On Sep 22, 2007, at 10:19 PM, João Jerónimo wrote:
The point of a possible 3rd party audit is raising the legal credibility of the ReactOS project by ensuring that no tainted code is left in the source tree, right?
The word "tainted" is actually quite wrong, and is being misused everywhere. A tea was tainted by polonium in a not-so-recent accident in the UK. ReactOS is not a tea, and we have no "polonium" commiters.
There will be a WineConf event in 1 or 2 weeks, and they say they are going to clear up the legal situation around Wine, around SFLC audit and around requirements to the developers, whose code may be commited to the tree.
When they do it, I would be very glad to know those requirements, and enforce them on ReactOS developers, so that we are on the common ground.
Well, if the project is going to wait until more modules stabilize, won't this stabilization process obfuscate most of the tainted source code, and make them hard to find?
Your mind is ahead of you. "Taint obfuscated code", "Obfuscate tainted code", ... Your question is obfuscated and may be tainted, I won't answer it.
WBR, Aleksey Bragin.
I thought Rand and Nyaneave cleansed saidar of the taint?
-- Best regards, Alex Ionescu
On 22-Sep-07, at 3:22 PM, Aleksey Bragin wrote:
On Sep 22, 2007, at 10:19 PM, João Jerónimo wrote:
The point of a possible 3rd party audit is raising the legal credibility of the ReactOS project by ensuring that no tainted code is left in the source tree, right?
The word "tainted" is actually quite wrong, and is being misused everywhere. A tea was tainted by polonium in a not-so-recent accident in the UK. ReactOS is not a tea, and we have no "polonium" commiters.
There will be a WineConf event in 1 or 2 weeks, and they say they are going to clear up the legal situation around Wine, around SFLC audit and around requirements to the developers, whose code may be commited to the tree.
When they do it, I would be very glad to know those requirements, and enforce them on ReactOS developers, so that we are on the common ground.
Well, if the project is going to wait until more modules stabilize, won't this stabilization process obfuscate most of the tainted source code, and make them hard to find?
Your mind is ahead of you. "Taint obfuscated code", "Obfuscate tainted code", ... Your question is obfuscated and may be tainted, I won't answer it.
WBR, Aleksey Bragin. _______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Aleksey Bragin wrote:
There will be a WineConf event in 1 or 2 weeks, and they say they are going to clear up the legal situation around Wine, around SFLC audit and around requirements to the developers, whose code may be commited to the tree.
When they do it, I would be very glad to know those requirements, and enforce them on ReactOS developers, so that we are on the common ground.
Wine is the Pot calling the kettle BLACK! Bunch of RE coders using smoke and mirrors when it comes to case testing! It's a easy out!
I'm opposed to the SFLC! I don't like someone outside org telling me how to code. SFLC == Microsoft! Just wait and see. SFLC are hogging up all the FOSS projects to be used for their purposes not ours. I do not want their help and we need to stay away from them. We are GNU not SFLC!
Notes to remember: a Jeremy White CodeWeavers CEO,"no we are going to be doing the audit anyway there is no point in doing anything rash". b Wine has been planning this Audit with the SFLC from day 1 of its creation. c Full year before the Hartmut incident. d SFLC. Do you know who they wanted the first client to be? WINE.
Point "a" is interesting, doing something rash?,,, alarming?,,, letting someone know something big might be happening? Point "b" 2005-02-12 Point "c" Month before, there was an attempt to bring down ReactOS. The "My attitude", http://www.reactos.org/archives/public/ros-dev/2005-December/006569.html http://www.reactos.org/archives/public/ros-dev/2005-December/006570.html
Read mike_m quotes. http://www.reactos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=34323#34323
I haven't been able to post to the wine'ies mail list for sometime now. So, where is the free speech you might ask? With SFLC there is no free speech and you bet your ass there will be no free code once they finish their little take over of FOSS projects.
The word "OUR" keeps popping up.
