Author Topic: kernel affinity bug  (Read 7744 times)

walking_x

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Re: kernel affinity bug
« Reply #15 on: 2010.03.04, 17:08:37 »
This is not "hacked" or "patched" debug kernel. It have many differences with it:
- boot time config.sys editor
- new logo
- optional preloading basdev/boot files to avoid bug in ATI chipset with ACPI
- fixed affinity (try to run HMM3 in Odin on 104a, 1/10 to catch dead lock)
- new KEE functions, common log
- new os2ldr (menu, options)
I'm think any one of those functions cannot be made by patching ;) Especially because of lacking LX EXE file format editors :)

Fahrvenugen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
    • View Profile
Re: kernel affinity bug
« Reply #16 on: 2010.03.04, 17:33:27 »
As for this being a patched kernel, if you read through the thread:

http://www.os2world.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,63/topic,1316.0/

it came out in that thread that yes, this is a patch to the IBM OS/2 debug kernel, not a new kernel.




walking_x

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Re: kernel affinity bug
« Reply #17 on: 2010.03.04, 17:53:20 »
it came out in that thread that yes, this is a patch to the IBM OS/2 debug kernel, not a new kernel.
Yes, but I'm think they use some kind of another technology, no direct binary patching.

mobybrick

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: kernel affinity bug
« Reply #18 on: 2010.03.04, 18:28:07 »
Here is where it will get interesting. I suspect Mensys/Serenity have been maneuvered into an impossible position.

ACPI was one of the mains goals of eCS 2.0, but now with the core ACPI developer also responsible for a hacked kernel, I can see the days possibly coming when something along the lines of...

 'If you want ACPI to work (e.g. not hang on bootup) then you'll need the patched kernel from the OS/4 team. Oh, and this would need to be distributed with eCS for the eCS ACPI feature to work...'

Or maybe I am dreaming again. Time will tell.

Regards,
Moby.

Fahrvenugen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
    • View Profile
Re: kernel affinity bug
« Reply #19 on: 2010.03.05, 01:04:32 »
it came out in that thread that yes, this is a patch to the IBM OS/2 debug kernel, not a new kernel.
Yes, but I'm think they use some kind of another technology, no direct binary patching.

Well, my suggestion is to read through the previously referenced thread.

Based on the information that has been put out there about this kernel, along with the limited information in the zip file, this appears to a binary patch (some would call it a hack) to the 14.104a debug kernel.  Since it apparently requires the SMP version of some DLL's, my guess is that it is the 14.104a debug SMP kernel that has been patched.

As for patching technology, it has also been discussed on other threads.  The truncated version of that discussion is, since IBM has not released source code for the kernel, from what I understand there are essentially there are 2 ways of patching the kernel:

1.  "On the fly" - commonly done with device drivers and / or loaders at boot time
2.  Binary patching - modifying the binary.

I'm sure that some of the modifications that have been done by the people who have released this unofficial kernel has been accomplished by the new loader that they also wrote.  And yes, some of the changes listed (changing the boot logo) are very easy to do.  However I suspect that other changes that have been done have been direct binary patching of IBM's kernel based on material found in the DDK, other OS/2 programming documentation and sources, looking through debug code, and just straight hacking the kernel binary.

Anyways, its been discussed to death, so not worth getting into much again.


warpcafe

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 746
  • Failure is not an option.
    • View Profile
Re: kernel affinity bug
« Reply #20 on: 2010.03.05, 14:46:51 »
Hey all,

for me, the most interesting part here is not "is that Kernel legal or not". Because:
The thing is (and you can twist your mind as far as you want, it will not change anything): It is illegal.
If you disagree, simply think
a) would IBM allow you distribute a patched Kernel (even if it is free)?
b) would Mensys gladly support your bug tickets with a patched kernel?

So unless there is a written official statement of IBM that "the authors" are allowed to distribute a patched kernel, it is illegal.
I know what will come from the east now: "Copyright law is different in Russia".
Okay, comrades. That might perhaps be true, but it simply doesn't fu**ing matter, because that Kernel is property of a U.S., stock noted, SOX-compliant company that employs more lawyers on their own than there are in Russia perhaps. Your laws don't apply. That kernel is illegal until IBM tells it isn't. Get it.

And for those who say "Well, I don't mind it's illegal. Let me use it for my purpose", one more thought:
What do you think can you expect from Mensys or the people working for their various projects (ACPI, JFS, Flash, OOO, Networking...) or from any 3rd party author if you create a bug report and they ask you
"...wait, _WHAT_ Kernel are you using?"

Cheers,
Thomas
"It is not worth an intelligent man's time to be in the majority.
By definition, there are already enough people to do that"
- G.H. Hardy

mobybrick

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: kernel affinity bug
« Reply #21 on: 2010.03.05, 17:35:07 »
Hey all,

for me, the most interesting part here is not "is that Kernel legal or not". Because:
The thing is (and you can twist your mind as far as you want, it will not change anything): It is illegal.
If you disagree, simply think
a) would IBM allow you distribute a patched Kernel (even if it is free)?
b) would Mensys gladly support your bug tickets with a patched kernel?

Cheers,
Thomas

Good post Thomas, but there is a perfectly legal way around this - distribute the patch file and mechanism that allows users to patch their own copy of 14.104a into the OS/4 kernel. Thereby no copyright binary code is distributed.


