Okay guys, i have a couple points to make and a couple questions to ask.
1) I propose that we move all common dlls used by both wine and ROS to
a seperate repository or module and maybe overhaul them and work on a
common build system that will work for both the WINE and ReactOS
projects, as well as other open source projects that need these files.
What do you guys think of this idea? Think we could get the WINE
people's support?
2) CVS and webhosting, rex, jason, whoever else, can you give me an
idea of how much bandwidth per month CVS and the reactos websites
consume? I might have a possible hosting solution we can use...(OC12,
p4 1.8, 1 gb RAM rackmount), the only snag is, depending on how much
bandwidth the combined total uses, we'd have to come up with $10-$30/mo
to help pay for the solution. Is this a viable option?
3) can someone please commit the win32api build needed to build ROS to
a module in CVS?
What's this?
I found several mails like the following in my mok mailbox:
On 26.12.2003 01:21:13 Mail Delivery System wrote:
This is the Postfix program at host mok.osexperts.com.
####################################################################
# THIS IS A WARNING ONLY. YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE. #
####################################################################
Your message could not be delivered for 4.0 hours.
It will be retried until it is 5.0 days old.
For further assistance, please send mail to <postmaster>
The Postfix program
<ros-cvs(a)reactos.com>: host smtp.lvcm.com[24.234.0.85] said: 451
<mfatosexperts.com>... Sender domain must resolve (in reply to MAIL FROM
command)
Thu Dec 18 12:53:19 CET 2003
KJK::Hyperion wrote:
"Open Source" is adetail. Try to actually understand what are licenses about: just slapping labels may be easier, but is stupid. Softwarelicenses cover two aspects: use and redistribution (if sources are available andthe license treats them differently, also add: use of code and redistribution of code. Also note that imposing restrictions on the use - e.g. "no commercial use" - may or may not be legal). Most open sourcelicenses, for example, allow unlimited use, limited distribution of the software and sources and limited use of the codeNow try to explain, from the user's point of view, what's the difference between a software to which he's granted unlimited use and limited distribution (e.g. "Redistribution is free, as long as the softwareis unchanged") but not source code access and one to which he's granted unlimited use, limited distribution (e.g. "Redistribution is free,as long as source code is also offered") and limited source code access
I believe that was covered by what I said prior to the statement that youfelt warranted this. "Free to install on
computers that they **OWN**, and feel need the software installed onit." I do believe that is "USE", and not
"redistribution". "redistribution" would be ifthey went to their cousin's (sister's, brothers, whatever's) house, and
installed it there. In which case they would have redistributed thesoftware without conforming to the terms of the
license agreement (In this case, ROS being under the GNU Public License,which requires that the software contain
an unchanged version of the GPL license, an that source must be madeavailable to the new recipient, since they are
granted the exact same rights as the one that distributed to them, andthat they must in turn, pass those rights on to individuals theydistribute to. I believe the GPL lays those terms out quiteclearly, However, If I were to bundle software
under such a license, I would provide system documentation, and wouldprovide a full copy of the GPL (and any other licenses that any otherbundled software has), and a description of the terms (meaning that Iwould explicitly point out what you 'can' and 'cannot' do under thelicense, and what the repercussions of violation are (In case of GPL,
termination of rights to use, distribute, or modify such software.)within such system documentation.
I believe having the great big words "READ THIS FIRST!IMPORTANT LEGAL INFORMATION INSIDE!" on the system documentation,which contains the licenses, and descriptions of the licenses (Inaddition to the probably
required set-up instructions) would be sufficient to get the attention ofmost ordinary users, and help to ensure that
THEY read and understand these same said licenses, and understand theirrepercussions. If however, they still
do not comply to the terms of such licenses, it would not be myresponsibility legally, since *I* would have
conformed to the license agreement(s) to the letter by fulfilling allrequirements and guidelines mentioned in said
license agreement(s).
(phew- what a mouthful!)
It's not that easy.Redistribution is rarely free - in fact, limiting redistribution is *the* point of most licenses. The idea that open source developers are nice and forgiving and won't sue, and if they sued they'dbe harmless, is wrong and misleading.
I do realize this. The reason for incorporating a license, is to protectthe
software and its authors from harm. The most common and prevalent windfor
'harm' in this case, would be the 'embrace and extend' method use bymicrosoft
or the release of software in ways that its authors feel inappropriate.(IE,
it is released changed, and the user isn't informed of such- Or, it isreleased
without sourcecode, OR, for buyware, it is released without properpayment, etc.)
