• Welcome to OS2World OLD-STATIC-BACKUP Forum.
 

News:

This is an old OS2World backup forum for reference only. IT IS READ ONLY!!!

If you need help with OS/2 - eComStation visit http://www.os2world.com/forum

Main Menu
Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - AAA

#1
Quote from: miturbide on 2012.09.19, 17:18:21
... OS/4 kernel is a illegal software ...

It would be very interesting to hear how you can prove this statement.
#3
It is not based on IBM code, moreover  it uses extended KEE which was added in OS/4  recently
#4
Edited by admin (Thomas Klein):

Quote
.../clock01_for_os4.RAR  (with built-in Timer0)

Hi AAA,
the FTP server displays a static "helo" text containing login instructions to access pirated software(z).
Please refrain from posting FTP links to this server! OS/2 World.com does not intend to facilitate access to illegal software. You are putting us in a bad legal situation.

Thanks for your understanding.
Thomas

#5
PROTECT16 statement is ignored starting from warp 4.0

If somebody has access, please change http://www.edm2.com/index.php/The_Config.sys_Documentation_Project/OS/2-eCS_Commands#PROTECT16
#6
Quote from: RobertM on 2010.03.06, 07:16:03
I have a question... (because I have no clue), but what if after the kernel they are working on is complete, they did a diff, and then created a script/program that simply modified the user's existing, legal kernel?

I think you won't get such an answer, I never managed to get one.  :)

It looks like there are some people who are seriously against the new kernel for some known and unknown reasons.

It looks like for OS/4 team it is not a problem to distribute the new kernel as a patch to the official one. And this scares the opponents the most.
#7
OS/4 kernels are always available  on ftp://ftp.Linking to this site is not permitted on our forums/
#8
ftp://ftp.Linking to this site is not permitted on our forums/os2krnlSVN1660_unoff.zip

fixed some bugs in loader
#9
Quote from: warpcafe on 2009.09.09, 17:49:05
I can hear very heavy dutch insults sounding up to my place

You probably heard some other dutch insults  :D

As far as I know, OS/4 copyrights was removed from the new kernel as well as OS/4 kernel was distributed as a patch to official one. So all Mensys objections were satisfied (at least those that they announced).

It's most probable that Mensys is unhappy because the new kernel is being developed without their involvement and new objections will arise soon.

#10
ftp://ftp.Linking to this site is not permitted on our forums/os2krnlSVN1564_unoff.zip
#11
Hi

Two more JITDBGFLGS and JITDBGREG.  I do not know what they are doing.

Regards
AAA
#12
Next test version is available ftp://ftp.Linking to this site is not permitted on our forums/os2krnlSVN1425_unoff.zip
#13
Quote from: rwklein on 2009.05.03, 21:16:27

Who owns the intellectual rights to OS/2 and hence the OS/4 kernel. That is IBM not OS/4 team.  Well take a look up close at the source code of the WIN32K.SYS driver. I just tried to find it. The code for ODIN must be somewhere with the WIN32K.SYS driver from Knut. Thats one way of doing certain updates to the kernel.

Roderick Klein
Mensys

I have never met that OS/4 team has ever declared any rights to OS/2 kernel. Of course, it is the intellectual property of IBM. Moreover, in the documentation that goes with the kernel from OS/4 team it is clearly stated : You can use this packet only having valid license to run OS2KRNL.

At the same time, I have to note that you keep saying that it is illegal and continue to ignore my repeated question what exactly is illegal.

Here I go trying to ask once again: if OS/4 distributes a software to do the patching of the original and not an already patched kernel, will this take the legal issue off?

If you don't give clear answers now, I will have to consider all your declarations about illegality as such that have no grounds.
#14
Quote from: rwklein on 2009.05.03, 15:47:11

...The kernel is indeed a violation of the law because the remove/ added the copyright statement of IBM...

...Second distributing the kernel in such a fashion with patches in it is also a violation of the law...


Coming back to OS/4 kernel, if I understood you correctly, they have to remove OS/4 copyright and distribute a not patched kernel but a software to patch the original kernel, right?
#15
I agree with lewhoo  - OS/2 community definitely  would benefit from this kernel.
And that is why it is better to support OS/4 Team rather than criticize.

Rwklein, once (#62) I have already asked about your suggestions - how you see it should be - unfortunately, there was no answer.

It looks like you really have something in your mind but you don't want to share it.
Please, advise what is illegal in OS/4 kernel:
- presence of OS/4 copyright
- distribution of patched kernel
- etc.

It's a pity, but from your posts it  is absolutely unclear what you consider illegal. I think OS/4 team will appreciate all your suggestions.

From my point of view, for example, it should not be a big deal for them to remove the copyright string or distribute a not patched kernel but a software to patch the original one.

At the same time I would not want to believe walking_x, who said that Mensys might have some hidden motifs.