RAZZLE.CMD --> BUILD WINDOWS/NT OPERATING SYSTEM

See reply/update/thread reply –>

On 11/22/07, Alberto Moreira wrote:

> If nothing else, such a project would be tons of fun! And they would learn
> a
> great deal.

Couldn’t agree with you more - and if we incorporate we will not only learn
but, if overall successfull (which we will be), then all shareholders will
make a lot of money :wink:

I actually don’t see much more needed than plain vanilla make.exe to build
such a project - if you need
more than that, I’ll tell you, your OS is probably more complicated than it
needs to be.

- completely agree mate ! We are sticking to stevewo’s build.exe which is
found in, well, in one of many places including \nt4\private\sdktools\build<br>
The only problem is we can not get this to work (or any other make.exe/builder
program from the public WDK - vanilla as you say - without the proper MS
internal RAZZLE build environment as there are special differences between
the public and internal build environment used to make NT/Windows/even-DOS)

Would you have any enlightening data on how to convert the public WDK (we
are using Vista-Longhorn 6000) into the proper environment used
internally…

Can you or anyone else (with proper knowledge) explain what contents a
desktop icon RAZZLE.CMD needs in it’s contents so that it will
convert/setup/align the public WDK into the state it needs to be in (RAZZLE)
so it will build proper internal NT/Windows/MS code - that is code just like
the real NT/Win sourcecode ?

I would also take the position that anything undocumented is a prime
candidate for chucking. It takes a competent programmer less time to write a
component than to reverse engineering its counterpart in an OS.

We already have reverse engineered NTOSKRNL.EXE using a control group - when
I say control group that is because we had a group of programmers split in
half and 50% of them were dedicated to those who had the real proper NT
source code (see below regarding non-disclosure agreement) and the rest had
to start from scratch - at the end of the day although, yes you are right in
saying to took longer for the rev-eng-team, but both were able to,
ultimately, patch the real source and work from scratch to produce the same
product - the other half had genuine/legally obtained from MS - both
produced good NTOSKRNL.EXE

Plus, in case of doubt, the Linux source code or even the Minix listing
embody a
wealth of information that could be of great help in such a project.

Yes, along with TinyKRNL source, ReactOS source, Bochs-X86 Source, UEFI
Source, BAMBIOS source, Award BIOS Source, and maybe even some other
low-level-based “firmware” bases or simulators - I believe the IBM based
PowerPC is going to be revived big-time in the next 10 years or less as it
is the number one processor in the supercomputer market and to answer your
next question we would like to work from existing codebases (rather than
starting from scratch) in order to make it easier to provide support for
other platforms such as the POWER architectures. The new games consoles
(Xbox 360 and PS3) both use POWER based processors and these machines could
provide a lot of extra engine on a cluster - the XB360’s processor (Xenon)
is POWER with a triple-core die and double layer - effectively given it 6
processor cores - and the CELL on the PS3 is also POWER yet uses a single
core main CPU with 8 other “synergistic processing elements” on the same
DIE… Furthermore both theses IBM POWER PROCESSORS were designed with
supercomputing in mind - in fact, IBM are making there new supercomputer -
the IBM BLUE GENE /? for IBM BLUE BRAIN project (Whole Brain Emulation) -
which, along with IBM ROAD RUNNER - will be based on a hybrid of AMD
Opteron’s x64 and CELLs in a 1:1 configuration… Anyway the reason I bring
this up is that NT4 and some of WIN2K source had support for POWER - that is
why they incorporated \nt\private\mvdm\softpc.new\ which gives NT it’s own
built-in CPU and, unlike many people realize, BIOS…

Last but not least, if I was using Linux or Solaris, I would write the whole
thing in Java, and develop a back end converter from intermediate code into
machine code prior to downloading it to the Windows target.

I want to keep pure and that is why I want to use stevewo’s BUILD.EXE and
RAZZLE.CMD - I do not want to overly virtualize with psuedo-machines and
would prefer to work directly with the machine code itself - and the BIOS
and Processor - in fact, if need be, we will create a link using some form
of special custom BUS-BUS interlink - maybe even by FGPAs or PRE-PROCESSORs
integrating the slave boxes etc… But at the end of the day I want to keep
this whole project as low-level as possible - closest to the PROCESSOR.

It would take a bunch of talented and committed programmers, but I find it
quite a feasible proposition. Still, if you want to spend all this time and
effort, why not go the whole nine yards and just write something new and
exciting ? When the best operating systems we have are basically a rehash of
40 year old architectures, maybe it’s time for a shakeup!

It is indeed time for a shakeup and I am happy to even consider creating not
just a new operating system but perhaps even a new processor !!!

First things first however - I need to get a proper RAZZLE system open that
can build Windows Source Code so if you can help get things started please
continue to read and/or post me all info you can on how to script WDK into
RAZZLE so I can build any internal source code including the holy grail -
actually build Win/NT sourcecode.

> *

On 11/22/07, xxxxx@hotmail.com wrote:

> > If you’re creating your own kernel, won’t you be creating your own build
> tools as well?

Yes we have built our own kernel but we are not at a stage where such can be
released under any licence because as stated above there is no actual
official “project” or official “member” list - that is why we must
“incoroprate” as a legal entity, and have all persons interested in
contributing, pay “something” - ie even if this is 1 share at $US1 - that
would provide a perfect foundation with legal basis that would allow members
to see such source…

In regards to build tools well, for history’s sake, we want to use the
original BUILD.EXE created by STEVEWO and use it under RAZZLE.CMD - this is
why we want to know EVERYTHING there is about how to build Windows -
specifically - how can one convert/setup/re-set the standard WDK/DDK/SDKs
(we are using Vista RTM 6000+ because it includes IFS, HAL, and normal
NT4/2000/.NET (and Vista/Longhron) build environments…

Now, yes, we have completely reverse engineered NTOSKRNL.EXE and
BUILD.EXEbut can not work out how to bring up a proper window, under
the WDK 6000 RTM
- from connect.microsoft.com - that is genuinely a RAZZLE build
environment…

When I say genuine I mean there are differences between WDK/DDK build
environs and the true MS internal used RAZZLE –>

Can anyone tell us how to setup a RAZZLE.CMD script that will bring up a WDK
window that would be capable of building REAL MS Windows/NT Source Tree Code
???

- the following is appended in ascending order from the first reply -
please continue to read this to to the end:

Dear all interested parties,

First of all my group and I are very happy to see there is a statistical
significant, legally valid, and unified base quorum of parties worthy of
giving support AND constructive criticism toward this project; excuse my
humour but in all seriousness I am very happy to see the positive responses
given my persons from OSR and many other groups/threads/forums which show
support toward the development of a version of Windows/NT/hybrid (ie
including perhaps TinyKRNL & ReactOS bloodlines) which ultimately provides a
genuine Microsoft operating system albeit with a custom Kernel that allows
many boxes (ie say 10 for home/testing/beta use in Phase 1) to be clustered
together in such a way that the end server terminal (and end user) are
presented with a GUI/Shell/Console that “thinks”/“sees”/“realizes” the
resources (processor, RAM, storage et al) of all other slave boxes as being
LOCAL MOTHERBOARD RESOURCES in order to provide a true NT/Windows/MS
operating system (genuine) albeit with REAL clustering - that is, instead of
the orthodox supercomputing , distributed/cluster/grid/matrix, interprocess
communication that we know - but a true/proper single system image.

With such in mind perhaps the best way to go should set up a proper
project whereby such could be managed in a sourcedepot fashion.

Another thing to take into mind is that by asking persons to make a 1 share
(ie US$1 initially) will lead to a more structued/organized/democratic and
ordered project.

Each contributing-coder/member/potential-member (including you OSR members
etc) would make input as to how this is organised and then legally put in to
place.

Once we organise/setup/manage such I feel the project will take off like no
other GPL type project ever has in Internet history - this would be the
first true team studio developed commercial enterprise in Internet history -
especially when it comes to creation of an operating system.

All I am saying is that there should/must/will be a set of
rules/constitution/licensing binding all parties to the
incporated/registered entity; this includes a new domain with membership
and upfront share payment for those who have the faith something will work -
this is because at the end of the day everyone involved from zero hour will
be rewarded (at final RTM) with cash.

Or should we just begin by using standard GPL ?

Personally I believe the above question is rhetorical.

Anyway, with this in mind I must make it clear that until we have enough
members- ie 500+ - and have incorporated in such a way (ie as a co-operative
research centre / co-operative with government guaranteed shares to be
eligible for government funding) then there will be problems down the track
when we decide this operating system hybrid is ready for proper release to
manufacture.

So let’s start brainstorming now - as you already are - thanks OSR et al !

In summary - we need this sort of brainstorming (just like these -emails -
with people on OSR and other sites) in order to decide how the project is to
operate on a legal, sourcdepot, and team-studio-type operation.

Again, my answer to this is that anyone interested in assisting with the
project (as coder/member/investor) should first sign-up for membership to a
pre-organised legal entity (ie the co-operative) so that there is a
constituion in place to protect the project, members, and source.

This membership system would then work on a shareholder basis so that, down
the track and at completion of final phase, all those people involved in the
creation of the operating system, will receive a dividend
(equal/proportianite/respective to their input from code writing,
share-capital-payment, and brainstorming/general-input - as OSR members are
doing now).

This way all persons involved in the project will receive money (cash money
profits) from the sales, distribution, and RTM of the final build.

In summary I think the most important thing to first considering is how such
a project should be organised legally because I want to deviate from
standard “benevelont-free-work” principia and by doing so all people who
contribute will receive, in turn for their coding efforts, well, money…

This can all be worked out by this sort of brainstorming (happening on OSR
right now in these e-mails etc).

Anyway, here are the answers to everyone’s questions - this tradition of
dialectical materialism, where thesis VS antithesis = synthesis,
should produce one single & perfect grand unified theory (GUT) –>

once we have our GUT and democratically voted/survey assessed/quorum
determined set of protocols/constitution/rules, we can proceed - but first
things first: in my humble opinion this is setting up a brand new domain
domain under a brand new entity which all persons of interest will sign-up
to via making a pledge of shares (which can be anywhere from $1 at the start
–> and extended up to any amount - even $1000 + minimum sharehold -
depending on the success of the project as determined by our internal
democratice purpose and perhaps outsied beta testing/evaluation by select
groups of persons/companies - this might also include an external
feasability assesment from an accounting, IT, and legal firm which I am
happy to pay for along with the initial company/association/co-operative
incoropration as yes - I HAVE THE FUNDS AND SEED CAPITAL TO BRING THIS
PROJECT TO LIFE)

Ok, now I will answer the technical answers everyone has asked - I just
wanted to make it clear that if something like this is going to work we need
to setup a complete new project with domain name (and sourcedepot system)
that is managed by a domain name owned by every single member - via an
incorporated entity to which each member is an equal member relative to
their share value paid - this solves the ultimate goal of marketing our
final operating system as I want EVERYONE to get paid for their efforts -
unlike most GPL projects - in the end.

[CONTINUATION FROM xxxxx@hotmail.com]

Another interesting question is how this custom kernel/HAL is going to
interact with the existing drivers (?)

We have reverse engineered the proper and original NT/Windows Kernel(s) in
such a way that there will be no problem having this NTOSKRNL.EXE work with
existing and genuine drivers…After all, the guy made it clear that he
does it for WinNT - apparently, he plans to provide his own implementation
of NTLDR, ntoskrnl.exe and HAL.DLL , but all vital drivers are still going
to be MSFT -

It may or may not be necessary for us to use customized HALs, OSLOADER.EXEs,
or any other components - this is why we are brainstorming with you now - it
may after all be quite possible to do everything by incorporating
everything we desire/need/have-already-done (including our special
unviersal intercommunication system between motherboards) by putting all
this into NTOSKRNL.EXE…

Taking into consideration the fact that most ntoskrnl.exe’s and HAL.DLL’s
exports are undocumented (which means they are meant to be called only by
MSFT-provided drivers), he is going to face HUGE problems when it comes to
implementing those undocumented functions that are callable by MSFT -
provided drivers - if he wants to integrate his custom kernel with the
existing drivers, his custom exported functions have to act exactly the
same way the original functions do, as far as client callers are concerned.
I am afraid that, unless the guy has an access to ntoskrnl.exe’s source, his
task is practically infeasible - ntoskrnl.exe is just a bit too large for
being completely and thoroughly disassembled within a reasonable
timeframe…

To answer your question, without breaking any non-disclosure-agreements
signed, yes we have reverse-engineered the components required to make this
project MORE THAN FEASABILE but we are simply having problems with the
simple side of things - we can not get these things to build under the
standard WDK/DDK !!!

As opposed to the public used WDK build env, we need to know how to setup a
proper RAZZLE build environmnet as used by MS internally - so if someone
could simply explain how to setup a build environment - using the WDK or any
other DDK/SDK - we would be happy; this is all we need at this stage - the
details of how to convert the existing public WDK/DDK/SDKs into RAZZLE.

When I say RAZZLE we mean a build environment capable of building true
Windows Source Tree/Base Code…

So basicaly we are asking outright for anyone’s expertise in order to asnwer
this question - how does one setup a public WDK/DDK/SDK (particularly
Vista/RTM 6000) into RAZZLE - so that it will properly work in the exact MS
way to build real Microsoft Windows/NT sourcecode ?

PS:
Yes, we have signed a non-disclosure agreement with Microsoft but this is
what prevents us from explaining why/why not we have certain things- all I
can say here is that we are authorised to do what we are doing and that
Microsoft have provided us with the Win/NT sourcecode.

Since I’ve been using this site for quite some time I will bite you first —

  1. Who are you? What is your identity? How can someone trust you about your venture?

  2. You got the source under license, but did you get the permission that if someone knows Razzle should be allowed to give you the help. Knowing Razzle almost always implies a Microsofter.

  3. If your team can reverse engineer the kernel, why can’t they comeup with the build? What is the holdup?

  4. Lot of money !. That’s the wrong thing to pitch.

  5. Your use case scenario is already in direct conflict with some other company’s product. Look for panalogic. So why would someone trust you along that direction.

  6. You sounded like a standup-CEO. But I could be wrong.

  7. IBM blue gene machine is not a new venture !

-pro
----- Original Message -----
From: simulatedrealitylimited simulatedrealitylimited
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 3:29 AM
Subject: [ntdev] RAZZLE.CMD –> BUILD WINDOWS/NT OPERATING SYSTEM

See reply/update/thread reply –>

On 11/22/07, Alberto Moreira wrote:

If nothing else, such a project would be tons of fun! And they would learn a
great deal.

Couldn’t agree with you more - and if we incorporate we will not only learn but, if overall successfull (which we will be), then all shareholders will make a lot of money :wink:

I actually don’t see much more needed than plain vanilla make.exe to build such a project - if you need
more than that, I’ll tell you, your OS is probably more complicated than it
needs to be.

- completely agree mate ! We are sticking to stevewo’s build.exe which is found in, well, in one of many places including \nt4\private\sdktools\build\

The only problem is we can not get this to work (or any other make.exe/builder program from the public WDK - vanilla as you say - without the proper MS internal RAZZLE build environment as there are special differences between the public and internal build environment used to make NT/Windows/even-DOS)

Would you have any enlightening data on how to convert the public WDK (we are using Vista-Longhorn 6000) into the proper environment used internally…

Can you or anyone else (with proper knowledge) explain what contents a desktop icon RAZZLE.CMD needs in it’s contents so that it will convert/setup/align the public WDK into the state it needs to be in (RAZZLE) so it will build proper internal NT/Windows/MS code - that is code just like the real NT/Win sourcecode ?

I would also take the position that anything undocumented is a prime
candidate for chucking. It takes a competent programmer less time to write a
component than to reverse engineering its counterpart in an OS.

We already have reverse engineered NTOSKRNL.EXE using a control group - when I say control group that is because we had a group of programmers split in half and 50% of them were dedicated to those who had the real proper NT source code (see below regarding non-disclosure agreement) and the rest had to start from scratch - at the end of the day although, yes you are right in saying to took longer for the rev-eng-team, but both were able to, ultimately, patch the real source and work from scratch to produce the same product - the other half had genuine/legally obtained from MS - both produced good NTOSKRNL.EXE

Plus, in case of doubt, the Linux source code or even the Minix listing embody a
wealth of information that could be of great help in such a project.

