17 Feb
2006
17 Feb
'06
2:36 p.m.
Hi!
I am now very confused.
It seems for me, that the current informations about ReactOS´s situation is
poor. And if there existing informations, they are IMHO contradictorily.
On 27.1.2006 Steven Edwards wrote "Reset, Reboot, Restart, legal issues and
the long road to 0.3"
http://www.reactos.org/xhtml/de/news_page_14.html
In this text there is no word about leaked Windows-code. So it seems, that
the main problem is revers engineering, which is not clean room rev. eng.
One day later a developer says in the forum
http://www.reactos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=13239&highlight=#13239
"The biggest problem isn't disassembled code. The fact is that 4 of the
developers have had a copy of the leaked Windows source."
So, the biggest problem is, that some ROS-developer have looked in leaked
code.
He have said that, and nobody have contradicted it.
But at
http://www.reactos.org/archives/public/ros-dev/2006-February/007832.html
a developer says to me
"The leaked source code was never an issue here, that was an escalation of
the mail which was posted on the public list. The rumours which materialized
from that were unfounded and untrue."
and the cvs tree will be completly re-opend.
In an other mail, I don't find it at the moment, anybody says, that there is
still no Microsoft-Code found in ROS. All is clean.
On the following
http://www.reactos.org/pipermail/ros-dev/2006-February/007717.html
a developer says
"I am told that the sources for FreeLdr are all okay, except for the
some of the bootsectors having been pretty much just disassembled from
MS's. Is this true?"
The answer comes from an other developer
http://www.reactos.org/pipermail/ros-dev/2006-February/007722.html
"crashfourit has posted a patch here:"
That means, that it is possible, that MS-bootsector-code have found the way
in ROS, if I understood it right.
And at
http://www.reactos.org/archives/public/ros-general/2006-February/002128.html
somebody cite something where a Codewaever chef says, that in ROS is stolen
code.
I have at the current no links, but I have the feeling, that there existing
a lot of more comments like these, which me all confused very much.
And then ReactOS gives for me more questions then answers.
What does the Audit-process mean?
You have - as somebody says - already seen, that no Windows-Code is in
ReactOS.
But you want with the audit look for code, which are integrated by (not
clean room) reverse engineering.
But how do you want to find it?
The clean room inverse enginering is like re-writing an existing book,
without reading the existing book itself. Only reading review, critiques and
summaries about the book are alowed to read.
But there existing some people who have reverse enginered, but not clean
room. This is like someone, who have completly read the book itself and
tries to write the book what he read then down in mind.
But how do you want to become out, who have read the original book and who
not?
Steve Edwars have written "and the long road to 0.3". Is it still true, that
it needs now longer, until 0.3 comes out? The tree will already be opend.
Does it mean, that 0.3 comes only after the end of the audit-progess out? If
this is true, comes then before the end of the audit other releases out
(0.2.10, 0.2.11, .... etc) ?
You see. I am very confused.
I don't expect that you answer to my mail here.
I only want, that your public clarification,
http://www.reactos.org/archives/public/ros-dev/2006-February/007832.html
Murphy have written "The whole tree will be reopened in the state it was in
before it closed.
More details will follow when this happens.", will really clarify all. So
that no longer confuseness for anyone exists.
Greatings
theuserbl
17 Feb
17 Feb
2:50 p.m.
theUser BL wrote:
Hi!
I am now very confused.
It seems for me, that the current informations about ReactOS´s
situation is poor. And if there existing informations, they are IMHO
contradictorily.
On 27.1.2006 Steven Edwards wrote "Reset, Reboot, Restart, legal
issues and the long road to 0.3"
http://www.reactos.org/xhtml/de/news_page_14.html
In this text there is no word about leaked Windows-code. So it seems,
that the main problem is revers engineering, which is not clean room
rev. eng.
One day later a developer says in the forum
http://www.reactos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=13239&highlight=#13239
"The biggest problem isn't disassembled code. The fact is that 4 of
the developers have had a copy of the leaked Windows source."
So, the biggest problem is, that some ROS-developer have looked in
leaked code.
I think this was when GvG thought that Alex had seen some of the stolen
NT Kernel Code. However, Alex did not see it, and this has been
clairfied with all parties, so really leaked code isnt a problem.
He have said that, and nobody have contradicted it.
But at
http://www.reactos.org/archives/public/ros-dev/2006-February/007832.html
a developer says to me
"The leaked source code was never an issue here, that was an
escalation of
the mail which was posted on the public list. The rumours which
materialized
from that were unfounded and untrue."
and the cvs tree will be completly re-opend.
In an other mail, I don't find it at the moment, anybody says, that
there is still no Microsoft-Code found in ROS. All is clean.
On the following
http://www.reactos.org/pipermail/ros-dev/2006-February/007717.html
a developer says
"I am told that the sources for FreeLdr are all okay, except for the
some of the bootsectors having been pretty much just disassembled from
MS's. Is this true?"
