fdv

USB reconnection: no idea. Maybe it's something that got solved along the way. I don't recall seeing this. 8J: set 9 had a boatload of fixes and such. See the new readme when I publish set 9 for all. WFP: this is a weird one, it's in limbo. It -does- work, but if the CD is not in the drive after accepting one file mod, it will no longer ask for a "CD" specifically. I have no handle on what's causing it. Power options: fixed Stand by. I am working on 9 right now.

HAHAHA He's just kidding folks he uses the fileset, of course! He'd never use anything else like his own files! Never ever! Elbows Tom Shhh!

The capability to use performance counters was in. They are not all active. I used to measure some aspects of system performance but I know it's super rare among users. Just to be sure... you say you don't use them but then say keep, you mean delete them, yes? I gained a good bit of speed in my virtual machine removing the RSM service. I think finally killing WBEM off might yield another speed increase. It would save a few megs of space for certain. I can assure everyone that WBEM is not used for any software but is handy for Windows-only computer management tools over the network. That probably never applied to anyone but me and I don't bother with it anymore. Doesn't apply. This refers to things like external units with 10 built in drives that cost $1,000, stuff like that. USB/IDE/EIDE/SATA etc drives are not included. Sounds like a go, then. Some WBEM files are necessary of course, but it's about 3 of them, IIRC. I'll use TXTSETUP to place them so that the WBEM directory can be empty.

This isn't a question of "does anyone know what this is and can I delete it?" This is "I know exactly what this does, and before I take it out of my fileset, does anyone need it?" It's for access to heavy-duty media like tape drive libraries and multi-CDRom units. (This is NOT "media" in the usual sense. This is large-scale stuff that probably no one uses anymore.) RSM is eliminated in Windows 7 and Server 2008. I know of zero applications that use it. ~800kb of filespace and who knows how much memory it took as a service. And by the way... I actually used to use some performance snapins, but I don't much anymore. Get rid of those, too? Anyone else ever play with WBEM like I used to? I don't anymore, and therefore have no need of WBEM personally.

I changed some values in the HIVE files because way, way back when I was analyzing them, it was getting messy and confusing. So I changed some strings permanently. I'll need to change them back I guess for other languages to be 100%. So you don't lose any work, there is WinMerge which I make extensive use of tracking down bugs; it will let you synchronize the translation work you've already done so it's not lost. Random: deleting the crypto DLLs and keys does little more than create outrageously long boot times. Looks like that is not worth pursuing.

Clause 8 is up to you. I was just using an example. It does not apply in the United States or Canada. Use is not restricted "by patents or by copyrighted interface" here. Transport is not restricted "by patents or by copyrighted interface" either. I could have used a different example, like "reciting the source code out loud in a train station at noon." We place no restrictions on that, and it happens to be outside the scope of the license. Reminder to all: 1) The license changed, this is all moot, we're just having friendly debate at this point, and 2) Pecan Pie is one of the greatest pies of all time, which you must agree to before running HFSLIP.

I'm going to bold the part before. Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. What about, say, transporting it? Taking it with you to another country. Can you do that? Well, let's see. Transport != copying Transport != distribution Transport != modification Looks like Transport is outside the scope of the license, and not covered by it. The act of Transport is therefore not restricted by the license. You know what's coming next. Running != copying Running != distribution Running != modification Looks like running is outside of the scope of the license, and not covered by it. The act of Running is therefore not restricted by the license. And sure enough, "The act of running the Program is not restricted." (And how could it be? Like transport, it falls outside the scope of the license.) You'll get no argument from me here. The license imposes no limits on running because running is not an activity covered by nor a right protected by the license. Please show me where in the GPL2 license text I can find any prohibition on adding terms covering activities beyond the scope of the license. Show me where I'm not allowed to add additional, separate terms covering transport, or running, or printing it out on paper and eating it. Show me where the GPL2 -- a license that the FSF admits is a "copyright license" -- says that it covers activities other than copying, distribution and modification, even though it says that it only covers copying, distribution and modification and anything else is outside of it's scope. Ultimately, folks, like a few posts back, it boils down to being a copyright license that only covers copying, distribution and modification. If I want to add a separate Terms of Use, ... well, I don't see that the GPL2 says I can't. It only says that it (the GPL2) does not restrict the act of running the Program. The GPL2 only covers copying, distribution and modification. How come I say that? Because the GPL2 says so!