"Wine is crucial to our interoperability portfolio", Eben Moglen SFLC Chairman James
WBR, Aleksey Bragin.
James Tabor wrote:
Wine is the Pot calling the kettle BLACK! Bunch of RE coders using smoke and mirrors when it comes to case testing! It's a easy out!
Can we please stop using our mailing list to bad mouth Wine, I do no want to be tainted under the same brush. Most of the ReactOS developers don't agree with your right wing view of Wine, in fact many of us, myself included, have the oposite view.
Wine are a fanastic project from whom we owe a great deal. Just because they choose to do things differently from your idealistic way doesn't mean it's bad or wrong. They have their own interests to protect and quite frankly that has nothing to do with us. I agree with Aleksey, we must adopt their way of working in the hope of rebuilding the bridges and additionally improving our credability within the open source world. If this means offering ourselves to an external audit, then so be it. We can't be a hobbiest project forever if we aim to bring ReactOS to the public sector as a viable alternative to Windows.
ReactOS is getting to a stage now where we have to look at how the world would best accept us as an entity. We need public support, we need financial backing and we need to alter the project to make us more appealing for such things. We should listen to Aleksey, I think he's moving the project down the right path.
Your continual barage against Wine is no different than we used to recieve from Mike, the only difference being, Mike has moved on now.
Ged.
Wolves in sheep's clothing!
Ged wrote:
James Tabor wrote:
Wine is the Pot calling the kettle BLACK! Bunch of RE coders using smoke and mirrors when it comes to case testing! It's a easy out!
Can we please stop using our mailing list to bad mouth Wine, I do no want to be tainted under the same brush.
I don't mean to. But if it is okay for wine'ies to do it, why the double standard? They get their licks in every once in a while.
Most of the ReactOS developers don't agree with your right wing view of Wine, in fact many of us, myself included, have the oposite view.
More left wing, non capitalist, non communist. More like when the colonies had real freedom, no slavery to a monarch. It's an unique type of freedom let us say.
Wine are a fanastic project from whom we owe a great deal. Just because they choose to do things differently from your idealistic way doesn't mean it's bad or wrong. They have their own interests to protect and quite frankly that has nothing to do with us. I agree with Aleksey, we must adopt their way of working in the hope of rebuilding the bridges and additionally improving our credability within the open source world. If this means offering ourselves to an external audit, then so be it. We can't be a hobbiest project forever if we aim to bring ReactOS to the public sector as a viable alternative to Windows.
We will have credibility with out having to be like Codeweavers. ReactOS will and is standing on it's own. I can not boot wine, I have to boot Linux to use wine.
ReactOS is getting to a stage now where we have to look at how the world would best accept us as an entity. We need public support, we need financial backing and we need to alter the project to make us more appealing for such things. We should listen to Aleksey, I think he's moving the project down the right path.
We are moving in the right direction.
Your continual barage against Wine is no different than we used to recieve from Mike, the only difference being, Mike has moved on now.
Ged.
Don't know about mike_m, he had his points too. In that betov kind of way.
The issue is: SFLC is not our friend. Codeweavers was taken up to the top of the mountain and shown all the wonders it could have. Codeweavers made a big mistake in falling into the trap. Doing so, sucked up a nice project called Wine. We are reading about it right now, some projects have given in. Now they are regretting it.
Has anyone stopped to think where did this SFLC come from? It's not FSF so where do they get off setting up rules for us to follow when we had real good ones from the start. Just because Codeweavers excepted the fruit, it does not mean we have to. We need to see SFLC comprehensive financial report too!
Two to three years from now, I will hear, he was right.
We are FSF/GNU/GPL not SFLC/Codeweavers/LGPL. Stay focus! Turn the infrared/RADAR on to see through the smoke and glitter! James
You should read behind James's right-wing tone and ramblings (which, say what you will, is an effective means of getting his point across, if only by the fact it creates responses such as yours), and drill down to his actual not-so-insane point: SFLC is evil. FSF is evil. Wine is their tool.