The answer comes from an other developer
http://www.reactos.org/pipermail/ros-dev/2006-February/007722.html
"crashfourit has posted a patch here:"
That means, that it is possible, that MS-bootsector-code have found
the way in ROS, if I understood it right.
And at
http://www.reactos.org/archives/public/ros-general/2006-February/002128.html
somebody cite something where a Codewaever chef says, that in ROS is
stolen code.
I have at the current no links, but I have the feeling, that there
existing a lot of more comments like these, which me all confused very
much.
And then ReactOS gives for me more questions then answers.
What does the Audit-process mean?
You have - as somebody says - already seen, that no Windows-Code is in
ReactOS.
But you want with the audit look for code, which are integrated by
(not clean room) reverse engineering.
But how do you want to find it?
The clean room inverse enginering is like re-writing an existing book,
without reading the existing book itself. Only reading review,
critiques and summaries about the book are alowed to read.
But there existing some people who have reverse enginered, but not
clean room. This is like someone, who have completly read the book
itself and tries to write the book what he read then down in mind.
But how do you want to become out, who have read the original book and
who not?
Steve Edwars have written "and the long road to 0.3". Is it still
true, that it needs now longer, until 0.3 comes out? The tree will
already be opend. Does it mean, that 0.3 comes only after the end of
the audit-progess out? If this is true, comes then before the end of
the audit other releases out (0.2.10, 0.2.11, .... etc) ?
You see. I am very confused.
I don't expect that you answer to my mail here.
I only want, that your public clarification,
http://www.reactos.org/archives/public/ros-dev/2006-February/007832.html
Murphy have written "The whole tree will be reopened in the state it
was in before it closed.
More details will follow when this happens.", will really clarify all.
So that no longer confuseness for anyone exists.
Greatings
theuserbl
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
As for the rest, I dont know a lot of the answers but I dont think there
is any solid answer. We are still shifting through maybe ideas and
going back on things we orginally planned. Hopfully we come up with a
plan and stick with it soon.
Brandon
8:36 p.m.
On Friday 17 February 2006 09:50, Brandon Turner wrote:
<snip>
Okay, so I'm just sitting here waiting for news that ReactOS has gotten stable
enough to be used in production systems, but...
It wouldn't take me long to find the post where Alex did admit to having once
had a copy of the leaked source code. However he also denied ever using any
of it for ReactOS. I haven't looked up the relevant mail - my personal
archive is over 3000 mails deep and it'd take more than a half hour to find
said post - but I do remember seeing it.
More than that, Alex also said that some other devs had also seen the source
code or had copies of it.
One day later
a developer says in the forum
http://www.reactos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=13239&highlight=#13239
"The biggest problem isn't disassembled code. The fact is that 4 of
the developers have had a copy of the leaked Windows source."
So, the biggest problem is, that some ROS-developer have looked in
leaked code.
I think this was when GvG thought that Alex had seen some of the stolen
NT Kernel Code. However, Alex did not see it, and this has been
clairfied with all parties, so really leaked code isnt a problem. > He have said that, and nobody have contradicted
it.
>
> But at
> http://www.reactos.org/archives/public/ros-dev/2006-February/007832.html
> a developer says to me
> "The leaked source code was never an issue here, that was an
> escalation of
> the mail which was posted on the public list. The rumours which
> materialized
> from that were unfounded and untrue."
> and the cvs tree will be completly re-opend.
I think this is a statement made when someone forgot that Alex did say he and
some other devs (names removed from the mail I saw) had seen or had had
possession of the leaked source code.
<snip>
> somebody cite something where a Codewaever chef
says, that in ROS is
> stolen code.
No. I have yet to see a single line of code that is stolen (and I have a copy
of the pre-audit tree here - was and am studying it as an example of how a
micro-kernel works). If someone wants to claim it's stolen they are sadly
mistaken. Though ReactOS does share a lot of code with WINE - but then, why
reinvent the wheel? WINE is constantly advancing in their implementation of
the Windows API.
> And then ReactOS gives for me more questions then
answers.
>
> What does the Audit-process mean?
> You have - as somebody says - already seen, that no Windows-Code is in
> ReactOS.
> But you want with the audit look for code, which are integrated by
> (not clean room) reverse engineering.
> But how do you want to find it?
By comparing the code to sections of Windows code as seen through a debugger
or disassembly dump and looking for "Magic Numbers" and huge tracts of
assembler that is entirely uncommented.
This process does _not_ find all "bad" code, but it is the only one that can
be used, since ReactOS should share a lot of binary code with windows as one
is attempting to be a clone of the other and there are only so many ways to
do things.
> The clean room inverse enginering is like
re-writing an existing book,
> without reading the existing book itself. Only reading review,
> critiques and summaries about the book are alowed to read.
> But there existing some people who have reverse enginered, but not
> clean room. This is like someone, who have completly read the book
> itself and tries to write the book what he read then down in mind.
