Ros-dev March 2005

ros-dev@reactos.org

64 participants
200 discussions

OpenOffice.org 1.1.2 Setup Regression
by Jason Filby 16 Mar '05

16 Mar '05

Hi all Loading up the OpenOffice.org 1.1.2 Setup no longer works; the initial progress bar completes and then nothing happens. I'm sure I've seen this bug before! Any help welcome. Thanks Jason

2 1

Re: [ros-dev] Re: combo - implement GetComboBoxInfo
by Steven Edwards 16 Mar '05

16 Mar '05

--- James Tabor <jimtabor(a)adsl-64-217-116-74.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net> wrote: > We don't have this yet? Is there a plan to include this in our > code tree? According to Thomas and Dmitry's tests its not correct so we are waiting to see if someone comes up with a better implementation. Thanks Steven __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

1 0

Re: combo - implement GetComboBoxInfo
by James Tabor 16 Mar '05

16 Mar '05

Hi Steven, Steven Edwards wrote: > Changelog: > Christoph von Wittich <Christoph(a)ApiViewer.de> > Implement GetComboBoxInfo > > > We don't have this yet? Is there a plan to include this in our code tree? Looks great! James

1 0

NASM 0.98.39 WARNING
by Royce Mitchell III 15 Mar '05

15 Mar '05

ReactOS will not build on Windows with the latest version of Nasm ( 0.98.39 ), because at least some public releases of that version ( I just downloaded the official from sourceforge.net ), do not support long file names, and we have a long file name in PSEH. We can just shorten that asm's file name, but we could also configure the build system to reject that version. I don't feel like dealing with it, so I thought I would just send a head's up here :)

2 2

Re: [ros-dev] Re: [ros-diffs] [ion] 14047: Dispatching & Queue Rewrite II:
by Steven Edwards 15 Mar '05

15 Mar '05

--- Alex Ionescu <ionucu(a)videotron.ca> wrote: > This goes beyond debug information. This is reproduceable behaviour that > probably any driver developper out there knows. Checked builds are > builds recommended for testing your driver for bugs. If you call that > function with a Queue Object, you WILL see that assert line-by-line on > your screen. From that point on, one should stich his eyes out for > having seen it, and shoot himself for knowing this behaviour? So fix a ReactOS driver to match this behavior and work under Windows and then you will have justification for making related changes in the kernel. > Notwithstanding that they cannot sue the project, and that they would > not sue you. This was a public comment to a friend... why would they sue > Steven when Alex said what he said? And yes, I cannot wait to be sued... > I can see the headlines -- Driver Developer sued for being aware of > Windows Assertion --. I hope they also go after Mark Russinovich for > having used the checked build to generate a tree of the Windows Source > code!! The last time I looked Mr Russinovich was not try to make a replacement for Windows but rather provide more information people wanting to use Windows. > If you aren't, then why am I always the one being targeted with such > comments. There are functions in ROS which are almost copies of their > binary versions. There are structures in ROS which look like clones of > the Windows ones (undocumented ones). There is functionality that was > directly reversed engineered so that it would be compatible. Yes we have reverse engineered quite a bit but the question is what methods are being used to reverse certain behavior. We cannot help but be compatible with the structures in Windows and take any means needed to be compatible. > Yet, nobody says a word; everyone goes after Alex for having a > conversation with a friend and mentionning a reproducible fact in every > driver developer's life -- you do not KeWaitXxx on a Queue. > Probably as much as jumping on a guy who has written some of the highest > quality and most useful code in the OS for the fact he used public > information during an argument. You stated the other day there were regressions that were only found by developing test cases. You would have a lot more good will from developers on this project if you committed test cases for some of the patches you develop and commit them to rosapps/tests or write a dummy driver to show the behavior rather than than pointing to checked builds. Thanks Steven __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

1 0

Re: [ros-dev] Vote: Allow 3rd-party distribution of ROS through XDCC Bot.
by Steven Edwards 15 Mar '05

15 Mar '05

Hi, --- Mike Swanson <mikeonthecomputer(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Just put a trademark on the name but allow it to be used on > derivations on the circumstance that it clearly shows that it is not > _the_ ReactOS. I have looked in to this a bit with the legal council I have on retainer as part of the ReactOS Foundation work. I think it is around $250 to file in a state and around $1000 to file the federal paperwork. I will call the lawyer this week and get numbers and a timeframe on what it would take to make it happen. Thanks Steven __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

4 3

Re: [ros-dev] Re: [ros-diffs] [ion] 14047: Dispatching & Queue Rewrite II:
by Steven Edwards 15 Mar '05

