Ros-general December 2003

ros-general@reactos.org

35 participants
31 discussions

ros chatter
by jh 24 Dec '03

24 Dec '03

Dear all, found this with a google search, they are talking about Reactos 0.1.4 and NT. Is it of any interest to anyone. http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/1026 regards jh

4 5

Explorer progress
by Ge van Geldorp 24 Dec '03

24 Dec '03

For those of you who haven't followed the progress with Explorer closely, take a look at http://www.kzc.nl/explorer.png This screenshot was taken with current CVS and Filips Wine dll snapshot at http://www.volny.cz/xnavara/wine/dlls.zip There are still many stability problems (lots of multi-threading issues), unimplemented and buggy ReactOS features, but all in all we're much better shape than I had expected to be at this point in time. If we can keep up this pace 0.2 will be on time (before WineConf) and will rock! Gé van Geldorp.

6 10

Patch for IE bug install ASAP
by Jeff Smith 19 Dec '03

19 Dec '03

http://security.openwares.org/ it stops people from faking a website to get you credit info or personal information, and it was done by an open source firm hehe

3 2

Just a curiosity-- ROS redistribution legalities
by Wierd Wierd 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

Someday ROS will be a stable alternative to using M$ windows- and I have some questions. I personally think ROS would be extremely attractive to small system builders and retailers, since M$'s business model is EXTREMELY restrictive to such ventures- (your local computer shop, who cannot afford a massive licensing scheme like what M$ perfers.) It is extremely difficult for a computer entrepreneur to become a legitimate "Microsoft certified system builder", and get their deployment kits, and get licensed redistribution packages at reasonable prices that such an entrepreneur can afford. (one must go through a bunch of hoops and 'certification exams', as well as practically signing away your firstborn child in order to be eligable.) Because of these limitations, ROS would be VERY VERY appealing to small system builders in this marketing venue- I am just curious what the legalese would be for somebody considering it. (To be honest, I have been considering starting up such a venture, but the licensing model from M$ is too prohibitive.) So, Say if this person were to have ROS installed stock, with various other Open Source packages, like OpenOffice (there is a win32 port), and perhaps some open sourced entertainment packages, as well as a collection of the sources for such applications distributed on CD-Rom media (to maintain compliance with GPL), and the associated ReadMe's with each package, indicating where to go for more information about individual packages- Would this strategy be on the "Up and up"? The reason being, that the most costly part of any modern 'win32' based computer is its operating system. By eliminating a Windoze license, you EASILY shave off 300$ from the computer's price. So, your 500$ cheapskate computer is now a 200$ cheapskate computer-- (A common gripe from the Linux Community is that commercial PCs ship with a Windows license, that linux users dont want or need. There have been petitions to major system builders to provide refunds for these windows licenses. However, because these large providers have practically sold their souls to M$, they cannot sell computers without that license, and are quite unwilling to refund the license. Small retailers however, are not encumbered by such restrictions, and would in fact, PROFIT by not being FORCED into such licensing models.) >From an entrepreneur's viewpoint, this means an increase in potential sales, so long as win32 compatability is stable and reliable. From an ROS point of view, it is a potential means of releasing the OS on a public venue. Especially if such systems are released at a heavy consumer shopping month, like the Christmas season. Linux doesnt seem to perform well in the normal 'home end user' category, but I suspect ROS *will*. I realise that it will be some time before ROS is ready for distribution in this form, but I am a patient person- I am just wanting the full scoop, so I can get all my ducks in a row. So far, this is what I understand must be done if I were to build and sell computers preloaded with ROS, and other OpenSource software: 1) The system should not have buyware installed, but may come bundled with buyware on a second CD that the User may install at their whim. Such a CD should be carefully and CLEARLY marked, so it is not confused with Open Source software. 2) The GPL license, and all other licenses pertaining to ROS, and any other OpenSource software packages must be supplied in plain view to the user of ROS and such packages. (like, putting the licenses and the package's readme's in the start menu along with same said applications, and placing a link on the desktop of the ROS installed machine to ROS's license and readme, where it is in plain and unobstructed view.) 3) The source code to such products must be made available, and contact information for project maintaners should be provided. Media with authentic installers, and full documentation should also be provided. (So that the user can re-install any software later, including a ROS install CD. The user should be made aware that it is perfectly legal for them to use that CD to install ROS on any machine they own, and feel it is needed on, and that the same applies to all other Open source software bundled with the unit.) 4) ROS, and any/all other open sourced products must not be 'sold', but reimbursement charges (copying, or other expenses for making products and sources available) are applicable within reason. I also understand that you are attempting to create an ROS SDK- Since many mid-level businesses purchase systems from local retailers to reduce overhead, would it be legitimate to provide the ROS SDK along with corporate purchased system units? Providing a 'free' SDK would be very attractive to some organisations seeking to do in-house software development, and could be a potential selling point. (especially if programs produced using the ROS SDK work fine under existing windows platforms, which may allready be in service at said corporation.) I would really like this information. Any and all feedback will be very much welcome. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/

4 3

Quake2 under ReactOS
by Steven Edwards 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, I have had some limited luck loading Quake2 under ReactOS. There are a few bugs in that it renders backwards or upside down. Also I cant seem to find my copy of the Quake2 CD so I cant test game play. If you want to try and test set your video mode to software and window'd and copy your config.cfg to your ReactOS Quake2. http://mail.gleneagle.net/sedwards/images/Quake2.jpg http://mail.gleneagle.net/sedwards/images/Quake2-1.jpg Happy Fragging and Marry Christmas Thanks Steven __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/

