[ros-dev] Re: [ros-diffs] [ion] 14047: Dispatching & Queue Rewrite
ionucu at videotron.ca
Tue Mar 15 07:26:06 CET 2005
Steven Edwards wrote:
>--- Alex IoIonescuioionucuivideotrona> wrote:
>>This climate of paranoia is getting to my nerves.
>You could at least try to be civil in your discussion. Some of us have spent more than a few years
>on this project and have a right to be a little paranoid about if our lives work might be put in
Oh, and I haven't? Just because I can't say "a few" years, means that
suddently I don't really care that the 50-60KLOC of code in ReactOS that
I wrote are put in danger?
>>As for Steven... WINE, ROS, and any other compatibility product out there is not 100% clean
>>room. It has never been, will never be, cannot be. Especially if we consider debug information
>>as being "dirty". Reminds me of people freaking out when I added functions that were in the IFS
>>-- you'd hope people would've grown up by now--.
>Still it depends on the source of the information. We have discussed in private my views on using
>the debug information. I will publicly state I think the law is ambiguous at best and the debug
>information should be a valid source given Microsoft position of being a monopoly as found by
>Anti-trust proceedings. That being said a court might not agree with me so any behavior must be 1.
>Reproduceable or 2. Documented.
This goes beyond debug information. This is reproduceable behaviour that
probably any driver developper out there knows. Checked builds are
builds recommended for testing your driver for bugs. If you call that
function with a Queue Object, you WILL see that assert line-by-line on
your screen. From that point on, one should stich his eyes out for
having seen it, and shoot himself for knowing this behaviour?
Notwithstanding that they cannot sue the project, and that they would
not sue you. This was a public comment to a friend... why would they sue
Steven when Alex said what he said? And yes, I cannot wait to be sued...
I can see the headlines -- Driver Developer sued for being aware of
Windows Assertion --. I hope they also go after Mark Russinovich for
having used the checked build to generate a tree of the Windows Source
>>I could make a list of over 25 parts of ReactOS Which are not 100% clean. But I won't, because
>>that would tarnish our image. I would appreciate if you'd stop tarnishing mine and making
>I am not trying to trash your image. I am simply mentioning the truth that everyone already knows
>but could be deadly to this project and others in a kangaroo court in the US. When your source of
>information comes from documentation or a third part program exhibiting certain behavior then
>there is not a legal question as to if a reimplementation is a original work. If you are basing
>your implementation of a feature only on the debug information then clearly,
If you aren't, then why am I always the one being targeted with such
comments. There are functions in ROS which are almost copies of their
binary versions. There are structures in ROS which look like clones of
the Windows ones (undocumented ones). There is functionality that was
directly reversed engineered so that it would be compatible.
Yet, nobody says a word; everyone goes after Alex for having a
conversation with a friend and mentionning a reproducible fact in every
driver developer's life -- you do not KeWaitXxx on a Queue.
>at least in my mind
>it runs the danger being found a derived work and everytime you do so it at the very least
>tarnishes ReactOS's image.
Probably as much as jumping on a guy who has written some of the highest
quality and most useful code in the OS for the fact he used public
information during an argument.
More information about the Ros-dev