Jump to content











Photo
- - - - -

Rufus v1.3.0 has been released


  • Please log in to reply
208 replies to this topic

#176 Nuvo

Nuvo

    Member

  • Members
  • 34 posts
  •  
    Scotland

Posted 09 January 2015 - 10:50 AM

I've two issues with recent alpha releases of Rufus.  Should I report them via GitHub?

 


I'll give a brief description here to begin with.

 

1. Running v2.0.0 alpha, If I try to select a physical usb flash drive from the device drop down menu I get a msvcrt.dll unhandled exception error.

 

2. Running v1.5.0 alpha, using a verified XP SP3 ISO source file gives a ntdetect failure when booting fro USB.  On some occasions Rufus             hangs when copying files from the ISO file.  Rufus v1.4.12 doesn't have either of these issues and works as expected.

 

Do you need any additional logs or other detailed information to replicate and troubleshoot the above?

 

edit:  Running v2.0.0 on another XP system gives the following related error when launched:

 

2rdavx2.png



#177 Akeo

Akeo

    Frequent Member

  • Developer
  • 331 posts
  •  
    Ireland

Posted 25 January 2015 - 12:43 AM

Hi Nuvo,

 

Somehow gmail thought that the reboot.pro topic notifications were spam, so I didn't see this update until I checked my spam folder a few minutes ago... :hmm:

 

For issue #1: What platform are you trying to run Rufus on? Could you please provide a log? Also, provided that you're using Windows 7 or later, is there any chance that you could install Visual Studio 2013 (which is free) and recompile the latest Rufus from source to see exactly where it seems to crash. Note that this is a fairly heavy download and lengthy installation process, so it's really up to you. See here or here for details. That last link is for recompiling a different application, but the process is fairly similar (and simpler) for Rufus.

 

For issue #2: Please use the latest 2.0. 1.5 should NOT be used at all at this stage. I haven't retested XP at all with the latest (and I'll probably only do minimal testing since this OS is 100% retired), so I wouldn't be surprised if something broke. Also, where does it seem to hang? is it at the same location. And yes, providing logs and logging issues on github is ALWAYS useful.

 

Finally, I want to point out that, even though the file name doesn't change, the 2.0 ALPHA gets updated on (semi) regular basis, so you might want to re-test with latest. And this is ALPHA, so yeah, it's expected to break things...



#178 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 15108 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 25 January 2015 - 09:18 AM

 I haven't retested XP at all with the latest (and I'll probably only do minimal testing since this OS is 100% retired), so I wouldn't be surprised if something broke.

 

Maybe officially 100% retired, but still used by (say) 20% or more of the world :whistling:, so "75% to 80% retired" would be a more accurate statement.

 

You are very welcome :) to not only drop support for XP/2003 but also to (say) add some artificial limitation :w00t: :ph34r: preventing Rufus from running on XP, of course :), as this will certainly  make your developer's life simpler.

 

:duff:

Wonko 



#179 Akeo

Akeo

    Frequent Member

  • Developer
  • 331 posts
  •  
    Ireland

Posted 25 January 2015 - 09:46 PM

Maybe officially 100% retired, but still used by (say) 20% or more of the world :whistling:, so "75% to 80% retired" would be a more accurate statement.


That's not how it works.

Let's take an example. Say I were to discover that the compiler I build Rufus with has been compromised and embeds a silent rootkit in the application (e.g. something that is set to start taking commands on March 1st). As soon as I discover that, I release 1.4.13 and declare Rufus 1.4.12 retired.

But according to you, that decision of retiring software is not the developer's to make, and software only gets as much retired as the number of people who choose to continue to use it (which some may very well decide to do past March 1st if they don't feel that the issue is that serious).

Well, I don't really see how that logic flies. As much as I understand why users would like it otherwise, it's the software developer who gets to decide when their software is retired, be it from a date they long announced or through force majeure, and furthermore, this is a purely binary operation (1 or 0, not x%). While users can choose to continue to use an obsolete product, is still doesn't mean that the product is any less retired, and I think that pretending otherwise is a bit disingenuous and can be damaging in the case it introduces a security risk (which continuing use of an OS where security vulnerabilities are left unpatched is)...
 

as this will certainly  make your developer's life simpler.


I'm a bit annoyed at this statement, because it gives the impression that developers have some kind of choice as to whether they should continue to support for something, and that dropping old platforms boils down to someone trying to take the easy way out. So let me first start by stating what would actually make my developer's life simpler: that would be supporting Windows 8 or later only.

If I were to do that, boy would I suddenly get back a lot of development time, and cut a whole slew of workarounds for old or non existing APIs that are currently present in the Rufus code! But Microsoft has retired neither Windows 7 nor Vista, so I can't do the one thing that would make my life simpler.

