GetVersion Function?

All development related issues welcome

Moderator: Moderator Team

Black_Fox
Posts: 1584
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:44 pm
Location: Czechia

Re: GetVersion Function?

Post by Black_Fox » Sat Apr 05, 2014 6:04 pm

Webunny wrote:and in the worst because of people being deliberately obtuse.
We have nothing better to do with our lives than troll you... duh ;-) That makes 3 of us that are either "deliberately" misinterpreting your message or maybe it just really is put in confusing/misleading way.

As for not giving direct answer, the version shoult not be that hard to find and it is a good exercise in code orientation (provided you want to do some further work on ROS).
EDIT: It's really not that hard to find, 3 searches and I got it.

Webunny
Posts: 1201
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: GetVersion Function?

Post by Webunny » Sat Apr 05, 2014 7:02 pm

Black_Fox wrote:
Webunny wrote:and in the worst because of people being deliberately obtuse.
We have nothing better to do with our lives than troll you... duh ;-) That makes 3 of us that are either "deliberately" misinterpreting your message or maybe it just really is put in confusing/misleading way.

As for not giving direct answer, the version shoult not be that hard to find and it is a good exercise in code orientation (provided you want to do some further work on ROS).
EDIT: It's really not that hard to find, 3 searches and I got it.
Being deliberately obtuse or having nothing better to do with your lives than troll me, are two different things. To make that equal is to use a straw man fallacy. This is exactly the kind of 'misinterpretation' that makes it more likely an example of the 'worst case'. What was the use of this post?

If, for you, it's an example of the 'better case', then that's an option I left open as well. I can't speak for you or anyone else, and neither can you.

Z98
Release Engineer
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 8:16 pm
Contact:

Re: GetVersion Function?

Post by Z98 » Sat Apr 05, 2014 8:05 pm

I'd say the point of his post was to use sarcasm to demonstrate to you that three people so far have managed to misread your original post despite your insistence that it could not be misread that way.

coryhenrique
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:44 pm
Location: United States

Re: GetVersion Function?

Post by coryhenrique » Sat Apr 05, 2014 11:46 pm

I'm appalled by the ridiculous capacity Z98 not help and also discuss without having a certain moral character. Z98, u r 2 be congratulated, if depends your ignorance, the ROS will not pass the alpha stage so early.
Webunny, I'm very grateful for your help and all the others that demonstrates ethics. The ROS needs people like you Webunny ;)

I'm still open to help ROS project!


thanks 4 something!!!

Webunny
Posts: 1201
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: GetVersion Function?

Post by Webunny » Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:57 am

Z98 wrote:I'd say the point of his post was to use sarcasm to demonstrate to you that three people so far have managed to misread your original post despite your insistence that it could not be misread that way.
That's the premise you use. I never said it couldn't be misread in the first place. I said it could be misread, either by honest miscommunication or by wilful misinterpretation (or at least, doing little effort to comprehend it). THAT is what I said. And if you read carefully, I wasn't talking solely about this last post.

The sarcasm was wasted, thus, since it wasn't relevant to what I said.

The whole argument about '3 people misunderstood, so the case is closed' is rather infantile to begin with. Millions of people believe astrology works too; that on itself doesn't prove they have a case. Coryhenrique seems to have understood quite well, btw, so that would be 2 against 3. What is this; a contest? A popularity poll? If two more people say they understood what I meant, did I just prove anything, then? Can I make a sarcastic comment in return, then? Let's not dabble in such nonsense.

I've made it abundantly clear in my posts why one could and should have deduced I wasn't talking about filing JIRA-reports. The only counterargument I was given was that the 'chaining of the sentences' lead to the impression I was talking about something else. Well, that impression was wrong. Instead of impressions, one would do better to focus on what is actually said, and use logical deduction. Could I have it made even more clear? Mayhaps. Though it took me two more posts just to finally let the point come across; everyone would start to doubt about it being merely a simple case of miscommunication, then. Furthermore, since it was made clear for even people who would completely lack any reading comprehension by now, I fail to see a reason to rekindle the same topic with sarcasm. Is that helpful? Is it a virtue in itself to continue with a sarcastic post? I don't think so. If something is to be argumented, than bring forth arguments, not sarcastic remarks or number-counts. If the arguments have all been exhausted, so be it, but then there is no need to rekindle the discussion by fruitless means. IMHO, of course.

