Eric Auer escreveu: > Hi Michael, > >>> I do not think we should use code reversed from MS DOS sorry. >> I think that too but it's no problem to reverse engineer the >> specification as long you write your own implementation from scratch. >> >> Also the linux guys reverse engineered for example the Windows >> networking protocol and implemented it their self (samba). > > They checked the protocol (transferred data) not the binary. > It is kind of more noble to just sniff network contents and > keep the software as it is, a black box with closed source. > > As DOS is no server, I think it is okay to look for example > at data structures and how they change over time. This does > leave the binary / machine code in nice black box land :-).
So far I also agree, but "white room" aproach is acceptable too... This means that someone tell us what to do for a certain program to work, then we (FreeDOS in general sense) implement it without ANY knowledge of the binary. >> You could even look into their sources for interoperability reasons > No because then I would have to "steal them" by downloading > them from a dark source. Agreed: if a person looks at the source, he should no longer write code for that particular item, just tell others what to do, with no code samples. > Opinions differ, I assume :-). :) Alain ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging. Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