Yes, along with TinyKRNL source, ReactOS source, Bochs-X86 Source, UEFI Source, BAMBIOS source, Award BIOS Source, and maybe even some other low-level-based “firmware” bases or simulators - I believe the IBM based PowerPC is going to be revived big-time in the next 10 years or less as it is the number one processor in the supercomputer market and to answer your next question we would like to work from existing codebases (rather than starting from scratch) in order to make it easier to provide support for other platforms such as the POWER architectures. The new games consoles (Xbox 360 and PS3) both use POWER based processors and these machines could provide a lot of extra engine on a cluster - the XB360’s processor (Xenon) is POWER with a triple-core die and double layer - effectively given it 6 processor cores - and the CELL on the PS3 is also POWER yet uses a single core main CPU with 8 other “synergistic processing elements” on the same DIE… Furthermore both theses IBM POWER PROCESSORS were designed with supercomputing in mind - in fact, IBM are making there new supercomputer - the IBM BLUE GENE /? for IBM BLUE BRAIN project (Whole Brain Emulation) - which, along with IBM ROAD RUNNER - will be based on a hybrid of AMD Opteron’s x64 and CELLs in a 1:1 configuration… Anyway the reason I bring this up is that NT4 and some of WIN2K source had support for POWER - that is why they incorporated \nt\private\mvdm\softpc.new\ which gives NT it’s own built-in CPU and, unlike many people realize, BIOS…

Last but not least, if I was using Linux or Solaris, I would write the whole
thing in Java, and develop a back end converter from intermediate code into
machine code prior to downloading it to the Windows target.

I want to keep pure and that is why I want to use stevewo’s BUILD.EXE and RAZZLE.CMD - I do not want to overly virtualize with psuedo-machines and would prefer to work directly with the machine code itself - and the BIOS and Processor - in fact, if need be, we will create a link using some form of special custom BUS-BUS interlink - maybe even by FGPAs or PRE-PROCESSORs integrating the slave boxes etc… But at the end of the day I want to keep this whole project as low-level as possible - closest to the PROCESSOR.

It would take a bunch of talented and committed programmers, but I find it
quite a feasible proposition. Still, if you want to spend all this time and
effort, why not go the whole nine yards and just write something new and
exciting ? When the best operating systems we have are basically a rehash of
40 year old architectures, maybe it’s time for a shakeup!

It is indeed time for a shakeup and I am happy to even consider creating not just a new operating system but perhaps even a new processor !!!

First things first however - I need to get a proper RAZZLE system open that can build Windows Source Code so if you can help get things started please continue to read and/or post me all info you can on how to script WDK into RAZZLE so I can build any internal source code including the holy grail - actually build Win/NT sourcecode.

*
On 11/22/07, xxxxx@hotmail.com wrote:

> If you’re creating your own kernel, won’t you be creating your own build tools as well?

Yes we have built our own kernel but we are not at a stage where such can be released under any licence because as stated above there is no actual official “project” or official “member” list - that is why we must “incoroprate” as a legal entity, and have all persons interested in contributing, pay “something” - ie even if this is 1 share at $US1 - that would provide a perfect foundation with legal basis that would allow members to see such source…

In regards to build tools well, for history’s sake, we want to use the original BUILD.EXE created by STEVEWO and use it under RAZZLE.CMD - this is why we want to know EVERYTHING there is about how to build Windows - specifically - how can one convert/setup/re-set the standard WDK/DDK/SDKs (we are using Vista RTM 6000+ because it includes IFS, HAL, and normal NT4/2000/.NET (and Vista/Longhron) build environments…

Now, yes, we have completely reverse engineered NTOSKRNL.EXE and BUILD.EXE but can not work out how to bring up a proper window, under the WDK 6000 RTM - from connect.microsoft.com - that is genuinely a RAZZLE build environment…

When I say genuine I mean there are differences between WDK/DDK build environs and the true MS internal used RAZZLE –>

Can anyone tell us how to setup a RAZZLE.CMD script that will bring up a WDK window that would be capable of building REAL MS Windows/NT Source Tree Code ???

- the following is appended in ascending order from the first reply - please continue to read this to to the end:

Dear all interested parties,

First of all my group and I are very happy to see there is a statistical significant, legally valid, and unified base quorum of parties worthy of giving support AND constructive criticism toward this project; excuse my humour but in all seriousness I am very happy to see the positive responses given my persons from OSR and many other groups/threads/forums which show support toward the development of a version of Windows/NT/hybrid (ie including perhaps TinyKRNL & ReactOS bloodlines) which ultimately provides a genuine Microsoft operating system albeit with a custom Kernel that allows many boxes (ie say 10 for home/testing/beta use in Phase 1) to be clustered together in such a way that the end server terminal (and end user) are presented with a GUI/Shell/Console that “thinks”/“sees”/“realizes” the resources (processor, RAM, storage et al) of all other slave boxes as being LOCAL MOTHERBOARD RESOURCES in order to provide a true NT/Windows/MS operating system (genuine) albeit with REAL clustering - that is, instead of the orthodox supercomputing , distributed/cluster/grid/matrix, interprocess communication that we know - but a true/proper single system image.

With such in mind perhaps the best way to go should set up a proper project whereby such could be managed in a sourcedepot fashion.

Another thing to take into mind is that by asking persons to make a 1 share (ie US$1 initially) will lead to a more structued/organized/democratic and ordered project.

Each contributing-coder/member/potential-member (including you OSR members etc) would make input as to how this is organised and then legally put in to place.

Once we organise/setup/manage such I feel the project will take off like no other GPL type project ever has in Internet history - this would be the first true team studio developed commercial enterprise in Internet history - especially when it comes to creation of an operating system.

All I am saying is that there should/must/will be a set of rules/constitution/licensing binding all parties to the incporated/registered entity; this includes a new domain with membership and upfront share payment for those who have the faith something will work - this is because at the end of the day everyone involved from zero hour will be rewarded (at final RTM) with cash.

Or should we just begin by using standard GPL ?

Personally I believe the above question is rhetorical.

Anyway, with this in mind I must make it clear that until we have enough members- ie 500+ - and have incorporated in such a way (ie as a co-operative research centre / co-operative with government guaranteed shares to be eligible for government funding) then there will be problems down the track when we decide this operating system hybrid is ready for proper release to manufacture.

So let’s start brainstorming now - as you already are - thanks OSR et al !

In summary - we need this sort of brainstorming (just like these -emails - with people on OSR and other sites) in order to decide how the project is to operate on a legal, sourcdepot, and team-studio-type operation.

Again, my answer to this is that anyone interested in assisting with the project (as coder/member/investor) should first sign-up for membership to a pre-organised legal entity (ie the co-operative) so that there is a constituion in place to protect the project, members, and source.

This membership system would then work on a shareholder basis so that, down the track and at completion of final phase, all those people involved in the creation of the operating system, will receive a dividend (equal/proportianite/respective to their input from code writing, share-capital-payment, and brainstorming/general-input - as OSR members are doing now).

This way all persons involved in the project will receive money (cash money profits) from the sales, distribution, and RTM of the final build.

In summary I think the most important thing to first considering is how such a project should be organised legally because I want to deviate from standard “benevelont-free-work” principia and by doing so all people who contribute will receive, in turn for their coding efforts, well, money…

This can all be worked out by this sort of brainstorming (happening on OSR right now in these e-mails etc).

Anyway, here are the answers to everyone’s questions - this tradition of dialectical materialism, where thesis VS antithesis = synthesis, should produce one single & perfect grand unified theory (GUT) –>

once we have our GUT and democratically voted/survey assessed/quorum determined set of protocols/constitution/rules, we can proceed - but first things first: in my humble opinion this is setting up a brand new domain domain under a brand new entity which all persons of interest will sign-up to via making a pledge of shares (which can be anywhere from $1 at the start –> and extended up to any amount - even $1000 + minimum sharehold - depending on the success of the project as determined by our internal democratice purpose and perhaps outsied beta testing/evaluation by select groups of persons/companies - this might also include an external feasability assesment from an accounting, IT, and legal firm which I am happy to pay for along with the initial company/association/co-operative incoropration as yes - I HAVE THE FUNDS AND SEED CAPITAL TO BRING THIS PROJECT TO LIFE)

Ok, now I will answer the technical answers everyone has asked - I just wanted to make it clear that if something like this is going to work we need to setup a complete new project with domain name (and sourcedepot system) that is managed by a domain name owned by every single member - via an incorporated entity to which each member is an equal member relative to their share value paid - this solves the ultimate goal of marketing our final operating system as I want EVERYONE to get paid for their efforts - unlike most GPL projects - in the end.

[CONTINUATION FROM xxxxx@hotmail.com]

Another interesting question is how this custom kernel/HAL is going to interact with the existing drivers (?)

We have reverse engineered the proper and original NT/Windows Kernel(s) in such a way that there will be no problem having this NTOSKRNL.EXE work with existing and genuine drivers…After all, the guy made it clear that he does it for WinNT - apparently, he plans to provide his own implementation of NTLDR, ntoskrnl.exe and HAL.DLL , but all vital drivers are still going to be MSFT -

It may or may not be necessary for us to use customized HALs, OSLOADER.EXEs, or any other components - this is why we are brainstorming with you now - it may after all be quite possible to do everything by incorporating everything we desire/need/have-already-done (including our special unviersal intercommunication system between motherboards) by putting all this into NTOSKRNL.EXE…

Taking into consideration the fact that most ntoskrnl.exe’s and HAL.DLL’s exports are undocumented (which means they are meant to be called only by MSFT-provided drivers), he is going to face HUGE problems when it comes to implementing those undocumented functions that are callable by MSFT - provided drivers - if he wants to integrate his custom kernel with the existing drivers, his custom exported functions have to act exactly the same way the original functions do, as far as client callers are concerned. I am afraid that, unless the guy has an access to ntoskrnl.exe’s source, his task is practically infeasible - ntoskrnl.exe is just a bit too large for being completely and thoroughly disassembled within a reasonable timeframe…

To answer your question, without breaking any non-disclosure-agreements signed, yes we have reverse-engineered the components required to make this project MORE THAN FEASABILE but we are simply having problems with the simple side of things - we can not get these things to build under the standard WDK/DDK !!!

As opposed to the public used WDK build env, we need to know how to setup a proper RAZZLE build environmnet as used by MS internally - so if someone could simply explain how to setup a build environment - using the WDK or any other DDK/SDK - we would be happy; this is all we need at this stage - the details of how to convert the existing public WDK/DDK/SDKs into RAZZLE.

When I say RAZZLE we mean a build environment capable of building true Windows Source Tree/Base Code…

So basicaly we are asking outright for anyone’s expertise in order to asnwer this question - how does one setup a public WDK/DDK/SDK (particularly Vista/RTM 6000) into RAZZLE - so that it will properly work in the exact MS way to build real Microsoft Windows/NT sourcecode ?

PS:

Yes, we have signed a non-disclosure agreement with Microsoft but this is what prevents us from explaining why/why not we have certain things- all I can say here is that we are authorised to do what we are doing and that Microsoft have provided us with the Win/NT sourcecode.

— NTDEV is sponsored by OSR For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit: http://www.osr.com/seminars To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

It seems to me if you got license to the source code and have a NDA agreement with Microsoft, they should be able to supply you with the info you need. If they are not, why would someone in the community (assuming they have the knowledge) give you the info that MS will not provide?

I don’t think anyone here has the info and even if they do, they will not give it to you. You need to ask Microsoft.

Beverly
“simulatedrealitylimited simulatedrealitylimited” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
See reply/update/thread reply –>

On 11/22/07, Alberto Moreira wrote:

If nothing else, such a project would be tons of fun! And they would learn a
great deal.

Couldn’t agree with you more - and if we incorporate we will not only learn but, if overall successfull (which we will be), then all shareholders will make a lot of money :wink:

I actually don’t see much more needed than plain vanilla make.exe to build such a project - if you need
more than that, I’ll tell you, your OS is probably more complicated than it
needs to be.

- completely agree mate ! We are sticking to stevewo’s build.exe which is found in, well, in one of many places including \nt4\private\sdktools\build\

The only problem is we can not get this to work (or any other make.exe/builder program from the public WDK - vanilla as you say - without the proper MS internal RAZZLE build environment as there are special differences between the public and internal build environment used to make NT/Windows/even-DOS)

Would you have any enlightening data on how to convert the public WDK (we are using Vista-Longhorn 6000) into the proper environment used internally…

Can you or anyone else (with proper knowledge) explain what contents a desktop icon RAZZLE.CMD needs in it’s contents so that it will convert/setup/align the public WDK into the state it needs to be in (RAZZLE) so it will build proper internal NT/Windows/MS code - that is code just like the real NT/Win sourcecode ?

I would also take the position that anything undocumented is a prime
candidate for chucking. It takes a competent programmer less time to write a
component than to reverse engineering its counterpart in an OS.

We already have reverse engineered NTOSKRNL.EXE using a control group - when I say control group that is because we had a group of programmers split in half and 50% of them were dedicated to those who had the real proper NT source code (see below regarding non-disclosure agreement) and the rest had to start from scratch - at the end of the day although, yes you are right in saying to took longer for the rev-eng-team, but both were able to, ultimately, patch the real source and work from scratch to produce the same product - the other half had genuine/legally obtained from MS - both produced good NTOSKRNL.EXE

Plus, in case of doubt, the Linux source code or even the Minix listing embody a
wealth of information that could be of great help in such a project.

Yes, along with TinyKRNL source, ReactOS source, Bochs-X86 Source, UEFI Source, BAMBIOS source, Award BIOS Source, and maybe even some other low-level-based “firmware” bases or simulators - I believe the IBM based PowerPC is going to be revived big-time in the next 10 years or less as it is the number one processor in the supercomputer market and to answer your next question we would like to work from existing codebases (rather than starting from scratch) in order to make it easier to provide support for other platforms such as the POWER architectures. The new games consoles (Xbox 360 and PS3) both use POWER based processors and these machines could provide a lot of extra engine on a cluster - the XB360’s processor (Xenon) is POWER with a triple-core die and double layer - effectively given it 6 processor cores - and the CELL on the PS3 is also POWER yet uses a single core main CPU with 8 other “synergistic processing elements” on the same DIE… Furthermore both theses IBM POWER PROCESSORS were designed with supercomputing in mind - in fact, IBM are making there new supercomputer - the IBM BLUE GENE /? for IBM BLUE BRAIN project (Whole Brain Emulation) - which, along with IBM ROAD RUNNER - will be based on a hybrid of AMD Opteron’s x64 and CELLs in a 1:1 configuration… Anyway the reason I bring this up is that NT4 and some of WIN2K source had support for POWER - that is why they incorporated \nt\private\mvdm\softpc.new\ which gives NT it’s own built-in CPU and, unlike many people realize, BIOS…

Last but not least, if I was using Linux or Solaris, I would write the whole
thing in Java, and develop a back end converter from intermediate code into
machine code prior to downloading it to the Windows target.

I want to keep pure and that is why I want to use stevewo’s BUILD.EXE and RAZZLE.CMD - I do not want to overly virtualize with psuedo-machines and would prefer to work directly with the machine code itself - and the BIOS and Processor - in fact, if need be, we will create a link using some form of special custom BUS-BUS interlink - maybe even by FGPAs or PRE-PROCESSORs integrating the slave boxes etc… But at the end of the day I want to keep this whole project as low-level as possible - closest to the PROCESSOR.

It would take a bunch of talented and committed programmers, but I find it
quite a feasible proposition. Still, if you want to spend all this time and
effort, why not go the whole nine yards and just write something new and
exciting ? When the best operating systems we have are basically a rehash of
40 year old architectures, maybe it’s time for a shakeup!

It is indeed time for a shakeup and I am happy to even consider creating not just a new operating system but perhaps even a new processor !!!

First things first however - I need to get a proper RAZZLE system open that can build Windows Source Code so if you can help get things started please continue to read and/or post me all info you can on how to script WDK into RAZZLE so I can build any internal source code including the holy grail - actually build Win/NT sourcecode.

