> There's lots of interesting and creative projects to actually build something new.
Can you recommend one that involves building a kernel, from scratch, that at least _some_ people will use?
Can you recommend one that involves building a kernel, from scratch, that at least _some_ people will use?
It's not saying it's not an interesting project in itself - it's just not something I would attempt
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 :)