Z98
Release Engineer
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 8:16 pm
Contact:

Re: GetVersion Function?

Post by Z98 » Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:21 am

What case? After Amine's original response, the only point that anyone else tried to make to you was that your original post could be easily misunderstood. You've been trying to argue that following a certain line of thought, which you consider to be logical and obvious, the misunderstanding could have been avoided. Except what's logical, or obvious, or natural to an individual is based on one's perception and perception changes from person to person. Considering that there was a thought process behind your post, one that had considerably more context than your original post since you spent the last couple of posts laying it out, the only way for any of us to have known exactly what you were implying was to be able to duplicate your thought process. Since we can't read your mind, our interpretation of your statement will be based on only what's written. That's the only point that I've been trying to make. It was not a critique or an accusation, it was an observation. It was even one you acknowledged, but you seem fixated on trying to defend your original post.

jonaspm
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:10 am
Location: Mexico
Contact:

Re: GetVersion Function?

Post by jonaspm » Sun Apr 06, 2014 7:35 am

Come on Guys, you are not giving a good impression! if you want to discuss this way, do it by email... (joke).
Image

Black_Fox
Posts: 1584
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:44 pm
Location: Czechia

Re: GetVersion Function?

Post by Black_Fox » Sun Apr 06, 2014 11:21 am

coryhenrique wrote:I'm still open to help ROS project!
thanks 4 something!!!
Did you find the version definition you were looking for? :)

Webunny
Posts: 1201
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: GetVersion Function?

Post by Webunny » Sun Apr 06, 2014 6:37 pm

Z98 wrote:What case? After Amine's original response, the only point that anyone else tried to make to you was that your original post could be easily misunderstood. You've been trying to argue that following a certain line of thought, which you consider to be logical and obvious, the misunderstanding could have been avoided. Except what's logical, or obvious, or natural to an individual is based on one's perception and perception changes from person to person. Considering that there was a thought process behind your post, one that had considerably more context than your original post since you spent the last couple of posts laying it out, the only way for any of us to have known exactly what you were implying was to be able to duplicate your thought process. Since we can't read your mind, our interpretation of your statement will be based on only what's written. That's the only point that I've been trying to make. It was not a critique or an accusation, it was an observation. It was even one you acknowledged, but you seem fixated on trying to defend your original post.
Let me count.

I made a post, where, as I see it, made it already clear what I meant. It's true that one reads every post according to ones' perception - hence why the remark of the best case and the worst case. It's also true one can base oneself on what is written (though this implies not 'only', because people also base oneself on ones' perception, dixit yourself, and the perception of something and what is actually written are two different things), hence why my first post ought to have been enough.

Then Amine made a post, not asking to explain my reasoning further, which would have been the proper thing to do if you didn't understand something, but with a post that was, let's face it, pretty accusatory (indicating that I was misrepresenting and giving misinformation). (1)

Where to I responded and explained what was meant - even if the first was deemed 'unclear', the second should have been more than enough, even to someone with no reading comprehension whatsoever. (And I think you, Amine and black-fox do have that, btw). (2)

To which you responded with another post, directly asking why I said this or that. (3)

To which I made another post, explaining it AGAIN. (4)

To which Black-fox made another post, as if he was making a point. Indeed; which case, you ask. That's exactly my question too. (5)

To which I made yet another post (6).

