userulluipeste

"Then you have a very limited imagination."

This is not about imagination. Given the space of possibilities to act or evolve, if mentioned expansion cannot somehow be ruled out, then it makes sense for it to be assumed (with enough time, for whatever time can mean in this context) as a certainty, even for non-organic "life".

That look and feel is the easy part. That can be addressed if it's really an issue. The hard part is the compatibility (that is given by many still missing parts) and stability (the still defective parts). The targeted kernel matters, of course, but that is not set in stone. In fact, there is Windows Vista+ functionality added and written about, here: https://reactos.org/blogs/investigating-wddm although doing it properly would mean rewriting the kernel, bumping it to NT version 6.0

I'm sure there will indeed be many users that will find various ReactOS aspects jarring for as long as there are still defects, lack of polish, or dysfunction on application and kernel (drivers) level. However, considering the vast pool of Windows desktop users, it's reasonable to expect ReactOS to cover the limited needs for enough users at some point, which should turn attention into testing, polish, and funding to address anything still lacking, which then should further feed the adoption and improvement loop.

"No, people will never be switching to ReactOS. For some of the same reasons they don't switch to Linux, but stronger."

To me, this makes sense maybe for corporate world. The reasons that made them stick with Windows has less to do with familiarity or with application compatibility (given the fact that a lot of corporate infrastructure is in web applications). Yes, there must be something else that governs corporate decisions, something to do with the way corporations function, and that will most likely prevent a switch to ReactOS just as it did to Linux based distributions. But, this is exactly why I intentionally specified "for individual use" when I said "switching to a stable and functional ReactOS, at least for individual use, becomes a no-brainer". For individual use, the reason that prevented people to switch to Linux is well known, and ReactOS's reason to be was aimed exactly at that.

And ReactOS uses GitHub Copilot: https://github.com/reactos/reactos/pull/8516

There's also such thing as being responsible (for an outcome), which in case of litigation means being culpable. Microsoft here is the sole actor that has any control on the GitHub Copilot, on what it was fed with, and thus - on its output (which would be the base of their accusation if they sue). How do you imagine such a case could be made to look like it would have any legal standing?

"In January 2006, concerns grew about contributors having access to leaked Windows source code and possibly using this leaked source code in their contributions. In response, Steven Edwards strengthened the project’s intellectual property policy and the project made the difficult decision to audit the existing source code and temporarily freeze contributions."

The allegations have been taken seriously and since then the procedure for accepting contributions include measures to prevent such further events from occurring. If you or anyone else happen to have any plausible suspicion, then please report it to the ReactOS team, otherwise keeping alive this kind of vague and uncertain connection between some Windows code leakage and ReactOS fits the very definition of FUD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt Please stop.

Yet, there are still too many desktop users that, despite the wishful thinking or blaming, still haven't switched to neither Linux, nor Haiku. No mater how good Haiku or Linux distributions are, their incompatibility with the existing Windows simply disqualifies them as options for those desktop users. I bet we'll see people switching to ReactOS when it will get just stable enough, yet long before it will get as polished as either Haiku or any given quality Linux distribution.

No need to assume. It's a certainty: https://github.com/reactos/reactos/pull/8516

"if Microsoft attempts to sue (themselves?) over their own Copilot tool injecting their own copyrighted code into a user's codebase"

Such an attempt can't make sense, given that the model used by ReactOS is in Microsoft's control and thus Microsoft alone is the one responsible for the model's behavior. They won't sue, thus much is clear.

But, if any such model got fed with leaked code, then how is this a specific open-source project's problem and not of all projects (either open-source or private) that got to ever use that model?

Then, (having thought this just now) how can an argument relying on (legally) undisclosed information be used against anything public? Isn't the onus on the party having the undisclosed information to prove that it preceded the public one? How can that precedence be trusted by an independent judging party if the undisclosed information (source-code and systems managing that source code) is and always has been in the hands of the accusing (thus biased) party?

If an LLM model has been fed leaked code, then that is a general problem for that model and for its use for anything. Singling out its use for an open-source project and denouncing that as a potential problem while otherwise keeping quiet about it just makes no sense. Just take legal action against the model if there's anything plausible to warrant that, don't weaponize it against open-source projects.

I understand your angle, or rather the attempt of fitting them in the same picture, somehow. However, the differences between them far surpass the similarities. There was no meaningful user-base for Unix/Hurd so to speak of compared to NT kernel. There's no real basis to assert the "kernel development" argument for both, as one was indeed a research project whereas the other one is just clean room engineering march towards replicating an existing kernel. What ReactOS needs to succeed is to become more stable and complete (on the whole, not just the kernel). Once it will be able to do that, covering the later Windows capabilities will be just a nice-to-have thing. Considering all the criticism that current version of Windows receives, switching to a stable and functional ReactOS, at least for individual use, becomes a no-brainer. Comparatively, there's nothing similar that Hurd kernel can do to get to where Linux is now.