Yes, Wine is cool and great and I use their product daily on my Mac, but that doesn't make them not-evil. James is simply warning you that although Wine may again accept us, this will only be for their own sinister purposes and interests, and that you should be careful.
Now you may not agree with that view, but that's James' view.
On a side note, mike_m did not "move on". He left his company.
-- Best regards, Alex Ionescu
On 23-Sep-07, at 7:40 AM, Ged wrote:
James Tabor wrote:
Wine is the Pot calling the kettle BLACK! Bunch of RE coders using smoke and mirrors when it comes to case testing! It's a easy out!
Can we please stop using our mailing list to bad mouth Wine, I do no want to be tainted under the same brush. Most of the ReactOS developers don't agree with your right wing view of Wine, in fact many of us, myself included, have the oposite view.
Wine are a fanastic project from whom we owe a great deal. Just because they choose to do things differently from your idealistic way doesn't mean it's bad or wrong. They have their own interests to protect and quite frankly that has nothing to do with us. I agree with Aleksey, we must adopt their way of working in the hope of rebuilding the bridges and additionally improving our credability within the open source world. If this means offering ourselves to an external audit, then so be it. We can't be a hobbiest project forever if we aim to bring ReactOS to the public sector as a viable alternative to Windows.
ReactOS is getting to a stage now where we have to look at how the world would best accept us as an entity. We need public support, we need financial backing and we need to alter the project to make us more appealing for such things. We should listen to Aleksey, I think he's moving the project down the right path.
Your continual barage against Wine is no different than we used to recieve from Mike, the only difference being, Mike has moved on now.
Ged.
Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
On 9/23/07, Alex Ionescu ionucu@videotron.ca wrote:
You should read behind James's right-wing tone and ramblings (which, say what you will, is an effective means of getting his point across, if only by the fact it creates responses such as yours), and drill down to his actual not-so-insane point: SFLC is evil. FSF is evil. Wine is their tool.
No its not. It further alienates people in the middle. James has become the ReactOS equivalent of McCormack on this issue. Now its my turn for ad-hominem, drop the evildooers bullshit as it makes both of you sound like Bush and deal with facts.
Well, it is time for me to chime in....
I agree that we need to have a third party audit the code. It looks better on us, and makes us look more legitimate. And if we can share code with Wine... all the better. No more reinventing the wheel than we have to.
One thing I do have to point out from being a poli-sci major is that every one has their own interests, every one--even groups. FSF, codeweavers, SFLC, and even ReactOS. And if they converge, great.... we get help. If they don't, well... we are on our own.
Yes, we do need financial packing. It would help things go a lot faster. But right now... I think people are waiting to see how stable and compatible ReactOS will be.
Well, that is my two dimes (what--inflation anyone?)
Steven Edwards wrote:
On 9/23/07, Alex Ionescu ionucu@videotron.ca wrote:
You should read behind James's right-wing tone and ramblings (which, say what you will, is an effective means of getting his point across, if only by the fact it creates responses such as yours), and drill down to his actual not-so-insane point: SFLC is evil. FSF is evil. Wine is their tool.
No its not. It further alienates people in the middle. James has become the ReactOS equivalent of McCormack on this issue. Now its my turn for ad-hominem, drop the evildooers bullshit as it makes both of you sound like Bush and deal with facts.
I challenge you to show any ad-hominem in my reply. I merely translated James' message. I made no comment as to whether or not I agree with it, and I continue to reserve silence on that question.
I also don't recall James posting negative comments about Wine every time Slashdot/Osnews/anyone has a news entry about Wine, nor attacking their channel, or forums. James has only posted his views on the ReactOS forum and mailing list. He has not gone out of his way to attack anyone, so I believe that comparing him to McCormack is unfair. James *was* banned from their Mailing List, so at least some of his points would seem to be valid.