15 Mar '05

--- Alex IoIonescuioionucuivideotrona> wrote: > This climate of paranoia is getting to my nerves. You could at least try to be civil in your discussion. Some of us have spent more than a few years on this project and have a right to be a little paranoid about if our lives work might be put in to danger. > As for Steven... WINE, ROS, and any other compatibility product out there is not 100% clean > room. It has never been, will never be, cannot be. Especially if we consider debug information > as being "dirty". Reminds me of people freaking out when I added functions that were in the IFS > -- you'd hope people would've grown up by now--. Still it depends on the source of the information. We have discussed in private my views on using the debug information. I will publicly state I think the law is ambiguous at best and the debug information should be a valid source given Microsoft position of being a monopoly as found by Anti-trust proceedings. That being said a court might not agree with me so any behavior must be 1. Reproduceable or 2. Documented. > I could make a list of over 25 parts of ReactOS Which are not 100% clean. But I won't, because > that would tarnish our image. I would appreciate if you'd stop tarnishing mine and making > accusations. I am not trying to trash your image. I am simply mentioning the truth that everyone already knows but could be deadly to this project and others in a kangaroo court in the US. When your source of information comes from documentation or a third part program exhibiting certain behavior then there is not a legal question as to if a reimplementation is a original work. If you are basing your implementation of a feature only on the debug information then clearly, at least in my mind it runs the danger being found a derived work and everytime you do so it at the very least tarnishes ReactOS's image. Thanks Steven __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

2 1

Debug Output to Com1
by James Tabor 15 Mar '05

15 Mar '05

Hi! What happen to the com stuff! 19200 baud! WTH! (++ÄÅÄ+±_.:101) D+ #__+#+ +Å+: PCI\VEN 1106&DEV B198&SUBSYS 00000000&REV 00\0(NT DLL:+_/+++_.:2092) R+Ä#+Å±000 (++ÄÅÄ+±_.:101) D+ #__+#+ + (770000 -> 750000) C:\R#+OS\_<_+Å+: PCI\VEN 1106&DEV 3205&SUBSYS 32051+32\±32.++ 106&REV 00\0000 (NTDLL:+_/+++_.:2092) R+Ä#+Å± (7760000 -> 80000) C:\R#+OS\_<_++32\+__32.++ D_+_B#_ °Ä_ \S<_++RÄÄ+\S<_++32\°_#++°.DLL: 9783000 FIXME: CÄÄ<I+#± Ä_Å'+ _+ÄÄÄ_+ IMAGE ICON Ä__++<! (NTDLL:+_/+++_.:1211) L_G+E|ÄÄ_+B<N#+(): °#+ +Ä °Å +|M__#± (NTDLL:+_/+++_.:1211) L_G+E|ÄÄ_+B<N#+(): °#+ +Ä °Å #+|M__#± (NTDLL:+_/+++_.:1211) L_G+E|ÄÄ_+B<N#+(): °#+ +Ä °Å +|M__#± (NTDLL:+_/+++_.:1211) L_G+E|ÄÄ_+B<N#+(): °#+ +Ä °Å +M__#± (NTDLL:+_/+++_.:1211) L_G+E|ÄÄ_+B<N#+(): °#+ +Ä °Å +ÄM__#± (NTDLL:+_/+++_.:1211) L_G+E|ÄÄ_+B<N#+(): °#+ +Ä °Å +M__#± (NTDLL:+_/+++_.:1211) L_G+E|ÄÄ_+B<N#+(): °#+ +Ä °Å +ÄM__#± (NTDLL:+_/+++_.:1211) L_G+E|ÄÄ_+B<N#+(): °#+ +Ä °Å #+|M__#± (NTDLL:+_/+++_.:1211) L_G+E|ÄÄ_+B<N#+(): °#+ +Ä °Å +|M__#± (NTDLL:+_/+++_.:1211) L_G+E|ÄÄ_+B<N#+(): °#+ +Ä °Å +M__#± (NTDLL:+_/+++_.:1211) L_G+E|ÄÄ_+B<N#+(): °#+ +Ä °Å +M__#± (NTDLL:+_/+++_.:1211) L_G+E|ÄÄ_+B<N#+(): °#+ +Ä °Å +ÄM__#± (+ÅÄ+_/ÅÄ++.:97)(G+A_<ÅK<S+#+) _ +Å+Ä++Å+, Ä+#_ +_< #±#Å +#+_. (Å++__/+#__.:114) F#+ +Ä +ÄÄ++Ä +#__ #+Ä+! H#_ _++ ÄÄ+_. N+_± == 0|000 (Å++__/ÄÄ+.:504) NÄ+ +Ä++Å+: HÄÄ+I 3 G+Ä#+ TRUE SHELLHOOK 1 SHELLHOOK 4 SHELLHOOK 1 SHELLHOOK 4 SHELLHOOK 4

2 2

Re: [ros-dev] Re: [ros-diffs] [ion] 14047: Dispatching & Queue Rewrite II:
by Steven Edwards 15 Mar '05

15 Mar '05

--- Alex Ionescu <ionucu(a)videotron.ca> wrote: > What the fsck are you implying. Its hard to claim our implementation is "clean room" if you are basing your implementation on debug information rather than reverse enginered behavior. I am not opposed to observing the implementation via debug information and then writting tests to match behavior but there is a fine line... Thanks Steven __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

2 1

SM and winlogon
by ea 14 Mar '05

14 Mar '05

What if winlogon.exe is run by csrss.exe and not by smss.exe? A winlogon process, in its own desktop, is needed for each Win32 session. If we make csrss.exe multiuser, it must create session 0 (console) or die and therefore run winlogon in it. This change shouldn't have any effect on compatibility with Windows NT. smss will assume only csrss is critical. ea

1 0

← Newer
1
...
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
...
20
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Ros-dev March 2005