The thing that sucks for the FSF (which isn't a huge deal now that they have v3 out) is that normal, English language parsing of THEIR OWN TEXT contradicts this interpretation. Like I said, I know what they want, but it's just not what they wrote. So, let's do this! He quotes: "[y]ou may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." Let's take this step by step. Full text: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." What are the rights granted herein? "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope." Can we agree that the "rights granted herein" are "copying, distribution and modification." Let's rewrite that quote above using simple word substitution. "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of copying, distribution and modification granted herein." Never mind "further restrictions," we are not imposing ANY restrictions on copying, distribution and modification!! I trust that this should be a whole lot clearer now. I have no doubt that if folks at the FSF saw this and thought about it a second, they'd say (drumroll, please) "Yeah, that's what we wrote, but that's not what we meant!" We made a good faith reliance on the plain English reading of the GPL2 when it was chosen. Let's continue... Restrictions on usage of the software are not already present in the license, so imposing such a restriction would be a further restriction, and therefore a violation of the license. Um, I'm sorry... but WHAT?!? (He's a lawyer, too.) What restrictions can I NOT place? 1. further restrictions on copying, distribution and modification 2. there is no #2. Literally. There is only #1. We're all out of restrictions at this point. So... Restrictions on usage of the software are not already present in the license Correct. imposing such a restriction would be Would be 100% totally and completely irrelevant. Because the restrictions I cannot place are: 1. further restrictions on copying, distribution and modification further restriction, and therefore a violation of the license. Further restrictions don't violate the license, by it's own terms. Only further restrictions on copying, distribution and modification violate the license. "Well, I know what it says, but that's not what we meant!" Bible scholars have done this for hundreds of years. "It doesn't say that!" "But that's what it MEANS!" "How can that be what it means when it doesn't SAY it?" etcetera, etcetera... FDV

No, some of these aren't how they used to be These files have definitely changed quite a huge bit. Are you looking to create a language specific set? Because if so, some strings need to be restored back down to the [strings] section.

Try this one http://vorck.com/data/sp5files-may6.zip still not final, just testing, but close

Hey you shouldn't post the serial number to this software

So that this is auto on new installs: Find DFLTWK.IN_ in your i386 and expand it Rename the original one to .OLD Open it and find "SeSystemTimePrivilege" and change it to this: SeSystemTimePrivilege = *S-1-5-32-544, *S-1-5-32-551, *S-1-5-32-547, *S-1-5-32-545, *S-1-1-0 Use makecab dfltwk.in_ to compress it again etc

Driverpacks claim computability with 2000, so you might want to keep an eye on those. I keep an archive of them, personally. You never know when support might be dropped. I feel like a relic using 2k but it's the only worthwhile version of Windows there ever was.

Better back up that install! Deleting zone information from your DLLs, which I do not recomment, will result in an inability to copy files over the network (LAN). Be very careful when editing. I don't give a guided tour here because it's up to the user to decide what to keep. About the content folders like favorites: as far as I know, yes, careful editing will prevent the folders from being created. Now that I think of it, preventing system access might also work. D:P(D;;GA;;;SY) -- right (that's a guess right from memory, don't take that literally!) I'm glad you mentioned this, it got me thinking. Maybe these folders can be killed that way, instead of having to edit DLLs. They are created when the DLLs are registered in SYSSETUP, so if file permissions are applied prior (I think they are) then it might take care of that. Their slogan should have been "Microsoft Windows -- What A Mess." ActiveX controls marked as safe -- yes, they can be deleted.

Anyway, i found a couple of quotes from 'J.B. Nicholson-Owens' Those three quotes nail it right on the head. The GPL2 doesn't restrict use. Also, running is indeed not covered by copyright law. I don't know what the APSL is in the third quote, but I agree with him -- copyright licenses cannot cover use, by their very nature. I agree that in all cases the software author does indeed need to add a provision addressing terms of use. Jaclaz, thanks for the links. I had no idea that some of these conclusions had been arrived at independently. If this goes on much more I'm gonna need a case of those beers Saladin's promised