*
On 11/22/07, xxxxx@hotmail.com wrote:

> If you’re creating your own kernel, won’t you be creating your own build tools as well?

Yes we have built our own kernel but we are not at a stage where such can be released under any licence because as stated above there is no actual official “project” or official “member” list - that is why we must “incoroprate” as a legal entity, and have all persons interested in contributing, pay “something” - ie even if this is 1 share at $US1 - that would provide a perfect foundation with legal basis that would allow members to see such source…

In regards to build tools well, for history’s sake, we want to use the original BUILD.EXE created by STEVEWO and use it under RAZZLE.CMD - this is why we want to know EVERYTHING there is about how to build Windows - specifically - how can one convert/setup/re-set the standard WDK/DDK/SDKs (we are using Vista RTM 6000+ because it includes IFS, HAL, and normal NT4/2000/.NET (and Vista/Longhron) build environments…

Now, yes, we have completely reverse engineered NTOSKRNL.EXE and BUILD.EXE but can not work out how to bring up a proper window, under the WDK 6000 RTM - from connect.microsoft.com - that is genuinely a RAZZLE build environment…

When I say genuine I mean there are differences between WDK/DDK build environs and the true MS internal used RAZZLE –>

Can anyone tell us how to setup a RAZZLE.CMD script that will bring up a WDK window that would be capable of building REAL MS Windows/NT Source Tree Code ???

- the following is appended in ascending order from the first reply - please continue to read this to to the end:

Dear all interested parties,

First of all my group and I are very happy to see there is a statistical significant, legally valid, and unified base quorum of parties worthy of giving support AND constructive criticism toward this project; excuse my humour but in all seriousness I am very happy to see the positive responses given my persons from OSR and many other groups/threads/forums which show support toward the development of a version of Windows/NT/hybrid (ie including perhaps TinyKRNL & ReactOS bloodlines) which ultimately provides a genuine Microsoft operating system albeit with a custom Kernel that allows many boxes (ie say 10 for home/testing/beta use in Phase 1) to be clustered together in such a way that the end server terminal (and end user) are presented with a GUI/Shell/Console that “thinks”/“sees”/“realizes” the resources (processor, RAM, storage et al) of all other slave boxes as being LOCAL MOTHERBOARD RESOURCES in order to provide a true NT/Windows/MS operating system (genuine) albeit with REAL clustering - that is, instead of the orthodox supercomputing , distributed/cluster/grid/matrix, interprocess communication that we know - but a true/proper single system image.

With such in mind perhaps the best way to go should set up a proper project whereby such could be managed in a sourcedepot fashion.

Another thing to take into mind is that by asking persons to make a 1 share (ie US$1 initially) will lead to a more structued/organized/democratic and ordered project.

Each contributing-coder/member/potential-member (including you OSR members etc) would make input as to how this is organised and then legally put in to place.

Once we organise/setup/manage such I feel the project will take off like no other GPL type project ever has in Internet history - this would be the first true team studio developed commercial enterprise in Internet history - especially when it comes to creation of an operating system.

All I am saying is that there should/must/will be a set of rules/constitution/licensing binding all parties to the incporated/registered entity; this includes a new domain with membership and upfront share payment for those who have the faith something will work - this is because at the end of the day everyone involved from zero hour will be rewarded (at final RTM) with cash.

Or should we just begin by using standard GPL ?

Personally I believe the above question is rhetorical.

Anyway, with this in mind I must make it clear that until we have enough members- ie 500+ - and have incorporated in such a way (ie as a co-operative research centre / co-operative with government guaranteed shares to be eligible for government funding) then there will be problems down the track when we decide this operating system hybrid is ready for proper release to manufacture.

So let’s start brainstorming now - as you already are - thanks OSR et al !

In summary - we need this sort of brainstorming (just like these -emails - with people on OSR and other sites) in order to decide how the project is to operate on a legal, sourcdepot, and team-studio-type operation.

Again, my answer to this is that anyone interested in assisting with the project (as coder/member/investor) should first sign-up for membership to a pre-organised legal entity (ie the co-operative) so that there is a constituion in place to protect the project, members, and source.

This membership system would then work on a shareholder basis so that, down the track and at completion of final phase, all those people involved in the creation of the operating system, will receive a dividend (equal/proportianite/respective to their input from code writing, share-capital-payment, and brainstorming/general-input - as OSR members are doing now).

This way all persons involved in the project will receive money (cash money profits) from the sales, distribution, and RTM of the final build.

In summary I think the most important thing to first considering is how such a project should be organised legally because I want to deviate from standard “benevelont-free-work” principia and by doing so all people who contribute will receive, in turn for their coding efforts, well, money…

This can all be worked out by this sort of brainstorming (happening on OSR right now in these e-mails etc).

Anyway, here are the answers to everyone’s questions - this tradition of dialectical materialism, where thesis VS antithesis = synthesis, should produce one single & perfect grand unified theory (GUT) –>

once we have our GUT and democratically voted/survey assessed/quorum determined set of protocols/constitution/rules, we can proceed - but first things first: in my humble opinion this is setting up a brand new domain domain under a brand new entity which all persons of interest will sign-up to via making a pledge of shares (which can be anywhere from $1 at the start –> and extended up to any amount - even $1000 + minimum sharehold - depending on the success of the project as determined by our internal democratice purpose and perhaps outsied beta testing/evaluation by select groups of persons/companies - this might also include an external feasability assesment from an accounting, IT, and legal firm which I am happy to pay for along with the initial company/association/co-operative incoropration as yes - I HAVE THE FUNDS AND SEED CAPITAL TO BRING THIS PROJECT TO LIFE)

Ok, now I will answer the technical answers everyone has asked - I just wanted to make it clear that if something like this is going to work we need to setup a complete new project with domain name (and sourcedepot system) that is managed by a domain name owned by every single member - via an incorporated entity to which each member is an equal member relative to their share value paid - this solves the ultimate goal of marketing our final operating system as I want EVERYONE to get paid for their efforts - unlike most GPL projects - in the end.

[CONTINUATION FROM xxxxx@hotmail.com]

Another interesting question is how this custom kernel/HAL is going to interact with the existing drivers (?)

We have reverse engineered the proper and original NT/Windows Kernel(s) in such a way that there will be no problem having this NTOSKRNL.EXE work with existing and genuine drivers…After all, the guy made it clear that he does it for WinNT - apparently, he plans to provide his own implementation of NTLDR, ntoskrnl.exe and HAL.DLL , but all vital drivers are still going to be MSFT -

It may or may not be necessary for us to use customized HALs, OSLOADER.EXEs, or any other components - this is why we are brainstorming with you now - it may after all be quite possible to do everything by incorporating everything we desire/need/have-already-done (including our special unviersal intercommunication system between motherboards) by putting all this into NTOSKRNL.EXE…

Taking into consideration the fact that most ntoskrnl.exe’s and HAL.DLL’s exports are undocumented (which means they are meant to be called only by MSFT-provided drivers), he is going to face HUGE problems when it comes to implementing those undocumented functions that are callable by MSFT - provided drivers - if he wants to integrate his custom kernel with the existing drivers, his custom exported functions have to act exactly the same way the original functions do, as far as client callers are concerned. I am afraid that, unless the guy has an access to ntoskrnl.exe’s source, his task is practically infeasible - ntoskrnl.exe is just a bit too large for being completely and thoroughly disassembled within a reasonable timeframe…

To answer your question, without breaking any non-disclosure-agreements signed, yes we have reverse-engineered the components required to make this project MORE THAN FEASABILE but we are simply having problems with the simple side of things - we can not get these things to build under the standard WDK/DDK !!!

As opposed to the public used WDK build env, we need to know how to setup a proper RAZZLE build environmnet as used by MS internally - so if someone could simply explain how to setup a build environment - using the WDK or any other DDK/SDK - we would be happy; this is all we need at this stage - the details of how to convert the existing public WDK/DDK/SDKs into RAZZLE.

When I say RAZZLE we mean a build environment capable of building true Windows Source Tree/Base Code…

So basicaly we are asking outright for anyone’s expertise in order to asnwer this question - how does one setup a public WDK/DDK/SDK (particularly Vista/RTM 6000) into RAZZLE - so that it will properly work in the exact MS way to build real Microsoft Windows/NT sourcecode ?

PS:

Yes, we have signed a non-disclosure agreement with Microsoft but this is what prevents us from explaining why/why not we have certain things- all I can say here is that we are authorised to do what we are doing and that Microsoft have provided us with the Win/NT sourcecode.

I’m obviously missing something critical from your discussion of your
problem. There is nothing magic about razzle, as far as I know it just sets
up a standard build environment for the NT source tree. It is the source
tree’s include files that are missing from the DDK, not some other
intangible quality.

On Nov 23, 2007 6:29 AM, simulatedrealitylimited simulatedrealitylimited <
xxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

See reply/update/thread reply –>

On 11/22/07, Alberto Moreira wrote:
>
>
> > If nothing else, such a project would be tons of fun! And they would
> > learn a
> > great deal.
>
>
> Couldn’t agree with you more - and if we incorporate we will not only
> learn but, if overall successfull (which we will be), then all shareholders
> will make a lot of money :wink:
>
> I actually don’t see much more needed than plain vanilla make.exe to
> build such a project - if you need
> more than that, I’ll tell you, your OS is probably more complicated than
> it
> needs to be.
>
> - completely agree mate ! We are sticking to stevewo’s build.exe which is
> found in, well, in one of many places including \nt4\private\sdktools\build<br>>
> The only problem is we can not get this to work (or any other make.exe/builder
> program from the public WDK - vanilla as you say - without the proper MS
> internal RAZZLE build environment as there are special differences between
> the public and internal build environment used to make NT/Windows/even-DOS)
>
> Would you have any enlightening data on how to convert the public WDK (we
> are using Vista-Longhorn 6000) into the proper environment used
> internally…
>
> Can you or anyone else (with proper knowledge) explain what contents a
> desktop icon RAZZLE.CMD needs in it’s contents so that it will
> convert/setup/align the public WDK into the state it needs to be in (RAZZLE)
> so it will build proper internal NT/Windows/MS code - that is code just like
> the real NT/Win sourcecode ?
>
> I would also take the position that anything undocumented is a prime
> candidate for chucking. It takes a competent programmer less time to write
> a
> component than to reverse engineering its counterpart in an OS.
>
> We already have reverse engineered NTOSKRNL.EXE using a control group -
> when I say control group that is because we had a group of programmers split
> in half and 50% of them were dedicated to those who had the real proper NT
> source code (see below regarding non-disclosure agreement) and the rest had
> to start from scratch - at the end of the day although, yes you are right in
> saying to took longer for the rev-eng-team, but both were able to,
> ultimately, patch the real source and work from scratch to produce the same
> product - the other half had genuine/legally obtained from MS - both
> produced good NTOSKRNL.EXE
>
> Plus, in case of doubt, the Linux source code or even the Minix listing
> embody a
> wealth of information that could be of great help in such a project.
>
> Yes, along with TinyKRNL source, ReactOS source, Bochs-X86 Source, UEFI
> Source, BAMBIOS source, Award BIOS Source, and maybe even some other
> low-level-based “firmware” bases or simulators - I believe the IBM based
> PowerPC is going to be revived big-time in the next 10 years or less as it
> is the number one processor in the supercomputer market and to answer your
> next question we would like to work from existing codebases (rather than
> starting from scratch) in order to make it easier to provide support for
> other platforms such as the POWER architectures. The new games consoles
> (Xbox 360 and PS3) both use POWER based processors and these machines could
> provide a lot of extra engine on a cluster - the XB360’s processor (Xenon)
> is POWER with a triple-core die and double layer - effectively given it 6
> processor cores - and the CELL on the PS3 is also POWER yet uses a single
> core main CPU with 8 other “synergistic processing elements” on the same
> DIE… Furthermore both theses IBM POWER PROCESSORS were designed with
> supercomputing in mind - in fact, IBM are making there new supercomputer -
> the IBM BLUE GENE /? for IBM BLUE BRAIN project (Whole Brain Emulation) -
> which, along with IBM ROAD RUNNER - will be based on a hybrid of AMD
> Opteron’s x64 and CELLs in a 1:1 configuration… Anyway the reason I bring
> this up is that NT4 and some of WIN2K source had support for POWER - that is
> why they incorporated \nt\private\mvdm\softpc.new\ which gives NT it’s own
> built-in CPU and, unlike many people realize, BIOS…
>
> Last but not least, if I was using Linux or Solaris, I would write the
> whole
> thing in Java, and develop a back end converter from intermediate code
> into
> machine code prior to downloading it to the Windows target.
>
> I want to keep pure and that is why I want to use stevewo’s BUILD.EXE and
> RAZZLE.CMD - I do not want to overly virtualize with psuedo-machines and
> would prefer to work directly with the machine code itself - and the BIOS
> and Processor - in fact, if need be, we will create a link using some form
> of special custom BUS-BUS interlink - maybe even by FGPAs or PRE-PROCESSORs
> integrating the slave boxes etc… But at the end of the day I want to keep
> this whole project as low-level as possible - closest to the PROCESSOR.
>
> It would take a bunch of talented and committed programmers, but I find it
> quite a feasible proposition. Still, if you want to spend all this time
> and
> effort, why not go the whole nine yards and just write something new and
> exciting ? When the best operating systems we have are basically a rehash
> of
> 40 year old architectures, maybe it’s time for a shakeup!
>
> It is indeed time for a shakeup and I am happy to even consider creating
> not just a new operating system but perhaps even a new processor !!!
>
> First things first however - I need to get a proper RAZZLE system open
> that can build Windows Source Code so if you can help get things started
> please continue to read and/or post me all info you can on how to script WDK
> into RAZZLE so I can build any internal source code including the holy grail
> - actually build Win/NT sourcecode.
>
>
>
> > *
>
> On 11/22/07, xxxxx@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > If you’re creating your own kernel, won’t you be creating your own
> > build tools as well?
>
>
> Yes we have built our own kernel but we are not at a stage where such can
> be released under any licence because as stated above there is no actual
> official “project” or official “member” list - that is why we must
> “incoroprate” as a legal entity, and have all persons interested in
> contributing, pay “something” - ie even if this is 1 share at $US1 - that
> would provide a perfect foundation with legal basis that would allow members
> to see such source…
>
> In regards to build tools well, for history’s sake, we want to use the
> original BUILD.EXE created by STEVEWO and use it under RAZZLE.CMD - this
> is why we want to know EVERYTHING there is about how to build Windows -
> specifically - how can one convert/setup/re-set the standard WDK/DDK/SDKs
> (we are using Vista RTM 6000+ because it includes IFS, HAL, and normal
> NT4/2000/.NET (and Vista/Longhron) build environments…
>
> Now, yes, we have completely reverse engineered NTOSKRNL.EXE and BUILD.EXEbut can not work out how to bring up a proper window, under the WDK 6000 RTM
> - from connect.microsoft.com - that is genuinely a RAZZLE build
> environment…
>
> When I say genuine I mean there are differences between WDK/DDK build
> environs and the true MS internal used RAZZLE –>
>
> Can anyone tell us how to setup a RAZZLE.CMD script that will bring up a
> WDK window that would be capable of building REAL MS Windows/NT Source Tree
> Code ???
>
> - the following is appended in ascending order from the first reply -
> please continue to read this to to the end:
>
> Dear all interested parties,
>
> First of all my group and I are very happy to see there is a statistical
> significant, legally valid, and unified base quorum of parties worthy of
> giving support AND constructive criticism toward this project; excuse my
> humour but in all seriousness I am very happy to see the positive responses
> given my persons from OSR and many other groups/threads/forums which show
> support toward the development of a version of Windows/NT/hybrid (ie
> including perhaps TinyKRNL & ReactOS bloodlines) which ultimately provides a
> genuine Microsoft operating system albeit with a custom Kernel that allows
> many boxes (ie say 10 for home/testing/beta use in Phase 1) to be clustered
> together in such a way that the end server terminal (and end user) are
> presented with a GUI/Shell/Console that “thinks”/“sees”/“realizes” the
> resources (processor, RAM, storage et al) of all other slave boxes as being
> LOCAL MOTHERBOARD RESOURCES in order to provide a true NT/Windows/MS
> operating system (genuine) albeit with REAL clustering - that is, instead of
> the orthodox supercomputing , distributed/cluster/grid/matrix, interprocess
> communication that we know - but a true/proper single system image.
>
> With such in mind perhaps the best way to go should set up a proper
> project whereby such could be managed in a sourcedepot fashion.
>
> Another thing to take into mind is that by asking persons to make a 1
> share (ie US$1 initially) will lead to a more structued/organized/democratic
> and ordered project.
>
> Each contributing-coder/member/potential-member (including you OSR members
> etc) would make input as to how this is organised and then legally put in to
> place.
>
> Once we organise/setup/manage such I feel the project will take off like
> no other GPL type project ever has in Internet history - this would be the
> first true team studio developed commercial enterprise in Internet history -
> especially when it comes to creation of an operating system.
>
> All I am saying is that there should/must/will be a set of
> rules/constitution/licensing binding all parties to the
> incporated/registered entity; this includes a new domain with membership
> and upfront share payment for those who have the faith something will work -
> this is because at the end of the day everyone involved from zero hour will
> be rewarded (at final RTM) with cash.
>
> Or should we just begin by using standard GPL ?
>
> Personally I believe the above question is rhetorical.
>
> Anyway, with this in mind I must make it clear that until we have enough
> members- ie 500+ - and have incorporated in such a way (ie as a co-operative
> research centre / co-operative with government guaranteed shares to be
> eligible for government funding) then there will be problems down the track
> when we decide this operating system hybrid is ready for proper release to
> manufacture.
>
> So let’s start brainstorming now - as you already are - thanks OSR et al
> !
>
> In summary - we need this sort of brainstorming (just like these -emails -
> with people on OSR and other sites) in order to decide how the project is to
> operate on a legal, sourcdepot, and team-studio-type operation.
>
> Again, my answer to this is that anyone interested in assisting with the
> project (as coder/member/investor) should first sign-up for membership to a
> pre-organised legal entity (ie the co-operative) so that there is a
> constituion in place to protect the project, members, and source.
>
> This membership system would then work on a shareholder basis so that,
> down the track and at completion of final phase, all those people involved
> in the creation of the operating system, will receive a dividend
> (equal/proportianite/respective to their input from code writing,
> share-capital-payment, and brainstorming/general-input - as OSR members are
> doing now).
>
> This way all persons involved in the project will receive money (cash
> money profits) from the sales, distribution, and RTM of the final build.
>
> In summary I think the most important thing to first considering is how
> such a project should be organised legally because I want to deviate from
> standard “benevelont-free-work” principia and by doing so all people who
> contribute will receive, in turn for their coding efforts, well, money…
>
> This can all be worked out by this sort of brainstorming (happening on OSR
> right now in these e-mails etc).
>
> Anyway, here are the answers to everyone’s questions - this tradition of
> dialectical materialism, where thesis VS antithesis = synthesis,
> should produce one single & perfect grand unified theory (GUT) –>
>
> once we have our GUT and democratically voted/survey assessed/quorum
> determined set of protocols/constitution/rules, we can proceed - but first
> things first: in my humble opinion this is setting up a brand new domain
> domain under a brand new entity which all persons of interest will sign-up
> to via making a pledge of shares (which can be anywhere from $1 at the start
> –> and extended up to any amount - even $1000 + minimum sharehold -
> depending on the success of the project as determined by our internal
> democratice purpose and perhaps outsied beta testing/evaluation by select
> groups of persons/companies - this might also include an external
> feasability assesment from an accounting, IT, and legal firm which I am
> happy to pay for along with the initial company/association/co-operative
> incoropration as yes - I HAVE THE FUNDS AND SEED CAPITAL TO BRING THIS
> PROJECT TO LIFE)
>
> Ok, now I will answer the technical answers everyone has asked - I just
> wanted to make it clear that if something like this is going to work we need
> to setup a complete new project with domain name (and sourcedepot system)
> that is managed by a domain name owned by every single member - via an
> incorporated entity to which each member is an equal member relative to
> their share value paid - this solves the ultimate goal of marketing our
> final operating system as I want EVERYONE to get paid for their efforts -
> unlike most GPL projects - in the end.
>
> [CONTINUATION FROM xxxxx@hotmail.com]
>
> Another interesting question is how this custom kernel/HAL is going to
> interact with the existing drivers (?)
>
> We have reverse engineered the proper and original NT/Windows Kernel(s) in
> such a way that there will be no problem having this NTOSKRNL.EXE work
> with existing and genuine drivers…After all, the guy made it clear that
> he does it for WinNT - apparently, he plans to provide his own
> implementation of NTLDR, ntoskrnl.exe and HAL.DLL , but all vital drivers
> are still going to be MSFT -
>
> It may or may not be necessary for us to use customized HALs,
> OSLOADER.EXEs, or any other components - this is why we are brainstorming
> with you now - it may after all be quite possible to do everything by
> incorporating everything we desire/need/have-already-done (including our
> special unviersal intercommunication system between motherboards) by putting
> all this into NTOSKRNL.EXE…
>
> Taking into consideration the fact that most ntoskrnl.exe’s and HAL.DLL’s
> exports are undocumented (which means they are meant to be called only by
> MSFT-provided drivers), he is going to face HUGE problems when it comes to
> implementing those undocumented functions that are callable by MSFT -
> provided drivers - if he wants to integrate his custom kernel with the
> existing drivers, his custom exported functions have to act exactly the
> same way the original functions do, as far as client callers are concerned.
> I am afraid that, unless the guy has an access to ntoskrnl.exe’s source,
> his task is practically infeasible - ntoskrnl.exe is just a bit too large
> for being completely and thoroughly disassembled within a reasonable
> timeframe…
>
> To answer your question, without breaking any non-disclosure-agreements
> signed, yes we have reverse-engineered the components required to make this
> project MORE THAN FEASABILE but we are simply having problems with the
> simple side of things - we can not get these things to build under the
> standard WDK/DDK !!!
>
> As opposed to the public used WDK build env, we need to know how to setup
> a proper RAZZLE build environmnet as used by MS internally - so if someone
> could simply explain how to setup a build environment - using the WDK or any
> other DDK/SDK - we would be happy; this is all we need at this stage - the
> details of how to convert the existing public WDK/DDK/SDKs into RAZZLE.
>
> When I say RAZZLE we mean a build environment capable of building true
> Windows Source Tree/Base Code…
>
> So basicaly we are asking outright for anyone’s expertise in order to
> asnwer this question - how does one setup a public WDK/DDK/SDK (particularly
> Vista/RTM 6000) into RAZZLE - so that it will properly work in the exact MS
> way to build real Microsoft Windows/NT sourcecode ?
>
> PS:
> Yes, we have signed a non-disclosure agreement with Microsoft but this is
> what prevents us from explaining why/why not we have certain things- all I
> can say here is that we are authorised to do what we are doing and that
> Microsoft have provided us with the Win/NT sourcecode.
>
>
> — NTDEV is sponsored by OSR For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and
> other seminars visit: http://www.osr.com/seminars To unsubscribe, visit
> the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer


Mark Roddy

Actually, doesn’t your NDA state that you cannot disclose the details of
the NDA? Like telling everyone you have the src?

Just curious.

~kenny

ActuBeverly Brown wrote:

It seems to me if you got license to the source code and have a NDA
agreement with Microsoft, they should be able to supply you with the
info you need. If they are not, why would someone in the community
(assuming they have the knowledge) give you the info that MS will not
provide?

I don’t think anyone here has the info and even if they do, they will
not give it to you. You need to ask Microsoft.

Beverly

“simulatedrealitylimited simulatedrealitylimited”
> mailto:xxxxx> wrote in message
> news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> See reply/update/thread reply –>
>
> On 11/22/07, Alberto Moreira > mailto:xxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> If nothing else, such a project would be tons of fun! And they
> would learn a
> great deal.
>
>
> Couldn’t agree with you more - and if we incorporate we will not
> only learn but, if overall successfull (which we will be), then all
> shareholders will make a lot of money :wink:
>
> I actually don’t see much more needed than plain vanilla make.exe
> to build such a project - if you need
> more than that, I’ll tell you, your OS is probably more complicated
> than it
> needs to be.
>
> - completely agree mate ! We are sticking to stevewo’s build.exe
> which is found in, well, in one of many places including
> \nt4\private\sdktools\build<br>>
> The only problem is we can not get this to work (or any other
> make.exe/builder program from the public WDK - vanilla as you say -
> without the proper MS internal RAZZLE build environment as there are
> special differences between the public and internal build
> environment used to make NT/Windows/even-DOS)
>
> Would you have any enlightening data on how to convert the public
> WDK (we are using Vista-Longhorn 6000) into the proper environment
> used internally…
>
> Can you or anyone else (with proper knowledge) explain what contents
> a desktop icon RAZZLE.CMD needs in it’s contents so that it will
> convert/setup/align the public WDK into the state it needs to be in
> (RAZZLE) so it will build proper internal NT/Windows/MS code - that
> is code just like the real NT/Win sourcecode ?
>
> I would also take the position that anything undocumented is a prime
> candidate for chucking. It takes a competent programmer less time to
> write a
> component than to reverse engineering its counterpart in an OS.
>
> We already have reverse engineered NTOSKRNL.EXE using a control
> group - when I say control group that is because we had a group of
> programmers split in half and 50% of them were dedicated to those
> who had the real proper NT source code (see below regarding
> non-disclosure agreement) and the rest had to start from scratch -
> at the end of the day although, yes you are right in saying to took
> longer for the rev-eng-team, but both were able to,
> ultimately, patch the real source and work from scratch to produce
> the same product - the other half had genuine/legally obtained from
> MS - both produced good NTOSKRNL.EXE
>
> Plus, in case of doubt, the Linux source code or even the Minix
> listing embody a
> wealth of information that could be of great help in such a project.
>
> Yes, along with TinyKRNL source, ReactOS source, Bochs-X86 Source,
> UEFI Source, BAMBIOS source, Award BIOS Source, and maybe even some
> other low-level-based “firmware” bases or simulators - I believe the
> IBM based PowerPC is going to be revived big-time in the next 10
> years or less as it is the number one processor in the supercomputer
> market and to answer your next question we would like to work from
> existing codebases (rather than starting from scratch) in order to
> make it easier to provide support for other platforms such as the
> POWER architectures. The new games consoles (Xbox 360 and PS3) both
> use POWER based processors and these machines could provide a lot of
> extra engine on a cluster - the XB360’s processor (Xenon) is POWER
> with a triple-core die and double layer - effectively given it 6
> processor cores - and the CELL on the PS3 is also POWER yet uses a
> single core main CPU with 8 other “synergistic processing elements”
> on the same DIE… Furthermore both theses IBM POWER PROCESSORS were
> designed with supercomputing in mind - in fact, IBM are making there
> new supercomputer - the IBM BLUE GENE /? for IBM BLUE BRAIN project
> (Whole Brain Emulation) - which, along with IBM ROAD RUNNER - will
> be based on a hybrid of AMD Opteron’s x64 and CELLs in a 1:1
> configuration… Anyway the reason I bring this up is that NT4 and
> some of WIN2K source had support for POWER - that is why they
> incorporated \nt\private\mvdm\softpc.new\ which gives NT it’s own
> built-in CPU and, unlike many people realize, BIOS…
>
> Last but not least, if I was using Linux or Solaris, I would write
> the whole
> thing in Java, and develop a back end converter from intermediate
> code into
> machine code prior to downloading it to the Windows target.
>
> I want to keep pure and that is why I want to use stevewo’s
> BUILD.EXE and RAZZLE.CMD - I do not want to overly virtualize with
> psuedo-machines and would prefer to work directly with the machine
> code itself - and the BIOS and Processor - in fact, if need be, we
> will create a link using some form of special custom BUS-BUS
> interlink - maybe even by FGPAs or PRE-PROCESSORs integrating the
> slave boxes etc… But at the end of the day I want to keep this
> whole project as low-level as possible - closest to the PROCESSOR.
>
> It would take a bunch of talented and committed programmers, but I
> find it
> quite a feasible proposition. Still, if you want to spend all this
> time and
> effort, why not go the whole nine yards and just write something new
> and
> exciting ? When the best operating systems we have are basically a
> rehash of
> 40 year old architectures, maybe it’s time for a shakeup!
>
> It is indeed time for a shakeup and I am happy to even consider
> creating not just a new operating system but perhaps even a new
> processor !!!
>
> First things first however - I need to get a proper RAZZLE system
> open that can build Windows Source Code so if you can help get
> things started please continue to read and/or post me all info you
> can on how to script WDK into RAZZLE so I can build any internal
> source code including the holy grail - actually build Win/NT
> sourcecode.
>
>
>
> *
>
> On 11/22/07, xxxxx@hotmail.com
> mailto:xxxxx
> mailto:xxxxx> wrote:
>
> > If you’re creating your own kernel, won’t you be creating
> your own build tools as well?
>
>
> Yes we have built our own kernel but we are not at a stage where
> such can be released under any licence because as stated above there
> is no actual official “project” or official “member” list - that is
> why we must “incoroprate” as a legal entity, and have all persons
> interested in contributing, pay “something” - ie even if this is 1
> share at $US1 - that would provide a perfect foundation with legal
> basis that would allow members to see such source…
>
> In regards to build tools well, for history’s sake, we want to use
> the original BUILD.EXE created by STEVEWO and use it under
> RAZZLE.CMD - this is why we want to know EVERYTHING there is about
> how to build Windows - specifically - how can one
> convert/setup/re-set the standard WDK/DDK/SDKs (we are using Vista
> RTM 6000+ because it includes IFS, HAL, and normal NT4/2000/.NET
> (and Vista/Longhron) build environments…
>
> Now, yes, we have completely reverse engineered NTOSKRNL.EXE and
> BUILD.EXE but can not work out how to bring up a proper window,
> under the WDK 6000 RTM - from connect.microsoft.com
> http: - that is genuinely a RAZZLE build
> environment…
>
> When I say genuine I mean there are differences between WDK/DDK
> build environs and the true MS internal used RAZZLE –>
>
> Can anyone tell us how to setup a RAZZLE.CMD script that will bring
> up a WDK window that would be capable of building REAL MS Windows/NT
> Source Tree Code ???
>
> - the following is appended in ascending order from the first reply
> - please continue to read this to to the end:
>
> Dear all interested parties,
>
> First of all my group and I are very happy to see there is a
> statistical significant, legally valid, and unified base quorum of
> parties worthy of giving support AND constructive criticism toward
> this project; excuse my humour but in all seriousness I am very
> happy to see the positive responses given my persons from OSR and
> many other groups/threads/forums which show support toward the
> development of a version of Windows/NT/hybrid (ie including perhaps
> TinyKRNL & ReactOS bloodlines) which ultimately provides a genuine
> Microsoft operating system albeit with a custom Kernel that allows
> many boxes (ie say 10 for home/testing/beta use in Phase 1) to be
> clustered together in such a way that the end server terminal (and
> end user) are presented with a GUI/Shell/Console that
> “thinks”/“sees”/“realizes” the resources (processor, RAM, storage et
> al) of all other slave boxes as being LOCAL MOTHERBOARD RESOURCES in
> order to provide a true NT/Windows/MS operating system (genuine)
> albeit with REAL clustering - that is, instead of the orthodox
> supercomputing , distributed/cluster/grid/matrix, interprocess
> communication that we know - but a true/proper single system image.
>
> With such in mind perhaps the best way to go should set up a proper
> project whereby such could be managed in a sourcedepot fashion.
>
> Another thing to take into mind is that by asking persons to make a
> 1 share (ie US$1 initially) will lead to a more
> structued/organized/democratic and ordered project.
>
> Each contributing-coder/member/potential-member (including you OSR
> members etc) would make input as to how this is organised and then
> legally put in to place.
>
> Once we organise/setup/manage such I feel the project will take off
> like no other GPL type project ever has in Internet history - this
> would be the first true team studio developed commercial enterprise
> in Internet history - especially when it comes to creation of an
> operating system.
>
> All I am saying is that there should/must/will be a set of
> rules/constitution/licensing binding all parties to the
> incporated/registered entity; this includes a new domain with
> membership and upfront share payment for those who have the faith
> something will work - this is because at the end of the day everyone
> involved from zero hour will be rewarded (at final RTM) with cash.
>
> Or should we just begin by using standard GPL ?
>
> Personally I believe the above question is rhetorical.
>
> Anyway, with this in mind I must make it clear that until we have
> enough members- ie 500+ - and have incorporated in such a way (ie as
> a co-operative research centre / co-operative with government
> guaranteed shares to be eligible for government funding) then there
> will be problems down the track when we decide this operating system
> hybrid is ready for proper release to manufacture.
>
> So let’s start brainstorming now - as you already are - thanks OSR
> et al !
>
> In summary - we need this sort of brainstorming (just like these
> -emails - with people on OSR and other sites) in order to decide how
> the project is to operate on a legal, sourcdepot, and
> team-studio-type operation.
>
> Again, my answer to this is that anyone interested in assisting with
> the project (as coder/member/investor) should first sign-up for
> membership to a pre-organised legal entity (ie the co-operative) so
> that there is a constituion in place to protect the project,
> members, and source.
>
> This membership system would then work on a shareholder basis so
> that, down the track and at completion of final phase, all those
> people involved in the creation of the operating system, will
> receive a dividend (equal/proportianite/respective to their input
> from code writing, share-capital-payment, and
> brainstorming/general-input - as OSR members are doing now).
>
> This way all persons involved in the project will receive money
> (cash money profits) from the sales, distribution, and RTM of the
> final build.
>
> In summary I think the most important thing to first considering is
> how such a project should be organised legally because I want to
> deviate from standard “benevelont-free-work” principia and by doing
> so all people who contribute will receive, in turn for their coding
> efforts, well, money…
>
> This can all be worked out by this sort of brainstorming (happening
> on OSR right now in these e-mails etc).
>
> Anyway, here are the answers to everyone’s questions -
> this tradition of dialectical materialism, where thesis VS
> antithesis = synthesis, should produce one single & perfect grand
> unified theory (GUT) –>
>
> once we have our GUT and democratically voted/survey assessed/quorum
> determined set of protocols/constitution/rules, we can proceed - but
> first things first: in my humble opinion this is setting up a brand
> new domain domain under a brand new entity which all persons of
> interest will sign-up to via making a pledge of shares (which can be
> anywhere from $1 at the start –> and extended up to any amount -
> even $1000 + minimum sharehold - depending on the success of the
> project as determined by our internal democratice purpose and
> perhaps outsied beta testing/evaluation by select groups of
> persons/companies - this might also include an external feasability
> assesment from an accounting, IT, and legal firm which I am happy to
> pay for along with the initial company/association/co-operative
> incoropration as yes - I HAVE THE FUNDS AND SEED CAPITAL TO BRING
> THIS PROJECT TO LIFE)
>
> Ok, now I will answer the technical answers everyone has asked - I
> just wanted to make it clear that if something like this is going to
> work we need to setup a complete new project with domain name (and
> sourcedepot system) that is managed by a domain name owned by every
> single member - via an incorporated entity to which each member is
> an equal member relative to their share value paid - this solves the
> ultimate goal of marketing our final operating system as I want
> EVERYONE to get paid for their efforts - unlike most GPL projects -
> in the end.
>
> [CONTINUATION FROM xxxxx@hotmail.com
> mailto:xxxxx]
>
> Another interesting question is how this custom kernel/HAL is going
> to interact with the existing drivers (?)
>
> We have reverse engineered the proper and original NT/Windows
> Kernel(s) in such a way that there will be no problem having this
> NTOSKRNL.EXE work with existing and genuine drivers…After all, the
> guy made it clear that he does it for WinNT - apparently, he plans
> to provide his own implementation of NTLDR, ntoskrnl.exe and HAL.DLL
> , but all vital drivers are still going to be MSFT -
>
> It may or may not be necessary for us to use customized HALs,
> OSLOADER.EXEs, or any other components - this is why we are
> brainstorming with you now - it may after all be quite possible to
> do everything by incorporating everything we
> desire/need/have-already-done (including our special unviersal
> intercommunication system between motherboards) by putting all this
> into NTOSKRNL.EXE…
>
> Taking into consideration the fact that most ntoskrnl.exe’s and
> HAL.DLL’s exports are undocumented (which means they are meant to be
> called only by MSFT-provided drivers), he is going to face HUGE
> problems when it comes to implementing those undocumented functions
> that are callable by MSFT - provided drivers - if he wants to
> integrate his custom kernel with the existing drivers, his custom
> exported functions have to act exactly the same way the original
> functions do, as far as client callers are concerned. I am afraid
> that, unless the guy has an access to ntoskrnl.exe’s source, his
> task is practically infeasible - ntoskrnl.exe is just a bit too
> large for being completely and thoroughly disassembled within a
> reasonable timeframe…
>
> To answer your question, without breaking any
> non-disclosure-agreements signed, yes we have reverse-engineered the
> components required to make this project MORE THAN FEASABILE but we
> are simply having problems with the simple side of things - we can
> not get these things to build under the standard WDK/DDK !!!
>
> As opposed to the public used WDK build env, we need to know how to
> setup a proper RAZZLE build environmnet as used by MS internally -
> so if someone could simply explain how to setup a build environment
> - using the WDK or any other DDK/SDK - we would be happy; this is
> all we need at this stage - the details of how to convert the
> existing public WDK/DDK/SDKs into RAZZLE.
>
> When I say RAZZLE we mean a build environment capable of building
> true Windows Source Tree/Base Code…
>
> So basicaly we are asking outright for anyone’s expertise in order
> to asnwer this question - how does one setup a public WDK/DDK/SDK
> (particularly Vista/RTM 6000) into RAZZLE - so that it will properly
> work in the exact MS way to build real Microsoft Windows/NT
> sourcecode ?
>
> PS:
> Yes, we have signed a non-disclosure agreement with Microsoft but
> this is what prevents us from explaining why/why not we have certain
> things- all I can say here is that we are authorised to do what we
> are doing and that Microsoft have provided us with the Win/NT
> sourcecode.
>
></mailto:xxxxx></http:></mailto:xxxxx></mailto:xxxxx></mailto:xxxxx></mailto:xxxxx>