You are free to disagree with his views or find him annoying -- that is Aleksey's business, he makes the law. As long as James continues to be one of the most active developers of today and finally helping to fix Win32k (with Timo and Magnus), I doubt you will have much luck silencing him.
Please don't attack me again for merely clearing up facts from opinions from crazed stories of Wine world domination plans.
-- Best regards, Alex Ionescu
On 23-Sep-07, at 11:37 AM, Steven Edwards wrote:
On 9/23/07, Alex Ionescu ionucu@videotron.ca wrote:
You should read behind James's right-wing tone and ramblings (which, say what you will, is an effective means of getting his point across, if only by the fact it creates responses such as yours), and drill down to his actual not-so-insane point: SFLC is evil. FSF is evil. Wine is their tool.
No its not. It further alienates people in the middle. James has become the ReactOS equivalent of McCormack on this issue. Now its my turn for ad-hominem, drop the evildooers bullshit as it makes both of you sound like Bush and deal with facts.
-- Steven Edwards
"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo _______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Steven Edwards wrote:
On 9/23/07, Alex Ionescu ionucu@videotron.ca wrote:
You should read behind James's right-wing tone and ramblings (which, say what you will, is an effective means of getting his point across, if only by the fact it creates responses such as yours), and drill down to his actual not-so-insane point: SFLC is evil. FSF is evil. Wine is their tool.
No its not. It further alienates people in the middle. James has become the ReactOS equivalent of McCormack on this issue. Now its my turn for ad-hominem, drop the evildooers bullshit as it makes both of you sound like Bush and deal with facts.
Wow another cheep shot!
Everyone wants a third party audit, I will not allow SFLC to do it. If I was you, go find something else to do other than push the SFLC/Conwearvers business plan on our project.
James
Hi I am against 3 party Audlt and I also dislike SFLC allot. Why I dislike them is my private reason and some people from another project have try force us into 3 party audlt of ReactOS and follow they rules. Like do not implement anything that are not writen in msdn, if it found something that is not in msdn u should remove it, so on. I think we done right and it is few files left to check if they are okay or not. I am on jimtbalor side in this matter and does share some part of his view of things.
----- Original Message ----- From: "James Tabor" jimtabor@adsl-64-217-116-74.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net To: "ReactOS Development List" ros-dev@reactos.org Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 12:10 AM Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Audit
Steven Edwards wrote:
On 9/23/07, Alex Ionescu ionucu@videotron.ca wrote:
You should read behind James's right-wing tone and ramblings (which, say what you will, is an effective means of getting his point across, if only by the fact it creates responses such as yours), and drill down to his actual not-so-insane point: SFLC is evil. FSF is evil. Wine is their tool.
No its not. It further alienates people in the middle. James has become the ReactOS equivalent of McCormack on this issue. Now its my turn for ad-hominem, drop the evildooers bullshit as it makes both of you sound like Bush and deal with facts.
Wow another cheep shot!
Everyone wants a third party audit, I will not allow SFLC to do it. If I was you, go find something else to do other than push the SFLC/Conwearvers business plan on our project.
James _______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Aleksey Bragin wrote:
Well-well, please calm down, we had enough flamewars, a new one is not necessary.
I'm sure James knows it's not my intention to start a flamewar :)
Alex Ionescu wrote:
Now you may not agree with that view, but that's James' view.
It's not whether I agree with that view, that person, that project, that foundation or whatever. I just disagree with constantly publically slagging off another project, especially one which we rely heavily on.
Ged.
Hi! Ged wrote:
Aleksey Bragin wrote:
Well-well, please calm down, we had enough flamewars, a new one is not necessary.
I'm sure James knows it's not my intention to start a flamewar :)
Alex Ionescu wrote:
Now you may not agree with that view, but that's James' view.
It's not whether I agree with that view, that person, that project, that foundation or whatever. I just disagree with constantly publically slagging off another project, especially one which we rely heavily on.
Ged.
I'm trying to warn everyone. James
James Tabor schrieb:
Hi! Ged wrote:
Aleksey Bragin wrote:
Well-well, please calm down, we had enough flamewars, a new one is not necessary.
