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. 


Offler

Win9x Developer team

Recommended Posts

I don't see quite why it is fated to be illigal.
The illegal part is what we try to keep out of the forums, I think you agree that the "plans" that were made were not quite kosher, and a hair away from illegality.
Whatever the subject, i think you all can agree a community effort isn't possible, so we'd best leave things as they are so the mods don't start banning us. ;)
I would only swing the ban-hammer if it was really needed, AIO released for download would be a direct ban, also it depends on how you react and how many posts you have (think about 10 to 100, 100 to 2000 doesn’t make a difference to me.) If you don´t know if it´s on the edge or not of legal/illegal then PM me with your questions. I’m here also to help you guys out by following this topic from the beginning as I kind of provoked this topic to be made...
I don't see why a community effort to improve 9X and expand its usefulness should be illegal. As far as I can tell, about the only thing we can't do is use MS files from other OSs that we don't have licenses for. There's definitely no law against adding non-MS files to it. If that's illegal, then installing any non-MS software is also illegal.

If no one wants to go along with a community effort to keep 9X viable, how about a project that addresses what will be an issue for all 9X users, IPv6 compatibility?

It´s the part that you have no right to use without "owning" a license, you don´t own the code when you buy a product license. IPv6 will be implemented if you like it or not, Internet2 is still a question...
The mod team asked me to explain - why:

This project is started wrong way, and doomed right now very bad.

Thank you Tihiy for your words :yes:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And wots ipv6? ...... What, don't tell me we reached the max no of ipv4 addresses already.

IPv6 is being deployed as we speak. Eventually, we will have to deal with it. If the goal is to keep 9X viable for the foreseeable future, IPv6 compatibility is one thing it will need.

If I'm understanding this correctly, the only real legal issue here is redistributing MS code that didn't come with the 9X systems, not replacing or patching that code.

I can accept that there were problems with the way this was approached in the beginning. That said, is there any reason that a community project to improve 9X and keep it viable in the future cannot become a reality? Don't get me wrong here. Many of you have done some great work on the different projects that have really improved different aspects and parts of 9X. It's just that so much more is possible and needs to be done if 9X is going to be usable 5 or 10 years from now.

Rick

Edited by herbalist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kronos2

By reason of statement tihiy's, I got some question for him.

Are You?:

Options removed

Maybe they should to tell You: "I'm sorry! I'm "really" sorry, for we have made a better version of service pack!"

Good I know, that some people like you, what represents SOME QUALITY, but not a very good quality with very a good performance. Of course if some guys can make better things, then the previously autors like Gape or You, You hate them from this reason, and you try to affirmating that it is a sh*t. Because, it was not made by Gape or Tihiy! Just look for your product and you see what is a sh*t!

Microsoft has never made new logo what is in your unofficial service pack = Windows98 Second Edition. Just You maked this logo. It was not an illegal operation(EULA license)? Or Shell634.dll - here, You f****d a license EULA TOTALLY!

Of course, You can delete me for this. For it that I have said truth!

I know...

Edited by puntoMX
Some people have just a few brain cells, "member" removed as he´s useless to our forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlike others, patchworks has't made any good work or idea.

Thank you very mutch, Tihiy. I know you (and not only you here) are against open source, but "unlike others" claim seems too mutch offensive to me (expecially for ideas). THANK YOU. :}

About works, true, I'm not (and I will never be) a developer. :blushing:

Last but not least, as I already claimed:

I'm just an hunter/stimulator...

...I always try to share may knowledge (findings), hoping that could be useful for someone.

EDIT: I realized that my efforts are not apreciated here (and sincerly I don't have time to waste), so I decided to stop my activities here.

To mods: please close my account.

Edited by patchworks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very...very dissapointed!! I thought that we all want the same thing...but i realize that's not true! This project will have no future that's for sure! :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EDIT: I realized that my efforts are not apreciated here (and sincerly I don't have time to waste), so I decided to stop my activities here.

I haven't seen any efforts and by that nothing else from you...

You have a constant need to post your "idea" on every single forum you are. People @ WPC (NL-Stitch to be precise) even started working and wanted your help, and you just kept silent.

Edited by marxo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the atmosphere is getting more tense.

I'll try to add my point of viev.

There are a lot of patches and improvements available. Unluckily not many of them are ment for the Polish language Windows 98. I'm not much interested in further improvement of the system at the moment. I would like to get some benefits from the current solutions in my own language, first.