With regard to Mensys, my worry is that they will want a working ACPI - which, I suspect, will only be acheivable with the patched kernel. ACPI, on 14.104a, is broke and hangs badly. Besides, Mensys already have a 'beta' eComstation kernel, with the 'patched' extra HLT parts in it - but I suspect that the whole licensing argument (as per your post) prevents even Mensys from distributing it properly. Although, of course, only really Mensys are able to comment on that authoritatively!

Moby.

walking_x

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Re: kernel affinity bug
« Reply #22 on: 2010.03.05, 21:10:25 »
It is illegal.
I'm think, the only one, who make things legal or not - Mensys itself.
Because the common IBM position for OS/2 is to make it abandonware ;) Or forget at all.

Fahrvenugen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
    • View Profile
Re: kernel affinity bug
« Reply #23 on: 2010.03.06, 00:36:47 »
It is illegal.
I'm think, the only one, who make things legal or not - Mensys itself.
Because the common IBM position for OS/2 is to make it abandonware ;) Or forget at all.

That's a very ignorant way of looking at things and a severe lack of understanding of copywrite law.

Whether or not a company supports a product is irrelevant, the copywrites are still valid and fully enforceable.  Just because IBM no longer supports OS/2 does not mean they have given up their rights to it.  

Mensys has no say in this.  It is IBM's code, unless the copywrites for the code are transfered to Mensys (or Mensys has been given a license allowing for modified distribution, which they may very well have - I don't know what type of license they have with IBM, and it really doesn't matter to me).  

As a result, the way this has been distributed, it is illegal.

David McKenna

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
    • View Profile
Re: kernel affinity bug
« Reply #24 on: 2010.03.06, 00:43:37 »


Good post Thomas, but there is a perfectly legal way around this - distribute the patch file and mechanism that allows users to patch their own copy of 14.104a into the OS/4 kernel. Thereby no copyright binary code is distributed.


  They do this occasionally - most recent: ftp://ftp.Linking to this site is not permitted on our forums/Archive/os2krnlSVN2021.zip

  However, I am sympathetic with walking-x; the whole 'illegal' argument is something only a lawyer in the Ministry of Silly Walks could love....

Fahrvenugen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
    • View Profile
Re: kernel affinity bug
« Reply #25 on: 2010.03.06, 01:46:46 »


Good post Thomas, but there is a perfectly legal way around this - distribute the patch file and mechanism that allows users to patch their own copy of 14.104a into the OS/4 kernel. Thereby no copyright binary code is distributed.


  They do this occasionally - most recent: ftp://ftp.Linking to this site is not permitted on our forums/Archive/os2krnlSVN2021.zip

  However, I am sympathetic with walking-x; the whole 'illegal' argument is something only a lawyer in the Ministry of Silly Walks could love....

I see what you're saying, but the legalities of this kernel are a little more significant then you may see.

If you're just using eCS / OS/2 at home, then you're likely correct in that it is unlikely that anyone will care - or even know - what kernel you are using.

However part of my use and involvement with OS/2 includes implementing and supporting OS/2 based solutions in businesses and professional environments.  Most recently I've found a number of situations where I've been able to implement effective OS/2 based solutions in non-profit groups.  Any time I set up such a solution I have a responsibility to ensure that it is legal.  This includes having a license for every copy of OS/2 that I set up, it also includes not using a kernel that I know violates IBM's copywrite.

I can only speak of my own professional use of OS/2, however I am sure you'd find others who are using OS/2 for businesses purposes who won't use this kernel for similar reasons.

« Last Edit: 2010.03.06, 01:48:22 by Fahrvenugen »

RobertM

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2034
    • View Profile
    • A.I.BuiltPC - using OS/2 Warp Server & eComStation for Custom Web and Database Solutions
Re: kernel affinity bug
« Reply #26 on: 2010.03.06, 07:16:03 »


Good post Thomas, but there is a perfectly legal way around this - distribute the patch file and mechanism that allows users to patch their own copy of 14.104a into the OS/4 kernel. Thereby no copyright binary code is distributed.


  They do this occasionally - most recent: ftp://ftp.Linking to this site is not permitted on our forums/Archive/os2krnlSVN2021.zip

  However, I am sympathetic with walking-x; the whole 'illegal' argument is something only a lawyer in the Ministry of Silly Walks could love....

I see what you're saying, but the legalities of this kernel are a little more significant then you may see...

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?
|
|
Kirk's 5 Year Mission Continues at:
Star Trek New Voyages
|
|


Sigurd

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 245
    • View Profile
Re: kernel affinity bug
« Reply #27 on: 2010.03.07, 18:45:53 »
Hi,
thanks to all to you who cleared my mind (especially Thomas) - I will not use this kernel any more. I totally agree with those who say that if there is no clear legal status it is not O.K. to use it. And I have to admit: I did not research enough the backgrounds here and should have done this BEFORE using the kernel.

Sigurd

AAA

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Re: kernel affinity bug
« Reply #28 on: 2010.03.08, 12:29:47 »
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.

Andi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 264
    • View Profile
Re: kernel affinity bug
« Reply #29 on: 2010.03.08, 14:10:26 »
Quote
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.
I don't think there are much people who are against a new kernel. But most people do not want to do something illegal. And as long as some issues are not clear, they want to stay on the safe side.

My conclusion from all I've read is -
- patching your legally bought kernel is no problem
- share your knowledge how to patch the kernel, how to remove bugs or circumvent specific shortcomings is no problem
- patching in memory is preferred
- but distribute a patched kernel is illegal