general question about riscos.

Ok, using lanman, it’s 30$

I don’t know about other peoples experience but I recently transferred a set of files from RISC OS 4.02 using ShareFS viewed from a Beagle-xM running RISC OS 5.21 and passing the files forward to a 6TB NAS using the copy of LANManFS in the OS. (cost zero in both cases).

Why use such a convoluted method for transferring this
9.61 GB (10,328,679,007 bytes) in 103,331 files in 15,326 folders
you might ask? Well, a number of reasons:
#I wanted the files in a second location
#It was a good stress test of the RO4.02 to RO5.21 link
#It was a good stress test of the RO5.21 to NAS link

I can obviously only comment on my experience but I think you will agree that the test was a reasonable stress test given that the RO4.02 machine was fetching mail at scheduled intervals during the transfer and I was using VNC onto the beagle at intervals from the laptop here in the living room.

Note: I have a higher than minimum spec PSU for the Beagle-xM, the network switch and NAS are on a UPS. When I’m testing OS features I’d rather not be fighting inadequate hardware specifications when a slight amount more spend will put them out of the equation. Not done yet, but building the beagle into a micro-ATX chassis with a decent PSU is on the plans.

xxx

No but you what is the more frustrating is that i have code that work for samba client in C that only waits a filer interface with ntml support

NTLMv1 or NTLMv2?
Topical for me as a job came my way the other day which, after a few checks I pinned down as a server rather than a network issue.
It seems in some circumstances said servers can lose the plot in a way that means machines using v1 can’t connect while machines using v2 have no problem.

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxxx

xxx

MOVE FAST, BREAK EVERYTHING \o/

xxxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

With omni, no encryption works at all.

It’s old. It has had a dust off in recent times but it’s still old. It needs work (love tender care etc) or replacement.
Now if someone did a freely available item that supported NTLMv2 and NFS and a couple of other protocols then it would be what Omni started out to be – a multi-protocol fileshare / transfer utility.

Bear in mind that many of these things were new or in development when Olivetti pulled the plug on the finances at Acorn. Somehow RISC OS survived the last 18 years.

Actuall all together, i already have start of web server base on webkames SAPI that handle php in cooperative manner with all files access via samba.

Developed from this I presume. Yes, no development there in the last 7 years.

It would be nice to see the source for developments on that. The current version can be a bit unstable on ARMv7 hardware even with exceptions set off.

Where is the list of all application that are used, and the code that need to be kept compatible ?

There is a list (work in progress) of applications that work on the current release.

Many of your questions about where is documentation on compatibility etc are on links from here

Where are the testing suits ?

Now there’s a question.
Could anyone point me at a test suite for Windows software? I’ll use the answer to feed to people at work.

With omni, no encryption works at all

My version does LMv2 which gets me onto windows 8.1 yay!

xxxx

xxx

xxx

xxxx

xxx

xxxx

So what the method from there, i’m supposed to install all those, and test that each and every functionality that is not already broken is not even more broken or broken differently with any thing i can change anywhere ?

Yes. Perhaps you understand a little of what some people are doing now. Jeffrey has done sterling work modifying the HAL and OS to work on modern hardware. The job is not yet complete as he will quickly say.

Meanwhile other people test to see what works and what does not. Those same people or others then see what precisely is broken and with the problem known they may be able to fix that problem.

The list I linked to is essentially guidance for general users as well as a target list for people wanting to work on fixing things (or producing an alternate)

Stop being dodgy like this about every issue really it’s tiring …

You mistake my intentions.
I’m attempting to give guidance on where to look and what pitfalls /problems you may encounter.

I could just stop, but answering questions is a lifetime habit.

Just insulting people and looking superior

Oh? I thought that was your speciality right now. Hardly constructive. Destructive, more like.

xxxx

With code that is understandable one/one, but plenty of cross calls, shared pointers, and stuff that are hard to understand in plain assembly level.

The manual say about nothing about this. The prm just document the api, but doesn’t go very in depth about anything behind.

The PRM documents what was open to public view when it was written. At that time the source was closed. The PRM has been updated, but as you will note from looking at the source with it’s lack of internal comment/documentation updating the PRM to cover the internals of the source to make it easy to understand and modify is both a big undertaking and probably of no interest to anyone simply wanting to program ON the OS rather than modify the OS.
i.e. documenting the source is a different issue to the work going on to update the documentation of the API

it lacks plenty of feature, no documentation, no high level language while everything in it is supposed to work with objects,

Yes, it lacks various features, there is some documentation but perhaps not to the extent many people would like.
High level language? Define that. Some people regard C as high level.

Objects… I can’t say I’ve ever considered RO to be object oriented.