Ros-dev June 2005

ros-dev@reactos.org

77 participants
161 discussions

by Casper Hornstrup

I've implemented the module_depends targets as a substitute for make module_clean && make module. This is much faster than the depends target since it only checks the dependencies for a single module. Casper

19 years, 6 months

N/T: Cirrus Binary: http://www.relsoft.net/cirrus.rar

by Alex Ionescu

19 years, 6 months

ROS Performance Numbers

by Alex Ionescu

19 years, 6 months

Re: New OS built on ReactOS and WinuxOS technology!

by Hartmut Birr

Hi, it seems, that the Hostilix's people doesn't like their own past. The WinuxOS project on SourceForge was deleted. - Hartmut

19 years, 6 months

Re: [ros-svn] [ion] 15854: Support QEMU Hardware Acceleration

by Alex Ionescu

ion(a)svn.reactos.com wrote: >Support QEMU Hardware Acceleration > > >Updated files: >trunk/reactos/bootdata/hivesys.inf > > I will provide a working binary soon. It hits some bugs in our BitBlt code, maybe due to the recent optimizations. However a rosperf gives me 1600 fills/sec vs 232 fills/sec on the same machine with the same testing setup. That's a 8x improvement! Best regards, Alex Ionescu

19 years, 6 months

New OS built on ReactOS and WinuxOS technology!

by Rafal Kupiec

Hi... I'm from BetaComp Team and I with all team members are making new operating system that will be compatible with Windows NT. It will also have Posix and its own sybsystems. It's based on knowed for most people project named ReactOS and our previously project named WinuxOS. More about HostiliX you can read on www.betacomp.info web page in Our projects sections. Actually we're working on v0.1. When we done do it we will publish binary version and all source code. Currently we're looking for people who knows C/C++ or Assembler and wants to help us. If you have a free time, please help us and join to our team! Contact: rafkup(a)gmail.com

19 years, 6 months

Re: [ros-dev] PowerPC arcitecture?

by Quandary

On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 12:03:48PM -0500, Rick Langschultz wrote: > > I use Outlook XP to compose mail to my boss and to a support team. I > have to use HTML formatting in my mail messages. Sorry for the > inconvenience I have caused. If people want to get picky about the mail > format and not the content of the message, they should re-evaluate their > purposes involved in developing code, and material for computers. > If you've ever tried to read an XML/HTML message in a plain-text reader (such as mutt, which is my client of choice), you would understand why folks complain. To draw an analogy as to how silly your claim is (that the formatting should be ignored completely), consider the following scenarios: 1. A huge C program that works, but has no comments and obfuscated code. "If you can't understand it without comments, you should re-evaluate your programming ability." 2. A patch that has thousands of formatting changes intermixed with bugfixes. "If you can't appreciate the functionality of a freely offered patch that seems to fix a bug, you should re-evaluate your stance as a community-based project." 3. Documentation provided in rendered PS (or another opaque format). "If you can't appreciate the accuracy and user-friendliness of the documentation, you should re-evaluate your position on having a well-documented system." See, these are all silly. It's easy for one side to just ignore the other -- yes, you may need whatever formatting HTML provides you for work correspondence; it's easy for you to forget that it's even there. Likewise, it's easy for those of us who edit and send raw text to ignore how engrained HTML can be in some mail front-ends. But at the end of the day, the lowest common denominator is plain-text -- and that's something folks will expect you to conform to. Just like a patch with a thousand formatting changes, now matter how many bugs it fixes, it will be rejected. So to with your mails -- no matter how good the merit is, if we have to mind-parse the gibberish, it's just going to be outright rejected. Thanks for understanding, -- Travis > Rick Langschultz > > -----Original Message----- > From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.com [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.com] > On Behalf Of Mike Nordell > Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 9:19 AM > To: ReactOS Development List > Subject: Re: [ros-dev] PowerPC arcitecture? > > Rick Langschultz wrote: > > > <html xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" = > > xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" = > > xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> > > [lots and lots of useless XML tags mixed in an unholy cesspool with HTTP > snipped] > > Could you please trim that crap? I am, as I hope the majority of list > subscribers are too, not especially interested in that you wrote an > e-mail > in MSWord and that your "SpellingState" is "Clean". > > Please use plain-text only. > > Thank you for your cooperation. > > /Mike > > _______________________________________________ > Ros-dev mailing list > Ros-dev(a)reactos.com > http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev > > _______________________________________________ > Ros-dev mailing list > Ros-dev(a)reactos.com > http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev > __________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html