So I now have to try my best at providing support for OSes that are not yet retired, and this is already taking SO MUCH time (for instance, right now I'm trying to figure the best way to bring Windows To Go support to Windows 7, because it lacks one of the APIs that makes this fairly straightforward on Windows 8) that cutting anything outside of this at this stage won't actually make my developer's life simpler. Still, on the back of this, I do get a lot of requests (or should I say demands) from XP users, who I'd venture to say probably feel emboldened into their continued use of an obsolete platform by trustworthy voices who are trying to dispute the very fact that a platform IS obsolete or potentially giving the impression that supporting 5 major versions of Windows at once is not as big a deal as it really is...

 

Now, that's not to say I'm planning to drop XP support from Rufus anytime soon, especially as I spent way too much time adding support for it - and even for the upcoming 2.0 release I had to do a lot of XP specific work, but that doesn't mean I have to like it or will refrain from chastising anyone who's still trying to justify the use of a retired OS...



#180 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 15108 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 26 January 2015 - 09:22 AM

Now, that's not to say I'm planning to drop XP support from Rufus anytime soon, especially as I spent way too much time adding support for it - and even for the upcoming 2.0 release I had to do a lot of XP specific work, but that doesn't mean I have to like it or will refrain from chastising anyone who's still trying to justify the use of a retired OS...

Sure :), that's freedom, and you are very welcome to do and say whatever you like to (of course within limits) , while as well I am free to say whatever I like (within the same limits), this is what usually lead to a discussion or to an agreement.

 

But you will have somehow to consider how providing support for an OS that you consider "100% retired" doesn't sound very logical, if you really think it is "100% retired", be a man ;) and drop support for it altogether (a wrong choice, but a logical one) or keep the support for XP and stop calling it "100% retired" (another logical choice, only right ;)).

 

What Microsoft does with their OS (and with their support policies) is essentially their business and often it has nothing to do with customer satisfaction or with easing the life of software developers, the point I was trying to make is that until something is in use and in numbers that are not-so-trifling it cannot be properly called "100% retired", of course "not supported anymore by MS" or "in declining use" is perfectly accurate.

 

If you - hypothetically - had till now support for (say) Windows NT4.00 and you decided to drop it, you would probably receive one (or maybe two, counting yours truly and Wendy ;)) requests for re-adding it, if the same happened with Windows 2000 you would probably have three (or maybe four) requests to re-add it, if you do it with XP you would have many, many more. 

If it was possible and you could "drill a hole in the supported OS list" :w00t: I would bet that if - still hypothetically - you decided to drop support for Vista only, you would get much less requests to re-add it than the XP related ones...

 

:duff:

Wonko



#181 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12707 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 26 January 2015 - 12:27 PM

What Microsoft does with their OS (and with their support policies) is essentially their business and often it has nothing to do with customer satisfaction or with easing the life of software developers, the point I was trying to make is that until something is in use and in numbers that are not-so-trifling it cannot be properly called "100% retired", of course "not supported anymore by MS" or "in declining use" is perfectly accurate.re-add it than the XP related ones...

I fully agree :cheers:

 

I still use XP as my standard system.

I like that XP accepts me as the boss.

 

Win7 and friends always think that they know better than me, what I want to do.

 

Peter



#182 Akeo

Akeo

    Frequent Member

  • Developer
  • 331 posts
  •  
    Ireland

Posted 26 January 2015 - 09:33 PM

But you will have somehow to consider how providing support for an OS that you consider "100% retired" doesn't sound very logical, if you really think it is "100% retired", be a man ;) and drop support for it altogether


Who says I haven't? :book:
 
The notice about users installing XP being entirely on their own has been there for many months now, and I've directed quite a few users to it without further explanations.
So that takes care of me being logical for the "people shouldn't be installing a retired OS" part.
 
Now, let's talk about the logic of dropping support for running Rufus on XP, because you appear to fall a bit short of considering the whole picture:
What kind of a "£$%^ move would it be if the maker of an application, which is aimed mostly at letting people install or run another OS, was to tell people who are running the one OS he advocates them to move away from (because people should really have an exit strategy for retired stuff), that they cannot use one of the (hopefully) easiest methods to do so?

If there's one group of people that should be able to use Rufus in order to install anything OTHER than XP (that is still supported), it's people running XP.
 
So, there's no actual logic conflict here, just the constraint of following through logic to its logical conclusion.

 

As far as I'm concerned, XP is 100% retired, and if you're running XP as your primary OS, you SHOULD move away from it. But of course, to do so, you might as well use Rufus, as it will hopefully drive you away from the cemetery faster than the competition! :vampire:
 

What Microsoft does with their OS (and with their support policies) is essentially their business and often it has nothing to do with customer satisfaction

I see that (or something in the same vein) posted a lot: "There is/was no real reason for Microsoft to push users away from XP". How do you know? Do you work for Microsoft?

