February 2001 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Re: recording sound?

by Thomas Flynn

On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Eric Pouech wrote: > this debug facility shall be turned on for every distribution > you can try to tun it with > -debugmsg +wave,+mciwave,+dsound,+msacm,+mmsys to see what gives Well, I don't know what the difference between last night and tonight is, but tonight, I'm getting all kinds of debug spew (even with the arguments that didn't do anything for me last night). I ran the program with: -debugmsg +wave,+mciwave,+dsound,+msacm,+mmsys as you mentioned above and now have a nice long log file. I put the log file here: http://reality.sgi.com/flynnt/debug_log The most interesting piece for me seems to be where it says: fixme:mci:MCI_LoadMciDriver Couldn't load driver for type WAVEAUDIO. If you don't have a windows installation accessible from Wine, you perhaps forgot to create a [mci] section in system.ini Then again, the reason I could find that interesting is that I have no idea what it means :-). It seems to be pointing out that I'm missing something, but I don't know if that peticular message is relevent. The debug spew seems to end at the point in the program where I get to click on a phrase and record my voice. Then I go and click on the phrase, and I get that stupid dialog that says it can't record. I would have expected to see some debug messages at that point, but nothing came out. I quit the app just fine with no further debug messages. does this help narrow things down any? -tom -- "Mongooses are famous for their snake-fighting ability, and are almost always victorious because of their speed, agility, and timing and also because of their thick coat."

Feb. 7, 2001

Problem with Pager control

by Guy L. Albertelli

While working on ComboEx with the 1/29/2001 CVS, IE4 no longer displays its menu bar. (Well, not really a menu bar, it is a Rebar with a Pager as the child and a Toolbar as a child of the Pager. The Toolbar buttons are the "menu" items.) If I revert the Pager code to the 12/29/2000 version (very limited functionality) then the "menu" appears and is usable. If you need traces, I can provide them. This is with preinstalled copy of IE4. Thanks, Guy Albertelli <<galberte(a)neo.lrun.com>>

Feb. 7, 2001

Re: debugger fix

by Ulrich Weigand

Eric Pouech: > well, except from the fact that C comments are not welcomed in SHELL > scripts :-O , the rest went fine (at least from the compilation point of view) > debugger seemed to run fine... I could set the bp were I wanted > there's still a few points I need to look at (especially if ELF addresses > are right, and source file location for <x>.spec.c file) Great. ;-) > last point, couldn't we use a -s option to xargs ? (but I don't know > if it's a nice feature of GNU gcc and if it's portable) I guess -s is quite portable; it's part of the Single Unix Specification. But why would we need it? Without -s, xargs is supposed to make the command lines as long as possible, i.e. up to the maximum length of the command line supported by the operating system. Isn't this exactly what we want here? But I just noticed that I don't need the "$IMPLIST" != "" check, as a 'objcopy libxxx.so' does nothing, successfully ... So the command simplifies to nm $1 | grep __wine_dllimport | sed -e 's/^.*__wine_dllimport_[^_]*_/-N /' | xargs objcopy $1 or maybe even nm $1 | awk -F '__wine_dllimport_[^_]*_' '$2 {print "-N " $2}' | xargs objcopy $1 which is nearly simple enough to be inlined in the Make.rules again :-/ Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand weigand(a)informatik.uni-erlangen.de

Feb. 7, 2001

RE: Reverse engineering court decision

by Patrik Stridvall

> Patrik, that was probably one of the most well-written > arguments I have > heard against the DMCA. Thank you, my immidiate reaction when proof reading it was that it was not entirely clear but I didn't feel I had time to improve it more. The arguement is not really water tight it assumes that you legally can reverse engineer, implement and publish an existing Digital Rights Managagement scheme. All of this is possible because of the duality between the rights management and circumvention. Any attempt to partition the set of devices in two parts will fail since you mathematically will be able to prove that they are equal and thus the arbitrary line chosen in the beginning doesn't really exist. However note that there are three solutions to the problem. 1. The DMCA protects nothing and are totally meaningless. 2. The DMCA are logically inconsistant and thereby null and void. 3. The DMCA will forbid digital rights management without authorization as well. The only thing that can save you is if you can pry a crack in it somewhere by find some kind of allowed digital rights management or circumvention because of some other reason, like constitional issues. If you even have one crack, then only possible case is 1, because of the reason given above. Note that 3 would mean that making an exact copy of some a device will be illegal if it contained any kind of digital right mangagement, thereby granting it a perpetual patent protection if it was hardware alternativly perpetual copyright protection if it was software. This kind of argument are not really new, however the arguments I have seen used it when talking about protected works. I'm talking about _devices_ that are authorized to "play" such works. Not being an expert on constitional issues I will say nothing more than that I think it would be unlikely that it is not so. > Too bad probably only Wine > developers will see it. I don't think it would be a useful argument to use in court it is much to abstract for normal Judges to understand. Better stick to constitional issue I think. > Ever thought of becoming a lawyer? ;-) No, I hate lawyers. :-) BTW, concerning reverse engineering any law against reverse engineering will have similar logical problems as DMCA since if some things are legal to reverse engineer it will be possible to using a similar step by step method transform this to something of the other side of any arbitrary line. Fortunately no such law exists AFAIK.

