Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About GhostlyDeath

Profile Information

  • OS
    none specified
  1. If you release the full source code for Release 10 I will update the code at http://remood.org:8080/kernelex and generate a NSIS installer from the sources. Thanks.
  2. Here is an installer for KernelEx 2.5.2015.9, note that I have not tested it myself and as always with developmental software, one should backup first. Commit and TGZ of the commit this falls under: http://remood.org:8080/kernelex/info/915c88c31be3deb871fa97a96aee5d365b0a960c http://remood.org:8080/kernelex/tarball/KernelEx-915c88c31be3deb8.tar.gz?uuid=915c88c31be3deb871fa97a96aee5d365b0a960c EDIT: Never hit the "Attach This File" button. KernelEx 4.5.2015.9.exe
  3. Intentional Double Post. The ZIP linked here http://remood.org/fossil_9x_1.zip contains fossil and a diff from base fossil, there are few changes. The readme contains more details. For KernelEx to support an unpatched fossil with full functionality, the following are required: * Support for services (no stubs as calls are actually used, also needs ChangeServiceConfig2W and QueryServiceConfig2W), these are in ADVAPI32.DLL * NT Specific environment variables (patch GetEnvironment*) such as USER, APPDATA, LOCALAPPDATA, etc. * Support for ACLs (which are used on NTFS), otherwise fossil believes no files may be written to as it checks for permissions before hand. This patched fossil cannot use the "server" or "ui" commands due to lack of service functionality. EDIT: To prevent a triple post... The file auxiliary/psapi/dosstub.exe appears to be missing and there is nothing that I know of in the source tree which can build it. It is required to the auxiliary DLLs, please upload the stub or the source and instructions on building it.
  4. The only systems I have are Win98SE. I do have a QEMU system that I am still currently setting up, attempting to install cygwin right now to see how well it will work. Once I get a fully working system I am going to clone it and have a backup so I can more easily destory and experiment with, rather than doing meticilous backups on real hardware. For version control on Win98, probably would be best to go with Cygwin 1.5, it luckily is still available. Then with that you have: git and mercurial (hg) as packages. Those versions would be horribly out of date and building new ones might not be possible with such out of date software. Pushing to newer versions of those repositories would also be troublesome as they may have backwards incompatible changes. And the fact that they will require a cygwin install. So in light of that, I believe the best choice to make is to use fossil, which is at http://fossil-scm.org/. They do officially support Windows although their official builds of fossil do not run with KernelEx 4.5.2. The only dependencies it requires is SQLite. We can all just host our own repository somewhere and expose it over HTTP and then just pull each other's code when needed. Fossil also has a bonus in that it is just a single executable and does not use tons of shell scripts or other files. The repositories are also single files rather than a group of files, so uploading our repositories here would be rather simple (one could then download and then pull from it). Also being a single file means that you could host the repository on DOS (if you really wanted to), and it is very simple to backup (copy a single file). And if all of us host our own repositories over the net, we would all be masters so there would be no hassle of setting up SSH keys and permissions. Fossil also has a built in web server, so you can just forward ports to grant access to it, no need to setup a HTTP server. I have a fossil repository setup here http://remood.org:8080/kernelexwhich any fossil client can clone off, however it is read only. I will bring in Release 9's changes later on. Assuming you have fossil available, it would be a simple: C:\> fossil clone http://remood.org:8080/kernelexkernelex.fossil C:\> mkdir kernelex C:\> cd kernelex C:\kernelex> fossil open ..\kernelex.fossil As previously mentioned, if my cygwin install is successful I will cross-compile fossil so it can be run on native Win98 without KernelEx or cygwin, then I will upload it and any diffs to the sources if it does not compile cleanly, the only remaining thing to do would be to download it and place it somewhere in %PATH% (such as C:\Windows). Then you can use COMMAND.COM to use it. I would not recommend using CVS or SVN since DVCS perform much better.
  5. I am not a lawyer, and I have no idea if you are. Also depends on the country you are in also, but there are international copyright laws which many countries have signed into law. However based on what you have said and prior evidence you can find as to the GPL and how it works (how it has been used in court battles in the US and internationally), taking such a stance would not be recommended. The GPL is not public domain, it is copyrighted. And anything that is copyrighted can be stolen. Taking a GPL program and changing the source is the same as taking a song and modifying a few points of a waveform so it is different form the original. These are both derivative works and are not completely original. Free speech is not public domain or a software license. Free speech just permits you to say whatever you want and not suffer the threat of the law. In some countries without free speech, saying the wrong thing will land you in jail (North Korea for example). Those countries you can probably write source code, but if they do, explain, or say anything that is against the law then they can be jailed (even tortured and executed). Even if that copyrighted work is released for free with no price, you can still sue over it. People have sued over violations of the GPL for the source code they released for no price, and they have won. Copyrighted works have ownership, and the GPL is used for copyrighted works. Copyrighted software is licensed (GPL being a license), otherwise if it is not Public Domain then nothing can be done with the source code or the binaries that are built. So without a license (and not in the public domain) you essentially have software that only the owner of 100% of it can use. One also cannot change the license of source code unless the license permits it or they own 100% of it, the smallest portion that is 0.01% of the original stlll counts. Even Google has stolen GPLed code and they have been sued and are fighting said suits. If you own a store and someone shoplifts a pack of gum and you catch them, you might let them back in and think "They only stole a pack of gum, who cares?". So pretty soon everyone is stealing your gum since you do not seem to care. But, sometimes gum is not enough. If you can steal gum without worry then why not steal the 2,000 USD TV on display instead? He has also released source code of his builds, even partial code, it can very easily be deduced that it is based very much so in part of KernelEx. If you ran a diff between the sourceforge code which was released and the sources he released, you will see that much of the code is pretty much the same. He could have used your library, however if it is proprietary then he would not only violate your license and copyright, but that of the GPL since he does not own 100% of KernelEx. If he did however, the program would only violate your license but noone else would be able to use it since they would automatically violate the GPL. However, there are better places to get information on the GPL than these forums, such as the GNU website and the FSF websites. If you want to really be sure, then purchase a lawyer to interpret the license for you. EDIT: Some have stated that I should stop with my request for source code. As per the terms of the GNU GPLv2 I can make this request and it is my right to do so. I still await his response. If in the event he never does publish source code, then the binaries (with missing source code) would be best deleted as they are a legal liability for any of those who wish to distribute it (being GPLed, you may be asked for source code and if you fail to comply then you violate the GPL and may find yourself at the end of a lawsuit). The work done would have been lost and must be repeated again. The GPL is "viral" for a reason.