What about users of new hardware, who won't find a driver for it (because it's just not worth a manufacturer's effort to tend for a dwindling market share)? What about people who have bought a >3TB disk for backup and whatnot, and find that they can't access it past 2TB, because XP has no support for GPT? What about getting decent speeds out of USB 3.0 or UAS? New chipsets support? Does that have nothing to do with ensuring customer satisfaction? Or are you going to pretend that "users should just know the limitations of their OSes (or hardware)". And that's just for the part that end-users see. Developers get to see a lot more constraints in the APIs... I'm pretty sure I wasn't the only developer who breathed a sigh of relief last April (NB: Windows developers are also Microsoft customers), because it means at long last I had an excuse not to contend with the many XP limitations, should I decide not to.

So as far as I'm concerned (and a look at various comments in the Rufus code should convince anyone that I'm not in Microsoft's pocket), retiring XP when Microsoft did was actually a good way to ensure Windows customer satisfaction: It does provide users with a chance to use up to date hardware+software and benefit from the latest features everybody expects, as they upgrade.
 

the point I was trying to make is that until something is in use and in numbers that are not-so-trifling it cannot be properly called "100% retired", of course "not supported anymore by MS" or "in declining use" is perfectly accurate.

 

From the web access stats of akeo.ie for the month of January, taking the most favourable figures (hits rather than pages) and adjusted for only Windows (all Windows = 100%), I'm seeing about 8.6% of XP users. I have no idea who keeps quoting figures higher than 10% for the whole park of Windows installations, but clearly we're not looking at the same population. Considering that I'm providing a Windows application that may be quite useful for XP users, I'm more ready to believe my figures that XP usage is below 10% than anybody else's...
 
And I really have no qualms on the not-so-trifling. But then again I'm not the one pretending that usage has anything to do with something being retired, on the contrary, I clearly stated that usage was completely irrelevant to what is exclusively a developer's decision (even more so if they announced it way in advance).

 

Still, it's nice to know that black hats can still count on a 8.6% market share that seems to have no qualms connecting to the internet and will be at the mercy of a good 0-day drive by exploit, if they haven't already (does Adobe still patch flash or reader on XP?). That sure should help said malware authors with a nice botnet, the day they decide to DoS rufus.akeo.ie, or use numbers to try to exploit the people who, foolishly are trying to keep their Windows systems supported and up to date.
 
So, on behalf of those who have ceased to/aren't using XP as their primary platform, and with a special dedication for the people who keep trying to justify the opposite behaviour, let me just say: Thanks for making the internet less safe for the rest of us by going all Schrodinger with regards to calling a dead cat a dead cat!
 

If you - hypothetically - had till now support for (say) Windows NT4.00 and you decided to drop it, you would probably receive one (or maybe two, counting yours truly and Wendy ;)) requests for re-adding it

 

I'm not gonna dispute that. And I'm also not going to dispute that I'd probably answer these people: It's OK to run old stuff, as long as it's very occasional or in isolation from place where it might do some damage, which is what old suff tends to do when it's been left unattended for some time. Also, stop expecting people to care about or support your obsolete stuff.
 

If it was possible and you could "drill a hole in the supported OS list" :w00t: I would bet that if - still hypothetically - you decided to drop support for Vista only, you would get much less requests to re-add it than the XP related ones...


I don't have much of an issue with Vista. Vista people seem to have learned a lesson that a lot of XP-users still haven't: There's no point trying to defend an OS that is as good as dead.

 

If XP is your main platform, the sooner you accept that it's dead and move on, the better for everyone, including you! It may not be my place to say so, but power users on a respected forum shouldn't really be encouraging people to stick with an OS that has essentially become a liability.

 

Oh and I'll finish by saying that, if you want actual control, you should really switch to GNU/Linux!... :D
 



#183 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 15108 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 27 January 2015 - 08:25 AM

I am not encouraging anyone to do anything, of course, only pointing out how 100% was not an accurate representation, if you like it better at 91.4% instead of 80% it's fine, BTW.

Also, it is very likely that use on the internet may largely be different from "use".

To give you an example I do maintain a Windows 2000 Server that has never seen the internet in the last (say) 15 years or so. (but I know how some of my setups are not conventional).

 

:duff:

Wonko



#184 Nuvo

Nuvo

    Member

  • Members
  • 34 posts
  •  
    Scotland

Posted 28 January 2015 - 11:51 AM

HI Akeo,

              Thank you for responding to my post.  I'll post back once I have gathered together the information you have requested.

 

Thank you.



#185 Akeo

Akeo

    Frequent Member

  • Developer
  • 331 posts
  •  
    Ireland

Posted 28 January 2015 - 01:52 PM

@Nuvo, no need to help with the 2.0 crash. I should have a fix for it with the next ALPHA I put up. From what I could see, this is tied to the gcc compiler I use for releases, which I also upgraded for 2.0, having dropped/broken the ability to display large numbers on XP using older APIs (because, yeah, I'm not the only one trying to claim back time better invested away from a retired platform, by limiting the amount of testing that goes against it).

I'll also try to have a quick look to see if the XP install is broken. However, if it affects only XP and not stuff like BartPE, I may very well decide to leave it broken...

@Wonko, I believe I made my points clear already.