Feb. 6, 2001

Re: Reverse engineering court decision

by David Elliott

Patrik Stridvall wrote: > > Patrik Stridvall wrote: > > > > > > > > One intresting aspect concerning Wine is the > > > DRM (Digital Rights Management) that Slashdot > > > reported that Microsoft are going to add to Windows. > > > > > > If we implement it is Wine we are not trying to circumvent > > > it quite the opposite we are trying to to make it possible > > > enforce it. ;-) > > > > > > Of course a one line patch making a critical function > > > always return TRUE or something might be able to disable > > > it for people that don't like it. :-) > > > > DO IT! > > I think we currently have other more important thing to do for Wine 1.0. > Certainly [BIG SNIP] > > > > If they go after > > you then you know for sure that they have the poorest of intentions. > > Well, we already know that their only intention is more profit, > so this will not really help us derive anything new. Patrik, that was probably one of the most well-written arguments I have heard against the DMCA. Too bad probably only Wine developers will see it. Ever thought of becoming a lawyer? ;-) -Dave

Feb. 6, 2001

RE: Reverse engineering court decision

by Patrik Stridvall

> Patrik Stridvall wrote: > > > > > One intresting aspect concerning Wine is the > > DRM (Digital Rights Management) that Slashdot > > reported that Microsoft are going to add to Windows. > > > > If we implement it is Wine we are not trying to circumvent > > it quite the opposite we are trying to to make it possible > > enforce it. ;-) > > > > Of course a one line patch making a critical function > > always return TRUE or something might be able to disable > > it for people that don't like it. :-) > > DO IT! I think we currently have other more important thing to do for Wine 1.0. > What are they going to say, that because you can > change the code > that you are aiding in circumventing copyright protection. It is actually much more intresting than that. Let for arguments sake say that we do it they sue us and the courts rule that it is legal. In that case if the full implementation is legal what about a partial implementation or a buggy implementation? If we have a function CheckIfAllowed that are implemented as FIXME("stub"); return TRUE will it make it a circumvention device. What if CheckIfAllowed is incorrectly used (intentally or by misstake) making things that are not authorized possible? What if we have a full implementation and somebody distributes a one line patch that disable any protection Is that patch a circumvention device? What if somebody says on the mailing list that if you make CheckIfAllowed return TRUE it will disable the protected. Is that _sentence_ a circumvention device? What somebody says that it is really easy to disable just look in the source code? Is that _sentence_ a circumvention device? What if somebody writes a perl script that takes parts of the Wine code and generates and compiles a tools useful for circumvention. Is that perl script a circumvention device? The point that I'm trying to make is that if any program that does Digital Rights Managagement is legal as open source it is without any problem possible make a device that circumvents these rights. This is the logical problem with DMCA unless it is totally draconian, ie everything even remotely related is forbidden, it is almost useless since even with a arbitrary line somewhere you can use whatever is legal and step by step, using steps that are themselves legal transform it to something that are on the other side of the arbitrary line. If law was mathematics this would be sufficient proof that DMCA is logical inconsistant since it would mean that some actions were both legal and illegal. In short no arbitrary line is possible either everything even remotely related is illegal or nothing is illegal. > If they go after > you then you know for sure that they have the poorest of intentions. Well, we already know that their only intention is more profit, so this will not really help us derive anything new.

Feb. 6, 2001

Re: recording sound?

by Eric Pouech

> Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be outputting anything to the console > for me :(. Perhaps, I'm doing something wrong...I dunno at this point. > I suspect it might be easier for me to download the source and compile a > debug version of wine myself and see what info I can get out of the app > and what it is it might be doing. this debug facility shall be turned on for every distribution you can try to tun it with -debugmsg +wave,+mciwave,+dsound,+msacm,+mmsys to see what gives A+ -- --------------- Eric Pouech (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/eric.pouech/) "The future will be better tomorrow", Vice President Dan Quayle

Feb. 6, 2001

Re: Reverse engineering court decision

by David Elliott

Patrik Stridvall wrote: > > One intresting aspect concerning Wine is the > DRM (Digital Rights Management) that Slashdot > reported that Microsoft are going to add to Windows. > > If we implement it is Wine we are not trying to circumvent > it quite the opposite we are trying to to make it possible > enforce it. ;-) > > Of course a one line patch making a critical function > always return TRUE or something might be able to disable > it for people that don't like it. :-) DO IT! What are they going to say, that because you can change the code that you are aiding in circumventing copyright protection. If they go after you then you know for sure that they have the poorest of intentions. -Dave

Feb. 6, 2001

Re: psdrv: map Courier New to Courier

by Ian Pilcher

On Mon, 05 Feb 2001, you wrote: > > Well, I couldn't get GetPrinterData to work. The driver would compile > > OK, > > but Wine was unable to load the driver, because it couldn't resolve the > > 'GetPrinterData' symbol. (Probably something I did wrong.) > > You'd need to add the line > import winspool.drv > to wineps.spec > I *think* that I tried that. I'll doublecheck when I have a chance. > Actually since you're storing the data as many values under a separate > key would you mind moving the key to [..\Printers\<name>\FontSubTable] > (i.e. get rid of the PrinterDriverData elememt), this will mean the > GetPrinterDataEx will still be able to access the data (I really think > that we should eventually use these APIs as hard coding the > ..\Printers\<name> bit into the driver offends me ;) ). What part offends you? I have not hardcoded the name of the printer into the driver. It do my setup in PSDRV_GetPrinterInfo, so I have the name available. Does GetPrinterDataEx allow one to enumerate the values in a key? Keep in mind that with this setup we don't know the value names. Here is my initial patch. It doesn't include any of the changes you suggest in your most recent note, but take a look and tell me what you think.

Feb. 6, 2001

RE: Misc / Unicode

by Patrik Stridvall

> > I know this comes from from someone who just forgot to put > a trailing > > '\0'. But still. > > Sounds like a job for winapi_check ;-) Yes. However it will not be so easy since winapi_check doesn't have a complete C parser. It currently skips these kind of lines, so don't hold your breath. > BTW, Is Alexandre away? I should guess so. > I haven't seen any cvs commits for a week... Neither have I.

Feb. 6, 2001