93 replies to this topic

[Alexei]

What do you think?

Let's look at bigger picture
We have following kinds of settings:
- script defailts, i.e. settings in the script after it was downloaded
- linked script settings set by user in other project
- linked script settings required by the project, user can't change (not supported)
- linked script defaults overriden by the project, user can change (not supported)
- linked script settings overriden by another script (not supported)
- project's defailt set of script settings, after download
- several sets of user defined script settings for the same project (not supported)
- and some others!
In fact, we have rather complex cross reference to deal with
There is also important issue with preservation of user settings updates
The tech has to be simple, flexible, and easy to control
1. allow each setting to be referred by "qualified name":
name=
script/name=
project/script/name=
2. add following sections to .link, .project, .ini, .script
[require], [default]
Those two sections would contain settings with qualified names.
3. Add .profile files (INI-format files with different names)
For example:
"abcd.profile" - user settings for profile "abcd"
"current.profile" - current options selected by user
"global.profile" - user options for all projects
4. Script can refer other script's settings in own sections as name=%script/name% and get it at runtime as %script/name%, though cyc-reference has to be checked
6. All settings are processed before scripts
So, how it's all supposed to work?
- Load/Save profile is trivial
- no script or INI holds user settings anymore, they all are in .profile files
- .profile files are downloaded only to import other user's settings
- [defult] section holds settings suggested by script developer
- [require] section holds overrides defined by developer
- setting under [require] does not allow user changes, though "higher level" [default] may override it to allow them.
Sequence of processing:
- current global.profile
- script's [default]
- script's [require]
- link's [default]
- link's [require]
- current project's [default]
- current project's [require]
- current project's "current.profile"
As you can see that would supersede dependency support, which becomes just "Selected=" setting

[require] 

other_script/Selected=true

It can even change sequience of execution with "other_script/Level="
Additional example: USB-HD project can override Explorer's requirement for RAM-drive.
Selectable global profile may control source path, included projects, etc.
And, most importantly, we have complete separation of developer and user settings
The funny thing, it doesn't seem to be too hard to implement
I really love it It just came up, though I was thinking about such functionality for a while:)
Do you like it?

Alexei

[Draugen]

good ideas, Alexei

[phox]

When I start SysInfo application, I receive following warning:
BartPE Builder is running! Version 3.1.3



And OS is identified as: Windows XP (Professional) SP2
BartPE



This could be legal and image exposure!

Anyone knows from where this information is coming
and could it be changed to reference WinBuilder instead?

[smiley]

@ Phox:
What you see as BrtPe is actually the Computer name.

About the program error , i think that it happens becaue the hives script create by default this key:

0x1, "ControlSet001\Control\BartPE ","Version","3.1.3"

[pscEx]

There is a key

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\WB-setup\ControlSet001\Control\PE Builder]

(contained in the encoded hive) in the registry which for WinBuilder is 100% not necessary.

In HoJoPE this key will not appear.

Peter

[Alexei]

And OS is identified as: Windows XP (Professional) SP2
BartPE
... could it be changed to reference WinBuilder instead?

I'd like to clarify that WinBuilder just makes a copy of selected MS's files and also some other files
It's just "happens" that you can boot from this CD Actually you're booting "crippled" installation you have (licensed to you by MS). So all MS logos are legal and appropriate, you have to comply with MS EULA, and re-branding has to be permitted by MS.
On a side note, "installation" may be considered incomplete, with funny legal consequences

Alexei

[Brito]

The hives were originally created on a bartPE, when converting to reg files there was the option to remove all these identifiers, but I opted to keep them in order to respect bart's PE builder copyright. This is the reason why this is also referenced on the script interface.

HoJoPE is actually something I'm really looking forward since it's a completely new way of making these hives from scratch, it will be a good opportunity to have more freedom to customize these system settings..

[Brito]

Beta 4 is available and uploaded on the first post..


There were some significant commands added like "System" and "Encode" wich I'm sure will ease those coding tasks where it's needed to add/update encoded files and refresh the script GUI after pressing a button.

Also followed a few ideas by alexei, especially the one on a common source for all projects - there is a checkbox that allows to use one path for all projects as source. Unchecking this box will revert back to the project's own source path again..

The GUI has also been slightly changed, especially in the processing scripts window. There are still a few GUI bugs I've just noticed, but they will be adressed before a final 051 release.

Sorry for not releasing a beta package as well.. I've just been too focused on winbuilder.exe and haven't been folowing the latest developments - I have a lot of catch up to do on the sandbox after I'm done with 051..


At this moment I still haven't worked on the update center, I was hoping to fix most significant bugs present before jumping into this new feature..

Philon also noticed the DPI problem that has been puzzling be for some time now.. But he mentioned that the main window worked fine, and the interface didn't - this simply meant that child forms were not sharing the same settings as the main form - I think DPI should be looking fine now (I would appreciate if anyone could give more feedback on 120dpi please..)


Sorry for the delay in releasing a stable 051, it will take a little bit more than usual but should provide a much more stable working ground soon..


Thanks for all the feedback, it really helps figuring these issues!!

[pscEx]

Two first issues:

1st After running a single script by 'Right Click' and 'Run this script' there is an error


2nd The code

Set,"%pCheckBox1%","True"

System,RefreshInterface

does not set the check box to true.
Do I misunderstand the command?

And general:

I like the new process pane.

Peter

[Brito]

1st After running a single script by 'Right Click' and 'Run this script' there is an error

I'm not managing to replicate this error..
Perhaps it related to winbuilder.ini or with the script you're using - it might have some buggy code that needs some extra work, can you post it if still doesn't work with these .ini keys?

Here's my [main] section in winbuilder.ini

[main]

SourceDir=E:\WindowsXPSP2

TargetDir=%BaseDir%\Target

ISOfile=%BaseDir%\ISO\BootFile.iso

PEdrive=X:

ViewLogAfterSave=1

ViewLogAfterProcess=1

CheckUpdatesOnStart=0

AutoMinimize=1

LockEditor=1

DisableSplashScreen=0

ShowErrorMessages=1

SameSource=0

2nd The code

Set,"%pCheckBox1%","True"

System,RefreshInterface

does not set the check box to true.
Do I misunderstand the command?

Hadn't yet predicted that sort of use.. It is used for updating a text component - for a log of changes downloaded from the net for example: You download the text file with the log of changes, then re-encode it to be shown on the interface.


"Set" won't work, but you can re-write the checkbox itself for changing it to true and then apply "System,RefreshInterface"

I know this is not a very satisfatory workaround.. should code a more efficient solution soon.

[pscEx]

Here's my [main] section in winbuilder.ini

[main]

...



ShowErrorMessages=1

SameSource=0

These are missing. After manually defining all seems to be ok.

Peter

[Brito]

Thanks a lot for the quick tests!!

Will fix it now..

[phox]

There must be something wrong with my English!

1. Every Product, Person and Company, who’s Program
is used partially in WinBuilder, should receive due respect
in orderly and legal form (make special page in WB for it).

2. Warning in the form: “BartPE 3.1.3 is running”, should be
eliminated or replaced with: “WinBuilder XX OS is running”.

3. OS identification: “Windows XP (Professional) SP2 BartPE”,
should be replaced with: “WinBuilder OS {made from
Windows XP (Professional) as the source}*”.
It is much better than “Crippled Windows XP (Professional)”.

4. It is not legal to have on WinBuilder OS Desktop inscription
“Windows XP Professional SP2”, but “WinBuilder XX OS
{made from Windows XP (Professional) as the source}*”.

In short: give due respect to everyone concerned on “Credit”
page, but avoid embedded and/or explicit reference, whenever
possible, during and after booting of WinBuilder OS.

I hope I have made myself clear now!

* Text in {} parentheses only if obligatory!

[Alexei]

There must be something wrong with my English!

1. Every Product, Person and Company, who’s Program
is used partially in WinBuilder, should receive due respect
in orderly and legal form (make special page in WB for it).

2. Warning in the form: “BartPE 3.1.3 is running”, should be
eliminated or replaced with: “WinBuilder XX OS is running”.

3. OS identification: “Windows XP (Professional) SP2 BartPE”,
should be replaced with: “WinBuilder OS {made from
Windows XP (Professional) as the source}*”.
It is much better than “Crippled Windows XP (Professional)”.

4. It is not legal to have on WinBuilder OS Desktop inscription
“Windows XP Professional SP2”, but “WinBuilder XX OS
{made from Windows XP (Professional) as the source}*”.

In short: give due respect to everyone concerned on “Credit”
page, but avoid embedded and/or explicit reference, whenever
possible, during and after booting of WinBuilder OS.

I hope I have made myself clear now!

* Text in {} parentheses only if obligatory!

@phox,
With all due respect, you are combining and mixing very different issues:
- freeware usage
- usage of files created by BartPE
- usage of information obtained from files created by BartPE
- respect to software creators
- legal issues copying MS files to the CD
- legal issues creating files based on information from MS
- legal issues running WinBuilder, its messages, etc.
- legal issues when booting from CD created using WinBuilder
I'd like to clarify:
- It's you, not WinBuilder, who creates bootable CD.
- It's MS software that runs when booting from that CD.
- “Windows™ XP Professional SP2” identifies the version of MS installation CD, same as during "normal installation" of the OS. Replacing it may be illegal.
- It's obviously illegal to refer bootable CD as "WinBuilder ... OS"

Once again, by running WinBuilder, you don't create new software entity, you just copy some MS files along with other files to the CD.
I consider the fact that collection of files that you placed on the CD is useful for some purposes does not constitute this collection as a new software. I consider WinBuilder functionality is similar to what nLite does. I consider my legal position to be reasonable and strong. It's also safe in terms of possible allegations

Please note that law in different countries may utilize very different basic approaches to determination of the legality. For now I consider, the less declarations the better. Remember WinUBCD declared itself being "Windows UBCD" and then had to change its name, that's what I mean

phox, let's continue this discussion in a separate topic if you want.

Alexei

[phox]

@ Alexei

Sorry for delay in answering your post, but it took me some time to comprehend it.

First, I would like to thank you for proclaiming me a magician. I newer thought that I am able,
with 8 sentences plead to clear WinBuilder from unnecessary references, to do:

...combining and mixing very different issues:
- freeware usage
- usage of files created by BartPE
- usage of information obtained from files created by BartPE
- respect to software creators
- legal issues copying MS files to the CD
- legal issues creating files based on information from MS
- legal issues running WinBuilder, its messages, etc.
- legal issues when booting from CD created using WinBuilder

Second, I thank you for helping me to understand that my poor English is not problem for
some other people to understand it, but vice versa: me to understand some other people.

Third, I am thankful that my humble text triggered you to come to the epochal conclusion:

- It's you, not WinBuilder, who creates bootable CD.

With all due respect, we could not continue this discussion as I am far below of your league
and it would be pity to spend your valuable time on practical and rational questions I am
capable of.

phox.

PS: I admire your bolding!

[Alexei]

@ Alexei

Sorry for delay in answering your post, but it took me some time to comprehend it.

First, I would like to thank you for proclaiming me a magician. I newer thought that I am able,
with 8 sentences plead to clear WinBuilder from unnecessary references, to do:
Second, I thank you for helping me to understand that my poor English is not problem for
some other people to understand it, but vice versa: me to understand some other people.

Third, I am thankful that my humble text triggered you to come to the epochal conclusion:
With all due respect, we could not continue this discussion as I am far below of your league
and it would be pity to spend your valuable time on practical and rational questions I am
capable of.

phox.

PS: I admire your bolding!

@phox

Please don't be emotional. I was not trying to be sarcastic in my reply (as you may think), but to explain my position on the subject. In fact, I'm concerned with not creating vulnurabilities to legal attacks.

Your "practical and rational" approach doesn't work well with legal issues. In fact it may create very serious legal vulnurabilities that I'm trying to prevent. It's not about being right or wrong, but survival.

In legal competition lawyers from one side are trying to present legal (though unwanted) activity as illegal, using all possible rhetoric and technicalities. Lawyers from other side are using same methods for defense, otherwise they loose the case. At least that's what happening in US courts However, you may already know that.

I demostrated you some legal position that can be used by defense. It wasn't my intention, but if you got angry... it works

BTW, with my "epochal conclusion" I wanted to point your attension to the fact that people involved in development of WinBuilder could not be held responsible for the results produced by people who use WinBuilder. In casual speech we usually say "results produced by WinBuilder", though formal meaning (in terms of responsibility) is very different.

I hope, now you understand me better. Anyway, this discussion comes to its end

Regards,
Alexei

PS
No bolding for you today! And, yes, this is sarcastic

[stopka]

run winbuilder 51 rel under windows 2000 one error (not found setopldr.bin)

Attached Files

•  log.7z   16.47KB   314 downloads

[pscEx]

run winbuilder 51 rel under windows 2000 one error (not found setopldr.bin)

I do not understand this post here and now

Actual is version 52 beta 8!

Peter

EDITED: Sorry, 51 is the latest official released version. My brain has been anywhere ...

Edited by psc, 09 November 2006 - 02:41 PM.

[pscEx]

run winbuilder 51 rel under windows 2000 one error (not found setopldr.bin)

I think your RAM boot script is not setup correctly.

If your source is not W2003 you have to point to a valid position of setupldr.bin!

Peter