Wow, I am surprised. Not disappointed for paying for rloew's patch. After all, it is "better". Who knows, he may still have some evidence to offer, although I have to admit, RFMaster's screenshots seem pretty conclusive.
If you note my message to remove the links to the German file, I did say "purportedly warez". Although, in the sense that it is a compressed archive of Microsoft's files, it is warez.
There is "educational use" and, to be frank, how would anyone have a chance to prove their innocence without access to both versions of a file, essentially doing what RFMaster did?
I'm not attempting to rationalize or justify anything that I've done. I feel no need for that, but in the future, when I'm in a situation where someone wants a file like in the post I asked to be removed, I'll probably go the email route.
Anyway, who's going over to MSFN and blathering? I don't have the disdain for the place that some of you do, but I do agree that there's no need to run over there every time something *big* happens here.
-
RFMaster
Steven W wrote:Wow, I am surprised. Not disappointed for paying for rloew's patch. After all, it is "better".
Yes, rloew patch is better and there is no doubt about it.
Steven W wrote:Who knows, he may still have some evidence to offer, although I have to admit.
No evidence! He knows that, i know that and anyone else who check will see this.
I sincerely hope that's true! 
My concern about me, personally, pointing to files on the internet, isn't so much about me, but concern over the status of this site. At the same time, there are things like digging for "educational purposes", fair-use, et cetra. I guess, if nothing else, this whole episode has given me an appreciation of what the mods have to consider when dealing with these kind of issues. So far, I'd say the moderators here have done and excellent job
My concern about me, personally, pointing to files on the internet, isn't so much about me, but concern over the status of this site. At the same time, there are things like digging for "educational purposes", fair-use, et cetra. I guess, if nothing else, this whole episode has given me an appreciation of what the mods have to consider when dealing with these kind of issues. So far, I'd say the moderators here have done and excellent job
-
rloew
RFMaster wrote:^rloew
That was the first what i thought, but when links for lamp222 files become available i have searched and found all of your patchers
because i wanted to know is this has on anything related to your work.
So, i compared the patched files - file vmm patched with your patcher and vmm patched by lamp222 and what i saw is - files are completely different
your patcher not touching those bytes which are changed by lamp222.
So, how can you claim that it is your work, when file patched by your patcher have nothing in common with file patched by lamp222???
It is obvious that these things are totally different!
Here's proof->
I have upgraded my Patch since lamp222 pirated my Demo.
This code is needed in VMM32.VXD not VMM.VXD. If you check my Patches to VMM32.VXD, you will see this Patch.
I would not have accused lamp222 of piracy if I wasn't sure. I matched his code against the Demo version of my Patch that he had downloaded. Code related to the Demo and the Signature were removed but everything else was an exact duplicate.
Years ago, LLXX posted a free version of my High Capacity Disk Patch on MSFN. I never accused her of piracy as her code clearly was developed independently. Incidentally, lamp222 took a package off of MSFN, replaced her Patch with a pirated version of mine and claimed it as his own. In it you could clearly see where he commented out the Demo code rather than creating his own code.
@PROBLEMCHYLD you might want to wait for a response before going on a tirade.
-
rloew
RFMaster wrote:^PROBLEMCHYLD
rloew trying to scare people and everyone immediately get scared, this is the funniest thing in the whole story.
He randomly accusing people for theft is his work each time when someone publishes something in which he has interest
For example: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/46752-1 ... ntry328862
obviously he thinks he's the only man on the planet who can make these things.
You might want to reread what you quoted.
I said that you can get in trouble if you use my code to do something. I never said anyone can't do it independently.
-
rloew
Non Hic wrote:rloew wrote:...All that being said, even though I dislike you, your stupid motherfucking Web site and your even more moronic Hotmail account...
What do you have against simple Web pages that load fast and don't require IE 11 to see?
I had to switch operating systems just to get on this forum, not read my Website.
I have three separate Hosts for my Website, which gives me plenty of backup when one isn't working.
If you go to it through rloew.no-ip.com you will reach one of the others if the first is down.
I have been on Hotmail for well over 10 years, longer than I have been selling Patches. Everybody knows me by the E-Mail name. I have several other E-Mail addresses but I am definitely not giving up my Hotmail name...
About this one (I was too tired last night to explain what I mean) so here it goes:
This is 2014, not 1994. If you want people to take you seriously and buy your product, you shouldn't use a no name free hosting URL, put up on it what basically is a text file and call it a "Web site" and on top of it, use a free no name emailing service like Hotmail (!) and expect people to send you money. Your own "Web site" (if I can even call it that) is looking like a warez and scam place!
In your own mind, "people know you by this or that", but in the real world, not many know you. Not many give a flying fuck about you. Not many reasonably sane and reasonable persons would want to send money to such "Web site" with a Hotmail account! Even though you put up an address and some name, for all a new user knows, it could be fake.
