Rep. 1. ReactOS have microkernel based on linux basically but strong tieing it with wine on core level, gives oportunity to treat it like something more than windows emulator. As you can see, you cant start reactos without starting the "wine subsystem". Its like haiku, that uses own procedures to imitate beos. ReactOS uses own procedures to "imitate" WinNT on core level [ aswell as hardware level and software level ]. The main reason of creating this OS was to develop completety free system with 100% compatibility with Windows NT kernel.
ReactOS isnt E/OS LX [ basically linux with binded wine], its almost real Windows OS in opensource package.
2. I dont think , because magnussoft hasnt got rights to publish source of zeta legally. BeOS code was stolen from palm in suspicious way, and after that YellowTab also in suspicious way "gets" the right to use the source code, and BeoS became Zeta
. Maybe you're talking about ZevenOS? Its basically ubuntu with some new icons and a beos-feel, but you cant run a programs / apps from beos on it. Sorry
3. Ubuntu in comparision with reactos or haiku looks like big-fat mutha. Especially when you're comparing ubuntu with haiku. haiku booting time is 4 or 5 times quicker than ubuntu [ for example if started from USB stick ]. It eat less memory, aswell... and for example full haiku system uses about 100mb of memory. On hdd eats about 80mb [ whole system ]
1. So you should merge *BSD and linux
BSD kernel supports binaries from Linux. But I understand you
2.No i didn't meant ZevenOS. It was a loong time ago on LinuxNews but I'm not sure...Oh I'm sorry. It was Syllable(looks very similar to haiku/beos). Note that is fork of AtheOS which is similar to BeOS
3.But did you looked at quantity of services/layers/demons on Ubuntu and on Haiku
But If it will be much faster and will give the same funcionality, why not...
Ubuntu is very bloated for a linux distribution, out of the box it runs many services most people don't even have just for ease of use. If you know what you actually need, a minimal install of Debian or Arch Linux using XFCE as the windowmanager with the EXT4 filesystem will feel and boot up lightning fast on 2gb.
Also yeah, Firefox on Linux is actually much worse than Windows. There's been benchmark results showing that even win32 Firefox in WINE is faster than native linux Firefox. FF3 in general is pretty dated, it's best to use the beta FF3.1/3.5 versions which have huge performance boosts.
Or if you aren't attached to any Firefox extensions, try using a webkit based browser like Midori.
Did you tested Firefox 3.1 aka 3.5? I don't see in any way improvment in perfomance. It will be the slowest version in 3.x because they want to bring with FF so many features.
Main problem with Ubuntu is that packages are prepared for i386(old pentium 1 processors)(and config eats much... because it can run on so many computer out of the box). But mainly Ubuntu inside is very fast but the GUI is slow. For instance ArchLinux GUI works(KDE3 mod) extremely fast, but inside i don't feel is more faster than ubuntu