OSX and Linux status update

wsippel · Post by **wsippel** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:46 pm

ooo000ooo,

yes, you'd need an EZlite board. Scope cards can't use unencrypted modules, and you can't encrypt them without the Scope SDK. I don't know, maybe you could also use a ZP board or something like that, but Scope cards won't give you raw access to the DSP's...

And even if CSound is open source, Extended CSound is not...

at0m · Post by **at0m** » Sun Feb 20, 2005 10:46 am

Apparently there's been Linux TripleDAT drivers, unfortunatly the link to the driver page is not available.
http://www.linuxdj.com/audio/quality/#question_multi

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sun Feb 20, 2005 1:17 pm

On 2005-02-08 20:46, wsippel wrote:
... and you can't encrypt them without the Scope SDK. ...

even with the SDK you cannot encrypte them, as Nikko from DADEV wrote
http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... forum=11&4
...which nicely vapourized all my concerns about the vulnerability of the platform

cheers, Tom

phyx · Post by **phyx** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 4:13 pm

On 2005-02-06 10:35, wsippel wrote:

In CW's case, it's quite different. The driver by itself contains no important IP - it's simple and useless, and will most likely become open source. The secret and important stuff is in the Scope operating system, a mere DLL on Windows.

You mentioned before that you have a rudimentary driver.... Could I get that?

I'll run SFP under Wine, I just need the driver.

devo · Post by **devo** » Sun Aug 21, 2005 12:06 pm

I'll run SFP under Wine, I just need the driver.

I think you need a litte more than that - there is probably lots of low level communication to the Scope cards in SFP that does not use the "driver". I don't think Wine manages to emulate that correctly.

phyx · Post by **phyx** » Sun Aug 21, 2005 2:09 pm

On 2005-08-21 13:06, devo wrote:

I think you need a litte more than that - there is probably lots of low level communication to the Scope cards in SFP that does not use the "driver". I don't think Wine manages to emulate that correctly.

shhhh. don't jynx my wishfull thinking.

---

What low-level communication exactly?

How does it access the card if not by the driver?

What other requirements are there if not SFP and the driver?

Isn't SFP an operating system that runs on the cards?

Honestly, I can't imagine why it wouldn't work.

devo · Post by **devo** » Mon Aug 22, 2005 11:43 am

On 2005-08-21 15:09, phyx wrote:

shhhh. don't jynx my wishfull thinking.

well, as I have not actually seen the inner workings of SFP myself, I might just be completely wrong...maybe enough to keep your hopes up? ;o)

What low-level communication exactly?

Well, I'm thinking instructions and data over PCI to make the Scope card do whatever the user configures in SFP.

How does it access the card if not by the driver?

By sending data over PCI. Actually, I don't think the driver communicates with the Scope cards much at all. It probably only communicates with SFP which in turn sends the necessary bits and bytes to the hardware.

What other requirements are there if not SFP and the driver?

I am afraid I can't give you an answer on that one.

Isn't SFP an operating system that runs on the cards?

I can't say if the Scope cards contain their own OS (like some kind of firmware), but to me SFP is the application running in Windows (and MacOS 9) that provides a graphical interface to the user and knows how to manipulate the Scope cards.

The driver provides MIDI and Audio software connection to SFP for other Windows applications to use.

But then again, I am trying to make intelligent guesses here. Maybe someone will step up and set me straight... ;o)

[ This Message was edited by: devo on 2005-08-22 12:45 ]

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Mon Aug 22, 2005 12:58 pm

your guesses hit it pretty well, imho - and since no 'official' details are abvailable anyway, I'm only guessing, too

but something about the operation of a Scope card is rather simple and explains why it's so difficult to make it run under whatever ( compared to arbitrary other cards)

all properties and the routing is defined by DSP code, but the DSPs are empty on powerup - there's probably not even a path between the input and output connectors. Nothing at all.