19 years, 6 months

ros crashs

by Hartmut Birr

Hi, a double click on the cmd icon does crash reactos. - Hartmut Using shell hooks for notification of shell events. (subsys\win32k\ntuser\hook.c:554) Not implemented: HookId 3 Global TRUE (lib\shell32\shlexec.c:1026:ShellExecuteExW32) flags ignored: 0x0000000c KeBugCheckWithTf at ntoskrnl\ke\catch.c:222 Page Fault Exception: 14(2) Processor: 0 CS:EIP 8:9d886596 <win32k.sys:6596 (subsys/win32k/dib/dib16bpp.c:50 (DIB_16BPP_HLine))> cr2 9e9dc000 cr3 1f455000 Proc: 80f1cc48 Pid: 74 <csrss.exe> Thrd: 81727530 Tid: 114 DS 10 ES 10 FS 30 GS 23 EAX: ffffffff EBX: 0000ffff ECX: 7ff8a52e EDX: ffffffff EBP: 9df0bc60 ESI: 0000025d ESP: 9df0b818 EDI: 9e9dc000 EFLAGS: 00010a17 kESP 9df0b818 kernel stack base 9df09000 Frames: <win32k.sys:110ab (subsys/win32k/eng/lineto.c:539 (IntEngLineTo))> <win32k.sys:3ca9d (subsys/win32k/objects/fillshap.c:119 (IntGdiPolygon))> <win32k.sys:3d53a (subsys/win32k/objects/fillshap.c:874 (NtGdiPolygon))> <ntoskrnl.exe:603f2 ({standard input}:180 (KiSystemService))> <user32.dll:24f14 (lib/user32/windows/draw.c:1064 (UITOOLS95_DrawFrameCaption))>

19 years, 6 months

Re: [ros-dev] Re: [ros-svn] [navaraf] 15830: - Unlock GDI objects by pointer, not by handle.

by Filip Navara

19 years, 6 months

Re: [ros-dev] Re: New OS built on ReactOS and WinuxOS technology!