Hey, I’m an ass, so here is my two cents…

Let me be the first to call him a lier out right. You have no NDA, your
full of crap…

Sure guy, you’ll build a processor too…

What your trying to build are the stolen sources from W2K… If you had
a team
that didn’t suck, you could figure out the build environment.

Your full of **** when you say you have a team that rev-engineered the
kernel.

If you had a team capable of dissecting almost 2 MB of assembler, there
would
not be a need for you to ask such a question.

Your thinking the reactOS kernel will work, or your a thieve. It’s one
or the other.
.
Sounds more like the other.

Sounds like your asking for money - my reaction is ‘cram a quater’, and I’ll
send you a dollar. Hopefully, in my estimate, $25 you’ll be gone…

Matthew

Further revealation:

  1. He posted as Phd student. Did not mention where and when. But good at
    social engineering.
  2. He asked other people for the same thing, and also for TinyKernel or
    whatever.
  3. He will give everyone access to NT source ( as long as some one starts
    with $1 or may be $25)
  4. He also contacted people who are in the FPGA field.

My first question is “from which country” he is shooting these emails?

Any intellectual soul out there to discuss shakeup with this fellow ???

Don’t dream too much, Pls ?

-pro

----- Original Message -----
From: “MM”
To: “Windows System Software Devs Interest List”
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: [ntdev] RAZZLE.CMD –> BUILD WINDOWS/NT OPERATING SYSTEM

> Hey, I’m an ass, so here is my two cents…
>
> Let me be the first to call him a lier out right. You have no NDA, your
> full of crap…
>
> Sure guy, you’ll build a processor too…
>
> What your trying to build are the stolen sources from W2K… If you had a
> team
> that didn’t suck, you could figure out the build environment.
>
> Your full of **** when you say you have a team that rev-engineered the
> kernel.
>
> If you had a team capable of dissecting almost 2 MB of assembler, there
> would
> not be a need for you to ask such a question.
>
> Your thinking the reactOS kernel will work, or your a thieve. It’s one or
> the other.
> .
> Sounds more like the other.
>
> Sounds like your asking for money - my reaction is ‘cram a quater’, and
> I’ll
> send you a dollar. Hopefully, in my estimate, $25 you’ll be gone…
>
> Matthew
>
>
>>
>
> —
> NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
>
> For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
> http://www.osr.com/seminars
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

> What your trying to build are the stolen sources from W2K…

It looks like the most reasonable explanation to the whole thing…

Anton Bassov

The last time I looked at the source licence wording, it said that you could build a copy of the OS *for internal test use only* and that you *could not release an OS compiled from the MS-supplied source*. Now admitedly this was for fairly recent source, I don’t recall that I ever had a source licence for NT4 specifically. And I suppose that maybe different licencees get different licence terms.

As best I recall, NT4 was built with the old pre-razzle build environment. The build tree was very different from the current tree. So if the OP is building NT4, I don’t know why he would want to know what the razzle build environment looks like. Of course, NT4 doesn’t have all the PnP stuff, so is essentially useless for interface to modern drivers.

Something about the whole idea of wanting to duplicate a razzle environment with NT4 source sounds very fishy to me. For that matter, having official source from MS under licence without also having a build environment for the source seems a little odd; but maybe MS licenced it that way to some people. The idea of building a new kernel and HAL by examining internal NT source code and thinking you can release it is a non-starter. Ever heard of “clean room” reverse engineering?

Loren
----- Original Message -----
From: Beverly Brown
Newsgroups: ntdev
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 8:01 AM
Subject: Re:[ntdev] RAZZLE.CMD –> BUILD WINDOWS/NT OPERATING SYSTEM

It seems to me if you got license to the source code and have a NDA agreement with Microsoft, they should be able to supply you with the info you need. If they are not, why would someone in the community (assuming they have the knowledge) give you the info that MS will not provide?

I don’t think anyone here has the info and even if they do, they will not give it to you. You need to ask Microsoft.

Beverly
“simulatedrealitylimited simulatedrealitylimited” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
See reply/update/thread reply –>

On 11/22/07, Alberto Moreira wrote:

If nothing else, such a project would be tons of fun! And they would learn a
great deal.

Couldn’t agree with you more - and if we incorporate we will not only learn but, if overall successfull (which we will be), then all shareholders will make a lot of money :wink:

I actually don’t see much more needed than plain vanilla make.exe to build such a project - if you need
more than that, I’ll tell you, your OS is probably more complicated than it
needs to be.

- completely agree mate ! We are sticking to stevewo’s build.exe which is found in, well, in one of many places including \nt4\private\sdktools\build\

The only problem is we can not get this to work (or any other make.exe/builder program from the public WDK - vanilla as you say - without the proper MS internal RAZZLE build environment as there are special differences between the public and internal build environment used to make NT/Windows/even-DOS)

Would you have any enlightening data on how to convert the public WDK (we are using Vista-Longhorn 6000) into the proper environment used internally…

Can you or anyone else (with proper knowledge) explain what contents a desktop icon RAZZLE.CMD needs in it’s contents so that it will convert/setup/align the public WDK into the state it needs to be in (RAZZLE) so it will build proper internal NT/Windows/MS code - that is code just like the real NT/Win sourcecode ?

I would also take the position that anything undocumented is a prime
candidate for chucking. It takes a competent programmer less time to write a
component than to reverse engineering its counterpart in an OS.

We already have reverse engineered NTOSKRNL.EXE using a control group - when I say control group that is because we had a group of programmers split in half and 50% of them were dedicated to those who had the real proper NT source code (see below regarding non-disclosure agreement) and the rest had to start from scratch - at the end of the day although, yes you are right in saying to took longer for the rev-eng-team, but both were able to, ultimately, patch the real source and work from scratch to produce the same product - the other half had genuine/legally obtained from MS - both produced good NTOSKRNL.EXE

Plus, in case of doubt, the Linux source code or even the Minix listing embody a
wealth of information that could be of great help in such a project.

Yes, along with TinyKRNL source, ReactOS source, Bochs-X86 Source, UEFI Source, BAMBIOS source, Award BIOS Source, and maybe even some other low-level-based “firmware” bases or simulators - I believe the IBM based PowerPC is going to be revived big-time in the next 10 years or less as it is the number one processor in the supercomputer market and to answer your next question we would like to work from existing codebases (rather than starting from scratch) in order to make it easier to provide support for other platforms such as the POWER architectures. The new games consoles (Xbox 360 and PS3) both use POWER based processors and these machines could provide a lot of extra engine on a cluster - the XB360’s processor (Xenon) is POWER with a triple-core die and double layer - effectively given it 6 processor cores - and the CELL on the PS3 is also POWER yet uses a single core main CPU with 8 other “synergistic processing elements” on the same DIE… Furthermore both theses IBM POWER PROCESSORS were designed with supercomputing in mind - in fact, IBM are making there new supercomputer - the IBM BLUE GENE /? for IBM BLUE BRAIN project (Whole Brain Emulation) - which, along with IBM ROAD RUNNER - will be based on a hybrid of AMD Opteron’s x64 and CELLs in a 1:1 configuration… Anyway the reason I bring this up is that NT4 and some of WIN2K source had support for POWER - that is why they incorporated \nt\private\mvdm\softpc.new\ which gives NT it’s own built-in CPU and, unlike many people realize, BIOS…

Last but not least, if I was using Linux or Solaris, I would write the whole
thing in Java, and develop a back end converter from intermediate code into
machine code prior to downloading it to the Windows target.

I want to keep pure and that is why I want to use stevewo’s BUILD.EXE and RAZZLE.CMD - I do not want to overly virtualize with psuedo-machines and would prefer to work directly with the machine code itself - and the BIOS and Processor - in fact, if need be, we will create a link using some form of special custom BUS-BUS interlink - maybe even by FGPAs or PRE-PROCESSORs integrating the slave boxes etc… But at the end of the day I want to keep this whole project as low-level as possible - closest to the PROCESSOR.

It would take a bunch of talented and committed programmers, but I find it
quite a feasible proposition. Still, if you want to spend all this time and
effort, why not go the whole nine yards and just write something new and
exciting ? When the best operating systems we have are basically a rehash of
40 year old architectures, maybe it’s time for a shakeup!

It is indeed time for a shakeup and I am happy to even consider creating not just a new operating system but perhaps even a new processor !!!

First things first however - I need to get a proper RAZZLE system open that can build Windows Source Code so if you can help get things started please continue to read and/or post me all info you can on how to script WDK into RAZZLE so I can build any internal source code including the holy grail - actually build Win/NT sourcecode.

*
On 11/22/07, xxxxx@hotmail.com wrote:

> If you’re creating your own kernel, won’t you be creating your own build tools as well?

Yes we have built our own kernel but we are not at a stage where such can be released under any licence because as stated above there is no actual official “project” or official “member” list - that is why we must “incoroprate” as a legal entity, and have all persons interested in contributing, pay “something” - ie even if this is 1 share at $US1 - that would provide a perfect foundation with legal basis that would allow members to see such source…

In regards to build tools well, for history’s sake, we want to use the original BUILD.EXE created by STEVEWO and use it under RAZZLE.CMD - this is why we want to know EVERYTHING there is about how to build Windows - specifically - how can one convert/setup/re-set the standard WDK/DDK/SDKs (we are using Vista RTM 6000+ because it includes IFS, HAL, and normal NT4/2000/.NET (and Vista/Longhron) build environments…

Now, yes, we have completely reverse engineered NTOSKRNL.EXE and BUILD.EXE but can not work out how to bring up a proper window, under the WDK 6000 RTM - from connect.microsoft.com - that is genuinely a RAZZLE build environment…

When I say genuine I mean there are differences between WDK/DDK build environs and the true MS internal used RAZZLE –>

Can anyone tell us how to setup a RAZZLE.CMD script that will bring up a WDK window that would be capable of building REAL MS Windows/NT Source Tree Code ???

