Question on BartPE for a university project

[webmedic]

I've been using barts stuff since he made his joe.sys and have been watching barts pe since about the .8 days when it was still beta.

This stuff has already happened. Microsoft took intense interest in barts project I think it was before he hit 1.0. They had some issues with his inf files for instance it looked to much like what they were doing so they made him redo it.

Barts already been through all the legal stuff with microsoft and they ok'd the projust before he even got out of beta. He did have to do some recoding to make them happy but in the end they sad it was ok.

I remember watching the dialog and how bart even pulled the beta till he got the ok from microsoft. So I'm sure that if microsoft thought that he was breaking their license they would have shut bart down already. They are more than aware of everything going on with the project already.

As to weather or not it shares any code with winpe it would have to be no or else he would have been shut down already.

A long time ago on these boards I had posted some screen shots only using custom inf files during install. They weren't on the net more than maybe a week and the site was forced by microsoft to remove them. I also had changed the background pick during install but was warned by a microsoft employee that it was the inf installer stiff they did not really like.

I am fairly shure that if they had a problem with bart he would be shut down already.

[getwired]

As I stated before - if WinPE didn't exist, BartPE wouldn't. As to the level that they "share code" it's basically a semantic argument - since BartPE is effectively WinPE.

[InTheWayBoy]

Well I was gonna stay out, but here I am again...

I think the thing that seperates us is the way we look at what consitutes "different"

See, to me and many other people here, BartPE is different than WinPE because it is seperate code. While they may try to parallel certain things that came before them, they do so using their own tools...in this case that's code.

You seem to equate the fact that since BartPE builds off features of another product that it is then the same as that product. I can see your theory, in that without WinPE the features required from WinXP would not exist...thus resulting in BartPE not working as it currently does.

But if we continue to use that analogy, re-enforced by:

if WinPE didn't exist, BartPE wouldn't. As to the level that they "share code" it's basically a semantic argument - since BartPE is effectively WinPE.

Then you throw everything into chaos...well as far as I know unix has been out for ages, and since windows is effectively unix (An operating system), then windows is unix? Maybe that's not such a good example...

But this is...Netscape VS. Internet Explorer!

So both run on Windows...a piece of software that can be manipulated into doing different things. A group releases Netscape, a piece of software that does various things like send and recieve info and display text and graphics. It does all this without requiring any modification to the OS other than what is typical of most applications.

Now M$ decides to join the party. They take a look at Netscape and basically copy it's most popular features...partly because they are the only features. But, just to be nice and to try and gain market share they add extra features. Now they may have tried to copy the interface and other features, but they did so using their own code. And then they added even more code to it that the other product doesn't have.

Now are you telling me then that since both of these programs use pre-existing functions of another application in similar ways that they are the same product? And just to clarify what I mean by that: both examples (Netscape and IE) use pre-existing functions (The ability to see graphics, use a mouse, etc) of another application (Windows) in similar ways (They both process internet data).

Do you see where, while you may not be wrong, most people don't agree with your logic? True, they are both web browsers, but they aren't the same product. True one may be copying anothers functions, but they do so using original techniques. One may not have been born if the other hadn't come out first...but if that held true then we are all driving Fords since they came out first.

The previous poster pointed out a very key thing, that originally BartPE was not legit. It did make use of code owned by M$, and required illegal usage of M$ files. But now they have worked around all those issues, and the only thing left are the licensing issues we discussed earlier. Which shows that even M$ knows that it's not technically the same program anymore...since they haven't done anything extreme yet.

And the more I think about it, since the features like MiniNT are built-in to Window XP and not WinPE, then BartPE is even further removed from WinPE. At that point, even though those features might have been implimented for WinPE, both of the programs are accessing a feature of another program. And since that other program (WinXP) doesn't have any specific licensing issue with usage of that nature, then I don't even see where there is that problem anymore...other than running both a local copy and a BartPE from one license...that's still bad.

[getwired]

See, to me and many other people here, BartPE is different than WinPE because it is seperate code. While they may try to parallel certain things that came before them, they do so using their own tools...in this case that's code.

Aargh. How many times to I have to restate this. BartPE IS A BUILD TOOL.M. It uses 100% of the codepaths that WinPE does. If the WinPE team had not changed anything, BartPE would not exist. Bart reverse engineered Microsoft code, in Windows binaries, that was designed to work a specific way if Windows was running in MiniNT mode - in WinPE mode. This was code that was consciously changed to work a specific way to provide WinPE with specific functionality. When the Windows PE code changed in XPSP2 and Server SP1 so that the boot drive was always X:, "BartPE" changed with it. Go ahead - ask Bart to change the drive letter that "BartPE" uses. He can't. Why? Because he doesn't have the source code for the Windows Mount Manager - which is what would have to be (and what did have to be) changed to make that happen.

You seem to equate the fact that since BartPE builds off features of another product that it is then the same as that product. I can see your theory, in that without WinPE the features required from WinXP would not exist...thus resulting in BartPE not working as it currently does.

No, as I stated, BartPE would not exist if WinPE had not been created. Period. End of story. It never would have happened. If the Windows codebase had not been consciously changed to have MiniNT mode exist then Bart would have had no build code to reverse engineer. End of story. Nothing. DOS-based rescue CD's forever. See ya. Get it?

Then you throw everything into chaos...well as far as I know unix has been out for ages, and since windows is effectively unix (An operating system), then windows is unix? Maybe that's not such a good example...