#186 Akeo

Akeo

    Frequent Member

  • Developer
  • 331 posts
  •  
    Ireland

Posted 28 January 2015 - 11:25 PM

Latest ALPHA should fix the XP issues.



#187 Nuvo

Nuvo

    Member

  • Members
  • 34 posts
  •  
    Scotland

Posted 29 January 2015 - 09:37 AM

Hi Akeo,

              I'm grateful to you for spending some time trying to resolve these issues despite your views and the time cost.  

I've tried your latest ALPHA release (2.0.0.589) and I'm still having some problems with it.

 

Issue#1- Running Rufus on an XP Pro SP3 system I see the following error message:

"The application failed to initialise properly (0xc00000005)"

I can send you the MS Error report dump files should you need them.

 

Issue#2- Running Rufus on an XP Home SP3 system VHDs mounted with Total Mounter or Virtual Server vhdmount tool are no longer detected.

Also once the scanning of a selected ISO file has completed the Start button disppears from the  program window only to return some 10m30s later.

 

I've still to test if the files are copied without hanging and whether or not the USB drive boots succesfully.  I'll report back once I have this information.

 

update:  I'm pleased to report that file copying and booting were completed without a hitch. 


Edited by Nuvo, 29 January 2015 - 09:47 AM.


#188 Zoso

Zoso

    Silver Member

  • Advanced user
  • 640 posts
  •  
    Isle of Man

Posted 29 January 2015 - 11:20 AM

I fully agree :cheers:

I still use XP as my standard system.
I like that XP accepts me as the boss.

Win7 and friends always think that they know better than me, what I want to do.

Peter


I partially agree.. except it became my OS the moment I paid for it.

I also still us it as my primary OS. W7 and later it became obvious they were trying to make things more difficult to do and also more difficult to harden/secure.

been spending more time on x64 edition lately and so far Ive been able to find or modify drivers to work on all hardware Ive tried but the latest AMD SATA was a bit of a challenge.

havnt tried to install my nlited x64 iso with rufus yet though but will at some point.
  • pscEx likes this

#189 Akeo

Akeo

    Frequent Member

  • Developer
  • 331 posts
  •  
    Ireland

Posted 29 January 2015 - 07:43 PM

Issue#1- Running Rufus on an XP Pro SP3 system I see the following error message:
"The application failed to initialise properly (0xc00000005)"
I can send you the MS Error report dump files should you need them.


Can't reproduce that issue on either a real or virtual XP Pro SP3 test system, so you're on your own on that one.

 

If you want to investigate, you can install MSYS2 + MinGW as well as git and recompile Rufus from its source, which is what you need to be prepared to do if you want to continue to use modern Open Source applications on a platform that's been retired. See here for details on how to install the toolchain that I'm using to generate Rufus. I'll gladly accept an XP specific patch for this if you have one, but because I don't see it happening on any of my test platforms (whereas I could replicate the previous issues you reported) I'm not going to invest any time there.

 

You can also try to install DebugView and see if there's something suspicious in the log.

 

Issue#2- Running Rufus on an XP Home SP3 system VHDs mounted with Total Mounter or Virtual Server vhdmount tool are no longer detected.


Same as above, except I haven't tested, because VHD support on XP is the least of my worries. Can you replicate this issue on a non-retired platform?
What I can however tell you, is that if you're willing to help yourself figuring out what may be wrong, adding a

uprintf(buffer);

line around here and looking at the Rufus log might give a clue as to what's going on during the VHD controller detection phase.
 

Also once the scanning of a selected ISO file has completed the Start button disppears from the  program window only to return some 10m30s later.


Tested on real + virtual XP hardware, and haven't seen any of this.

My guess is that if you get an app init error, you should obviously expect more weird issues down the line.



#190 Akeo

Akeo

    Frequent Member

  • Developer
  • 331 posts
  •  
    Ireland

Posted 29 January 2015 - 08:35 PM

except it became my OS the moment I paid for it.


I'm afraid it's not. The OS was licensed to you, which is quite a long way from owning.

Unless the OS provides you with the 4 freedoms, you're a bit of a long way from the OS being yours. As modern society demonstrates, paying for something does not equate owning, even more so when a lengthy EULA ("End User License Agreement" not "End User Ownership Agreement") stands in the way.

And if I may channel my Yoda, some very interesting read, these EULAs are. :starwars: Let's take a look at the XP one, and search specifically for the word "own". Interestingly, the only part we find it mentioned is:
 

Microsoft or its suppliers own the title, copyright, and other intellectual property rights in the Product. The Product is licensed, not sold.


So you're not "sold" an orange, you're only licensed one (whatever that might mean for oranges - are you entitled to eat a licensed orange?). But hey, Microsoft only talks about title, copyright and whatnot, which you probably don't care about, so maybe the fact that "own" is not mentioned any further in the license implicitly grants you those rights?

Nope, not a chance:
 

Reservation of Rights. Microsoft reserves all rights not expressly granted to you in this EULA.


