jimtabor's accusations

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

GvG
Posts: 499
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 10:50 pm
Location: The Netherlands

jimtabor's accusations

Post by GvG » Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:54 am

[I didn't notice this thread was locked, when I posted a reply there, I must still have administrative powers on the forum]

Someone pointed me to this thread. Wow. lot of revisionist history here. I don't care about it anymore, so I'm not going to respond to most of it, however the following pisses me of deeply:
jimtabor wrote:Money was the key word here. Wine, Casper, GvG, hbirr etc,,, mass manipulation to gain from other peoples work.
Maybe I misunderstand the context, but are you claiming here that I made money off ReactOS (or by leaving the project)? If so, please provide evidence. If you can't provide evidence I suggest an apology might be appropriate.
I never made a single Euro off ReactOS code. On the contrary, I actually spent money on it, going to various Linux Expos on my own expense to promote the project.
jimtabor wrote:We fought back and saved this project from them and now they are angry.
If I'm one of "them" then you're wrong. I'm not angry, I just don't care anymore.

Gé van Geldorp.

GreatLord
Developer
Posts: 926
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:26 am
Location: Sweden

Post by GreatLord » Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:34 am

Hi

I can not be queit about this
GvG did try protect this project after his moral feeling about diffent thing, and wanted go differnt aprovs how to solv the mess that harmut and caspter created with the big fight they got with alex, Thuse caspter and harmut almost destore reactos toghter. I known where GvG stand in this matter, I been conact how he feel about it whole time, I can understand why GvG left, and do not care any more, I done everthing I can to make him stay as devlopers in ReactOS, GvG was like a big mentor for me how Gdi works in our win32k, we did allot thing toghter, and bugfix, after he left ReactOS none can fill the void I am filling, for I have none to goto talk with real complex gdi problem or directx problem, I see GvG as a friend and miss his guding and idea how things should be done, even we two not always agreed.

Yes GvG u have still u admins right, I never remove it from ReactOS website, I never seen it was neasry todo that. and you never requested it should be remove.

Ged
Developer
Posts: 925
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 3:00 pm
Location: UK

Post by Ged » Mon Aug 20, 2007 1:50 pm

Don't take jim's accusations to heart, not all of us share his views.

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

Post by oiaohm » Mon Aug 20, 2007 2:54 pm

Its some reason why some project create official histories of big fights inside the project. Because big fights unfortunately see some people not guilty of big roles being linked to others taking big roles. And the worst being linked completely to the wrong side.

It is sad the scare of that fight is still causing harm now.

Z98
Release Engineer
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 8:16 pm
Contact:

Post by Z98 » Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:04 pm

Just a note, GvG, I'm gonna remove your post from the locked thread since you started this one.

EmuandCo
Developer
Posts: 4313
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Germany, Bavaria, Steinfeld
Contact:

Post by EmuandCo » Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:22 am

Hey, nice to see you GvG. :-) Another reson would be even better, but... cool to see you :-P
Image
ReactOS is still in alpha stage, meaning it is not feature-complete and is recommended only for evaluation and testing purposes.

GvG
Posts: 499
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 10:50 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post by GvG » Fri Aug 24, 2007 2:34 pm

Still waiting for jimtabor to either back up his claims with evidence or apologize.

jimtabor
Developer
Posts: 223
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 3:00 pm

Re: jimtabor's accusations

Post by jimtabor » Sat Aug 25, 2007 5:19 am

GvG wrote:[I didn't notice this thread was locked, when I posted a reply there, I must still have administrative powers on the forum]

Someone pointed me to this thread. Wow. lot of revisionist history here. I don't care about it anymore, so I'm not going to respond to most of it, however the following pisses me of deeply:
jimtabor wrote:Money was the key word here. Wine, Casper, GvG, hbirr etc,,, mass manipulation to gain from other peoples work.
Maybe I misunderstand the context, but are you claiming here that I made money off ReactOS (or by leaving the project)? If so, please provide evidence. If you can't provide evidence I suggest an apology might be appropriate.
I never made a single Euro off ReactOS code. On the contrary, I actually spent money on it, going to various Linux Expos on my own expense to promote the project.
jimtabor wrote:We fought back and saved this project from them and now they are angry.
If I'm one of "them" then you're wrong. I'm not angry, I just don't care anymore.

Gé van Geldorp.
Hi,

No, this is not revisionist history. This is an analyses of the events accruing year prior, days before and days after the audit started. It is a subject of understanding that more than two groups where working for self interests for some type of financial gain. These analyses are still underway.

My claim,, you may not have made an eu cent. What you had written in the private mail and other posts do read that you had motives, but not financial. The approval of Caspers actions by you. Removing others work with out their written permission is just one more. Kernel rewrite? You can not openly assert that the code is from other sources with out knowingly having seen the evidence. You did create a svn kernel rewrite tree, did you not? Go back and read the GNU coding documents on "Proprietary Programs".