Why I won't let this go? Both of us apparently are True Believers of our relative positions. I am sure this has a lot of people reading and either laughing or rolling their eyes, or both. Yep, I've certainly got myself off your christmas card lists In all seriousness, as I know you understand, but for the benefit of others reading this, no one on this forum is like that. Why not get IT to build the machines/maintain them for us? They don't do that type of thing. I have a directory of Win2000 that I have assembled by hand. Every hotfix, over time, manually slipstreamed, and the registry data from each and every UPDATE.INF added to the HIVE files. If a new fix comes along I examine what replaces what and add the new files. I use HFSLIP, of course, but I keep this separate hand-built build so that I can stay on top of exactly what changes MS is affecting. I can't afford to be in the dark about exploits being fixed (or left unaddressed) as I work in law and finance and have much more compelling things to worry about than X user telling me she visited some site that hijacked her machine and now the PC isn't acting right. Dedicating the time to do this is part of my job, and technically this hand-assembly doesn't make use of HFSLIP at all. I think we all agree that using HFSLIP is to save a$$loads of time and accomplish the more troublesome tasks of (for example, in Win2k) integrating Post SP4 Rollup or DX9. Both of which can be done by hand after wasting a lot of time. Sure, I'm making a point about doing what HFSLIP does without using HFSLIP to do it, but my larger point is that maybe the responsible thing to do in a corporate setting is to do the same thing I do -- do it manually so that the entire process is 100% understood and totally defensible. Filling HF with patches and running it is one thing, but when you've read every KB article and extracted every fix manually, you're on top of things in a fundamentally different way. I also appreciate that this discussion has stayed above the usual degeneration into ad-homs you see on a lot of other forums. Healthy debate is good! Sometimes it's tempting when it comes to some issues -- like that kid a few years ago who claimed that HFSLIP doesn't really slipstream, it replaces files at install time the way OEM methods do. I'd wondered if someone hadn't paid him to spread nonsense to damage the reputation of the software. Licensing issues like we have here can be aggravating, but I personally took this as an opportunity to hash out issues that needed to be addressed. It's still volatile and I think Tom and I would like to keep debate on the topic reined in a bit (of course), but I think the dust has settled with the issues discussed in this thread and with the change in licensing. And besides I'm not admitted to the bar in Canberra.

Have you been able to reproduce the reappearance of "insert your now" ? (after unmount and remount of the ISO) This is indeed one of the strangest things that happened by "accident." Without modifying any DLLs*, I have managed to disable WFP, and I have NO CLUE how I did it, and ironically, I want WFP back!! *For those just tuning in, I include the DLLs to diable it, but they are titled "off" and unless the user switches them WFP is supposed to stay on. Dang it! agt0407.dll... the setup process calls some INFs that SYSSETUP also calls, so even if commented out of SYSSETUP the install process still runs the INF. It amazes me what a mess Microsoft made in some places without cleaning it up. I should be able to resolve this issue tomorrow or Friday. I am playing with a VM that has it's root certs and encryption ripped out... a lot of software installs. In fact everything I've tried. Not sure what to make of this.

I can't replicate it, and I tried several scenarios, including re-using a VM in VMWare (I don't have the same virtual software you do). I'd say it's probably an infrequently-ocurring VBox problem. ? It most certainly is! I only test in a VM. I use these files on real machines, as do many hundreds of individuals around the globe. (Only a tiny minority of users are here and active at MSFN). In fact, over the years I have been in correspondence with IT guys who have deployed in university settings to avoid the hassle of daily security problems that IE would bring.

While it's true that the FAQ isn't the GPL, I don't think I'd describe the FSF's faq on their own license as an 'interesting academic legal interpretation'. I'll stand by my post: what they wrote and what they meant are two different things. I think my Chapman example serves here. They felt it necessary to clarify and wrote a FAQ. What they should have done is simply said, as many seem to wish they had: - you can only use our license and no others to cover any aspect of your software. Even though we say that the license only covers modification and distribution and specifically disclaims covering anything else. - software use is explicitly covered by this license, even though we state otherwise, and you cannot add any terms of use because like a spouse in a marriage you're only allowed to have one license and no more. and its license permits only verbatim copying of the entire GPL. The entire thing was included in a separate text file in the distribution archive. No problem here. Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license? You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL preamble The license was never altered. It was used wholly for copyright and issues related to modification and distribution. Which is all that the GPL2 covers -- it even says so. Perhaps the confusion is a result of the popular misconception that if software developers use a particular set of terms for copyright, they are not allowed to use any other terms covering anything else. That concept of "license monogamy" is appealing, to be sure. Here in the US, I have a bifurcated auto insurance policy. One optional part covering the car itself, and one mandatory part covering what I do with it. My interpretation of multiple sets of license/restrictions isn't as far-out and bizarre as some in the community seem to think.