So, whatever you paid for, I'm pretty sure the EULA makes it clear that it was never actually yours. The only thing you own is a license to operate that OS, but the terms of that license are governed by Microsoft exclusively.
 

I also still us it as my primary OS.


Then thanks for doing your part to facilitate the spread of malware, as well as encouraging people in the belief that using XP as their connected main platform, in this day and age, is a matter of choice with no damaging consequences.
 

W7 and later it became obvious they were trying to make things more difficult to do and also more difficult to harden/secure.


But why on earth would Microsoft want to do that? Out of spite for their licensed users? How would that make sense?

The goal of Microsoft is to make a profit. The Win8 metro fiasco and much of the many disputable decisions Microsoft made along can easily be explained from trying to be more profitable. For instance, forcing a limiting touch-like interface into regular desktop might be seen as a good way to reduce development costs (because then you don't have to separate tablet OS and desktop OS development), as well as a way to increase your mobile market share by having regular users be in "familiar" ground when they hopefully make the switch to mobile (which you want to make happen so you can grow your oh-so-juicy paywalled app market, and try to rival Apple's golden goose). Misguided, yes, but very easy to explain.

On the other hand if you can explain how "making things more difficult" and making it "more difficult to harden/secure" as prime goals can help Microsoft with increasing their profits, I'd really like to hear it.



#191 Zoso

Zoso

    Silver Member

  • Advanced user
  • 640 posts
  •  
    Isle of Man

Posted 29 January 2015 - 09:43 PM

I'm afraid it's not. The OS was licensed to you, which is quite a long way from owning.

hi Akeo, you are free to believe whatever but I have a copy of the OS in my possession and it IS (IN FACT) my property.

Unless the OS provides you with the 4 freedoms, you're a bit of a long way from the OS being yours. As modern society demonstrates, paying for something does not equate owning, even more so when a lengthy EULA ("End User License Agreement" not "End User Ownership Agreement") stands in the way.

modern society's "beliefs" do not change the facts. do you have first hand knowledge that this EULA is indeed a valid contract and is it applicable to me? are you certain of that?

And if I may channel my Yoda, some very interesting read, these EULAs are. :starwars: Let's take a look at the XP one, and search specifically for the word "own". Interestingly, the only part we find it mentioned is:


So you're not "sold" an orange, you're only licensed one (whatever that might mean for oranges - are you entitled to eat a licensed orange?). But hey, Microsoft only talks about title, copyright and whatnot, which you probably don't care about, so maybe the fact that "own" is not mentioned any further in the license implicitly grants you those rights?

Nope, not a chance:


So, whatever you paid for, I'm pretty sure the EULA makes it clear that it was never actually yours. The only thing you own is a license to operate that OS, but the terms of that license are governed by Microsoft exclusively.

your presumptions and beliefs, however common, are yours only. (my name is NEO) BTW, are you licensed to give legal advice?

Then thanks for doing your part to facilitate the spread of malware, as well as encouraging people in the belief that using XP as their connected main platform, in this day and age, is a matter of choice with no damaging consequences.

you serve your avatar very well ;-) but I have made no such claims, And; what proof do you have to back your claims here?

But why on earth would Microsoft want to do that? Out of spite for their licensed users? How would that make sense?

The goal of Microsoft is to make a profit. The Win8 metro fiasco and much of the many disputable decisions Microsoft made along can easily be explained from trying to be more profitable. For instance, forcing a limiting touch-like interface into regular desktop might be seen as a good way to reduce development costs (because then you don't have to separate tablet OS and desktop OS development), as well as a way to increase your mobile market share by having regular users be in "familiar" ground when they hopefully make the switch to mobile (which you want to make happen so you can grow your oh-so-juicy paywalled app market, and try to rival Apple's golden goose). Misguided, yes, but very easy to explain.

who is M$ anyway? do you think he or she can testify or bring forth a verifiable claim in any court of law? again, are you certain (beyond the shadow of any doubt) of that?


Akeo, are you one of those people so hopelessly lost in the matrix that you will fight to protect it or are you just not ready to exit yet?

#192 Akeo

Akeo

    Frequent Member

  • Developer
  • 331 posts
  •  
    Ireland

Posted 29 January 2015 - 11:39 PM

you are free to believe whatever but I have a copy of the OS in my possession and it IS (IN FACT) my property.


I'll let the irony of this quote speak for itself.
 

modern society's "beliefs" do not change the facts.


Got ya. Society is an individual that has "beliefs" and he or she can be proven wrong with verifiable facts (that you seem to have forgotten to provide).
 

do you have first hand knowledge that this EULA is indeed a valid contract and is it applicable to me? are you certain of that?


Well, it's not really my role to assume that people I don't know anything about are being pirates, through  voluntary refusal of the terms of the Windows EULA (which, if they do, they have to return their copy for refund), but we can go that route if you want to... Now of course, if you want to make the counter claim that your country's consumer's laws are above Microsoft's EULA, surely you can point me to the article of law that states so.
 

are you licensed to give legal advice?