Theare are a few improvements packs available. None of them comes in a Polish language version (exception for the old USP 2.1b). So, they are useless to me. My support comes towards translation.

A good point is, the improvements are comming from many sources and we do not have to make our own, because of the fact they are available, already. Yet, the programmers are unable to take care of the translation and multi language support, because a community is needed for that. So, I do believe, a community should focus on the task a community could not be replaced in.

In my opinion the best improvement pack will be the one with the best multi language support. It is not necesary to make a new package. An old one with more languages will be just right.

Edited by Sfor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People @ WPC (NL-Stitch to be precise) even started working and wanted your help, and you just kept silent.

You have to learn to read better: the last post @ WPC is from me, and i constantly add new findings in the 1st one (Last edited by forart.eu on 25 Apr 2008, 23:36, edited 10 times in total.).

So, please don't spit lies, thanks.

BTW NL-Stitch already clarified his position here:

Go create and stick with a batch file or something man.

Here is your code:

All replacement *.exe files are located in C:\replacement , you only have to have a automatic unzipper and launch the batchfile after unzip.

-Run this in dos mode by floppy or so-

@echo off
echo Going te replace iexplore.exe with some lame open-source browser, because I hate firefox too.
echo.
cd C:\windows\
rename iexplore.exe iexpore.old
copy C:\replacement\iexplore.exe C:\windows\
cls
echo Replacing notepad with notepad++
echo.
cd C:\windows\
rename notepad.exe notepad.old
copy C:\replacement\notepad++.exe C:\windows\
echo.
echo.
echo Now your windows has open-source replacements!, WOW!
echo Congrats!!
echo Copyright (c) 2006 - 2020 PatchWorks A.K.A : *your name*
exit

voila!!

I am sorry for my sarcastic behaviour, but patchworks is saying we should go ontopic on "helping him open-source windows" (wich sounds like a good thing, honestly), but he keeps repeating it so many time that it seems that he want to continue, and not discuss all that has to bes discussed to make this work, he is pushing it a little to hard now in my opinion, sorry..

Now I'm already too tired to reply to all (it's just wasted time for me). I HAVE UNDERSTAND, so mods please close my account. If possible delete all my post or lock them. Thanks again. To all.

Edited by patchworks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well. Open source can give results in a very long run, only. Since the amount of 98 users is going down, it should be more logical to focus on a more usable goal, I believe.

Still, there is some room for open source, here. An open source installer, or package manager is a logical choice. As, every developer or update creator could be able to use the same software for package management. It can improve the ability to create and manage multiple language versions, as well. Still it is not necesary to create a new installer from the beginning. It should be enough to use some existing open source project. It will be possible to add some improvements or changes to the installer engine that way.

Edited by Sfor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so i have to clear some things before somebody do something stupid...

to mods:

ad legality

If we are talking about collecting official updaters from Microsoft and create one updater (similar to unattended installations, which includes also service packs) it is absolutely legal unless we claim any autorship of the code. and really i dont want to see that anybody here is going to claim authorship of software which has been developed by M$ or be paid for it.

for me personally it took months to find all updates for my windows which were created by microsoft and learn how to install them in correct order. the installation of all updates can take hours and i must be on PC. if i create some kind of scripts which do this automatically, It can be done without modifying of the packages.

When it comes to unofficial fixes it is as i said before. anybody can fix errors of his own system. this just cannot be prohibited by law. if somebody asks me how to fix same problem on different system (anybody can ask, including M$) i can give him the solution, but only for free.

when it comes to creating of new software based on microsofts apis then the situation is quite clear i hope.

but when it comes to creating new software using microsofts files... hard to say where is the border line between creating new app based on MS Visual C++, and between system patch which was created unoficially. I worked for newspapers so i know laws about authorship in my country. If i use some parts of any material which has been distributed previously i have to mention it in final product. (for example if i create new core file for ms system it must contain information what it was based on). If the final product produces profit, then the author of the original work has right for part of it.

so if i create new fixed version of any ms file there must be mentioned that the file/package is still protected by M$ licensing and eula(as is mentioned in certain unofficial updates)

honestly, there are quite a lot of commercial software which modifies microsoft's products in many different ways, more than we will ever be able to modify. for example some codecs, renderers, freeware apis and so on. if here in this part of forum is approximately 10-15 people able to build up a team, they will surely do their jobs for the feeling of good work. i dont believe that these people represent any threat to M$.