I'm sure James knows it's not my intention to start a flamewar :)
Alex Ionescu wrote:
Now you may not agree with that view, but that's James' view.
It's not whether I agree with that view, that person, that project, that foundation or whatever. I just disagree with constantly publically slagging off another project, especially one which we rely heavily on.
Ged.
I'm trying to warn everyone. James _______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
I think a 3rd Party Audit shows only one thing (or better two things) I think the members of this project know the Source best and will see all Code which could be "dangerous", like strange Inline Assembler or Magic Numbers. A 3rd Party Audit shows that they need help to even understand the Code because they never wrote/understand it and it was just copy pasted it from somewhere. There might be the argument that letting some ppl from outside of the project do the Audit may be more trustful. But I trust the devs and you all should do, too! If some dickheads that are not even members of this Project try to give us the order to do somethhing we should not even listen to them.
/me walks to the side where Jim and Magnus are standing.
Daniel "EmuandCo" Reimer
It seam u fall into he SFLC traps they are trying push doing the audlt of ros from a 3 part project of ros, and we shall obay theirs rules it mean all api that is not document in msdn shall be remove and so on. That mean 80% of ntoskrnl will go away, for around 80% of ntoskrnl are not in msdn 80% of win32k will go aways, for thuse api are not in msdn, then shall we not talk about audio no audio system and so on.
that mean no ros, if we play after SLFC and we need also write papper give up our copyright to them. no thanks
----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Reimer" reimer.daniel@freenet.de To: "ReactOS Development List" ros-dev@reactos.org Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 11:58 AM Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Audit
James Tabor schrieb:
Hi! Ged wrote:
Aleksey Bragin wrote:
Well-well, please calm down, we had enough flamewars, a new one is not necessary.
I'm sure James knows it's not my intention to start a flamewar :)
Alex Ionescu wrote:
Now you may not agree with that view, but that's James' view.
It's not whether I agree with that view, that person, that project,
that
foundation or whatever. I just disagree with constantly publically slagging off another
project,
especially one which we rely heavily on.
Ged.
I'm trying to warn everyone. James _______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
I think a 3rd Party Audit shows only one thing (or better two things) I think the members of this project know the Source best and will see all Code which could be "dangerous", like strange Inline Assembler or Magic Numbers. A 3rd Party Audit shows that they need help to even understand the Code because they never wrote/understand it and it was just copy pasted it from somewhere. There might be the argument that letting some ppl from outside of the project do the Audit may be more trustful. But I trust the devs and you all should do, too! If some dickheads that are not even members of this Project try to give us the order to do somethhing we should not even listen to them.
/me walks to the side where Jim and Magnus are standing.
Daniel "EmuandCo" Reimer _______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
On 9/24/07, Magnus Olsen magnus@greatlord.com wrote:
It seam u fall into he SFLC traps they are trying push doing the audlt of ros from a 3 part project of ros, and we shall obay theirs rules it mean all api that is not document in msdn shall be remove and so on. That mean 80% of ntoskrnl will go away, for around 80% of ntoskrnl are not in msdn 80% of win32k will go aways, for thuse api are not in msdn, then shall we not talk about audio no audio system and so on.
I am so sick of the lies you are spewing. No one (except Mingw-w32api) has ever said only use stuff only from MSDN. They have said show us an application that uses this api, explain how you documented it, one of those sources of documentation can be MSDN, if its not MSDN explain how you came to figure out the prototype either via test case or reversing the third party application using the implementation. NOT REVERSING the implementation itself and then reimplementing it.
If your going to run your mouth and attack the SFLC and the Wine project, at least do it with a credible argument like I have done.
http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2007-September/059310.html
DO NOT RESTORE TO LIES and DISTORTIONS of fact. It just makes your case look weaker.