- the following is appended in ascending order from the first reply - please continue to read this to to the end:

Dear all interested parties,

First of all my group and I are very happy to see there is a statistical significant, legally valid, and unified base quorum of parties worthy of giving support AND constructive criticism toward this project; excuse my humour but in all seriousness I am very happy to see the positive responses given my persons from OSR and many other groups/threads/forums which show support toward the development of a version of Windows/NT/hybrid (ie including perhaps TinyKRNL & ReactOS bloodlines) which ultimately provides a genuine Microsoft operating system albeit with a custom Kernel that allows many boxes (ie say 10 for home/testing/beta use in Phase 1) to be clustered together in such a way that the end server terminal (and end user) are presented with a GUI/Shell/Console that “thinks”/“sees”/“realizes” the resources (processor, RAM, storage et al) of all other slave boxes as being LOCAL MOTHERBOARD RESOURCES in order to provide a true NT/Windows/MS operating system (genuine) albeit with REAL clustering - that is, instead of the orthodox supercomputing , distributed/cluster/grid/matrix, interprocess communication that we know - but a true/proper single system image.

With such in mind perhaps the best way to go should set up a proper project whereby such could be managed in a sourcedepot fashion.

Another thing to take into mind is that by asking persons to make a 1 share (ie US$1 initially) will lead to a more structued/organized/democratic and ordered project.

Each contributing-coder/member/potential-member (including you OSR members etc) would make input as to how this is organised and then legally put in to place.

Once we organise/setup/manage such I feel the project will take off like no other GPL type project ever has in Internet history - this would be the first true team studio developed commercial enterprise in Internet history - especially when it comes to creation of an operating system.

All I am saying is that there should/must/will be a set of rules/constitution/licensing binding all parties to the incporated/registered entity; this includes a new domain with membership and upfront share payment for those who have the faith something will work - this is because at the end of the day everyone involved from zero hour will be rewarded (at final RTM) with cash.

Or should we just begin by using standard GPL ?

Personally I believe the above question is rhetorical.

Anyway, with this in mind I must make it clear that until we have enough members- ie 500+ - and have incorporated in such a way (ie as a co-operative research centre / co-operative with government guaranteed shares to be eligible for government funding) then there will be problems down the track when we decide this operating system hybrid is ready for proper release to manufacture.

So let’s start brainstorming now - as you already are - thanks OSR et al !

In summary - we need this sort of brainstorming (just like these -emails - with people on OSR and other sites) in order to decide how the project is to operate on a legal, sourcdepot, and team-studio-type operation.

Again, my answer to this is that anyone interested in assisting with the project (as coder/member/investor) should first sign-up for membership to a pre-organised legal entity (ie the co-operative) so that there is a constituion in place to protect the project, members, and source.

This membership system would then work on a shareholder basis so that, down the track and at completion of final phase, all those people involved in the creation of the operating system, will receive a dividend (equal/proportianite/respective to their input from code writing, share-capital-payment, and brainstorming/general-input - as OSR members are doing now).

This way all persons involved in the project will receive money (cash money profits) from the sales, distribution, and RTM of the final build.

In summary I think the most important thing to first considering is how such a project should be organised legally because I want to deviate from standard “benevelont-free-work” principia and by doing so all people who contribute will receive, in turn for their coding efforts, well, money…

This can all be worked out by this sort of brainstorming (happening on OSR right now in these e-mails etc).

Anyway, here are the answers to everyone’s questions - this tradition of dialectical materialism, where thesis VS antithesis = synthesis, should produce one single & perfect grand unified theory (GUT) –>

once we have our GUT and democratically voted/survey assessed/quorum determined set of protocols/constitution/rules, we can proceed - but first things first: in my humble opinion this is setting up a brand new domain domain under a brand new entity which all persons of interest will sign-up to via making a pledge of shares (which can be anywhere from $1 at the start –> and extended up to any amount - even $1000 + minimum sharehold - depending on the success of the project as determined by our internal democratice purpose and perhaps outsied beta testing/evaluation by select groups of persons/companies - this might also include an external feasability assesment from an accounting, IT, and legal firm which I am happy to pay for along with the initial company/association/co-operative incoropration as yes - I HAVE THE FUNDS AND SEED CAPITAL TO BRING THIS PROJECT TO LIFE)

Ok, now I will answer the technical answers everyone has asked - I just wanted to make it clear that if something like this is going to work we need to setup a complete new project with domain name (and sourcedepot system) that is managed by a domain name owned by every single member - via an incorporated entity to which each member is an equal member relative to their share value paid - this solves the ultimate goal of marketing our final operating system as I want EVERYONE to get paid for their efforts - unlike most GPL projects - in the end.

[CONTINUATION FROM xxxxx@hotmail.com]

Another interesting question is how this custom kernel/HAL is going to interact with the existing drivers (?)

We have reverse engineered the proper and original NT/Windows Kernel(s) in such a way that there will be no problem having this NTOSKRNL.EXE work with existing and genuine drivers…After all, the guy made it clear that he does it for WinNT - apparently, he plans to provide his own implementation of NTLDR, ntoskrnl.exe and HAL.DLL , but all vital drivers are still going to be MSFT -

It may or may not be necessary for us to use customized HALs, OSLOADER.EXEs, or any other components - this is why we are brainstorming with you now - it may after all be quite possible to do everything by incorporating everything we desire/need/have-already-done (including our special unviersal intercommunication system between motherboards) by putting all this into NTOSKRNL.EXE…

Taking into consideration the fact that most ntoskrnl.exe’s and HAL.DLL’s exports are undocumented (which means they are meant to be called only by MSFT-provided drivers), he is going to face HUGE problems when it comes to implementing those undocumented functions that are callable by MSFT - provided drivers - if he wants to integrate his custom kernel with the existing drivers, his custom exported functions have to act exactly the same way the original functions do, as far as client callers are concerned. I am afraid that, unless the guy has an access to ntoskrnl.exe’s source, his task is practically infeasible - ntoskrnl.exe is just a bit too large for being completely and thoroughly disassembled within a reasonable timeframe…

To answer your question, without breaking any non-disclosure-agreements signed, yes we have reverse-engineered the components required to make this project MORE THAN FEASABILE but we are simply having problems with the simple side of things - we can not get these things to build under the standard WDK/DDK !!!

As opposed to the public used WDK build env, we need to know how to setup a proper RAZZLE build environmnet as used by MS internally - so if someone could simply explain how to setup a build environment - using the WDK or any other DDK/SDK - we would be happy; this is all we need at this stage - the details of how to convert the existing public WDK/DDK/SDKs into RAZZLE.

When I say RAZZLE we mean a build environment capable of building true Windows Source Tree/Base Code…

So basicaly we are asking outright for anyone’s expertise in order to asnwer this question - how does one setup a public WDK/DDK/SDK (particularly Vista/RTM 6000) into RAZZLE - so that it will properly work in the exact MS way to build real Microsoft Windows/NT sourcecode ?

PS:

Yes, we have signed a non-disclosure agreement with Microsoft but this is what prevents us from explaining why/why not we have certain things- all I can say here is that we are authorised to do what we are doing and that Microsoft have provided us with the Win/NT sourcecode.


NTDEV is sponsored by OSR

For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
http://www.osr.com/seminars

To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

Dear all of OSR and especially those who do have faith (about 66.6% of OSR
at the moment),

RE: CLEAN ROOM / NEW BUILT (NON-REVERSE-ENGINEERED) OPERATING SYSTEM

Ok, first I wish to apologise and going back over my comments I can see how
my request seemed suspicous. Anywya, I have now read all the comments from
everybody and have decided to take onboard everyone’s advice and start my
whole operation (creating operating system) using the tradition known as
cleanroom.

I wish to make it very clear that I have no desire and never had any desire

  • whatsoever - to use any illegal, stolen, copyright, & trade secret source
    code.

All I want to do is, instead of using the WDK/DDK/Public build
environment, make use of the original RAZZLE build environment that MS use
to make Windows…

Now, as RAZZLE is NOT stolen/illegal/copyright/trade secret source code -
especially if someone provides me with a psuedo-razzle-script that is not
identical to the real MS RAZZLE.CMD script (avoiding breaking laws) - but
which is identical enough to setup an environment that COULD really build
Windows/NT source.

This then takes any liability off of any persons providing such information
because me and my University team would be the ones using the
RAZZLE/psuedo-RAZZLE/clone-RAZZLE environment and therefore we would be the
ones commiting the act of making the actual build - even though it’s OUR OWN
SOURCE.

Another thing is that the illegal NT4 stolen source already contains RAZZLE
and if I wanted to build NT4 or W2K I could just use the contents of
\nt4\public\tools\razzle.cmd and would have no need to ask OSR for a version
that is legal.

If you take the above logic and think about it I have no need to ask for
help on RAZZLE if I was going to make a GPL project (or any other) based on
illegal source.

So, for those that read between the lines, it is obvious I am just asking
for details on how the WDK/DDK compare to RAZZLE so I can build a legal
version of RAZZLE and - persuant to the advice taken from OSR - build my own
operating system from scratch. This would then make it both legal & CLEAN.

This would not be used to build illlegal code but would be used to build a
new legal NTOSKRNL thats CLEAN.

So again, I ask in good faith if anyone can provide me with details on how
to say, modify the TinyKRNL.ORG build environment script (dazzle.cmd) so
that it works and modifies/setups the WDK to build Windows/NT source ?

PS: For whomever said that it is a breach of the non-disclosure-agreement
I/my University have with Microsoft - which in turn gives us the source by
signing such (and gives me access) - is wrong: have a look at a standard NDA
or even a MS NDA (or write to MS and check me out) - the point is that many
people on many forums DO have access to the full NT/Windows/MS source tree
and it is NOT a breach of such by telling everyone you have this source - it
is only a breach if you release this source so for the record YES I HAVE THE
FULL SOURCE TREE RIGHT HERE ON THIS COMPUTER - I JUST CAN NOT RELEASE ANY OF
IT - I mean I know about the NSA but unlike the NSA who tell people they
know NOTHING I am allowed to tell everyone I have the full source as along
as I do not publish such - but seeing the responses I am getting from
certain people (the other 33.3% who know who they are) I will just
do/say/release NOTHING ! Also, for those who want to verify who I am you can
check me out by verifying my key which is right here - so hurry up and check
this key:

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.3i
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=PhHT
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

This thread is fantastically entertaining. Of course, I can’t speak for
Microsoft. I’m not a spokesperson. But I have read every version of
razzle.cmd since NT 3.5.

And the only possible use I can think of for wanting it would be to build an
incomplete Windows source tree, probably one that was stolen, or one that
came without the license to build it.

Trust me, if this post is even remotely legitimate (which I have a hard time
believing it might be) the things that you find in razzle are only
interesting for building an NT source tree. (Razzle was the code name for
NT 3.1, after all.) All the previous posters have been right. The only
significant differences between the DDK build environment and razzle are
some missing header files and some environment variables. Those headers and
environment variables would only be interesting to somebody building
Windows.

Furthermore (for those reading this who are curious,) razzle.cmd is a script
that sets up the environment for running build.exe, which is just a wrapper
around an old version of Microsoft’s version of Make. It does some
interesting things that weren’t otherwise available back in 1990, like
parallelizing the process of building binaries and doing automatic
dependency analysis. Although I’ve been working on Microsoft stuff for the
last thirteen or fourteen years, it’s my understanding that open source tool
chains have this sort of thing these days, too. We still use it internally
because we have a tremendous amount of code that nobody owns or maintains
anymore and changing our build system radically would make it likely that
we’d break that code. We give it away to all of you in the DDK because
that’s the simplest way to make sure that our samples (which we develop and
test alongside the Windows source) produce exactly the same code when you
build them.

I honestly can’t imagine that I’d start from razzle if I were designing a
new OS. It just seems so unlikely that Steve Wood’s solution to a problem
he had almost two decades ago would be the right solution today.

And if all I wanted to do was to take a shortcut to building a standard PE
binary, which razzle might provide for you, I assure you that the DDK
headers provide the same thing, as does Visual Studio, for that matter.

  • Jake Oshins
    Windows Kernel Guy

“simulatedrealitylimited simulatedrealitylimited”
wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
Dear all of OSR and especially those who do have faith (about 66.6% of OSR
at the moment),

RE: CLEAN ROOM / NEW BUILT (NON-REVERSE-ENGINEERED) OPERATING SYSTEM

Ok, first I wish to apologise and going back over my comments I can see how
my request seemed suspicous. Anywya, I have now read all the comments from
everybody and have decided to take onboard everyone’s advice and start my
whole operation (creating operating system) using the tradition known as
cleanroom.

I wish to make it very clear that I have no desire and never had any
desire - whatsoever - to use any illegal, stolen, copyright, & trade secret
source code.

All I want to do is, instead of using the WDK/DDK/Public build environment,
make use of the original RAZZLE build environment that MS use to make
Windows…

Now, as RAZZLE is NOT stolen/illegal/copyright/trade secret source code -
especially if someone provides me with a psuedo-razzle-script that is not
identical to the real MS RAZZLE.CMD script (avoiding breaking laws) - but
which is identical enough to setup an environment that COULD really build
Windows/NT source.

This then takes any liability off of any persons providing such information
because me and my University team would be the ones using the
RAZZLE/psuedo-RAZZLE/clone-RAZZLE environment and therefore we would be the
ones commiting the act of making the actual build - even though it’s OUR OWN
SOURCE.

Another thing is that the illegal NT4 stolen source already contains RAZZLE
and if I wanted to build NT4 or W2K I could just use the contents of
\nt4\public\tools\razzle.cmd and would have no need to ask OSR for a version
that is legal.

If you take the above logic and think about it I have no need to ask for
help on RAZZLE if I was going to make a GPL project (or any other) based on
illegal source.

So, for those that read between the lines, it is obvious I am just asking
for details on how the WDK/DDK compare to RAZZLE so I can build a legal
version of RAZZLE and - persuant to the advice taken from OSR - build my own
operating system from scratch. This would then make it both legal & CLEAN.

This would not be used to build illlegal code but would be used to build a
new legal NTOSKRNL thats CLEAN.

So again, I ask in good faith if anyone can provide me with details on how
to say, modify the TinyKRNL.ORG build environment script (dazzle.cmd) so
that it works and modifies/setups the WDK to build Windows/NT source ?

PS: For whomever said that it is a breach of the non-disclosure-agreement
I/my University have with Microsoft - which in turn gives us the source by
signing such (and gives me access) - is wrong: have a look at a standard NDA
or even a MS NDA (or write to MS and check me out) - the point is that many
people on many forums DO have access to the full NT/Windows/MS source tree
and it is NOT a breach of such by telling everyone you have this source - it
is only a breach if you release this source so for the record YES I HAVE THE
FULL SOURCE TREE RIGHT HERE ON THIS COMPUTER - I JUST CAN NOT RELEASE ANY OF
IT - I mean I know about the NSA but unlike the NSA who tell people they
know NOTHING I am allowed to tell everyone I have the full source as along
as I do not publish such - but seeing the responses I am getting from
certain people (the other 33.3% who know who they are) I will just
do/say/release NOTHING ! Also, for those who want to verify who I am you can
check me out by verifying my key which is right here - so hurry up and check
this key:

Something that is maybe a bit OT.

Microsoft has a project related to kernel development for the academia
called Windows Research Kernel (projectOZ?). I never had time to look at it,
but it’s my understanding that it’s very interesting (probably even more
than looking at the entire windows source code, which i think is
overwhelming). This is where I would probably start looking if I wanted to
understand some of the internals of Windows.

Just my two cents
GV

PS:and it’s late friday night, I should go out and have fun instead of
sitting in my living room and thinking about the windows kernel :stuck_out_tongue:


Gianluca Varenni, Windows DDK MVP

CACE Technologies
http://www.cacetech.com

----- Original Message -----
From: “Jake Oshins”
Newsgroups: ntdev
To: “Windows System Software Devs Interest List”
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 10:23 PM
Subject: Re:[ntdev] Re:RAZZLE.CMD –> BUILD WINDOWS/NT OPERATING SYSTEM

> This thread is fantastically entertaining. Of course, I can’t speak for
> Microsoft. I’m not a spokesperson. But I have read every version of
> razzle.cmd since NT 3.5.
>
> And the only possible use I can think of for wanting it would be to build
> an incomplete Windows source tree, probably one that was stolen, or one
> that came without the license to build it.
>
> Trust me, if this post is even remotely legitimate (which I have a hard
> time believing it might be) the things that you find in razzle are only
> interesting for building an NT source tree. (Razzle was the code name for
> NT 3.1, after all.) All the previous posters have been right. The only
> significant differences between the DDK build environment and razzle are
> some missing header files and some environment variables. Those headers
> and environment variables would only be interesting to somebody building
> Windows.
>
> Furthermore (for those reading this who are curious,) razzle.cmd is a
> script that sets up the environment for running build.exe, which is just a
> wrapper around an old version of Microsoft’s version of Make. It does
> some interesting things that weren’t otherwise available back in 1990,
> like parallelizing the process of building binaries and doing automatic
> dependency analysis. Although I’ve been working on Microsoft stuff for
> the last thirteen or fourteen years, it’s my understanding that open
> source tool chains have this sort of thing these days, too. We still use
> it internally because we have a tremendous amount of code that nobody owns
> or maintains anymore and changing our build system radically would make it
> likely that we’d break that code. We give it away to all of you in the
> DDK because that’s the simplest way to make sure that our samples (which
> we develop and test alongside the Windows source) produce exactly the same
> code when you build them.
>
> I honestly can’t imagine that I’d start from razzle if I were designing a
> new OS. It just seems so unlikely that Steve Wood’s solution to a problem
> he had almost two decades ago would be the right solution today.
>
> And if all I wanted to do was to take a shortcut to building a standard PE
> binary, which razzle might provide for you, I assure you that the DDK
> headers provide the same thing, as does Visual Studio, for that matter.
>
> - Jake Oshins
> Windows Kernel Guy
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> “simulatedrealitylimited simulatedrealitylimited”
> wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> Dear all of OSR and especially those who do have faith (about 66.6% of OSR
> at the moment),
>
> RE: CLEAN ROOM / NEW BUILT (NON-REVERSE-ENGINEERED) OPERATING SYSTEM
>
> Ok, first I wish to apologise and going back over my comments I can see
> how my request seemed suspicous. Anywya, I have now read all the comments
> from everybody and have decided to take onboard everyone’s advice and
> start my whole operation (creating operating system) using the tradition
> known as cleanroom.
>
> I wish to make it very clear that I have no desire and never had any
> desire - whatsoever - to use any illegal, stolen, copyright, & trade
> secret source code.
>
> All I want to do is, instead of using the WDK/DDK/Public build
> environment, make use of the original RAZZLE build environment that MS use
> to make Windows…
>
> Now, as RAZZLE is NOT stolen/illegal/copyright/trade secret source code -
> especially if someone provides me with a psuedo-razzle-script that is not
> identical to the real MS RAZZLE.CMD script (avoiding breaking laws) - but
> which is identical enough to setup an environment that COULD really build
> Windows/NT source.
>
> This then takes any liability off of any persons providing such
> information because me and my University team would be the ones using the
> RAZZLE/psuedo-RAZZLE/clone-RAZZLE environment and therefore we would be
> the ones commiting the act of making the actual build - even though it’s
> OUR OWN SOURCE.
>
> Another thing is that the illegal NT4 stolen source already contains
> RAZZLE and if I wanted to build NT4 or W2K I could just use the contents
> of \nt4\public\tools\razzle.cmd and would have no need to ask OSR for a
> version that is legal.
>
> If you take the above logic and think about it I have no need to ask for
> help on RAZZLE if I was going to make a GPL project (or any other) based
> on illegal source.
>
> So, for those that read between the lines, it is obvious I am just asking
> for details on how the WDK/DDK compare to RAZZLE so I can build a legal
> version of RAZZLE and - persuant to the advice taken from OSR - build my
> own operating system from scratch. This would then make it both legal &
> CLEAN.
>
> This would not be used to build illlegal code but would be used to build a
> new legal NTOSKRNL thats CLEAN.
>
> So again, I ask in good faith if anyone can provide me with details on how
> to say, modify the TinyKRNL.ORG build environment script (dazzle.cmd) so
> that it works and modifies/setups the WDK to build Windows/NT source ?
>
> PS: For whomever said that it is a breach of the non-disclosure-agreement
> I/my University have with Microsoft - which in turn gives us the source by
> signing such (and gives me access) - is wrong: have a look at a standard
> NDA or even a MS NDA (or write to MS and check me out) - the point is that
> many people on many forums DO have access to the full NT/Windows/MS source
> tree and it is NOT a breach of such by telling everyone you have this
> source - it is only a breach if you release this source so for the record
> YES I HAVE THE FULL SOURCE TREE RIGHT HERE ON THIS COMPUTER - I JUST CAN
> NOT RELEASE ANY OF IT - I mean I know about the NSA but unlike the NSA who
> tell people they know NOTHING I am allowed to tell everyone I have the
> full source as along as I do not publish such - but seeing the responses I
> am getting from certain people (the other 33.3% who know who they are) I
> will just do/say/release NOTHING ! Also, for those who want to verify who
> I am you can check me out by verifying my key which is right here - so
> hurry up and check this key:
>
>
>
> —
> NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
>
> For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
> http://www.osr.com/seminars
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

Simulated Reality Simulated Reality wrote:

Also, for those who want to verify who I am you can
check me out by verifying my key which is right here

  • so hurry up and check this key:

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.3i

mQCPAzfTdH0AAAEEALqOFf7jzRYPtHz5PitNhCYVryPwZZJk2B7cNaJ9OqRQiQoi
[…]
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

This is bizarre. It’s the infamous “_NSAKEY”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSAKEY

I think this is also the same person:
http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=311818#311818
http://forum.sysinternals.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=12314

xxxxx@gmail.com
xxxxx@gmail.com
xxxxx@gmail.com

Yep,

This is why I asked if OP is a -

Standup-C [E | ’ ‘] O [’ ’ | MEDIAN].

-pro

----- Original Message -----
From:
To: “Windows System Software Devs Interest List”
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 2:18 AM
Subject: RE:[ntdev] RAZZLE.CMD –> BUILD WINDOWS/NT OPERATING SYSTEM

> Simulated Reality Simulated Reality wrote:
>> Also, for those who want to verify who I am you can
>> check me out by verifying my key which is right here
>> - so hurry up and check this key:
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
>> Version: 2.6.3i
>>
>> mQCPAzfTdH0AAAEEALqOFf7jzRYPtHz5PitNhCYVryPwZZJk2B7cNaJ9OqRQiQoi
>> […]
>> -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
>
> This is bizarre. It’s the infamous “_NSAKEY”:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSAKEY
>
> I think this is also the same person:
> http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=311818#311818
> http://forum.sysinternals.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=12314
>
> xxxxx@gmail.com
> xxxxx@gmail.com
> xxxxx@gmail.com
>
> —
> NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
>
> For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
> http://www.osr.com/seminars
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer

(And just to ensure people understand my previous reply also applied to THIS thread…)

Let’s have this thread (in its various manifestations) OVER, please.

No more talk about stealing intellectual property, reverse engineering, or whatever this moron thinks razzle is.

Also, can we please end the foolishness about how long it would take to write an operating system. I hoped it would go away by itself, but apparently it hasn’t. WhatEVER, it’s OT.

Peter AKA “Grumpy”
OSR List Slave

>Ever heard of “clean room” reverse engineering?

Apparently not.

mm
Loren Wilton wrote:

The last time I looked at the source licence wording, it said that you
could build a copy of the OS *for internal test use only* and that you
*could not release an OS compiled from the MS-supplied source*. Now
admitedly this was for fairly recent source, I don’t recall that I ever
had a source licence for NT4 specifically. And I suppose that maybe
different licencees get different licence terms.

As best I recall, NT4 was built with the old pre-razzle build
environment. The build tree was very different from the current tree.
So if the OP is building NT4, I don’t know why he would want to know
what the razzle build environment looks like. Of course, NT4 doesn’t
have all the PnP stuff, so is essentially useless for interface to
modern drivers.

Something about the whole idea of wanting to duplicate a razzle
environment with NT4 source sounds very fishy to me. For that matter,
having official source from MS under licence without also having a build
environment for the source seems a little odd; but maybe MS licenced it
that way to some people. The idea of building a new kernel and HAL by
examining internal NT source code and thinking you can release it is a
non-starter. Ever heard of “clean room” reverse engineering?

Loren

----- Original Message -----
*From:* Beverly Brown mailto:xxxxx
> Newsgroups: ntdev
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> mailto:xxxxx
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 8:01 AM
> Subject: Re:[ntdev] RAZZLE.CMD –> BUILD WINDOWS/NT OPERATING SYSTEM
>
> It seems to me if you got license to the source code and have a NDA
> agreement with Microsoft, they should be able to supply you with the
> info you need. If they are not, why would someone in the community
> (assuming they have the knowledge) give you the info that MS will
> not provide?
>
> I don’t think anyone here has the info and even if they do, they
> will not give it to you. You need to ask Microsoft.
>
> Beverly
>
> “simulatedrealitylimited simulatedrealitylimited”
> > mailto:xxxxx> wrote in message
> news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> See reply/update/thread reply –>
>
> On 11/22/07, Alberto Moreira > mailto:xxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> If nothing else, such a project would be tons of fun! And
> they would learn a
> great deal.
>
>
> Couldn’t agree with you more - and if we incorporate we will not
> only learn but, if overall successfull (which we will be), then
> all shareholders will make a lot of money :wink:
>
> I actually don’t see much more needed than plain vanilla
> make.exe to build such a project - if you need
> more than that, I’ll tell you, your OS is probably more
> complicated than it
> needs to be.
>
> - completely agree mate ! We are sticking to stevewo’s build.exe
> which is found in, well, in one of many places including
> \nt4\private\sdktools\build<br>>
> The only problem is we can not get this to work (or any other
> make.exe/builder program from the public WDK - vanilla as you
> say - without the proper MS internal RAZZLE build environment as
> there are special differences between the public and internal
> build environment used to make NT/Windows/even-DOS)
>
> Would you have any enlightening data on how to convert the
> public WDK (we are using Vista-Longhorn 6000) into the proper
> environment used internally…
>
> Can you or anyone else (with proper knowledge) explain what
> contents a desktop icon RAZZLE.CMD needs in it’s contents so
> that it will convert/setup/align the public WDK into the state
> it needs to be in (RAZZLE) so it will build proper internal
> NT/Windows/MS code - that is code just like the real NT/Win
> sourcecode ?
>
> I would also take the position that anything undocumented is a prime
> candidate for chucking. It takes a competent programmer less
> time to write a
> component than to reverse engineering its counterpart in an OS.
>
> We already have reverse engineered NTOSKRNL.EXE using a control
> group - when I say control group that is because we had a group
> of programmers split in half and 50% of them were dedicated to
> those who had the real proper NT source code (see below
> regarding non-disclosure agreement) and the rest had to start
> from scratch - at the end of the day although, yes you are right
> in saying to took longer for the rev-eng-team, but both were
> able to, ultimately, patch the real source and work from
> scratch to produce the same product - the other half
> had genuine/legally obtained from MS - both produced good
> NTOSKRNL.EXE
>
> Plus, in case of doubt, the Linux source code or even the Minix
> listing embody a
> wealth of information that could be of great help in such a project.
>
> Yes, along with TinyKRNL source, ReactOS source, Bochs-X86
> Source, UEFI Source, BAMBIOS source, Award BIOS Source, and
> maybe even some other low-level-based “firmware” bases or
> simulators - I believe the IBM based PowerPC is going to be
> revived big-time in the next 10 years or less as it is the
> number one processor in the supercomputer market and to answer
> your next question we would like to work from existing codebases
> (rather than starting from scratch) in order to make it easier
> to provide support for other platforms such as the POWER
> architectures. The new games consoles (Xbox 360 and PS3) both
> use POWER based processors and these machines could provide a
> lot of extra engine on a cluster - the XB360’s processor (Xenon)
> is POWER with a triple-core die and double layer - effectively
> given it 6 processor cores - and the CELL on the PS3 is also
> POWER yet uses a single core main CPU with 8 other “synergistic
> processing elements” on the same DIE… Furthermore both theses
> IBM POWER PROCESSORS were designed with supercomputing in mind -
> in fact, IBM are making there new supercomputer - the IBM BLUE
> GENE /? for IBM BLUE BRAIN project (Whole Brain Emulation) -
> which, along with IBM ROAD RUNNER - will be based on a hybrid of
> AMD Opteron’s x64 and CELLs in a 1:1 configuration… Anyway
> the reason I bring this up is that NT4 and some of WIN2K source
> had support for POWER - that is why they incorporated
> \nt\private\mvdm\softpc.new\ which gives NT it’s own built-in
> CPU and, unlike many people realize, BIOS…
>
> Last but not least, if I was using Linux or Solaris, I would
> write the whole
> thing in Java, and develop a back end converter from
> intermediate code into
> machine code prior to downloading it to the Windows target.
>
> I want to keep pure and that is why I want to use stevewo’s
> BUILD.EXE and RAZZLE.CMD - I do not want to overly virtualize
> with psuedo-machines and would prefer to work directly with the
> machine code itself - and the BIOS and Processor - in fact, if
> need be, we will create a link using some form of special custom
> BUS-BUS interlink - maybe even by FGPAs or PRE-PROCESSORs
> integrating the slave boxes etc… But at the end of the day I
> want to keep this whole project as low-level as possible -
> closest to the PROCESSOR.
>
> It would take a bunch of talented and committed programmers, but
> I find it
> quite a feasible proposition. Still, if you want to spend all
> this time and
> effort, why not go the whole nine yards and just write something
> new and
> exciting ? When the best operating systems we have are basically
> a rehash of
> 40 year old architectures, maybe it’s time for a shakeup!
>
> It is indeed time for a shakeup and I am happy to even consider
> creating not just a new operating system but perhaps even a new
> processor !!!
>
> First things first however - I need to get a proper RAZZLE
> system open that can build Windows Source Code so if you can
> help get things started please continue to read and/or post me
> all info you can on how to script WDK into RAZZLE so I can build
> any internal source code including the holy grail - actually
> build Win/NT sourcecode.
>
>
>
> *
>
> On 11/22/07, xxxxx@hotmail.com
> mailto:xxxxx
> mailto:xxxxx> wrote:
>
> > If you’re creating your own kernel, won’t you be creating
> your own build tools as well?
>
>
> Yes we have built our own kernel but we are not at a stage where
> such can be released under any licence because as stated above
> there is no actual official “project” or official “member” list
> - that is why we must “incoroprate” as a legal entity, and have
> all persons interested in contributing, pay “something” - ie
> even if this is 1 share at $US1 - that would provide a perfect
> foundation with legal basis that would allow members to see such
> source…
>
> In regards to build tools well, for history’s sake, we want to
> use the original BUILD.EXE created by STEVEWO and use it under
> RAZZLE.CMD - this is why we want to know EVERYTHING there is
> about how to build Windows - specifically - how can one
> convert/setup/re-set the standard WDK/DDK/SDKs (we are using
> Vista RTM 6000+ because it includes IFS, HAL, and normal
> NT4/2000/.NET (and Vista/Longhron) build environments…
>
> Now, yes, we have completely reverse engineered NTOSKRNL.EXE and
> BUILD.EXE but can not work out how to bring up a proper window,
> under the WDK 6000 RTM - from connect.microsoft.com
> http: - that is genuinely a RAZZLE
> build environment…
>
> When I say genuine I mean there are differences between WDK/DDK
> build environs and the true MS internal used RAZZLE –>
>
> Can anyone tell us how to setup a RAZZLE.CMD script that will
> bring up a WDK window that would be capable of building REAL MS
> Windows/NT Source Tree Code ???
>
> - the following is appended in ascending order from the first
> reply - please continue to read this to to the end:
>
> Dear all interested parties,
>
> First of all my group and I are very happy to see there is a
> statistical significant, legally valid, and unified base quorum
> of parties worthy of giving support AND constructive criticism
> toward this project; excuse my humour but in all seriousness I
> am very happy to see the positive responses given my persons
> from OSR and many other groups/threads/forums which show support
> toward the development of a version of Windows/NT/hybrid (ie
> including perhaps TinyKRNL & ReactOS bloodlines) which
> ultimately provides a genuine Microsoft operating system albeit
> with a custom Kernel that allows many boxes (ie say 10 for
> home/testing/beta use in Phase 1) to be clustered together in
> such a way that the end server terminal (and end user) are
> presented with a GUI/Shell/Console that
> “thinks”/“sees”/“realizes” the resources (processor, RAM,
> storage et al) of all other slave boxes as being LOCAL
> MOTHERBOARD RESOURCES in order to provide a true NT/Windows/MS
> operating system (genuine) albeit with REAL clustering - that
> is, instead of the orthodox supercomputing ,
> distributed/cluster/grid/matrix, interprocess communication that
> we know - but a true/proper single system image.
>
> With such in mind perhaps the best way to go should set up a
> proper project whereby such could be managed in a sourcedepot
> fashion.
>
> Another thing to take into mind is that by asking persons to
> make a 1 share (ie US$1 initially) will lead to a more
> structued/organized/democratic and ordered project.
>
> Each contributing-coder/member/potential-member (including you
> OSR members etc) would make input as to how this is organised
> and then legally put in to place.
>
> Once we organise/setup/manage such I feel the project will take
> off like no other GPL type project ever has in Internet
> history - this would be the first true team studio developed
> commercial enterprise in Internet history - especially when it
> comes to creation of an operating system.
>
> All I am saying is that there should/must/will be a set of
> rules/constitution/licensing binding all parties to the
> incporated/registered entity; this includes a new domain with
> membership and upfront share payment for those who have the
> faith something will work - this is because at the end of the
> day everyone involved from zero hour will be rewarded (at final
> RTM) with cash.
>
> Or should we just begin by using standard GPL ?
>
> Personally I believe the above question is rhetorical.
>
> Anyway, with this in mind I must make it clear that until we
> have enough members- ie 500+ - and have incorporated in such a
> way (ie as a co-operative research centre / co-operative with
> government guaranteed shares to be eligible for government
> funding) then there will be problems down the track when we
> decide this operating system hybrid is ready for proper release
> to manufacture.
>
> So let’s start brainstorming now - as you already are - thanks
> OSR et al !
>
> In summary - we need this sort of brainstorming (just like these
> -emails - with people on OSR and other sites) in order to decide
> how the project is to operate on a legal, sourcdepot, and
> team-studio-type operation.
>
> Again, my answer to this is that anyone interested in assisting
> with the project (as coder/member/investor) should first sign-up
> for membership to a pre-organised legal entity (ie the
> co-operative) so that there is a constituion in place to protect
> the project, members, and source.
>
> This membership system would then work on a shareholder basis so
> that, down the track and at completion of final phase, all those
> people involved in the creation of the operating system, will
> receive a dividend (equal/proportianite/respective to their
> input from code writing, share-capital-payment, and
> brainstorming/general-input - as OSR members are doing now).
>
> This way all persons involved in the project will receive money
> (cash money profits) from the sales, distribution, and RTM of
> the final build.
>
> In summary I think the most important thing to first considering
> is how such a project should be organised legally because I
> want to deviate from standard “benevelont-free-work” principia
> and by doing so all people who contribute will receive, in turn
> for their coding efforts, well, money…
>
> This can all be worked out by this sort of brainstorming
> (happening on OSR right now in these e-mails etc).
>
> Anyway, here are the answers to everyone’s questions -
> this tradition of dialectical materialism, where thesis VS
> antithesis = synthesis, should produce one single & perfect
> grand unified theory (GUT) –>
>
> once we have our GUT and democratically voted/survey
> assessed/quorum determined set of protocols/constitution/rules,
> we can proceed - but first things first: in my humble opinion
> this is setting up a brand new domain domain under a brand new
> entity which all persons of interest will sign-up to via making
> a pledge of shares (which can be anywhere from $1 at the start
> –> and extended up to any amount - even $1000 + minimum
> sharehold - depending on the success of the project as
> determined by our internal democratice purpose and perhaps
> outsied beta testing/evaluation by select groups of
> persons/companies - this might also include an external
> feasability assesment from an accounting, IT, and legal firm
> which I am happy to pay for along with the initial
> company/association/co-operative incoropration as yes - I HAVE
> THE FUNDS AND SEED CAPITAL TO BRING THIS PROJECT TO LIFE)
>
> Ok, now I will answer the technical answers everyone has asked -
> I just wanted to make it clear that if something like this is
> going to work we need to setup a complete new project with
> domain name (and sourcedepot system) that is managed by a domain
> name owned by every single member - via an incorporated entity
> to which each member is an equal member relative to their share
> value paid - this solves the ultimate goal of marketing our
> final operating system as I want EVERYONE to get paid for their
> efforts - unlike most GPL projects - in the end.
>
> [CONTINUATION FROM xxxxx@hotmail.com
> mailto:xxxxx]
>
> Another interesting question is how this custom kernel/HAL is
> going to interact with the existing drivers (?)
>
> We have reverse engineered the proper and original NT/Windows
> Kernel(s) in such a way that there will be no problem having
> this NTOSKRNL.EXE work with existing and genuine drivers…After
> all, the guy made it clear that he does it for WinNT -
> apparently, he plans to provide his own implementation of NTLDR,
> ntoskrnl.exe and HAL.DLL , but all vital drivers are still going
> to be MSFT -
>
> It may or may not be necessary for us to use customized HALs,
> OSLOADER.EXEs, or any other components - this is why we are
> brainstorming with you now - it may after all be quite possible
> to do everything by incorporating everything we
> desire/need/have-already-done (including our special unviersal
> intercommunication system between motherboards) by putting all
> this into NTOSKRNL.EXE…
>
> Taking into consideration the fact that most ntoskrnl.exe’s and
> HAL.DLL’s exports are undocumented (which means they are meant
> to be called only by MSFT-provided drivers), he is going to face
> HUGE problems when it comes to implementing those undocumented
> functions that are callable by MSFT - provided drivers - if he
> wants to integrate his custom kernel with the existing
> drivers, his custom exported functions have to act exactly
> the same way the original functions do, as far as client callers
> are concerned. I am afraid that, unless the guy has an access to
> ntoskrnl.exe’s source, his task is practically infeasible -
> ntoskrnl.exe is just a bit too large for being completely and
> thoroughly disassembled within a reasonable timeframe…
>
> To answer your question, without breaking any
> non-disclosure-agreements signed, yes we have reverse-engineered
> the components required to make this project MORE THAN
> FEASABILE but we are simply having problems with the simple
> side of things - we can not get these things to build under the
> standard WDK/DDK !!!
>
> As opposed to the public used WDK build env, we need to know how
> to setup a proper RAZZLE build environmnet as used by MS
> internally - so if someone could simply explain how to setup a
> build environment - using the WDK or any other DDK/SDK - we
> would be happy; this is all we need at this stage - the details
> of how to convert the existing public WDK/DDK/SDKs into RAZZLE.
>
> When I say RAZZLE we mean a build environment capable of
> building true Windows Source Tree/Base Code…
>
> So basicaly we are asking outright for anyone’s expertise in
> order to asnwer this question - how does one setup a public
> WDK/DDK/SDK (particularly Vista/RTM 6000) into RAZZLE - so that
> it will properly work in the exact MS way to build real
> Microsoft Windows/NT sourcecode ?
>
> PS:
> Yes, we have signed a non-disclosure agreement with Microsoft
> but this is what prevents us from explaining why/why not we have
> certain things- all I can say here is that we are authorised to
> do what we are doing and that Microsoft have provided us with
> the Win/NT sourcecode.
>
>
>
>
> —
> NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
>
> For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
> http://www.osr.com/seminars
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer</mailto:xxxxx></http:></mailto:xxxxx></mailto:xxxxx></mailto:xxxxx></mailto:xxxxx></mailto:xxxxx></mailto:xxxxx>