ReactOS is GNU and is about freedom and forgiveness, not under the control of SFLC which is about money and the "force removal" of code and the developers that might have been naughty. So what side are you on?

If you have the IRC logs from the private chat. Casper was pushing the idea of starting the project over. We opposed this idea later and even on that chat. You thought it was a good idea. Kernel rewrite? Now we know that Casper did have financial motives and was in the process of destroy the entire project and reserecting it later. Did you know this yourself? What was your involvement with www.eudicon.com? Where you going to work with Casper and harmut to be a full time maintainer of this reserected project? Like a Alexandre Julliard thing.

I read the osnew posts, if you're not angry,,, it does read that way. If I recall correctly, even the loss of respect from most of our current developers. Months before the audit, you was angry about Wax as TC and a ReactOS realease. Why? The project wasn't fun anymore, things started working correctly. Other than Alex bashing, why would that not be fun? ReactOS was starting to work and peek! That in itself is not fun? Did you not want this project to succeed?


Apology,,
ReactOS is about freedom and forgiveness. If you forgive me for asking, I will say sorry for the hard accusations made about you.

Thanks,
James

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

Post by oiaohm » Sat Aug 25, 2007 6:28 am

James I don't want to be a wet blank it here but you information seams to over look a few things.

Removal of code until audited was a valid option until disruption of development was taken into account. I have to be truthful until I took the disruption into account I was on the wrong side of things. The removal of possibly tainted code is one of the legal methods that can be used. The other is tagging. What the project uses now. So anyone backing that idea was not doing anything outside legal options. Of course the other fighting for tagging was a valid legal options as well.

Backers of a incorrect idea does not make the person bad. There was logical grounds to rewriting the kernel. Number one the internals of reactos had a lot of hacks. Possible bad code in kernel gave grounds.

As you are doing again jimtabor. The fight got savage and personal. GvG was not the only developer to walk way. Some walked away who never even put a post into the fight.

I don't think anyone around and at the time of the fight could claim a perfectly clean slate we all did something wrong.

Angry from idea not being accepted is also normal.

GvG
Posts: 499
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 10:50 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: jimtabor's accusations

Post by GvG » Sat Aug 25, 2007 9:25 am

jimtabor wrote:It is a subject of understanding that more than two groups where working for self interests for some type of financial gain. These analyses are still underway.
Again, show me the evidence. Don't go around making accusations and when asked for evidence say "I'm still working on that".
jimtabor wrote:My claim,, you may not have made an eu cent. What you had written in the private mail and other posts do read that you had motives, but not financial.
So which is it, I may not have made an eu cent (implying that you still hold open the possibility that I did make money) or my motives were not financial?
Of course I had motives: to create a free Windows-compatible OS, unencumbered by Microsoft copyrights.
jimtabor wrote:Removing others work with out their written permission is just one more.
Huh? This happens all the time in open source projects. When someone rewrites a piece of code, he obviously removes the code it replaces. I've seldom seen the original author of the removed code being asked for permission.
jimtabor wrote:You can not openly assert that the code is from other sources with out knowingly having seen the evidence.
Go back to the mailing lists. The evidence is there.
jimtabor wrote:You did create a svn kernel rewrite tree, did you not?
I did. What's wrong with that? It's called a fork, a very common occurance in open source projects.
jimtabor wrote:ReactOS is GNU and is about freedom and forgiveness, not under the control of SFLC which is about money and the "force removal" of code and the developers that might have been naughty. So what side are you on?
The side that wanted to create a Windows compatible OS without including copyrighted Microsoft code.
jimtabor wrote:If you have the IRC logs from the private chat. Casper was pushing the idea of starting the project over. We opposed this idea later and even on that chat. You thought it was a good idea. Kernel rewrite? Now we know that Casper did have financial motives and was in the process of destroy the entire project and reserecting it later. Did you know this yourself? What was your involvement with www.eudicon.com? Where you going to work with Casper and harmut to be a full time maintainer of this reserected project? Like a Alexandre Julliard thing.
What I know about Eudicon is that it's Caspers company. It's the company that paid for the SVN and build servers (and their hosting) used at that time. I browsed around www.eudicon.com, I can't find a single reference to ReactOS (or any Windows compatible free OS for that matter). Again, you're making vague accusations (this time against Casper and Hartmut) without providing any evidence.
jimtabor wrote:Months before the audit, you was angry about Wax as TC and a ReactOS realease. Why?
Not about Wax, I didn't like the process. In the end that was resolved by a developers vote, like it should have.
jimtabor wrote:The project wasn't fun anymore, things started working correctly. Other than Alex bashing, why would that not be fun? ReactOS was starting to work and peek! That in itself is not fun? Did you not want this project to succeed?
You couldn't be more wrong. The fact that the project was loosing it's fun had nothing to do with things starting to work correctly. You have no idea how thrilled I was to get Firefox working.