Still, people have agency. If one doesn't see it like that in relation to their material stance then there must be a lot of things that are simply disconsidered from the list of possible options, for whatever reason. Nobody said the world is fine as is and that the blame is somehow all on the ones that are in unsavory positions now. The world is not fine (and never was, for a lot of folks that almost nobody talkes about). It's winter time in this industry and the new hatchlings have their future in question. Yes, there are factors out of their control (like LLMs) that led to this winter, but there's also the colective decision for a lot of kids of pursuing these cushy well-paid office jobs that made things worse by oversaturating the market. Now, of course that, being saddled with student debt and heavily invested by an already acquired degree, to consider the long-term career prospects outside the industry seems like a non-starter, yet it may be exactly what the labor market (and younglings' individual well-being) needs. Such a decision is just of the same kind as the one that brought them here. That's agency on the individual level. And lastly, it's best for everyone to understand, internalize, and accept (the more the better) the fact that nobody else should be expected to step in and fix things for you. Yes, there are many people trying to make the world a better place (as there are many who don't care), there are also people in power that are even supposed to do the same, yet if they manage or not to make it better for you is not a given. That's, whenever it happens, just a bonus. The rest is up to you, the adult.

It also means that, unless the state of the environment you're in has some "force majeure" as a cause, then the people that were before you haven't done that of a good job building one either. That's not an individual failure, that's generations of failure, don't you think?

And lastly, if the environment you described is the one you're residing in, that means you're far removed from that of the entrepreneur's (you're casting judgement on) and from his/her stance. How can that lead to a caracter judgement worth anything?

Forgive me for asking, but (if it's acceptable to reduce it to that) isn't joining the army or something gets one covered? The army service would come with the added bonus of not letting you go soft in perseverance and risk taking areas.

/sarcasm

It's the game theory playing on individuals' personal interests. The feudal system is aimed at assuring the status-quo for each participant in the power pyramid. The king relies on the high nobles to keep him and themselves in power, the high nobles rely on lesser nobles in the same way, and so on, everyone having to acknowledge and pledge loyalty/protection to someone else in order to get a modicum of security for their stance. Of course, everyone also has to extract and share resources upward. The collective interest is only secondary and this fact, for better or worse, keeps the life simple and fits the human psychic very well.

However, I do not agree that feudal social order is efficient. The nature of relations between people made things very transactional and specific, which imposed hard limits on the amount and degree of mobilizing and engaging people for pretty much anything.

Minor nitpick: it's the Solar System - i.e. capitalized (since it's a proper name). The Solar System is the planetary system that we reside in, the one that has the star Sol at its center.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System#Definition

The script that came to be known as Cyrilic was developed by Cyril and Methodius' followers, after they were exiled from Great Moravia (by the bishop that replaced Methodius), so it's safe to assume that those in that group were not Bulgarians either.

It's easy to assign what you just described to character traits that the given people happen to have regardless of their economical stance. Yet, thinking about it a bit, being nice when poor is just a life strategy that makes sense. Not only that one's precarious situation (of any kind) attracts a lot of vulnerability, it also attracts a lot of dependency on pretty much everyone's good grace. Being anything but nice by default means undermining one's success. There is not much to gain by being hostile when poor. When one gets to be rich (in relation to others) however, the game changes. People want things and it makes sense to direct their attention and energy on other people that (ideally) do have what they want or (at least) may assist them with getting what they want. And, many people would like to cut corners and resort to dirty tricks in doing so. It's not that hard to imagine what that rich folk has to face in relation with other ambitious and not so scrupulous individuals, what a winning strategy in this case would look like, and why it makes sense to become the default behavior.

Although Moldova has vodka-drinking Slavs in it, the beverages described are not vodkas. Vodka is made of cereals or potatoes, whereas these are nicer-flavored, fruit-based distilled beverages that locals call "rakiu", in English it would be schnapps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schnapps

On what do you base this claim? Before humans, not much happened around and the sediment layers were thin. The amount of energy moving things around was limited to weather (due to sun radiation, mostly), volcanic/tectonic activity, and to (a lesser degree, due to direct effect of) tidal forces. Humans activity however, both directly and indirectly, caused effects that also involved energy stored in the span of millions of years. That should be anything but indistinguishable.

Also, from the article: "The amount of sediment settled behind the world’s thousands of big dams would cover all of California to a depth of five meters, and such sediments are full of distinctive markers, like pesticide residues, metals, microplastics and the fossils of invasive species. To define a time period formally, geologists must identify distinctive signals in sediments or rocks that can be correlated around the globe, and the presence of such markers is ubiquitous. The geology is real."