by Quandary

On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 11:11:54AM -0400, Michael B. Trausch wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: RIPEMD160 > > Quandary wrote: > > > > I call BS. The Lotus 1-2-3 fiasco and the Apple vs. > > MS suit are the two things that come immediately to > > mind as legal precedence. You can't copyright a > > "layout" (read: look and feel, menu structure, > > screen order, etc.). If you are referring to > > directory layout on the disk itself, I think you > > will have a VERY hard time trying to argue that > > it's copyrightable -- since layout is effectively > > the command-line look-and-feel for a given disk. > > You don't have to look far for proof on that, > > either; moving between various *ix distros, it's > > easy to get lost when one distro stores its files > > in a different place from where you're expecting. > > > There was no direct layout issues there. Yes, you are correct. My argument is that layout is a subset of look and feel. Because menu structuring *is* included in the l&f deal, and file hierarchies are analagous to menu hierarchies, I argue that the ruling applies. > If you'd like to see an example such as what I've > described, you may take a look at OpenBSD's use of > this: > > http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq3.html#ISO > > This is something that the OpenBSD people > (specifically, Theo de Raadt) have held for years to > help use the law to provide a means of securing > their distribution and making it official. Has it held up in court? Thousands of bad patents are filed every year, and if/when they go to court for enforcement, they are discarded. That's patent law, but the same concept holds for -everything-: just because you -say- something is valid under the law does not make it so. > It is protected by Copyright because it is subject > to Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 102, Paragraph (a): > > (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance > with this title, in original works of authorship > fixed in any tangible medium of expression, > now known or later developed, from which they can be > perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, > either directly or with the aid of a machine or > device. (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. I can copyright the following: My filesystem layout. Copyright 2005, me. All rights reserved. /boot/ /dev/hda /dev/hda1 /dev/hda2 /dev/hdb /dev/hdb1 /etc/rc No one is allowed to copy that text, but anyone is allowed to implement the idea behind it -- i.e., a heirarchal filesystem with the specified directories and files. Well, directories and filenames are just lists of strings like that on the disk, right? Thus, are they not subject to copyright like my above example? Well, using mkdir and touch (well, mknod ;), I can come up with exactly that file layout, and dump the exact same text (sans the copyright crap) using find or ls. So... is it really the filesystem layout that's copyrighted? No, it can't be, because I just demonstrated how it could be duplicated by using the implied procedure that was very clearly described by the file listing. It is (as you put later), if anything, that instance of the filesystem that he created which is copyrighted. > The file-system layout of the ISO image that the > OpenBSD project has is not a "look and feel" of > anything, It is when I'm in a bash session, ls-ing and trying to find my way around. Note that the lotus 1-2-3 issue was about navigation -- key bindings. Having the same file format layout is equivalent to having the same key bindings or navigation. > it is a particular layout of a filesystem image. > Saying that they cannot copyright an image of a > filesystem is like saying that you cannot copyright > an image taken with a [digital] > camera: You cannot copyright the concept of ISO or > JPG, for example, but you can copyright one > particular incarnation of an ISO or JPG, in a > particular pattern of bits, as a compliation. Actually, this is an excellent example as to why copyright both doesn't really work and is a bit silly in the digital age: You're claiming copyright to a big number. If I went to court and said, "I own 42 when it's interpreted like so..." I'd be laughed out. Even really important numbers (like mersenne primes, that take a -lot- of work to find) can't be copyrighted. We're drawing a line, therefore, that is totally arbitrary. But I digress... Making a digital copy of his ISO *might* be copyright infringement (though I still doubt it). However, even in the case that it is, I can make a layout that exactly duplicates his (with mkdir & mv), make an ISO that is completely identical, and NOT be infringing his copyright by distributing it (according to my prior arguments). > Walnut Creek and other CD-compilations have done this > for years. The CD Compilation gets the copyright, > not the general system. I am not too familiar with Walnut Creek (I just googled for it), but in a nutshell (groan), it sounds like they trawl mailing lists, etc., put them on CD and sell them. Now, the reason this -isn't- legal is because they are making copies without the consent of the author. It's the offline equivalent to file sharing -- it's no more legal for me to go out and trawl the web for MP3's, put them on a disk and sell that as a compilation. The fact is, I'm making copies of music that I may or may not have the authorization to copy (depending on the license, which is really where the whole meat of this particular issue is). "Freely accessible archives" give the -person requesting access to the page- the right to download and view the contents; it does NOT give that end-user the right to turn around and redistribute it (UNLESS you download it, burn it, and sell it under your Fair Use Right of First Sale, repeating the process for each disk; this is a loophole). Caching proxies may also be illegal, but that's a can of worms I don't want to get into... Now, they may not have been taken to court, but that doesn't mean that it's legal, nor that a judge wouldn't find them guilty of copyright infringement. > > > > Again, I'm going to call BS. You don't get > > copyright on an aggregation of work. If I went and > > copied all the articles (and ONLY the articles) > > out of a newspaper that ran only syndicated > > stories, the real copyright owners would have to > > come after me -- the newspaper could not. The only > > way the paper could come after me is if I > > accidentally copied content that (1) one of their > > writers wrote as a "work for hire," and that the > > paper holds the copyright to, or (2) I > > inadvertently copied one of their trade/service > > marks, implying their endorsement of the copied > > content when no such endorsement exists. > > > > Copyright on an "aggregation of work," as you have > called it falls under Title 17, Chapter 1, Section > 103, Paragraphs (a) and (b): Subject matter of > copyright: Compilations and Derivative Works. See > text: > > (a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by > section 102 includes compilations and derivative > works, but protection for a work employing > preexisting material in which copyright subsists > does not extend to any part of the work in which > such material has been used unlawfully. > > (b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative > work extends *** EMPHASIS *** > only to the material contributed by the author of > such work, > as distinguished from the preexisting material > employed in the work, and does not imply any > exclusive right in the preexisting material. The > copyright in such work is independent of, and does > not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, > ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright > protection in the preexisting material. > Which means that my newspaper example is spot on. Since the look and feel of the paper cannot be copyrighted (ordering of articles, number of columns, etc.), and the articles are syndicated (i.e., the paper gets a license to publish them, and doesn't hold the copyright), the paper cannot come after me. Well, they possibly could under some circumstances (like if they edited an article), but this is again assuming that they have done *nothing but aggregate*. Translate articles to files, ordering of articles to ordering of files, and paper to BSD, and the metaphor is complete. > > > > I'm not a lawyer. If you can show me something in > > copyright law (and, to be clean, I'm talking US > > copyright law) that proves me wrong, I'll be happy > > to either adjust my argument or, if I'm outright > > wrong, eat my words. However, I have spent some > > quality time with title 17 (looking for > > loopholes), and I'm pretty confident that I'm on- > > target. > > > > Nor am I an attorney; however, it is a matter which > I've conferred on in the past. The protections are > there in the most basic of Copyright Law, also > enforced internationally. If I understand correctly, what is enforced internationally is the Berne Convention, which I have not read up on. I also believe that trade agreements allowing for extradition are one of the other key tools that the US uses to enforce copyright abroad, though that statement's coming off the cuff and should be subject to verification ;). Excellent points; if you have any further refinements or counterclaims, again, feel free to make them. -- Travis __________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/

19 years, 6 months

← Newer
1
...
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
...
17
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Ros-dev June 2005