only after loading the DSPs with their base information (or more), the card is able to communicate with audio/midi ports and converters etc.

ok you may say, upload a simple set of IO definitions by Sharc assembly cannot be such a deal...
Normally not - but there's a fine line to separate the men from the boys

In SFP all and every piece of DSP code is encrypted with an algorithm that's based on the content of a unique part of the hardware.

that protection scheme effectively prevents any peeks into the operation of the card.
If it wouldn't operate at such a rigid level, people would simply order their copy of DP (or SDK), peek at the output of the compiler, save it, and load it on arbitrary Sharc boards. They would have done it long ago - that simple

cheers, Tom

[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2005-08-22 14:03 ]

phyx · Post by **phyx** » Mon Aug 22, 2005 3:32 pm

I have been awake for a long while researching driver writing...

I now have a rudimentary driver written, or rather a skeleton of a driver for FreeBSD.

The driver is based on the decompile output from the scope.sys and cwScopeProp.dll ...of course my Cards are currently in my XP box not my unix box so no testing has been done yet, nor will i begin to test until i do a little more research into PCI communication.

I have written CW asking for the driver specs, if they are cooperative, I should have some beta drivers written fairly quick.

...now, I have no intention nor the current ability to port SFP to POSIX, so I hope that SFP running under Wine will do the trick...

I need this to work asap, so I have no choice but to do it myself...

---

Devo, Astroman

I do not see how userland software can access hardware directly. What exactly are you two talking about?

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Mon Aug 22, 2005 5:32 pm

On 2005-08-22 16:32, phyx wrote:
...
I now have a rudimentary driver written, or rather a skeleton of a driver for FreeBSD.
...

no, you don't - you do not even qualify for that, since you're too ignorant (or unwilling) to understand what's written above...

to squeeze any fart out of that card, you MUST be able to load the DSPs - there's no hardwired routing afaik.
A software module in SFP provides exactly exactly that loading service.
But this module accepts only specially encrypted DSP code.

You don't have the alogorithm and CWA will not provide (or reveal) it either, so what ?

It has been explained more than a dozen times that a 'driver' is the least relevant part of a Scope port to I-dunno-what. It's no more than a little IO-glue.
If there are people who volunteer for CWA to do the Linux port for free (and also support OSX as good as they can) - and CWA first accepts and later refuses the project due to 'intellectual property issues'...
then it's very likely that the developers have to be informed about details that reveal how the protection works - or allow to guess it's mechanism.

why don't you implement one of Analog Devices prototyping boards in Linux ?
they are affordable and well documented with lots of possibilities for creative minds

cheers, Tom

phyx · Post by **phyx** » Mon Aug 22, 2005 6:12 pm

On 2005-08-22 18:32, astroman wrote:
no, you don't - you do not even qualify for that, since you're too ignorant (or unwilling) to understand what's written above...

to squeeze any fart out of that card, you MUST be able to load the DSPs - there's no hardwired routing afaik.
A software module in SFP provides exactly exactly that loading service.
But this module accepts only specially encrypted DSP code.

You don't have the alogorithm and CWA will not provide (or reveal) it either, so what ?

It seems you are the ignorant one or are refusing to listen... I am not porting SFP nor am I modifying it in anyway.

I do not need to know the encryption algorythms nor do I need the sources to SFP.

I am simply writing a kernel level driver for FreeBSD so that the "Authentic and unmodified" SFP 4.0 can access the hardware while running on the Wine layer under FreeBSD.

