wine-devel

wine-devel@winehq.org

84463 discussions

Re: Benchmark hell...
by Iris Fischer 09 Feb '01

09 Feb '01

Hi there, I found your benchmark... it wasn´t exactly what I was looking for, but do you maybe have an idea on how I can find information about the demand for wine in Canada, or North America on the internet? I´m writing my thesis on importing german wine to Canada and need to go over the demand part too of course. Would be great if you could help me. You can contact me at fischer_iris(a)hotmail.com Thanks a lot, sincerely IRIS FISCHER

6 6

LDT
by Sandie 08 Feb '01

08 Feb '01

Hello i'm french (so i may make some mistakes) I m interested in wine but it is not the main goal of my mail, I would like to know how to change the ldt under linux,because I heard that wine uses this function to run windows program,so if someone Can explain me how to change it or just tell where to get doc it would be nice! Thank you for your help! Please answer me at nicoobzz(a)free.fr

3 2

Problem with Pager control
by Guy L. Albertelli 07 Feb '01

07 Feb '01

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>>

2 1

RE: Reverse engineering court decision
by Patrik Stridvall 07 Feb '01

07 Feb '01

> 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.

3 2

Re: debugger fix
by Ulrich Weigand 07 Feb '01

07 Feb '01

I wrote: > Eric Pouech wrote: > > > > Could you send me the libwinspool.drv.so file that objcopy > > > is choking on? I'd like to look whether there's something > > > strange with that. > > here it is... (I've used libpsapi.so instead, because it's smaller, but > > effects are the same) > > Well, one difference I see is that yours has a .rel.stabs section, > while mine doesn't. Now I don't quite understand why stabs need > to be relocated, but I guess this could be a source of confusion. > In any case, after I strip the stabs data using objcopy --strip-debug, > I can subsequently use objcopy -N without problems. > > The problem might be caused by the objcopy -L step not correctly > updating the debug info. Could you try adding a --debugging > argument to objcopy in both localize_imports and strip_imports? No, it's definitely a problem with the .rel.stabs section. In fact, *every* invocation of objcopy that leaves the .rel.stabs section in its output fails -- even a simple identical copy. (Note that if you *remove* the .rel.stabs section, it works -- this is why a normal 'strip' works ...) The reason for this is that objcopy relies on the bfd library to assign the file offsets of the sections in the output file. Unfortunately, the automatic assignment is done only for sections that are part of a segment (i.e. loaded into memory), and also for *those* sections outside of segments that are *not* reloc sections ... For reloc sections outside of segments, like the .rel.stabs section, no automatic file offset assignment is performed. Instead, the upper layers must do this themselves, which e.g. the linker does in its final_link step. The objcopy tool, however, never does. This leads to an invalid file offset being used when writing out the .rel.stabs section, which causes the abort. As a side note: I've tried using the --debugging argument, which basically recreates the debug sections from scratch instead of copying them, and this fails completely with my toolchain -- it runs into an endless loop. The reason for this is apparently a compiler bug in gcc 2.95.2 that miscompiles a routine from objcopy by converting a recursive function call into tail recursion in an invalid way ... I still don't understand why your toolchain creates a .rel.stabs section in the first place. Could you check at which point this is created first (as, ld, ld -shared)? Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand weigand(a)informatik.uni-erlangen.de

2 4

RE: Reverse engineering court decision
by Patrik Stridvall 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

> 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.

1 0

RE: Reverse engineering court decision
by Patrik Stridvall 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

> On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Patrik Stridvall wrote: > > > > Patrik, > > > > > > You are most likely correct. Eventually the court system > > > will get their > > > head out of their ass and figure this out. > > > > I hope so. > > There's optimism for you - they've had their heads there for > years, why > change now? They're just getting comfortable... What do you mean? Who are getting comfortable? The courts? > > > At the moment it > > > seems to me > > > like its way up in there and they are going "Damn, it's > dark in here". > > > > Well, since the DMCA IMHO is logically inconsistant, that > is not very > > suprising. I interpret Judge Kaplan opinion in the DeCSS as "I don't > > really understand this, but if I blame it on Congress and give the > > plaintiff the victory I will probably look less a fool in > the eyes of > > my peers". > > Perhaps. Some of the Slashdot comments on the matter won't > have helped, > though... With peers I was refering to fellow and especially superior court Judges not just anybody that criticized him. What Judge Kaplan basicly said was this is, judging from the letter of the law, what Congress meant and if if they didn't mean this, they should have put it more clearly and if so it is their fault not mine. Shifting blame is quite popular in all sectors of society. :-) > > > Even my dad could easily see the argument that > > > restricting someone from writing a program is really > really braindead > > > (although he has done coding way back in the day). His > > > response was that > > > eventually the court system will figure it out and it'll be > > > over and done > > > with. Seems to be much the same as your response. > > > > Yes, approximately, but don't forget that in the worst case laws can > > be changed and in the meantime enforcing it will be close to > > impossible. > > Indeed. It'll probably survive for a while, but with more and > more holes > being cut... More holes? It is already has holes big as barn doors. :-) 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. :-)