please tell me your idea about how win9x can be consolidated, sorted (removed obsolete, used only those which will avail) ... i really dont want that such work may cause trouble...

to people here:

i think that some people here will lost their breath, but i believe that Tihiy is right in many things he said. Right now i see that tests with various dlls may broke certain system processes (for example MDAC is completelely screwed up on my system now and i have to restore backup).

the things have to be done more carefully as it will be done with such enthusiasm i see.

to Tihiy:

i started to perform analysis of the files available here and on MDGX's webpage. i found certain bugfixes but also things that may cause serious version conflicts (see io.sys problem in forum upward). unskilled user which has seen number of possible updates was so confused that he even didnt know from where to begin...

but on other hand, i found solutions which i was pursuing for months without knowing that they are currently available, also some updates caused version downgrade so i have to restore some patches again... and thats also the reason why i beliieve that consolidation is needed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we are talking about collecting official updaters from Microsoft and create one updater (similar to unattended installations, which includes also service packs) it is absolutely legal unless we claim any autorship of the code. and really i dont want to see that anybody here is going to claim authorship of software which has been developed by M$ or be paid for it.
As long if you can download the packs you made from Microsoft it would be legal, however, Microsoft would never let you do that so it´s against the Microsoft EULA... I think you see the problem there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Quite a lot has been going on.

To Offler: Nobody says you can't make scripts to install all M$ updates, that's what the unofficial service packs available here do. But that's pretty much ALL you can do without breaking any EULAs. See, even Tihiy's RP7 breaks some EULAs by including modified ME system DLLs into 98SE - it's not the inclusion of DLLs that breaks it if you have a ME license, it's the modifications done to them. What he does is almost reverse engineering, which is explicitly forbidden in the M$ EULA. This is the biggest problem that we hit here. As we start implementing more stuff, it gets more and more to reverse engineering than to updating.

On the other hand, we are working on implementing functions on unsupported legacy software. There's no need to worry about the license agreements of win9x. But by patching code from XP DLLs, we're still breaking the XP EULA, and there's where most of the problem lies.

But on the other other hand, we still haven't actually decided on who will do what, IF we will do anything. So why don't we clarify that first? And when you'll need that domain, it'll be there for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I got interrupted in the office, so I’ll continue…

If i use some parts of any material which has been distributed previously i have to mention it in final product. (for example if i create new core file for ms system it must contain information what it was based on). If the final product produces profit, then the author of the original work has right for part of it.
But you need permission first...
When it comes to unofficial fixes it is as i said before. anybody can fix errors of his own system. this just cannot be prohibited by law. if somebody asks me how to fix same problem on different system (anybody can ask, including M$) i can give him the solution, but only for free.
To write How-To´s would be the best way, hacked and recoded stuff will not do indeed...
On the other hand, we are working on implementing functions on unsupported legacy software. There's no need to worry about the license agreements of win9x.
Ahem... I would revise that if I was you, as you stated it here you say that unsupported software can be modified?

And by the way, IF we can work this out together then there is no need to move from MSFN.org. I would like to remind you that the staff isn´t against the activity here, but needs to protect the people and thus the forum with it. I can´t repeat my self enough times...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ahem... I would revise that if I was you, as you stated it here you say that unsupported software can be modified?

I was saying that we have a much more delicate situation with using XP code than applying it to 9x. And btw, RP7 does break the 9x license agreement, as it installs modified system files. Or of course, RP7 does not count as a modification while what we want to implement does.

And by the way, IF we can work this out together then there is no need to move from MSFN.org. I would like to remind you that the staff isn´t against the activity here, but needs to protect the people and thus the forum with it. I can´t repeat my self enough times...

I, for one, figured out all the stuff here by myself. I greatly appreciate the work the independent devs here do, and i don't need a separate project to be happy with ME on my laptop. Besides, the team here would focus on 98SE, which has a number of issues with the hardware in my lappy.

And i'm referring to this post again: http://www.msfn.org/board/A-Humble-Request...802#entry750802

Running windoze 98 on current hardware is for people that know what they are doing. It is for those who have experienced the OS when it first came out, and that still have their licensed CDs. It is for people that liked it, and want it back and better.

That's all i have to say. I don't need anything more than is available here, and if i do, i try to do it myself. About the "howto" stuff, it's the same crap as actually making a script to do all that. Just that it won't be you (the script writer) breaking the EULA, only the people that use the script.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...