  6. Seriously? It's not enough for you that someone has taken it upon themselves to continue this project, you have to come in here and start nitpicking about all the sources not being available? Be glad someone is willing to spend their time continuing to work on KernelEx in this day and time. And I certainly support jumper in the stance that releasing bugged versions and sources helps no one. He is under no obligation to spend his time on this project for you or anyone else - if it takes him some time to polish his current version and make the sources available, then that's his business and his alone. You take my request as hostile, why? As per the GNU GPLv2 it is fully within my rights to request the source code for Jumper's modified builds that have been released, if the source code is withheld then the law is violated. The GNU GPL is not something to be taken lightly or as a joke, large companies that failed to comply paid the price and like every law, it does not matter if you are broke and on the street or the CEO of a large company (although the more money you have the more lawyers you can afford, but even they might not be able to help you). As per being glad, perhaps you are not seeing what being open source means. If the original developer of KernelEx never released his sources when he made any of his releases and interim builds, we would not be here discussing this today because there would be no source code and Jumper would not be continuing this project. I can reverse your statement and use it against you, you should be glad that I myself am willing to spend some time working on an extended KernelEx and I may even setup an automated build server which builds installers for KernelEx automatically whenever a new revision appears. Should you not be glad? I am very willing to set all of this up, so then the next update to the topic one can just say "Go here and download build 12345", uploading separated sources would not be needed since it would be in a version controlled repository. However, in order for this to work efficiently there must be a repository where changes are made and it must be made publically available. As per polishing, there is a difference between development and release. The development versions can be buggy and they could be broken, it is up to developers to fix the problems when it comes time to release. If you do not like developer oriented builds and sources then you should not use them and wait for more stable builds and sources. To more efficiently make KernelEx better, I require the most up to date source code (not having up to date sources is equivalent to fixing a car designed in 2015 using the manual of an older model from 1985). Using out of date sources potentially duplicates work and will cause more potential merge conflicts which will have to be fixed by the person with the latest sources, slowing him down, which is why the code would be best in version control on a public repository. All modern version control systems such as git, hg, and fossil support merging code automatically. They also permit other developers to more easily make and commit changes. There are tags to indicate which revisions are deemed stable of which normal users should use. So yes, the bugged source code and those bugged builds do help many people, they help the developers and allow them to help everyone. The question then remains, do you want KernelEx to be better than it already is now, or will you let hatred get in the way? I desire to assist, not harm others. If you see someone drowning or lying injured on the side of the street, you do not let them die, you help them live. My request for the source code is between me and Jumper, however anyone else may request the source code and it is their right to request it. Jumper is only one person, and I myself am only one person. However, combined we can be two people with the skills and the will to improve this project.
  7. If your other programs work then it is likely the Java compiler works also since it is written purely in Java. -- My call for full sources and/or repository still stands however.
  8. It was not a lecture, it was a plea. Like someone playing with gasoline, fireworks, and matches, not just for your own safety but of theirs also. My current plan, once I finish relocating my possessions and can unpack my Windows 98 SE system to plug it in, is to attempt to add support for a manually installed Oracle Java 8 JDK if it is not already supported. Manual installation is simple, use 7-zip to extract the tools.zip from the x86 installer image, extract that tools.zip into a directory (such as C:\JDK8), then modify AUTOEXEC.BAT to set JAVA_HOME to that path and then PATH gets an added "%JAVAHOME%\bin", then run unpack200 on all of the files ending in *.PACK so that they become *.JAR. The JDK requires KERNERL32.DLL, MSVCR100.DLL, and PSAPI.DLL support. A lawsuit is only a last resort and it would be very costly for both sides, the end result being hatred, damaged personalities, and lots of cash lining lawyer pockets.
  9. In which order are these applied and to which sources? A promise is not enough. One can promise to release the source code of a future version, but a version that is out now has no source code of which I am requesting. It is not a matter of promising, it is a requirement to release the sources to comply with the GNU GPLv2 for every build that is released. Also, it would be best to not have a "diff" and instead release full sources as it reduces the liability of violations. It also makes it easier for others who want to contribute to more easily contribute without jumping through hoops of figuring out what gets extracted onto what in a specific order. Say if suddenly the locations of other sources such as SourceForge for 4.5.2 disappear and that the only source code available is in this topic. Although highly unlikely this event will occur it may still happen (other unlikely events have occurred but I will not go into that), those "diff"s are not enough. Full sources are also much simpler to create as you can just archive up your cleaned working copy, or if version control is used they can export archives straight from the repository.
  10. Hello, is there a repository where these changes are going into (such as git, hg, or fossil)? If not, it would be far superior to have such a thing so that changes are easier to be gauged and more may easily contribute API additions for anything that is missing. There would also be a reduced risk of GPL violations as every change would be made public. I am also requesting the full source code for the latest Release.9.7z build.
  • Create New...