software is copyrighted not patented. Copyrights do not expire.

[eidenk]

Hi RJM,

So what about Linux ? If I understand well, it is written after UNIX code (of the sixties ?). Was not UNIX code also copyrighted and/or patented and fell in the public domain before being worked upon by Torvalds and then the other Linux devellopers ?

[wizardofwindows]

who needs open source when people in here are slicing dicing 9x and making it better,as far as w2k goes its got a better kernel like i care.and w2k like 6 months older than 98se anyway.if u use 98se its because u like the simpicity its light easy 2 use and u probably arent on a massive network or give a rats a** about sercurity u playing pogo games and emailing granpma or yahoo messenging your friends you probably couldnt care less about the guts of 98se only appeciate the little proggies that enchance the look.if u can run 99%of your stuff on it who cares if xp or 2000 got more stupid features.im tech savy but ill run anything thats got a browser.it always seems 2 come back to the 98se is a dinosaur bit ,lets face it its all old including 2001 xp home.why dont they stop making new versions and settle on a base os and update it with service pack every 2 years be alot easlier maybe ill call bill at remond probably home ill straightn this out np. open source is always a good idea it allows people to prefect things.that explains microsofts problems lol.i know your reading this bill email me anytime same addy chow.