2 1

Re: psdrv: map Courier New to Courier
by Ian Pilcher 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

Huw D M Davies wrote: > > Great! Well the Windows 2000 PS driver stores the font sub table > under the value name "TTFontSubTable" in the printer driver's > PrinterDriverData registry key. To do this we need to implement > Get/SetPrinterData (if you give me a couple of days I'll do it). The > data associated with TTFontSubTable is just a set of 2n \0 > terminated strings the final one terminated by 2 \0 > (i.e. REG_MULTISZ). The actual configuring should go on in the > printer setup property sheet. Hmmm, fancy learning a little of the > Win32 api? > I just spent some time poking around in the Registry of my Windows 2000 system. Neither "TTFontSubTable" or "FontSubTable" appears anywhere. (I have printers installed that use both the Adobe and Microsoft Post- Script drivers.) In fact, when I searched on "Helvetica" the only things I found that looked like font substitution tables were under HKCU\Software\Microsoft\ Shared Tools\Font Mapping and HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\ CurrentVersion\FontSubstitutes. Another point of interest -- none of the printer properties dialogs seem to allow me to configure the font substitution, even though I have "TrueType Font: Substitute with Device Font" set in the Advanced Options of the Apple LaserWriter 12/640 PS driver. > > OK, I've just submitted G|SetPrinterData implementations to > wine-patches - please use these instead of direct Reg apis. (it should > make life easier anyway. > > You basically want > > HANDLE hprn; > OpenPrinterA("Wine PostScript Driver", &hprn, NULL); > SetPrinterDataA(hprn, "FontSubTable" /*or whatever*/, REG_MULTI_SZ, pData, size); > ClosePrinter(hprn); > > where pData is a list of \0 terminated strings that make up the table, > finally terminated by a double \0. > > Reading the data back is almost the same using GetPrinterDataA So is "FontSubTable" what we want to use? It should be easy enough for me to have the driver use GetPrinterData and set up a simple array when it is initialized. (Although it does seem a little weird to have the driver calling OpenPrinter; is this OK?) > > I think we should also allow the Wine config file to override what's > > in the registry. > > Not really convinced about this. I'd like to move all of the psdrv > stuff out of the config file (which afterall is just a bit of the > registry) into its correct place under > HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Printers\Print > The configuration should all be done via a GUI control. Two points: 1) How can a user get this information into the Registry until the GUI control is written? (I hope you weren't thinking that this is some- think I'm capable of doing. Me stupid procedural guy; OO GUI stuff make head feel oogey!) 2) Just because people use Wine to run Windows applications, doesn't mean that they've bought into the "everything should be GUI" philosophy; some of us actually *like* ASCII configuration files. > > In the old style, I would have suggested something of the form: > > > > Windows Font = X LFD, PostScript font name > > > > This would seem to be relatively straightforward to implement, and it > > would bring a small measure of sanity to the area. (I currently have > > both 'MS Sans Serif' and 'Ms Sans Serif' fonts, because the X server and > > the PostScript driver don't agree on what the font should be called!) > > This should all be a lot easier when I get a FreeType engine bolted on > to gdi. Then psdrv,x11drv,ttydrv(?) will all have access to the same > data and thus consistancy should not be a problem. I actually see a manual font configuration as a *very* small step in this direction. At least it will let Wine control it's view of what fonts are available, rather than trying to make intelligent guesses based on the X font list and the PostScript driver. It does assume a certain intelligence on the user's part; mapping the core Windows fonts to X fonts that aren't installed on the system would be "bad", but it shouldn't be too hard to supply a reasonable default configuration. -- ======================================================================== Ian Pilcher pilcher(a)concentric.net ========================================================================

2 4

RE: Misc / Unicode
by Patrik Stridvall 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

> > 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.

1 0

Re: Misc / Unicode
by Dmitry Timoshkov 06 Feb '01

06 Feb '01

"Francois Gouget" <fgouget(a)free.fr> wrote: > <rant> > I checked the other cases and I have this question. Why does everyone > use 0 instead of '\0', 0 instead of FALSE, and '\0' instead of NULL? MS > even does the reverse and uses NULL in places where '\0' or 0 would have > been more appropriate. Man, if you know what you're doing prove it and > use the appropriate form: either 0, '\0' or NULL. > I know this comes from from someone who just forgot to put a trailing > '\0'. But still. > </rant> IMO it doesn't matter in the most cases, if you do not mix pointer data type (NULL) and others. '\0' == 0, and even better to use 0, because it automatically get casted by the compiler to the appropriate data type.

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

wine-devel