I accidentally once removed the encryption DLLs and Windows worked fine but I didn't test beyond about 45 minutes' worth. Is encryption really just for IE? I know MS KB says it's for installation of software, but... is it really? Could they be lying? What if I rip out the MIME keys too? Is that IE only, really? Again, MS says no, but... is that even true? As it is, my fileset yields a 700mb install. That's pretty darn good. But I am indeed wondering about some components now that no one has really ever talked about ripping out, like certificates, encryption, MIME, and even making Active Directory optional. Rest assured I will investigate these before doing anything of course.

Why is Autopartition 1 ? No real reason. Convenience, honestly. I can comment it out. I don't see any reason either way, because people monitor the install process anyway. I don't even see a difference in the setup. And why are (roots of) drives shared by default? Never remembered to ask that one. That's the administrative share. That's no different than a default Win2k install -- that's normal. I don't recall if you're a long time user, but a while ago, maybe 2005, I had it so that administrative drive sharing was shut off. That hassled a lot of administrators (and got annoying for me, as well) so I restored it to the default.

So far I am unable to replicate this but I am trying. The dll missing file error is a string directly from NTLDR. You aren't re-using a virtual machine image, are you? You are starting with a brand new virtual machine? My fileset shouldn't be causing this (but I am checking to make sure) because this is kind of like what happens when the boot sector and boot loader are on a disk but the Windows directory has been deleted. As for WINHTTP, the reason it's necessary is because of a newer version of winlogon. I personally have winhttp.dll from ReactOS in my SYSTEM directory just so Windows shuts up. It's a meaningless error and I suppose I could uncomment and add back this file in TXTSETUP and LAYOUT if people find it annoying enough I guess. I'd love to be able to get the ReactOS team's approval to include this dll in my files, because theirs is only 92k. I will look into their license and maybe if it allows I will compile an "empty" one using their source.

freshly formatted VBox install (2 partitions) gives both multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT and ...partition(2)\WINNT . While D: has not even been formatted. Windows could not start because the following file is missing or corrupt: <Windows root>\system32\hal.dll. I don't understand these two; can I get screenshots sent to me? I don't get where they are occurring in the process

http://www.vorck.com/data/sp5files-set9a.zip Changes in set #9a: - Fixed the "Where's Notepad?" bug - Fixed MDAC.INF to suppress the MDACrdMe.htm error. Two ways to accomplish this; I am going with a modified MDAC INF - Removed Agent from installing - Removed Speech from installing - Removable Storage Service is now set to Manual instead of Auto - The MSI service is back to Manual (it was auto in set 9). Apparently it's supposed to be Manual. It takes over 3mb when running. - Moved some settings from SHELL.INF to HIVEDEF because they honestly make more sense there - Moved the Zone fix from AXANT5 to HIVESFT because it also makes more sense there - Changed some header spellings in SHELL.INF to isolate a problem I'm trying to fix - PPD and GPD files are transitioned to the bottom of TXTSETUP and LAYOUT and will eventually be moved to a separate INF, but don't worry about this right now - The whole NONENGL.INF thing is gone now; all language keyboards and codepages install by default. That was probably not a good idea... - HIVESYS now has settings for the Win32 Time Server Service, sets server values, and sets this service to Auto - Trying to fix missing agt0407.dll file copy error but I have a modded 2k and don't know if anyone else gets this

I have a little bit of experience running Windows 2000 and forcing it to bend to my will. What's the laptop? I want technical specs. There are indeed XP drivers that make kernel calls to API's that 2k don't got. But that's not very many. Forcing keyboard settings: this requires you to edit TXTSETUP.INF*. I should keep some "how to edit TXTSETUP" text ready to paste because it's long... bleh. Anyway before I go into how to do this, let me know the laptop model and URL for tech specs, and if possible the driver file that XP used (if you know). *Or some other INF that is called from inside TXTSETUP. You'll have to mod some hardware detection strings. It CAN be done elegantly, but will take some time. You might want to click on the link in my sig, if it's still linked, because other than IE I also go into details on several system files that will probably help you out.