ExectOS is a preemptive, reentrant multitasking operating system that implements the XT architecture which derives from NT architecture. It is modular, and consists of two main layers: microkernel and user modes. Its’ kernel mode has full access to the hardware and system resources and runs code in a protected memory area. It consists of executive services, which is itself made up on many modules that do specific tasks, a kernel and drivers. Unlike the NT, system does not feature a separate Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) between the physical hardware and the rest of the OS. Instead, XT architecture integrates a hardware specific code with the kernel. The user mode is made up of subsystems and it has been designed to run applications written for many different types of operating systems. This allows us to implement any environment subsystem to support applications that are strictly written to the corresponding standard (eg. DOS, or POSIX). Thanks to that ExectOS will allow to run existing software, including Win32 applications.
ExectOS website
What ExectOS seems to be is an implementation very close to what Windows NT originally was – implementing the theory of Windows NT, not the reality. It’s clearly still in very early development, but in theory, I really like the idea of what they’re trying to achieve here. Windows NT is, after all, in and of itself not a bad concept – it’s just been tarred and feathered by decades of mismanagement from Microsoft. Implementing something that closely resembles the original, minimalist theories behind NT could lead to an interesting operating system for sure.
ExectOS is open source, contains its own boot loader, only runs on EFI, and installation on real hardware, while technically possible, is discouraged.
Intriguing little project. One of their goals is to support Windows NT drivers:
https://exectos.eu.org/faq/
It would be good to hear more about this goal, seems very ambitious.
In their FAQ they also address discussions around Wine and ReactOS.
Not really clear what the XT architecture (or the XTOS specification) is. It seems both are being developed as they go along.
That faq just raises more questions. Is this just another fork of ReactOS with gpl3 slapped on all of it illegally like other forks? (Some bsd and other licenses in ReactOS base). It says Wine’s opinion of ReactOS is they use dirty reverse engineering, with no citation. Looks like something to stay away from for now.
ReactOS GPL2 can be relicesed as GPL3….. usually GPL alway says it has to be released as the current version or a later version even if you don’t like GPL3 that doesn’t mean releasing previously GPL2 code you modified as GPL3 is illegal.
The only question would be if they left the MIT /BSD code alone because those cannot not relicensed as GPL3 unless they remain dual licensed.
cb88,
It depends on if a specific project/author licensed the code under “GPL2 or newer”. The GPL2 license in and of itself is actually incompatible with GPL3. This has been a major issue for GPL3 projects that would benefit from GPL2 code. The entire linux kernel is stuck with GPL2 and cannot be upgraded to GPL3. Theoretically it would require permission from all of all the authors who submitted code under GPL2 to approve a new license.
I can’t seem to find any actual evidence of a link between TinyKRNL and ReactOS, other than TinyKRNL using ReactOS and Windows XP binaries in a bootleggy sort of way. ReactOS ultimately don’t intend for their code to be mixed with Microsoft code, and as such, i don’t see why the TinyKRNL fork jeopardises ReactOS’s legal situation.
This thread might have more info on it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40730327
Ultimately, as long as ReactOS don’t use leaked Microsoft source code, it shouldn’t be an issue. As some t-shirts you can buy state: “Everything is open source if you can read assembly”. Providing the diassembled code is reimplemented in another high level language, microsoft shouldn’t really have any legal challenge. After all, the source code situation with UNIX is much more murky than ReactOS’s is, given UNIX source was widely available for many years, and much of that has been settled now
The123king,
I agree with you on the ethics; as long as all the source code is their own, windows clones ought to be allowed. However I think that legally ReactOS is kind of vulnerable because judges don’t necessarily understand the technical distinction between a software interface and an implementation as a programmer does. Consider that Oracle successfully convinced a court to deem APIs copyrightable regardless of implementation. Google got a “fair use exception” on appeal, but that needs to be fought on a case by case basis and ReactOS may not have the same luck nor resources as google in court. They don’t automatically win a hypothetical court case and if they lost then reactOS could be really screwed since the whole point of reactOS is to build an OS that runs unmodified windows software.
To be absolutely clear, I think such a ruling would be bad. and “wrong”, however the point is that I don’t have strong confidence in courts defending the rights of clones. I don’t think reactos winning a copyright case is a foregone conclusion.
“second is my departure from ReactOS,” so seems to be the usual smear campaign without basis then. I think ReactOS’s existence really triggers some Linux fanboys so they do this.
dark2,
I’m guessing this is replied to the wrong comment? It’s not immediately clear to me which comment this was meant for.
https://www.alex-ionescu.com/category/tinykrnl-and-reactos/
The123king you will have a hard time finding it. The link between TinyKRNL and ReactOS is Alex Ionescu.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gOCP5zJr3o
Good video of his above explains how we have problems..
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/resources/windows-internals
By the way he is Microsoft employee to write books to teach people Windows internals. Makes the legal location lot more messy of course. Microsoft attempts to sue reactos over what Alex did in reactos now is effectively suing themselves.
I’m pretty sure he was employed by Microsoft AFTER leaving ReactOS. If anything, the boot is on the other foot. I don’t know exactly how you’d prove it, but if ReactOS code has made it into the Windows codebase, Microsoft could well be sued for GPL infringement
Alex Ionescu has been employed to write documentation for Microsoft. Alex Ionescu does not work directly on the Windows code base and is not allowed by Microsoft due to the taint risk. So not by Alex Ionesu would there be ReactOS taint in Windows. Of course with all the other cases of Microsoft GPL infrignments with windows nothing to say some other developer working a Microsoft might not short cut there job one day using AI or cheating straight from rectos so causing infringement. There are unique code defects in the reactos source code and if those turn up in Windows there would be a serous please explain.
When he was employed by Microsoft he had to do what was in the video presentation to show how he got code that looked very much like Windows source code without in fact seeing windows source code yes Microsoft legal end up saying that his methods like it or not were legal. Yes left Reactos when Alex was getting employed by Microsoft.
Main reason Microsoft end up employing Alex is there are sections of the Windows base that he knows more about than any of the existing Microsoft staff at the time back then. So how are you going to have good training material otherwise.
I’ve seen these sorts of “multiplatform” OSes come and go before. Pretty sure 10 or so years ago another popped up on this very site and that one petered out.
It’s an interesting concept, and whilst the politics seem “messy” in regards to their opinions on ReactOS, the principals of the OS seem strong. Differentiating themselves from NT is not a bad idea, and could definitely lead to a strong, stable kernel and basis for subsystems.
The potential is there, but i highly doubt it will be realised. Small independent OS projects like this, with no targeted compatibility platform almost always die on the vine and rarely gain any significant community around them. There are, of course, exceptions, but i suspect this one will be proving the rule.
Yes, I remember how Freedows was going to be compatible with Windows, OS/2, AmigaOS and Linux with its revolutionary “cache kernel” that combined the best of microkernels and monolithic kernels.
I remember that too!!!! Thanks.
And of course, I misread this as ErectOS…