Wine will run all windoze applications (I got it to run Nuendo and Wavelab) but there isn't a driver framework, hence I must write a driver natively so that SFP will run under Wine.

gustav · Post by **gustav** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:00 am

Phyx : good luck - I hope it could work so tell us when you did some testing

Btw : Its amazing how emotional is the reaction of all this people here.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:01 am

On 2005-08-22 19:12, phyx wrote:
... I am simply writing a kernel level driver for FreeBSD so that the "Authentic and unmodified" SFP 4.0 can access the hardware while running on the Wine layer under FreeBSD.
...

this is pure nonsense - because if it would be true then Wine would outperform VMWare in that context (and everyone buying the latter be an idiot who throw his cash out of the window)

Wine can only provide (at least a part of) the Windows programming API and not the complete machine state.

any call to a single 'non-Windows registered' function will crash the system - and one doesn't need to be an expert to predict that in such a complex system there will be tons of such 'deviations' from the rule.

of course you (and no other programmer involved in a port) needs to deal with the encryption interface on source level.
But at a certain part of 'loading' the card this module is inevitable - and it's position and calling context possibly illustrate a lot about how the protection works - and that's why CWA is so restrictive (my guess)

@gustav
words read differently for everyone, and it's nice to put a little gas into the flame for entertainment sake, but there really isn't much 'emotion' involved (at least not from my side)

the item has been discussed almost to death, so some sarcasm may apply...

cheers, Tom

[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2005-08-23 09:03 ]

symbiote · Post by **symbiote** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:25 am

Hmm Tom, you really need to sit down and spend some time with the BSD OSes, your *nix practical experience seriously needs to be updated =P.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:45 am

OMG, not really

you're kidding, aren't you ? I try to avoid that as good as it gets.

I made my way through an O'Reilly page of someone introducing some Wine hands-on... shudder.

that thing is capable to setup a complete virtual machine ??? including physical IO ?
the dude hardly managed to get a card game running and on a compatibility page almost any app I choose was either 'untested' or had flaws.
what point do I miss here ?

cheers, Tom

symbiote · Post by **symbiote** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 9:12 am

Yeah. I meant, like. Sit down in front of BSD. Not in front of some book or some page. That's what I meant.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 11:09 am

well, you could have a point there

counting pieces together...
there will be Intel based Macs, our office will switch to OSX early next year, my data processing front end is Prolog based, the language's manufacturer doesn't have (or plan) a Mac version, the native front end is Win32 API based, I'm currently condemned to web based Javascript coding

to let the Macs communicate ...
seems worth a deeper peek at (Dar)Wine

cheers, Tom

gustav · Post by **gustav** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 12:41 pm

sorry astroman
my words were misleading (my bad english)
I wanted to say that your words seem to me very insulting -
and there is an other aspect I can't tell you other than in french : peremptoire - take a look in a dictionnary if you can - I can't traduce it.

If you're right you can say you were right, but
if you're wrong about all this winthings, I would appreciate to read a long post about your feeling about writing many posts for nothing.

Bye

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 1:46 pm

indeed Gustav, those words even were intended to have a 'sharp' sound - but I don't think I've crossed a certain line of respect that should be kept in any kind of discussion.

read the previous page for reference: Phyx even admitted (written and in public) to have broken his SFP license agreement, made a couple of statements that can only be interpreted as a lack of knowledge how the card and it's software operates.
He gets some additional information which he ignores and comments 'what are you talking about?'

this style doesn't exactly qualify someone as a developer (imho) and hence that sarcastic note - it's no big deal.

Checking the french word I probably know what you want to express - it's not uncommon, but nevertheless misses the point.

My 'position' is as questionable as anyone else's.

I have exactly given the reasons why I'm convinced that the idea will not work - and to assume something as complex as SFP will run under Wine, while other people are happy to start a single application is at best adventurous

I will always try to work out arguments as good and convincing as I can, sometimes even against my own belief - it's in a buddhism tradition.
even if they turn out to be wrong those lines are not wasted as they will provide a background information to the question.
as you can see above that simple sidenote by Symbiote even triggered a useful chain of thoughts beyond the scope of scope

I just downloaded a FreeBSD.iso...

cheers, Tom

[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2005-08-23 14:55 ]

Post by **hubird** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 3:24 pm

a bottle of Wine on the table?
if I only knew what Wine is...

[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2005-08-23 21:30 ]