It doesn't take a license to give you this piece of legal advice: If you firmly believe that EULAs do not apply to you and should be free to do whatever you like with software that is governed by them, you might want to stay away from the legal circles of your country as Microsoft doesn't seem to take it too kindly to individuals who think that they are above the terms of the Windows or Office EULAs.

 

From what I am aware, each country (apart perhaps from North Korea) does seem to have a fairly established anti-piracy bureau, which software corporations can call on to to go after people who refuse to abide by the terms of their EULAs.

 

But to come back to the actual topic, I do try to read the contracts that legally govern my use of software applications, so that I can form an educated judgement from their interpretation. You are of course free to try to counter this interpretation, but then, for your counter to be receivable, you have to try to back up your claims.
 

you serve your avatar very well ;-)


Come on, everyone who've seen the movies know that Smith is where the real fun is! B)
 

I have made no such claims


You have been posting a reply indicating that it was fine to use XP as one's main platform after I:
1. explicitly chastised people who continue to use XP as their main platform, on account of being a security liability
2. indicated that encouraging the use of a retired platform as one's own choice, in light of the above liability, was also dangerous.
 

And; what proof do you have to back your claims here?


Microsoft, deciding to go out of their way, right after official Windows XP support had ended, to fix a critical OS vulnerability. As a software developer, with some ideas about the amount of bugs and shortcomings that get left even in the best managed code, especially if it's a very large amount of it, such an OS kernel, I'll tell you that vulnerabilities are pretty much like "the big one" - it's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when".
 

who is M$ anyway?


Rather than who, I can tell you what "M$" is.

 

It usually is a clear indicator of a biased view against the Microsoft corporation (whether justified or not), with the downside of making it harder from the side of the argument using it to be taken seriously.

I know. I used to do that too. But these days, when I criticize Microsoft, I prefer to use unbiased acronyms and let verifiable facts, such as the terms of an EULA, speak for themselves.
 

do you think he or she can testify or bring forth a verifiable claim in any court of law? again, are you certain (beyond the shadow of any doubt) of that?


Likewise, don't call on "beyond the shadow of any doubt" if you want to be taken seriously.

 

Am I certain, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that you aren't a lizard? Absolutely not.

Still, that doesn't mean the idea isn't laughable.

Also, you're trying to evade the question I asked you. If you want to dispute my assertion, and the logic I brought forward to justify it, fine, but you better do that with something that has more depth than your original "Microsoft just wants to make it harder for users", which has almost as much standing as saying "Microsoft just want to eliminate round shapes" or "The lizard people are among us!".

 

Again, can you please explain why Microsoft would want to make it harder or less secure for Windows users, as you stated they have been trying to do.
 

Akeo, are you one of those people so hopelessly lost in the matrix that you will fight to protect it or are you just not ready to exit yet?


I can read the code. I can alter it. I can also create my own.

Moreover, unlike what a Microsoft EULA entitles its users to, I can get my code cloned with pretty much everybody.

 

Wait, are we still talking about being a Smith in the Matrix, or real life...?



#193 Zoso

Zoso

    Silver Member

  • Advanced user
  • 640 posts
  •  
    Isle of Man

Posted 30 January 2015 - 12:44 AM

Got ya. Society is an individual that has "beliefs" and he or she can be proven wrong with verifiable facts (that you seem to have forgotten to provide).

society as in the people and there is a difference between verified and verifiable.

if you want to make the counter claim that your country's consumer's laws are above Microsoft's EULA, surely you can point me to the article of law that states so.

consumer's laws? why would I; a man, be concerned with such laws?




It doesn't take a license to give you this piece of legal advice:

again, are you certain of that?



But to come back to the actual topic, I do try to read the contracts that legally govern my use of software applications, so that I can form an educated judgement from their interpretation.

very good! take it a step further and study the law, more specifically in this instance, contract laws and then form a judgement on what elements must be present for any contract to be binding. you may start to have eyes to see the real matrix.


You are of course free to try to counter this interpretation, but then, for your counter to be receivable, you have to try to back up your claims.

that my copy of XP is my property? well until another man claims otherwise then there is no need to. are you claiming otherwise? ifso then it is you that must prove your claim, no?

It usually is a clear indicator of a biased view against the Microsoft corporation (whether justified or not), with the downside of making it harder from the side of the argument using it to be taken seriously.

my "view" is not against M$. it goes deeper than that. have you ever heard of piercing the corporate veil? for those who have eyes to see, it is the dead world, it only exists on paper but "what IS real?"

I can read the code. I can alter it. I can also create my own.

are you familiar with the Uniform Commercial Code, United States Code, etc. etc., THOSE Codes? law that has been codified is no longer law, it is codified law. can you see it?



Wait, are we still talking about being a Smith in the Matrix, or real life...?

in Plato's cave.

#194 Akeo

Akeo

    Frequent Member

  • Developer
  • 331 posts
  •  
    Ireland

Posted 30 January 2015 - 03:24 AM

why would I; a man, be concerned with such laws?