2 1

VMware
by Lorenzo 16 Dec '03

16 Dec '03

Hallo, I tried to boot up ReactOS 1.0.5 using VMware. I tell VMware to use the ReactOS ISO as an image for the CDROM device. When I boot the virtual machine, the freeloader on the ISO CD ROM is started, but it crashes immediately. How is possible to run ReactOS on VMware? (Bochs is toooo slow...) Thank you, Lorenzo

5 6

Microsoft wants royalties for use of FAT
by Wierd Wierd 13 Dec '03

13 Dec '03

> What is the legal status of HPFS- I know it was designed by microsoft, but from what I understand, IBM owns IP rights-- Is the patent on it still valid, and enforceable? If not, then it might be something to look at. You might be able to take HPFS, and modify it to store DOS short names, for the benefit of the DOS subsystem later on. I think IBM would be less eager to sue our pants off for using an HPFS variant, than MS would be for using a FAT or NTFS variant. On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Vizzini wrote: >> On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 19:17, Rick Parrish wrote: >> > Waldo Alvarez wrote: >> > >> > > >> > >Let's keep with NTFS and FAT and with time >design a new patent free >> > >filesystem. If M$ complaints then we take away >the drivers and ppl will be able to get them >from .previous releases. The FSF did that with XMMS >and patents with MP3s. >> > > >> > > >> > Works for me. Sort of like limping along on MP3s >and GIFs until >> > patent/license free OGG and PNG support is ready. >> >> In the United States, liability for patent >infringement exists whether >> or not you've been notified by the patent holder of >such infringement. >> In other words, if you accidentally step on someone >else's IP, they will >> be able to sue you for royalties whether or not it >was your "fault". >> It's a pure liability - no fault is required. >In any case the law is already broken. >> Furthermore, courts have a history of stiffer >penalites (i.e. higher >> royalty payments) for infringers who *knew* they >were infringing. >> That's why you see "patent pending" on lots of >manufactured items. >Bad. That means distributing NTFS and FAT in another >release is asking for >more trouble. >> Finally, as I said before, both developers and end >users are liable for >> patent infringement. >> >> With these points in mind, I think we need an >official policy of >> avoiding patents as much as we possibly can while >retaining Windows >> system compatibility. If this means (for example) >defaulting to a >> non-FAT, non-NTFS filesystem, that's what we have >to do. >True. You are totally right! >I was thinking this yesterday. What about using an >NTFS a little bit >modified. In a way you can reuse the code written for >the drivers already >written and make the conversion easier. It won't be >NTFS. I don't like >too much this but could be a solution. >The other choice I was thinking. What about finding >some company that >already have the license to use the patents and put >them in charge of the >drivers in exchange for some advising in ROS. They >will not have to spend >a cent for it (except for the lawyer maybe) and will >not have to write a >single line of code. I'm sure many will like the >deal, even if there is >trouble in the future because getting in trouble >could give them more money. >I prefer this choice as there will be not need to >invent yet another >filesystem, ReactOS will be more compatible and >everything can continue >the way it is. >The question is, How legal would it be? >Best Regards >Waldo Alvarez >> -Vizzini >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ros-general mailing list >> ros-general at reactos.com >> http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general >> __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/

5 5

Re: ROS: Debug out the COM Port
by Richard Campbell 11 Dec '03

11 Dec '03

Change boot.bat to read the following: loadros system32\ntoskrnl.exe system32\hal.dll /DEBUGPORT=COM1 bootc.lst Under freeldr you'd add a ReactOS Debug entry to freeldr.ini with the following settings: [Operating Systems] ROS_Debug="ReactOS Debug" [ROS_Debug] BootType=ReactOS SystemPath=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\ReactOS Options=/DEBUGPORT=COM1 if it still doesn't work, it's likely a hardware configuration issue, for instance, don't use COM1 if you have a serial mouse or other device on COM3. or don't use COM2 if COM4 is in use, etc. and vice versa. This is a limitation of the PC architecture. Also make sure your serial ports are setup properly and enabled in your system's BIOS. Hope this helps, Richard Tom Bitsky, Jr wrote: > > Hi! > > I'm working on the maximize button for GDI32. I noticed from one of > your emails that you send debug info out of the COM port. The tutorial > is vauge on this. I've tried to set the switches up to send out COM1 > by editing the boot.bat and boota.bat files, but I'm not getting > anything. > > Can you talk me through it? > > Thanks! > Tom > > > Automated Design Corporation > http://www.automateddesign.com > > P: (630) 783-1150 F: (630) 783-1159 > > Featuring: > ADC COMPRESSION. Consistent > Ball/Core compression testing. >

1 0

Explorer on reactos...
by Richard Campbell 11 Dec '03

11 Dec '03

This is as far as i get, anyone else getting farther? This is using the dlls from alldlls2.zip -------------------- Written in Mozilla Thunderbird 0.4 <A HREF="http://www.mozilla.org">Get it today!</A>

3 4

Re: I made a wish, wrote a letter to Santa...
by Steven Edwards 10 Dec '03

10 Dec '03

--- Mike Hearn <mike(a)theoretic.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 19:25, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > > What is the situation on Wine. can widl or any other tool produce a > > > proper .TLB structure? > > No, not as far as I know :( We really need this, for many years now > Wine > has been shipping OLE that is nearly non-functional for some > important > tasks because we lack stdole32.tlb Someone submitted source/binarys for a repleacement stdole32.tlb a year or so ago but I think it required MS_VC to build. Thanks Steven __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

Ros-general December 2003