Betov
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 10:53 am

Post by Betov » Sat Aug 25, 2007 11:29 am

I am on The side that wanted to create a Windows compatible OS without including copyrighted Microsoft code
Then, you have a problem. :roll:


Betov.

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

Post by oiaohm » Sat Aug 25, 2007 2:44 pm

I have a little idea. Current day audit should if correct mark all the Microsoft Files.

Simple challenge code them better. Sorry to say a few people had the same idea of not using any Microsoft coded files. But long term its not workable if we want outside companies to give us drivers.

jimtabor
Developer
Posts: 223
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 3:00 pm

Re: jimtabor's accusations

Post by jimtabor » Sat Aug 25, 2007 4:01 pm

Evidence,,
Deeper we go into that rabbit hole is really up to you.

Thank you for your cooperation and answering my question,
James

jimtabor
Developer
Posts: 223
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 3:00 pm

Post by jimtabor » Sat Aug 25, 2007 4:31 pm

oiaohm wrote:James I don't want to be a wet blank it here but you information seams to over look a few things.

Removal of code until audited was a valid option until disruption of development was taken into account. I have to be truthful until I took the disruption into account I was on the wrong side of things. The removal of possibly tainted code is one of the legal methods that can be used. The other is tagging. What the project uses now. So anyone backing that idea was not doing anything outside legal options. Of course the other fighting for tagging was a valid legal options as well.

Backers of a incorrect idea does not make the person bad. There was logical grounds to rewriting the kernel. Number one the internals of reactos had a lot of hacks. Possible bad code in kernel gave grounds.

As you are doing again jimtabor. The fight got savage and personal. GvG was not the only developer to walk way. Some walked away who never even put a post into the fight.

I don't think anyone around and at the time of the fight could claim a perfectly clean slate we all did something wrong.

Angry from idea not being accepted is also normal.
The part about removing code,,, it was more than that. They removed everything and did not preserve the original authors information. They did not use svn copy or move. They just commit as new. No record of changes like with Linux, there is always a change log. We use the cvs/svn meta data for the change log.
GvG doing the right thing;
http://www.reactos.org/archives/public/ ... 11406.html

Yes, I'm being very hard to GvG. He could have made these changes better. We looked up to him and in the long run it was a let down. If he could noticed the things Casper was doing and stood up and say no like I did and others too. It's all there in the private mail list. He could have been one of the biggest hero's of ReactOS. To go along to get along always gets you into trouble.

I posted over and over! I had my code stolen from me. This wasn't just GvG or Caspers code. It was mine too. Having the svn closed with out a vote was the biggest shock! Finding out later from other developers that it was almost stolen away for some other groups purposes was the end of being nice. Now it is a criminal act. Now you see it as I do, there is nothing nice about having your code removed from public view and the prof of doing the work removed. It is theft.

That was not nice now was it?
Thanks,
James

GvG
Posts: 499
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 10:50 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post by GvG » Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:31 pm

jimtabor wrote:They removed everything and did not preserve the original authors information. They did not use svn copy or move. They just commit as new. No record of changes like with Linux, there is always a change log. We use the cvs/svn meta data for the change log.
GvG doing the right thing;
http://www.reactos.org/archives/public/ ... 11406.html
Seems to me like I'm actually preserving the original author info there....
jimtabor wrote:If he could noticed the things Casper was doing and stood up and say no like I did and others too.
I didn't stand up to Casper because I agreed with him. Never made a secret about that. In fact, up to this day I still agree with the actions Casper took.
jimtabor wrote:Having the svn closed with out a vote was the biggest shock!
It became obvious at that time that ReactOS contained copyrighted code. Hartmut proved that the fast entrypoint into kernelmode was copied from Microsoft Windows. Alex didn't deny it. There were strong suspicions that there might be a lot more Microsoft code in ReactOS. Whether this is or isn't true is besides the point here, the point is there were credible claims about copyright infringement. So Casper removed public access to the repository, until the claims could be investigated. Since Casper hosted the SVN repository I believe this was a correct action. If he had not done that, he could have been accused of distributing copyrighted code.
Access to the SVN repository was restored for developers within a day or 2. No theft going on there.
jimtabor wrote:Finding out later from other developers that it was almost stolen away for some other groups purposes was the end of being nice.
I love conspiracy theories. I bet you believe noone walked on the Moon either?


Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Trendiction [Bot] and 4 guests