On 9/24/07, Steven Edwards winehacker@gmail.com wrote:
I am so sick of the lies you are spewing. No one (except Mingw-w32api) has ever said only use stuff only from MSDN. They have said show us an application that uses this api, explain how you documented it, one of those sources of documentation can be MSDN, if its not MSDN explain how you came to figure out the prototype either via test case or reversing the third party application using the implementation. NOT REVERSING the implementation itself and then reimplementing it.
Let me clear the above up, Application or Driver. If you can't point a third party driver, public documentation or some other application using the API why the hell would you need to implement it if no one uses it? And more to the point where would you get your information for a clean-room implementation unless you follow industry standard rules and let someone else reverse the API for you.
Actually I remember developers on the Wine mailing list putting into question wether or not READING MSDN was legal and if this would bar someone from submitting patches to Wine. I believe this is what Magnus is referring to.
-- Best regards, Alex Ionescu
On 24-Sep-07, at 4:08 PM, Steven Edwards wrote:
On 9/24/07, Steven Edwards winehacker@gmail.com wrote:
I am so sick of the lies you are spewing. No one (except Mingw- w32api) has ever said only use stuff only from MSDN. They have said show us an application that uses this api, explain how you documented it, one of those sources of documentation can be MSDN, if its not MSDN explain how you came to figure out the prototype either via test case or reversing the third party application using the implementation. NOT REVERSING the implementation itself and then reimplementing it.
Let me clear the above up, Application or Driver. If you can't point a third party driver, public documentation or some other application using the API why the hell would you need to implement it if no one uses it? And more to the point where would you get your information for a clean-room implementation unless you follow industry standard rules and let someone else reverse the API for you.
-- Steven Edwards
"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo _______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Hi All! Steven Edwards wrote:
Let me clear the above up, Application or Driver. If you can't point a third party driver, public documentation or some other application using the API why the hell would you need to implement it if no one uses it? And more to the point where would you get your information for a clean-room implementation unless you follow industry standard rules and let someone else reverse the API for you.
Thanks for clearing this up Steven! I knew that was right! Why is wine developers writing about using MSDN documentation is wrong?
The way I see it, we are in the clear! So That is That! Go back to work!
Good job team! James
Aleksey Bragin wrote:
The word "tainted" is actually quite wrong, and is being misused everywhere.
I think so, but this was the word employed by some devs to refer to the code that was produced by people who (supposely) had seen leaked Windows source code.
A tea was tainted by polonium in a not-so-recent accident in the UK. ReactOS is not a tea, and we have no "polonium" commiters.
Sorry. The purpose was not offensive at all!
Well, if the project is going to wait until more modules stabilize, won't this stabilization process obfuscate most of the tainted source code, and make them hard to find?
Your mind is ahead of you. "Taint obfuscated code", "Obfuscate tainted code", ... Your question is obfuscated and may be tainted, I won't answer it.
Rephrasing! I know English fairly well, but I have some expression problems cebause I tend to use very complex sentences!
There can be, in the official tree, code that shouldn't be there because it can pose legal problems to ReactOS... So, for credibility reasons, the project is going to ask for an external audit to ensure there is no such code. (sic, except the point about credibility) But this is going to be when more modules stabilize. (sic)
But when more modules have stabilized, it will be less likely that that code will be found, because with the development, functions are rewritten, reformatted, etc., making it difficult to detect what you call dirty room reverse engineering, as well as code that was copied (or alike) from windows...
The problem is only the credibility of the project, of course. The WHOLE problem is credibility. It's more or less the same whether we have code directly derivated from its windows counterpart or not, if the project has done what is possible to remove any (sorry, but the word is soooo gramatically useful!) "tainted" code.
JJ __________________________________________________ Faça ligações para outros computadores com o novo Yahoo! Messenger http://br.beta.messenger.yahoo.com/
-
Aleksey Bragin -
Alex Ionescu -
Daniel Reimer -
Ged -
James Tabor -
Jerry Maine -
João Jerónimo -
Magnus Olsen -
Steven Edwards