22 Sep
2007
22 Sep
'07
7:22 p.m.
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.
22 Sep
22 Sep
10:18 p.m.
New subject: Audit
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(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev 
23 Sep
23 Sep
2 a.m.
New subject: Audit
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.
11:40 a.m.
New subject: Audit
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.
1:48 p.m.
New subject: Audit
Wolves in sheep's clothing!
Ged wrote:
James Tabor wrote:
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.
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.
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
2:30 p.m.
New subject: Audit
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(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev 
3:37 p.m.
New subject: Audit
On 9/23/07, Alex Ionescu <ionucu(a)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
6:42 p.m.
New subject: Audit
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(a)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.
8:59 p.m.
New subject: Audit
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(a)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(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
10:10 p.m.
New subject: Audit
Steven Edwards wrote:
On 9/23/07, Alex Ionescu <ionucu(a)videotron.ca>
wrote:
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
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.
10:40 p.m.
New subject: Audit
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(a)adsl-64-217-116-74.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net>
To: "ReactOS Development List" <ros-dev(a)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(a)videotron.ca> wrote:
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(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev 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.
7:27 p.m.
New subject: Audit
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.
11:13 p.m.
New subject: Audit
Hi!
Ged wrote:
Aleksey Bragin wrote:
I'm trying to warn everyone.
James
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.
24 Sep
24 Sep
9:58 a.m.
New subject: Audit
James Tabor schrieb:
Hi!
Ged wrote:
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
Aleksey Bragin wrote:
I'm trying to warn everyone.
James
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
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.
10:58 a.m.
New subject: Audit
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(a)freenet.de>
To: "ReactOS Development List" <ros-dev(a)reactos.org>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 11:58 AM
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Audit
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(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
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(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
8:02 p.m.
New subject: Audit
On 9/24/07, Magnus Olsen <magnus(a)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.
--
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
8:08 p.m.
New subject: Audit
On 9/24/07, Steven Edwards <winehacker(a)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
8:52 p.m.
New subject: Audit
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(a)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(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
10:27 p.m.
New subject: Audit
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
23 Sep
23 Sep
3:41 a.m.
New subject: Audit
Aleksey Bragin wrote:
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/
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.
6262
days inactive
6264
days old
19 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Aleksey Bragin -
Alex Ionescu -
Daniel Reimer -
Ged -
James Tabor -
Jerry Maine -
João Jerónimo -
Magnus Olsen -
Steven Edwards