I don't get where ReactOS fits in this picture.
also how people can spend their precious time in re-implementing an existing architecture? There's lots of interesting and creative projects to actually build something new.
This is a false premise. Even before ReactOS to get traction, there was WINE. From your point of view WINE "doesn't fit" either?
And people are spending their precious time in something actually useful for the entire world. They canonize a proven and currently used (in massive proportion) architecture and take it out of the Microsoft's whims. They put their time and effort in a public solution which is an alternative to Windows, yet not a sadomasochistic option like Linux & related (trying to shove down to mainstream user's throat something that was not designed for him). Finally, they do something that is obvious and had to be done a long ago, and I'm shocked how there could be people questioning the even the reason for ReactOS's existence.
I am in fact an open-source developer, but there's some business case behind each of my project. I just don't see a business case behind ReactOS.
I know about WINE (never used it though), and it makes at least a bit of sense to me, unlike ReactOS.
the guys are building a competition to Microsoft. Some may do it for the pleasure of doing that, but I see it as a dead-end, as there is no business driver.
Can you recommend one that involves building a kernel, from scratch, that at least _some_ people will use?
why would you need a new kernel? There's BSD, there's this list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_real-time_operating_sys... , there's GNU Hurd... why do you need another one?
Besides, if you really want a new kernel, why should it be win32 binary compatible?
> why would you need a new kernel?
1. Why wouldn't you? Requirements change. Would you expect humans 100+ years from now to be hacking on BSD?
2. What if it's (kernel hacking, that is) the only domain you enjoy working in? Different programmers have different interests. Should you just give up to work on something `popular'?
> Besides, if you really want a new kernel, why should it be win32 binary compatible?
3. How else would you expect to find users and contributors when many people already have their own $OS_OF_CHOICE?
Also, consider the year of the initial ReactOS release: 1998. A FOSS WinNT clone would've made sense at that time.
see my other comment in this thread about the business case. Without a business case, any exciting project would eventually disappear.
OK, I read it and I think you've a point.
> Without a business case, any exciting project would eventually disappear.
I don't understand what you're arguing here. What is the `business case' for GNU Emacs?
for GNU Emacs, the motivation is completely clear: it's a tool for developers, and some of those developers contribute and make it better for everyone.
For ReactOS... ok, someone seems to have a motivation, but that's completely beyond my understanding :)
It's not saying it's not an interesting project in itself - it's just not something I would attempt