In other words, you consider yourself above the law, or, at the very least, entitled to cherry pick the articles of law you feel like abiding to.
 

again, are you certain of that?


Very much so, yes. Why would I have written it otherwise?

Is that really how you want to counter? By asking me if I really meant to say what I said? Can I do that too? Are you certain that's how you want to proceed?
 

more specifically in this instance, contract laws and then form a judgement on what elements must be present for any contract to be binding.


Oh but I'm sure you will enlighten us all (and especially the Microsoft's legal department), on how the Windows EULA is not binding, and how, despite what it explicitly states, you are not licensed the software, but instead do own it.
 

that my copy of XP is my property? well until another man claims otherwise then there is no need to. are you claiming otherwise?


Well, duh (and here we go again...)
 

ifso then it is you that must prove your claim, no?


I already did, with the parts of the EULA I quoted.

Or if you want me to spell it out further, with an easy to understand car analogy: being granted a driving license to use a car doesn't make you own a car.
 

for those who have eyes to see, it is the dead world, it only exists on paper but "what IS real?"


Jaden Smith, is that you? If I give you my Heidegger can I get your Plato?

#195 Zoso

Zoso

    Silver Member

  • Advanced user
  • 640 posts
  •  
    Isle of Man

Posted 30 January 2015 - 04:20 AM


In other words, you consider yourself above the law, or, at the very least, entitled to cherry pick the articles of law you feel like abiding to.


you presume, but consider these words from someone much wiser than myself "condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."

you said "consumer laws" now, what facts in evidence do you have that i; a man, am a "consumer" (or person. or tax payer, or any other fiction of law/legal fiction)?

when we think we know it all then we are trapped in a box, some of us have found the way out of the box (or cave in Plato's example)

"True wisdom comes to each of us when we realize how little we understand about life, ourselves, and the world around us." -Socrates

and also: "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." -Socrates


Oh but I'm sure you will enlighten us all (and especially the Microsoft's legal department), on how the Windows EULA is not binding, and how, despite what it explicitly states, you are not licensed the software, but instead do own it.


Im not so sure.. but I think I can help shed some light on the subject.

being granted a driving license to use a car doesn't make you own a car.


why would i; a man even need such license? and what does ownership have to do with property?

question everything! read a law dictionary if you want to learn the code to the matrix.

or laugh it off and continue being a slave.

#196 Nuvo

Nuvo

    Member

  • Members
  • 34 posts
  •  
    Scotland

Posted 30 January 2015 - 08:28 AM

Can't reproduce that issue on either a real or virtual XP Pro SP3 test system, so you're on your own on that one.

 

>> I appreciate that if you can't replicate the reported issues makes fixing them more difficult.


 

If you want to investigate, you can install MSYS2 + MinGW as well as git and recompile Rufus from its source, which is what you need to be prepared to do if you want to continue to use modern Open Source applications on a platform that's been retired. See here for details on how to install the toolchain that I'm using to generate Rufus. I'll gladly accept an XP specific patch for this if you have one, but because I don't see it happening on any of my test platforms (whereas I could replicate the previous issues you reported) I'm not going to invest any time there.?

 

>> Sure thing, I'd be happy to try that and share my findings. 

 

You can also try to install DebugView and see if there's something suspicious in the log.

 

>> Okay, I'll try that too.


Same as above, except I haven't tested, because VHD support on XP is the least of my worries. Can you replicate this issue on a non-retired platform?

 

>>I've only tested it on Windows 7 which works as designed.

What I can however tell you, is that if you're willing to help yourself figuring out what may be wrong, adding a



uprintf(buffer);

line around here and looking at the Rufus log might give a clue as to what's going on during the VHD controller detection phase.

>> Thanks for the tip.:)


Tested on real + virtual XP hardware, and haven't seen any of this.

My guess is that if you get an app init error, you should obviously expect more weird issues down the line.

>>The app init error only occurs on the XP Pro SP3 system which terminates after pressing the OK button.

>> The other reported issues are only seen on an XP Home SP3 system.



#197 Akeo

Akeo

    Frequent Member

  • Developer
  • 331 posts
  •  
    Ireland

Posted 30 January 2015 - 09:01 PM

@Zoso,

 

Well, this pseudophilosophical drivel has been entertaining, but I think we've established clearly enough, yet again, that you don't consider the legal bindings from purchase and subsequent use of software (both of which you disclosed, therefore making you a consummer of said product, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not) to be either legal or binding.

 

If your continuous riposte is an attempt at removing the framework within which logical arguing can apply, then it becomes pointless to argue.

 

@Nuvo,

 

Thanks for looking into it. Despite the fact that I'm trying to do as little work as I can for XP, I'll be curious to know your findings, and whether I might be able to apply a quick fix.

 

@Everyone else,

 

Just a couple hours ago, I found that January 2015 is the very first month where Rufus has broken through 1M downloads/month! :D

And this is just for the official site...