How many posts must one make, to be able to rightfully make the claim it's either coming from good will but miscommunication or from being deliberately obtuse? It seems to me, however, that, if a post is unclear to you or doesn't seem to make sense (because one can't follow the reasoning through what is said), you ask for a clarification in the first place, not make an accusatory post about it, which ends in a discussion of several posts, just to make it clear. To be frank, I still don't see how anyone, seeing that he offered help as a software engineer student, if I say 'the devs won't let you near the code' (without some stringent conditions), followed by a link of a jobpage where it handles about directly coding AND the stringent conditions, one can come to the conclusion that I say he can't file a report to JIRA. You don't need the permission to access the code for that from the devs! Neither would it make sense to link to that jobpage if it was about that; the jobpage, as it is directly mentioned there, is about direct coding! Furthermore, no-body was talking about making JIRA-reports, not I, nor the original poster. So where does that come from? I still can't fathom the thought-process where you link the one to the other, and see that as a reasonable, logical thought-process. I mean: neither did I say anything of him not being allowed to test ROS or make a donation to ROS (both things that 'help' ROS); so how comes nobody misreads it that way? It would have made as much sense to do that, as coming up with JIRA, though.

Edit: Anyway, I guess jonaspm is right. We should continue in pm if one still one wants to discuss it further. I personally don't think there is much more to add, though.

coryhenrique
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:44 pm
Location: United States

Re: GetVersion Function?

Post by coryhenrique » Mon Apr 07, 2014 1:35 am

Guys, seriously now, will I have to make a new post to try to clarify my doubts about the NT kernel?
I'm trying to help the ROS, i like the ROS and I have excellent professors at MIT who can help me in terms of development!

Now, so I can be useful in ROS project, I need certain information from developers and voluntaries.
I would very much appreciate everyone who posted in my post, or collaborate with ROS, keep in mind that we need to work for a common good! Boosting the ROS project to a usable level!
C'mon guys, lets work together!

My first doubt would be the same, where information is stored that the NT kernel of the ROS is version 5.2?


Thanks in advance!

Forever Winter
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2013 6:50 am

Re: GetVersion Function?

Post by Forever Winter » Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:11 am

@ coryhenrique

Try ntverp.h, but I am not sure, so you should verify it for yourself.
If I understand you right, you would know where the info that GetVersion returns is defined.
If this is the case, you can first search the implementation of this function (you can use the link gonzoMD has provided).
There you can see that it just returns the info found in the current process PEB, so you should now look where it gets filled.
I guess it's MmCreatePeb() in procsup.c, where it gets NtMajorVersion and NtMinorVersion as default values.
NtMajorVersion and NtMinorVersion are in turn defined in init.c as VER_PRODUCTMAJORVERSION and VER_PRODUCTMINORVERSION.
VER_PRODUCTMAJORVERSION and VER_PRODUCTMINORVERSION are in turn defined in ntverp.h as 5 and 2, wich I guess, is the information you are looking for.
But as said, you should verify it for yourself too.

Ok, I hope that no one of the other thread participants gets angry now.

coryhenrique
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:44 pm
Location: United States

Re: GetVersion Function?

Post by coryhenrique » Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:46 am

Hi Forever_Winter, I'm really grateful for your help!!
Now I need analyze if these informations are correct, putting it into practice.

If somebody else wants to complement the subject of the post or the reply of Forever_Winter, would be honorable!


Thanks to all who helped so far!

Black_Fox
Posts: 1584
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:44 pm
Location: Czechia

Re: GetVersion Function?

Post by Black_Fox » Mon Apr 07, 2014 1:28 pm

@coryhenrique: What Forever Winter says is true and you will discover it yourself, if you try.
There is massive amount of learning for you to do if you want to help in ROS kernel development (not so massive outside kernel, but still, you will have to learn), so you should definitely browse source code, discover things and understand things instead of waiting for others to find out for you.

hbelusca
Developer
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:36 pm
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Re: GetVersion Function?

Post by hbelusca » Mon Apr 07, 2014 2:14 pm

@coryhenrique and others:
Check the patches at:
http://jira.reactos.org/browse/CORE-6611
and
http://jira.reactos.org/browse/CORE-7889
which can give clues to where the version numbers are stored / retrieved in the operating system.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest