19 replies to this topic

[Brito]

If you would like to try out the new Winbuilder, it is already available for download at http://reboot.pro/fi...342-winbuilder/

 

Have fun!

 

[paraglider]

Thanks. New winbuilder is a very good starting point. Probably needs a new name as using the winbuilder name implies some compatibility with existing winbuilder projects which is not true.

 

However question is where do we go from here? What you currently have is one project with limited configurability which because of the current command line interface is not exactly easy to use. It is however fast to build - takes approximately 30 seconds.

 

Wim support is somewhat unreliable - original wims work ok but try a wim slipstreamed with patches and it fails miserably ( stack overflows reported ).

 

What is desperately needed is:

 

1) A more user friendly gui front end.

2) Better documentation. From the current documentation it is very hard to work out what is general and what is project specific.

3) Given the existing 100's of old winbuilder scripts an automated way to port existing old scripts to the new format is required.

4) More projects ported ( e.g. win7pe_se / win8pe_se ) that work on both x86 and x64 source. Without a porting tool this is a huge job and there is no incentive for project developers to do the work.

[Brito]

Hi Paraglider,

 

Should be possible to call this wb generation as "winbuilder 2013". The version number are now assigned according to the date when their are released. For example, the present edition is 2013.09.01

 

I imagine that splistreamed WIMs are failing to be used because the paths to some of the files are different. To handle these kind of situations I guess it would be necessary to adapt the project to discover where the needed files are inside the WIM. For the purpose of building a WinPE bootdisk, why would you need to use slipstreamed images?

 

Do you mean splistreamed from Microsoft or done by yourself? If they are from Microsoft, it should be easy to adapt. If it would mean custom splipstreamed then it is also possible albeit I'm not sure if the effort would really be worth the benefit..

 

For the moment, using the AUTO command uses a safe Windows source that gives reliable output. Can you give more details on what you mean?

 

 

1) A more user friendly gui front end.

 

It is possible. I'd personally enjoy seeing a GUI with a single button "build" that would run the AUTO command.

 

 

2) Better documentation. From the current documentation it is very hard to work out what is general and what is project specific.

 

Good point.

 

 

3) Given the existing 100's of old winbuilder scripts an automated way to port existing old scripts to the new format is required.

 

It is possible. In principle the common API is abtract and simple enough to implement in other platforms. However, we certainly don't have enough man power for this kind of task at this point.

 

4) More projects ported ( e.g. win7pe_se / win8pe_se ) that work on both x86 and x64 source. Without a porting tool this is a huge job and there is no incentive for project developers to do the work.

 

 

Actually you would be surprised. It is far more simple to create a project on the current winbuilder. If you like the speed, in some of our experiments it is possible to tweak the WIM extraction algorithm and supercharge the transfer speed. It was decided to keep a more conservative approach for now, should likely be introduced in future releases.

[pscEx]

3) Given the existing 100's of old winbuilder scripts an automated way to port existing old scripts to the new format is required.

Not meant as contradiction, more meant to explain.

 

We should be glad that there now is a possibility to create NEW working plugins following strict rules and only containing one or more of the files

• plugin_CD.zip (in memory to old "RunFromCD")
• plugin_RAM.zip (in memory to old "RunFromRAM")
• plugin_wim.bsh (old FileCopy ... lines)
• plugin_reg.bsh (old registry modifying lines)
• software.reg, system.reg, default.reg (new, imports a *.reg file)

The Common API of the old winbuilder generation is really not common. It is redefined and maintained in many different projects, even in projects which have their home outside reboot.pro. Look into the download section where you can find scripts tabbed with "Tested in ???". As a result, this scripts propably will fail in non - ??? projects.

 

Peter

[paraglider]

I use 2 tools to slipstream patches:

 

KUC - http://windows-update-checker.com/

win toolkit - http://www.wincert.n...79-win-toolkit/

 

In both cases these are just frontends to dism.

 

I don't expect the slipstreamed wim to work with the project. Would be nice if instead of hanging ( stack overflow reported in launching window not in the winbuilder window ) it showed an error. However I think the wim routines should be able to process any valid wim file otherwise its hard to have any confidence in them. My install.wim is extractable with 7-zip 9.30 and of course imagex / dism. It also works if used to install windows.

[shaneturner12]

I have had a look at the new WinBuilder 2013, and there's three things compared to the older version I do not like:

 

1.Lack of configurability when it comes to building projects - one reason why I still use WinBuilder 082, despite it's problems. WinBuilder 082 made it easier to adjust configuration settings for individual project scripts (including the main one I use - Win7PESE).

2.It's use of Java, which according to US government sources is insecure - why use something that has known security flaws and cannot be easily updated?

3.Command-line format - surely it's possible to do it in a GUI format that's compatible with the various platforms?

 

Shane

 

P.S. As I'm new here, apologies if I'm doing this wrong.

[Brito]

Hi Shane,

 

Welcome to reboot!

 

Thanks for the feedback. Some of your points were already pointed out by other users and you find some replies at http://reboot.pro/to...ilder/?p=176864 (special note to how java is safely used by winbuilder).

 

A nice GUI will appear in future editions.

[shaneturner12]

No problem, and thank you for your welcome. I have read the linked thread, and understand certain aspects, although I still have concerns over Java (even though it's not being used in a web browser, there's no saying that the standalone version is secure either - there may still be security issues with it, and the possibility of it being exploited.

 

I think I will wait until a reasonable GUI is created though that allows for fine-tuning of the project settings like previous versions of WinBuilder (082 and earlier) allow, as I'm one of those types who likes to fine-tune the settings of the project in order to add new compatible features/scripts into the build (so it can be used for other purposes like system recovery and recovering from user account problems).

 

Shane

[Brito]

Yes, I understand your perspective.

 

Java used in the wb context is no more dangerous than running another platform such as python or ruby. It is called without admin permissions and not installed globally on the system. In this sense, it is actually safer than the previous winbuilder editions because they required full admin access to the computer.

 

Usually we guide our available development effort to where more feedback is being posted by end-users. Do keep providing feedback about what you consider relevant to be done next. It does help us decide and know what is still missing or can be improved.

 

[Wonko the Sane]

It does help us decide and know what is still missing or can be improved.

Sure , BUT, just for the record, traditionally that rarely or never had any practical consequence.

 

Feedback was used to have an idea of what users were looking for and then do nonetheless whatever the developer(s) saw fit, more often than not going in directions diametrically opposite to the wishes expressed by the final users (which actually may have also asked "impossible" things) and to the ones expressed by the good guys that actually worked to write .scripts (that on the contrary usually asked for things that were mostly "reasonable").

 

As always, there is nothing wrong in the approach of asking people what they think and then do another thing, the issue is ONLY with mis-representing the actual relevance of received feedback, people should be aware that the probabilities that any senseful suggestion or wish will be received is very, very low (or at least this is what happened throughout the development of both the "old" version and the senselessly same named "new" version).

 

 

 

Wonko

[coder]

agreed Wonko...

 

 

I think the "new" Winbuilder today probably is asking too much to old users w/o giving them much in return.
I would've waited longer and released a more polished product.

 

The new winbuilder is not safer than the old one,
As I see it exploiting a non admin required Java based Winbuilder it is always more
tempting than exploiting an admin required Delphi based Winbuilder.

Edited by coder, 15 September 2013 - 10:56 AM.

[Brito]

I think the "new" Winbuilder today probably is asking too much to old users w/o giving them much in return.
I would've waited longer and released a more polished product.

 

 

It is polished. You run a single command, get a working boot disk. Does exactly what is intended. Nothing prevents you from keep waiting, new versions iterate with changes and hopefully new improvements.

 

 

The new winbuilder is not safer than the old one,
As I see it exploiting a non admin required Java based Winbuilder it is always more
tempting than exploiting an admin required Delphi based Winbuilder.

 

 

Quite honestly, what you write is FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) and is not a constructive remark.

 

You state that running an executable with full administrative permissions over the operating system is safer than running an executable within a very constrained environment where no critical parts of the system are allowed to be reached. Your assumption is wrong.

 

The new winbuilder is far safer and more stable than previous editions.

[Wonko the Sane]

Quite honestly, what you write is FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) and is not a constructive remark.

And it is not like much else than that has ever been posted by coder....

This recent one:

http://reboot.pro/to...erver/?p=177084

seems to me like a very serious issue. (I am posting a link to it here, besides reporting that post, to hopefully have Nuno notice it).

 

Wonko

[coder]

It is polished. .

 

INMHO I think it is not polished when we go i.e. from GUI to command line.

 

 

Quite honestly, what you write is FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) and is not a constructive remark.

WelI, I think what your wrote was a FSOS (False Sense of Security)

 

 

You state that running an executable with full administrative permissions over the operating system is safer than running an executable within a very constrained environment where no critical parts of the system are allowed to be reached. Your assumption is wrong.

I think I'm not; I consider a Delphi executable is essentially harder to atack (even when needing admin rights) than a Java aplication.
Java security is always a headache

 

 

Just my opinion.

[Brito]

Coder, I agree with the opinion of Wonko and others in the community.

 

Are you by any chance PatPat, the developer of Serva that was banned some time ago from reboot after similar conduct?

[coder]

I'm most of the time a reboot.pro reader  

if you consider I have a "bad conduct"  because I disagree with you or Wonko
well this is your web site you can tell me to go away, or ban me, as you please.
I do not really know what this has to do with serva; I'm just an sporadic serva user; that's it.

[Brito]

Coder, you will not be banned because of disagreeing with me nor with Wonko nor with any other user in the reboot community.

 

You will be banned when your disagreement (participation in general) is consistently expressed in way that a significant number of users do not consider appropriate, raising the need of administration for intervention.

 

This is what is happening right now.

 

There are cultural, language and personality differences that very often cause misunderstandings to happen. We keep a site policies that you might find relevant to understand why some of your previous comments were not considered appropriate: http://reboot.pro/to...-site-policies/

 

In the end of the day, if enough people are notoriously upset with your writings then this should indicate that something is simply not right.

 

With this said, you are sincerely welcome to keep participating in reboot. I'd just ask that some extra attention is noted avoid these kind of situations to reoccur.

 

[ohajo]

Hello, thanks for the new build, its very fast. One problem occured. Yesterday i built an Iso with the avalaible plugins. The buildwent on withou errors. But after starting the built Cd the foolowing hapened. All links for the integrated plugins were in de sart-menu. But by double-click it always asked: search for program-files. so the necessary files were not integrated. Could id have to do with latest server problems. or is there another rason. Sorry for my bad English.

[Lewis]

Coder, go and write your own windows 7 pe tool if using this "unpolished tool" disgusts you so much.

 

Personally I'm not a fan of java, but the winbuilder team have released an awesome, useful tool that is going to help people.

 

You don't understand how java works. You only stand there and say that its more open to exploits because you once read an article on how exploitable java is.  But you know how much say you get in what language they want to make it in? Zero. Thats because you have zero stake in the application and because thats how much you add to every conversation you get involved in.  They could write it in objective c, hell even in FORTRAN and make US compile it every time. It'd still be a great app with great uses.

 

Nuno, awesome app, grats to the Winbuilder team. Please ignore Coder.

[The Altruist]

Just want to say first, you guys are awesome. Now let me pass on some weirdness in my own experiences.

 

Your Mileage May Vary, but...

using the new WinBuilder (and I wish I had logs to share, but just imagine if you will)

On my home PC (Win7x64ProSP0), I couldn't get the auto build to work properly from the internal CLI.

It downloaded just fine, but froze while trying to compile boot.wim.

I then tried it through the web interface and it worked.

 

Just now on my work PC (Win7x86ProSP1), I used the auto build from the web (which worked first time).

And then I decided I wanted to add in some plugins.

I did the installs (ClamWin still fails, but oh well), then did the config win7pe from the web ui.

So I selected the plugins I wanted and saved.

I ran the build again. And... it's the same size?

I check the log and sure enough the plugins didn't get added in. Hrm...

So I run the config win7pe from the internal CLI and save.

Run build again. It works!

 

Hrm....

Edited by The Altruist, 04 October 2013 - 09:03 PM.