Sorry Peter, but I need to make a formal reply to this thread – I know you’d probably like it locked, and I agree.

To put it succinctly, SimulatedRealityLimited is a scammer (I stand behind this label in the face of potential libel allegations, since I can prove it). He has been trying to obtain Windows Source Code using a variety of methods (and from what I can tell, he now has the NT4 leaks and Win2K leaks, as well as the WRK in his posession) and as much other kind of intellectual property as he can – I am not sure to what end – he usually claims development of some sort of cluster operating system, but I’m sure this is just a front.

He has passed himself as a student, millionaire, researcher, or anything else which worked for his goals. Lately, he has been attempting to associate himself with TinyKRNL (a project which I was the owner of, but later shutdown after starting to teach with David Solomon), claiming that he now “owns” this project. When TinyKRNL was operational, he had trouble using SVN to get the source code, and couldn’t even unzip the binary files, and repeatedly emailed me asking for a “package” with everything he needs – someone with such bad computer skills didn’t seem to me like the kind of OS developer, but at that moment, he was simply annoying, not dangerous.

I have now seen dozens of forum posts by him on various sites, almost all related to illegal activities, and almost all including my name, or TinyKRNL’s name – lately, I have been told that this person has also been arrested and charged with “using a computer to impair communication and commit an offence, dishonestly manipulating a machine for benefit and possessing articles to create false documents.”

I don’t expect anyone to just take my word for it, so I will post several sources proving my claims.

In this post: http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=311818#311818, notice how he posts with the name “Steve Wood”. He emailed me once, telling me that Steve knew all about TinyKRNL and wanted to help him – in fact, he was referencing his own fake name. (Steve is one of the original NT architects). More interesting: "all from leaked source (to use as samples and not to steal) " from that post.

Here is an article about him being arrested: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/21/1958262.htm. Why am I claiming this is him? Well, first of all, an individual of this same name added me on Facebook, and he signs his emais “Chris”, and he is from Australia. Furthermore: http://www.atmmarketplace.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2241&sid=2bb5f41daa26380c18601b79c15b9636 warns people that he is an ATM scammer. If you look at those emails, you’ll notice “xxxxx@gmail.com” is what he used for that Channel 9 post.

Here’s another scam post: http://www.atmmarketplace.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2125&sid=a9ab4fdb76c4a05150237b44c31381e8 “I will give you a lot of very valuable programs and trade secret unreleased source code.”

On yet another forum, Christopher talks about TinyKRNL, and shows complete lack of skill in such simple (for an OS developer) skills such as unzipping, hex editing and using a source control system: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=2681&view=findpost&p=21742. Notice again the same claims he makes, and also his attempts to associate himself with TinyKRNL and myself.

By the fourth page, http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2681&st=30, he now starts posting links to Edonkey (a P2P program) links to leaked NT4 and Win2K source code, and starts asking about how to build it. Notice how in all cases, the forum communities detect something wrong about this individual.

A final link: http://forums.microsoft.com/WindowsAcademic/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=308627&SiteID=8. Go down to the post with his name and email. He asks for the CD containing the WRK handed out at an even (for “historical reasons”), says he has already downloaded the WRK since he’s a “student”, but then asks for an ISO of the CD (which would contain the same data as the WRK anyway, nothing historical about it).

I could go on forever (and you can Google it yourselves), but I hope I’ve made my point. This individual is a known scammer, even by his own country’s courts, and is involved with ATM fraud, IP theft, and copyright theft. Please do not believe a word he says.


Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

Alex,

Unfortunately, the whole thing revealed quite serious problem - some arsehole may make his moronic posts under some well-known person’s name (on one particular occasion the individual in question tried to pose as Steve Wood on one of the forums), or at least claim to be somehow associated with people who, in actuality, don’t want to have anything to do with him (on another occasion, the same individual claimed to be somehow related to you and your project ). Needless to say that that you are just physically unable to follow him everywhere and debunk his myths on every thread he participates in, so that he can do some damage to your reputation…

Anton Bassov

Very cogent, Alex. I hope he hasn’t caused you trouble, but I don’t
think I would stress about this guy, as it’s very hard to imagine anyone
taking this guy seriously, as it was manifestly obvious from his
earliest posts that he was completely full of shit, probably trying to
build the Win2K/NT 4 leaked sources, and, fundamentally, an
uncompromising idiot. Your work speaks for itself; anyone who confuses
the two of you or believe that you are associated with him is probably
an idiot as well.

mm

xxxxx@videotron.ca wrote:

Sorry Peter, but I need to make a formal reply to this thread – I know you’d probably like it locked, and I agree.

To put it succinctly, SimulatedRealityLimited is a scammer (I stand behind this label in the face of potential libel allegations, since I can prove it). He has been trying to obtain Windows Source Code using a variety of methods (and from what I can tell, he now has the NT4 leaks and Win2K leaks, as well as the WRK in his posession) and as much other kind of intellectual property as he can – I am not sure to what end – he usually claims development of some sort of cluster operating system, but I’m sure this is just a front.

He has passed himself as a student, millionaire, researcher, or anything else which worked for his goals. Lately, he has been attempting to associate himself with TinyKRNL (a project which I was the owner of, but later shutdown after starting to teach with David Solomon), claiming that he now “owns” this project. When TinyKRNL was operational, he had trouble using SVN to get the source code, and couldn’t even unzip the binary files, and repeatedly emailed me asking for a “package” with everything he needs – someone with such bad computer skills didn’t seem to me like the kind of OS developer, but at that moment, he was simply annoying, not dangerous.

I have now seen dozens of forum posts by him on various sites, almost all related to illegal activities, and almost all including my name, or TinyKRNL’s name – lately, I have been told that this person has also been arrested and charged with “using a computer to impair communication and commit an offence, dishonestly manipulating a machine for benefit and possessing articles to create false documents.”

I don’t expect anyone to just take my word for it, so I will post several sources proving my claims.

In this post: http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=311818#311818, notice how he posts with the name “Steve Wood”. He emailed me once, telling me that Steve knew all about TinyKRNL and wanted to help him – in fact, he was referencing his own fake name. (Steve is one of the original NT architects). More interesting: "all from leaked source (to use as samples and not to steal) " from that post.

Here is an article about him being arrested: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/21/1958262.htm. Why am I claiming this is him? Well, first of all, an individual of this same name added me on Facebook, and he signs his emais “Chris”, and he is from Australia. Furthermore: http://www.atmmarketplace.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2241&sid=2bb5f41daa26380c18601b79c15b9636 warns people that he is an ATM scammer. If you look at those emails, you’ll notice “xxxxx@gmail.com” is what he used for that Channel 9 post.

Here’s another scam post: http://www.atmmarketplace.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2125&sid=a9ab4fdb76c4a05150237b44c31381e8 “I will give you a lot of very valuable programs and trade secret unreleased source code.”

On yet another forum, Christopher talks about TinyKRNL, and shows complete lack of skill in such simple (for an OS developer) skills such as unzipping, hex editing and using a source control system: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=2681&view=findpost&p=21742. Notice again the same claims he makes, and also his attempts to associate himself with TinyKRNL and myself.

By the fourth page, http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2681&st=30, he now starts posting links to Edonkey (a P2P program) links to leaked NT4 and Win2K source code, and starts asking about how to build it. Notice how in all cases, the forum communities detect something wrong about this individual.

A final link: http://forums.microsoft.com/WindowsAcademic/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=308627&SiteID=8. Go down to the post with his name and email. He asks for the CD containing the WRK handed out at an even (for “historical reasons”), says he has already downloaded the WRK since he’s a “student”, but then asks for an ISO of the CD (which would contain the same data as the WRK anyway, nothing historical about it).

I could go on forever (and you can Google it yourselves), but I hope I’ve made my point. This individual is a known scammer, even by his own country’s courts, and is involved with ATM fraud, IP theft, and copyright theft. Please do not believe a word he says.


Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

Martin,

I don’t think I would stress about this guy…

Imagine for a moment that the next time he posts somewhere he poses as “Martin O’Brian”, and, at this point you will understand that the whole thing is very, very unpleasant for Alex…

anyone who confuses the two of you or believe that you are associated with
him is probably an idiot as well.

You assume that the potential reader of his bullshit is someone “in the know”, i.e. someone who
participates in the NGs, knows about various open-source projects, and, in general, knows what is going on and who is who. Certainly, this idiot’s chance to make someone “in the know” believe he is somehow related to Alex is absolutely zero. However, not everyone who reads his posts is “in the know”. Just to give you an idea, your potential client/employer may decide to check the NGs - you don’t really want this bullshit to make any reference to you, let alone being posted under your name (i.e. something he did to Steve Woods), do you???

Anton Bassov