> But how do you want to become out, who have read the original book and
> who not?
That's what clean-room reverse engineering is all about. One person studies
the code, takes it apart and documents it. Another person comes along, looks
at the documentation and creates an implementation.
<snip>
Hope an outsider with attempts at a simple explanation have helped :)
DRH
11:40 p.m.
Hi
I can understand it is confuse for all people do not have all fact
we did only relese some fact that we did think it was import for public
1. few devloper did have win 2k src code around 3 people (no name)
they swear they never use it. (this is not a problem any longer)
2. so call dirty revers are take and it have been the biget issue we had
every one are thinking diffent about it. (this is the main problem now
how we shall handler it)
the problem is it exists diffent law in each contry example germany and
austrailen it is not allown todo revers eng
in usa only clean room revers eng is allown. in sweden/russain/candia any
method of revers eng is allown. I do not
how it is rest of the contry what rules applay.
3. About boot block we are using 2k boot block but some asm code
loke öike ms here but it is not. The problem with boot block around
3xx bytes must look same to boot up a filesystem. we can not do anything
against it. it will look same even in freeldr. Reactos bootblock comes
from
a 3d party prj. I found refen in the src code where it comes. then it
have been
modify to boot up our own loader call freeldr.sys
(this is not a problem I see it for ros)
----- Original Message -----
From: "theUser BL" <theuserbl(a)hotmail.com>
To: <ros-dev(a)reactos.org>
Sent: den 17 February 2006 15:36
Subject: [ros-dev] very confused
Hi!
I am now very confused.
It seems for me, that the current informations about ReactOS´s situation is
poor. And if there existing informations, they are IMHO contradictorily.
On 27.1.2006 Steven Edwards wrote "Reset, Reboot, Restart, legal issues and
the long road to 0.3"
http://www.reactos.org/xhtml/de/news_page_14.html
In this text there is no word about leaked Windows-code. So it seems, that
the main problem is revers engineering, which is not clean room rev. eng.
One day later a developer says in the forum
http://www.reactos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=13239&highlight=#13239
"The biggest problem isn't disassembled code. The fact is that 4 of the
developers have had a copy of the leaked Windows source."
So, the biggest problem is, that some ROS-developer have looked in leaked
code.
He have said that, and nobody have contradicted it.
But at
http://www.reactos.org/archives/public/ros-dev/2006-February/007832.html
a developer says to me
"The leaked source code was never an issue here, that was an escalation of
the mail which was posted on the public list. The rumours which materialized
from that were unfounded and untrue."
and the cvs tree will be completly re-opend.
In an other mail, I don't find it at the moment, anybody says, that there is
still no Microsoft-Code found in ROS. All is clean.
On the following
http://www.reactos.org/pipermail/ros-dev/2006-February/007717.html
a developer says
"I am told that the sources for FreeLdr are all okay, except for the
some of the bootsectors having been pretty much just disassembled from
MS's. Is this true?"
The answer comes from an other developer
http://www.reactos.org/pipermail/ros-dev/2006-February/007722.html
"crashfourit has posted a patch here:"
That means, that it is possible, that MS-bootsector-code have found the way
in ROS, if I understood it right.
And at
http://www.reactos.org/archives/public/ros-general/2006-February/002128.html
somebody cite something where a Codewaever chef says, that in ROS is stolen
code.
I have at the current no links, but I have the feeling, that there existing
a lot of more comments like these, which me all confused very much.
And then ReactOS gives for me more questions then answers.
What does the Audit-process mean?
You have - as somebody says - already seen, that no Windows-Code is in
ReactOS.
But you want with the audit look for code, which are integrated by (not
clean room) reverse engineering.
But how do you want to find it?
The clean room inverse enginering is like re-writing an existing book,
without reading the existing book itself. Only reading review, critiques and
summaries about the book are alowed to read.
But there existing some people who have reverse enginered, but not clean
room. This is like someone, who have completly read the book itself and
tries to write the book what he read then down in mind.
But how do you want to become out, who have read the original book and who
not?
Steve Edwars have written "and the long road to 0.3". Is it still true, that
it needs now longer, until 0.3 comes out? The tree will already be opend.
Does it mean, that 0.3 comes only after the end of the audit-progess out? If
this is true, comes then before the end of the audit other releases out
(0.2.10, 0.2.11, .... etc) ?
You see. I am very confused.
I don't expect that you answer to my mail here.
I only want, that your public clarification,
http://www.reactos.org/archives/public/ros-dev/2006-February/007832.html
Murphy have written "The whole tree will be reopened in the state it was in
before it closed.
More details will follow when this happens.", will really clarify all. So
that no longer confuseness for anyone exists.
Greatings
theuserbl
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
6886
days inactive
6886
days old
3 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Brandon Turner -
D. Hazelton -
Magnus Olsen -
theUser BL