Uh, no. That's totally different. There is no Unix code in Windows (unless it was licensed from some Unix vendor and I don't know about it) and there's no Windows code in Unix (unless it was licensed through Microsoft's overly complicated protocol licensing structure). Your analogy has nothing to do with what I've said. Nada. Zippo. Zilch.

But this is...Netscape VS. Internet Explorer!

Again, no. There is no shared code between those two products, except possibly content licensed from NCSA for both of them. Similar heritage through NS 4.x, but that's it at best.

Do you see where, while you may not be wrong, most people don't agree with your logic? True, they are both web browsers, but they aren't the same product. True one may be copying anothers functions, but they do so using original techniques. One may not have been born if the other hadn't come out first...but if that held true then we are all driving Fords since they came out first.

See my example above. Ask Bart to change core functionality of "BartPE". Ask him to, say, boot from an ISO formatted RAMDisk. What's that you say? He did? Uh. No. There were three poeple at Microsoft who developed patented technology specifically used to do that. Sure, "BartPE" can now do it. Why? Because his reverse engineered version of WinPE can do anything WinPE can. Why? Because it is WinPE.

Bart has evaded legal issues for several reasons... Basically he has managed to walk a fine line with regard to reverse engineering. But as I stated, if Microsoft wanted to, they could come down hard, primarily on any customer using "BartPE" to any significant extent. And I would expect them to prosecute anyone who ever actually redistributed "BartPE" in it's entirety - since that isn't something Bart has legal rights to allow for.

And the more I think about it, since the features like MiniNT are built-in to Window XP and not WinPE, then BartPE is even further removed from WinPE. At that point, even though those features might have been implimented for WinPE, both of the programs are accessing a feature of another program. And since that other program (WinXP) doesn't have any specific licensing issue with usage of that nature, then I don't even see where there is that problem anymore...other than running both a local copy and a BartPE from one license...that's still bad.

There are features included in Windows XP that are there for the server version of Windows (what eventually became Server 2003). There are features in Home that are there for Pro. Hacking one to use it for the other isn't "okay" just because you can.

Microsoft doesn't have 1001 teams working on functionality in complete silos. You write code for dev milestones. When Whistler shipped as Windows XP, WinPE also shipped. I'll come back to my main point. If the team doing the development did not do anything to develop WinPE, WinPE would not exist - and as a co-dependent, "BartPE" would not exist. If the development team did not do any ongoing work, then "BartPE" would not gain anything except for new build-time features and new high-level shell-type features where Bart can shim things back in. Want memory manager enhancements? Not going to come from Bart. Want the drive letter changed? Same deal. How about changing the way WinPE doesn't write to the registry, so that it does? Also not something Bart could do...

[webmedic]

well what really separates us is the way Microsoft sees it and since they have ok'ed barts project the rest of the argument is moot. It doesn't really matter what anybody else thinks if microsoft says it's ok since they are the ones who have the right to persecute bart if they want.

The rest really doesn't matter. It's simply arguing to be arguing.

It's is not a reverse engineered product as bart does not share code with the winpe builder tool. If it did microsoft would have took care of it before. The rest is windows xp as a product it just so happens that Microsoft made it to be versatile so they could use it for something like winpe. Yes bart takes advantage of this however as stated before he already has Microsoft's ok.

I just had to set this straight since there are obviously some people here who are uninformed.

[ChrisBaksa]

Bottom line. No arguing here.

If you use Barts PE Builder DO NOT expect support from Microsoft. That is the MAJOR difference.

Barts has it's advantages. Fairly Simple, Plug Ins, Nice Gui for compiling. WINPE is totally different. I wrote the Builder that I use. My PE Disks are engineered for a specific resonan and are tighly controlled and versioned. You cant get that level of control from Barts.

Large Corporations (as I work for) pay substantial $$$ for premier support. That support covers PE with all it's Hotfixes that most individuals even know about.

I personally have spoken to some MS developers on the WINPE team and they shrug at the shear mention of Barts.

Chris

[getwired]

well what really separates us is the way Microsoft sees it and since they have ok'ed barts project the rest of the argument is moot. It doesn't really matter what anybody else thinks if microsoft says it's ok since they are the ones who have the right to persecute bart if they want.

The rest really doesn't matter. It's simply arguing to be arguing.

It's is not a reverse engineered product as bart does not share code with the winpe builder tool. If it did microsoft would have took care of it before. The rest is windows xp as a product it just so happens that Microsoft made it to be versatile so they could use it for something like winpe. Yes bart takes advantage of this however as stated before he already has Microsoft's ok.

I just had to set this straight since there are obviously some people here who are uninformed.

1: It's prosecute , not persecute.

2: Microsoft never said, "it's okay", they just haven't prosecuted anyone for copyright violations, yet.

3: I'm not arguing to be arguing, I'm arguing because most people here don't seem to comprehend the very finite differences between "Bart{E" and WinPE. The builder has everything to do with it, as that is the part that Bart reverse engineered. Microsoft had their own build tool set (mkimg.cmd, etc) and Bart engineered a set of tools that did effectively the exact same thing, plus was able to integrate in his "plug-ins".

4: It's not Windows XP as a product, it's a set of features that were consciously designed as a separate technology, WinPE - which happened to ship on the same codebase, and even on the same day as Windows XP. It is reverse engineering the build process - it's a TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE of reverse engineering, in fact.

5: As noted before "BartPE" is no "OK'd" by Microsoft. Nobody has been prosecuted for using it, yet. I'd hardly call me uninformed on this matter.