 

So of course, I'd be ungrateful if I didn't acknowledge that this little software wouldn't be as successful as it is today without support from everyone, be it people who contributed suggestions or pointed to insightful info (even if I chose to ignore some of it), reported or helped troubleshoot issues, or simply used the application and thought it did a well enough job to recommend it to others.

 

I stand truly humbled by how much all of you made this application a success, and just wanted to say THANK YOU!



#198 Akeo

Akeo

    Frequent Member

  • Developer
  • 331 posts
  •  
    Ireland

Posted 15 February 2015 - 10:08 PM

:beta: It is now my great pleasure to announce the availability of Rufus 2.0 BETA.

 

Please test it and use the github tracker if you find things that look amiss.

 

This is a new major version, as quite a few new features have been introduced, and there have now been close to 100 commits in the source between this version and the last (for most previous versions, the number of commits since last were usually between 10 and 20).

 

The Changelog for this version is as follows:

  • Major UI improvements (improved font, new info field, no separate progress dialog, etc.)
  • Add support for Windows To Go (when Rufus is running on Windows 8 or later)
  • Add support for Grub4DOS and GRUB 2 based images (e.g. FreeNAS)
  • Add portable application support, through a 'rufus.ini' file
  • Add native decompression support for DD images (.Z, .gz, .lzma, .bz2 and .xz)
  • Add seamless UEFI boot of NTFS partitions, for Windows ISOs with large files (>4GB)
  • Add support for Windows multipart install.swm
  • Add support for non Microsoft VHD drivers
  • Add Norwegian translation, courtesy of JED
  • Fix a crash on image selection when no device is present
  • Fix broken VHD support for non-English version of Windows
  • Fix write error for DD images that are not a multiple of the sector size
  • Fix broken Unicode support
  • Update Syslinux to 6.0.3
  • Other improvements and fixes

The point of interests that I'd like to stress out, in no particular order, is that Rufus should now look much nicer for eastern Asian languages (as long as you're not using XP... but you really shouldn't), the slightly annoying separate progress dialog is now gone, FreeNAS is now supported (through GRUB 2), seamless support for NTFS under EFI is provided for Windows images (convenient if you have a >4GB install.wim for instance) and the new info field should make the UI a bit more helpful for newcomers.

 

I'll also take a moment to explain how the often LOUDLY requested (by what is actually a small minority :geek:) portable feature works:

  • If you have a 'rufus.ini' in the directory where you are launching Rufus from (even if it's a blank one), Rufus will use that, instead of the registry, to store its settings.
  • Also, if any part of the executable name contains a 'p' (for portable), Rufus will create a 'rufus.ini' if one doesn't already exists, and use that one. This means that if you call the executable "rufus_portable.exe", Rufus will automagically activate its portable mode.
  • The format of 'rufus.ini' is documented here.

Note however that portability does not equate unmodified registry, as Rufus will still apply LGP policies to temporarily avoid the annoying "Hey, I detected a new drive - do you want to format it?" messages that Windows would otherwise pop out. If you are that paranoid about registry changes (and I got some flak from people who definitely are :wacko:), you can however use portable mode and enable 'DisableLGP', in which case registry changes originating from Rufus should be removed. You will of course get the annoying popups from Windows then.

 

With regards to Windows To Go, all I want to say is: You will need to be running Rufus on Windows 8 or later for the 'Windows To Go' to be offered to you, on compatible images (which does include some Windows 7 ISOs). If you run Rufus on Windows 7 or earlier, you'll have to look elsewhere for Windows to Go support for the time being. The reason is detailed here. The Rufus usage notes also provide a bit more details with regards to To Go support in Rufus.

 

Also, while some people have reported success with Windows 10 (at least for the x86_32 version), at this stage, you should really expect Windows To Go support NOT to work for Windows 10 at this stage, as I haven't managed to get a running Windows 10 To Go image, even when using the official Microsoft To Go tool from a Windows 10 Enterprise Preview 2 physical installation.

So, as far as I am concerned, ANYTHING that is preview, such as Windows 10, is automatically unsupported. If it works for you great! but if it doesn't, you're on your own until the formal release (and even then, it looks like 10 support for To Go may require running Rufus on Windows 10 anyway...).

 

Finally, if you want to understand why this new version of Rufus is a bit plumper than the last one, have a look here.

 

Enjoy! ^_^


  • Blackcrack likes this

#199 Blackcrack

Blackcrack

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 412 posts
  •  
    Germany

Posted 16 February 2015 - 05:53 AM

:beta: beta ? holy, long no more become so an nice piece of cake !

scrumptious ! :clapping:

 

thank you ! :)

and thank you for some very nice programm :1st:

 

best regards

blacky :coffee:

 

p.s. you make ma' Dahh' ahah :punk:  y *G*



#200 otto.johannes.wismar

otto.johannes.wismar
  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 19 February 2015 - 05:55 PM

Hello, are there any command-line options for Rufus? I'm making freedos drives every day. Very often I make more than one at a time. I would love to automate it somehow.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users