The "free" in"free software" refers to the use: redistribution certainly isn't, and telling ignorant people that it is just because you feel like a freaking guerrilla fighting against a greater evil is stupid and harms your own cause. Repeat with me: open source isn't a free coupon ticket for a 20% discount on legal knowledge
I know. The Free in "Free Software" means free use, as a publicservice.
But I was meaning that I would provide full (official & unchanged -wsourse)
releases, and provide the licenses in plain and clear view,and would do
so for no monetary cost--aka 'free' in the more general term. Thedistinction
between 'Free' and "Free*" would be outlined in thedocumentation shipped
with such hypothetical units. Software bundled with the machineswould
be carefully selected based on the criteria of their respectivelicenses.
Software with licenses prohibiting that form of redistribution wouldnot
be bundled. As for 'Discount legal advice'--- I didn't mean toimpose.
I just felt it would be the smartest decision to simply ASK the people
who make ROS for guidelines on redistribution, since there might be
'preferred' methods and conditions. ----Or would you rather thatpeople
just do it without asking first?
(PS, sorry about the lateness of this reply, I decided to hold off,until
I had put my finger on the problem that was causing my posts to notthread
properly... Hopefully this is now resolved... (damn yahoo.. ohwell)...)
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Get your photo on the big screen in Times Square
Hello,
just for curiosity I compiled a Release version of explorer using the current Wine shell32/comctl32 implementation. You can get it at http://www.sky.franken.de/explorer/explorer-wine.zip.
...and what do you guess?
This version feels reasonable faster while browsing the start menu than using the shell32.dll shipped with Windows XP!
Sure - we are currently not yet reading all those registry entries we should to determine the correct icons to display. Also Wine's shell32 does not yet support things like control panel and recycle bin. But looking into the supported start menu folders I can't see any substantial missing functionality comparing the two versions.
Merry Christmas!
Guido writes:
> Boca Raton? Isn't that SPAM City?
If I wouldn't go to jail I would probably shoot some of the spammers here.
There is more in Boca than just spam you know. In fact, the birthplace of
the PC (not that it was a great architecture) is a 5 minute walk from my
house.
Although lately it seems there is less and less tech here. Sigh.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Fuchs" <martin-fuchs(a)gmx.net>
To: <ros-general(a)reactos.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 12:42 AM
Subject: Re: Explorer progress - Make install problem
> >No, even a "make clean all install" doesn't help.
> >I can only see a SIGSEV in the kernel debugger - no stack trace.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> > Martin
> >
> >
> >
> Hello Martin,
> *I got problem as well to install reactos since "make install" replaced
> "install.bat" .*
> I made a CVS update yesterday ans compiled reactos then to install
> reactos on hardisk , iI ran "make install"" as per new procedure
> "make install" failed many times ( about 30) due to corruption of *D files :
> - Sometimes I have to del *.d and then to run make + make install was
> sufficient
> - Sometimes I had todo make and then make install was ok
> - Sometimes I had to run make + make clean and then make install
> Therecatos sub directories were in lib/.. ot hal or subsys or drivers.
> Have you got this type of installation problem of reactos ?
I deleted once more any *.d and *.o files, executed "make clean" and "make".
There is no problem compiling and installing all from scratch.
But explorer terminates unexpected in Bochs and in VMWare.
Winehello and Winemine can be launchud without problems.
I am also using the Dlls of 23.12. from Filip's web site like you.
Do you also see the Freeloader message "bootvideo.sys not found?"
I have always to press <RETURN> to aknowledge this.
Martin
Sorry, i really should not use this mail program to post anything until this anoying bug has been fixed!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Fuchs" <martin-fuchs(a)gmx.net>
To: <ros-general(a)reactos.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 1:26 AM
Subject: Re: Explorer progress - Working in real hardware
On 24.12.2003 00:41:51 gge wrote:
> Explorer runs in real hardware based on reactos+explorer build dated
> 23-12-03 and the last Dlld from Filip site.
> The machine is not powerful ( Pentium I 233 ) and ros VGA driver is used.
> After some testing , i will update about the reactos/explorer behavior
> in such condition .
> But for sure it is much slower than Win98
Well, I think this is mostly because of the video driver.
But I expect, there is much optimization work to do, until ROS will
be comparable to XP's or even WIN98's speed. Beginning from file
system caching over registry access to shell functions.
Regards,
Martin
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
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.