What I mean in short, is, that your "Web site" does not look legitimate at all, at least to my eyes. You are probably missing the other 99% of your potential customers.
Oh, but wait, you can browse it with Lynx? Well, good for you!
Any scammer can buy a Domain and use a private E-Mail service. I have never seen a "minimalist" warez or scam site, and most of them have their own domains.
Having a consistent E-Mail Address leads to far better Google rankings as well as long term reputation.
Most of my customers use free E-Mail services.
Most of my products are for Windows 9x. Why would I want a Website that cannot be displayed by Windows 9x users like this Forum.
-
rloew
RFMaster wrote:Steven W wrote:Wow, I am surprised. Not disappointed for paying for rloew's patch. After all, it is "better".
Yes, rloew patch is better and there is no doubt about it.Steven W wrote:Who knows, he may still have some evidence to offer, although I have to admit.
No evidence! He knows that, i know that and anyone else who check will see this.
Getting a good nights sleep is more important to me than rebutting your "proof" before you assume there is no evidence against it.
-
rloew
I have examined the Patchers linked to by this Thread.
G-VMM and it's derivatives are simple Patchers that copy my code into VMM.VXD without regard to the underlying code.
The VMM.VXD File linked is a 2226 Hotfix with my exact Patches applied.
I have not tested 4GB_Enabler yet due to it's SP3 requirement, but I assume that it works the same way except that it insures the correct version of VMM32 is present.
The patchers may belong to RFMaster but the code it Patches is mine, unless you count lamp222's signature that RFMaster left in.
This proves that the code is not original to him so he cannot claim it is legit
G-VMM and it's derivatives are simple Patchers that copy my code into VMM.VXD without regard to the underlying code.
The VMM.VXD File linked is a 2226 Hotfix with my exact Patches applied.
I have not tested 4GB_Enabler yet due to it's SP3 requirement, but I assume that it works the same way except that it insures the correct version of VMM32 is present.
The patchers may belong to RFMaster but the code it Patches is mine, unless you count lamp222's signature that RFMaster left in.
This proves that the code is not original to him so he cannot claim it is legit
-
RFMaster
My patchers are based on Lampp222 work, this is no secret, the whole topic is about it. lamp222 shared his work with the world
But it was not in legal form because he distributed the Microsoft files, i and other members have studied what he did, and when it is understood
what lamp222 did i checked byte sequences and patterns, compare them with your work and everything that can be found in his work do not match to your work
and when i found that they have nothing in common with your work i started working on a program that will automate some things and allow people to use that work legally -
without distribution of Microsoft files.
And with all that in mind you offer a evidence of type "It is because i said so". Well, that answer is not acceptable!
If you claim something you have to have a solid, unambiguous and irrefutable evidence! And you don't have that!
Because the location of the bytes are different, sequences of bytes are different, which means a completely different asm code!
And that means that you can not prove anything! All you've said so far can be translated into "It is because i said so".
Show us a solid, unambiguous and irrefutable evidence! Otherwise, we're done with the story!
But it was not in legal form because he distributed the Microsoft files, i and other members have studied what he did, and when it is understood
what lamp222 did i checked byte sequences and patterns, compare them with your work and everything that can be found in his work do not match to your work
and when i found that they have nothing in common with your work i started working on a program that will automate some things and allow people to use that work legally -
without distribution of Microsoft files.
And with all that in mind you offer a evidence of type "It is because i said so". Well, that answer is not acceptable!
If you claim something you have to have a solid, unambiguous and irrefutable evidence! And you don't have that!
Because the location of the bytes are different, sequences of bytes are different, which means a completely different asm code!
And that means that you can not prove anything! All you've said so far can be translated into "It is because i said so".
Show us a solid, unambiguous and irrefutable evidence! Otherwise, we're done with the story!
-
rloew
Lamp222 ran my Demo Patch then removed the Demo Code and my Signature. This is clear piracy.
I ran your first Patcher and it did basically the same Patches as my Patcher.
Any discrepancy in location is due to using different Versions or VMM32.VXD vs. VMM.VXD.
Run my Demo Patch on the same file that you run your first Patcher.
You can Patch a single file with one of the two following syntaxes:
PATCHM VMM32.VXD - -
PATCHM - VMM.VXD -
Compare the two Patched Files.
The differences will be the Demo Code, the Signature and the Byte you changed at Offset 0x3D.
I ran your first Patcher and it did basically the same Patches as my Patcher.
Any discrepancy in location is due to using different Versions or VMM32.VXD vs. VMM.VXD.
Run my Demo Patch on the same file that you run your first Patcher.
You can Patch a single file with one of the two following syntaxes:
PATCHM VMM32.VXD - -
PATCHM - VMM.VXD -
Compare the two Patched Files.
The differences will be the Demo Code, the Signature and the Byte you changed at Offset 0x3D.