I'd like to get a copy of the following open source code:
http://www.osxcrypt.org/release/OSXCrypt-6.2A-source.zip
The above site is gone, couldn't find any archives googling. So I come here to ask your help. I need some source code to do a virtual disk kernel extension on Mac, so Mac OS X can boot from a virtual disk file, as what we have done for Windows via our VBoot (http://www.vmlite.com/index.php/products/vboot) software.
If you do have a copy and can share with me, that would be great!
Or if you have other ideas on how to develop a virtual disk driver on Mac, that would be useful too. We have done that for Windows/Linux.
Thanks,
Executable download: http://www.apponic.com/free-downloads-327/osxcrypt-6.2a/
As for the source, a Google search constrained to the past year reveals nothing at all. The last post here isn't promising:
In 2008 some fellows took the
Truecrypt source code and wrote their
own Mac version (this was before there
was a Mac version of Truecrypt). It
was called OSXCrypt. It had potential
because it was a kernel extension, not
a user-space implementation like
Truecrypt is. They asked for and took
donations, but once Truecrypt was
released for Mac, these guys took the
money and ran. No one to my knowledge
has heard from them since. Pity.
Google search 'osxcrypt' gives numerous sites from which the binary can be downloaded. However, they all seem to lead to dead-ends - the osxcrypt.org domain is defunct (which is probably indicative of problems with the software; I'd certainly not recommend using it at the moment). Using the WayBack Machine at http://web.archive.org suggests that the website was always rather minimal - there's no evidence of the source being available there for the 2 one-page entries that are available. There were plans to put the material onto SourceForge; the project exists but there are no files available there.
There's a contact email address available via whois osxcrypt.org - maybe you should try that.
After searching in the waybackmachine it was authored by Orlando Bassotto and Matteo Flora.
Maybe someone can ping them.
Related
I was asked recently to install Hubstaff (a famous application for tracking your data, like screenshots, URLs, etc., on your computer and reporting it to your management team) on my Debian machine. After checking their download page (https://app.hubstaff.com/download) I found out that for the Linux version, I have to download a .sh file and run it (so no package manager, not a .deb file) This app tracks almost everything from my machine (https://hubstaff.com/how-tracking-works), but they don't explain how it follows them. Like they can track the URLs I visit (and no matter what browser I use), how do they do that? Are they checking my network packets?
Do you guys think is it safe to do such a thing? E.g., they say they don't track my keyboard, but they can find out if it's used or not (for idle purposes). Well, they might be right about it, but what if somebody hacks them? I feel like if I use this app, I am making my computer public. Please help me learn about it.
Oracle form downloaded at:
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/developer-tools/forms/downloads/index.html
When I ran the file setup_fmw_12.2.1.3.0_fr_win64.exe,
it gave me an error "Cannot launch the installer (555)".
fmw_12.2.1.3.0_fr_win64_Disk1_2of2 <-- Folder
setup_fmw_12.2.1.3.0_fr_win64-2.zip
fmw_12.2.1.3.0_fr_win64_Disk1_1of2 <-- Folder
setup_fmw_12.2.1.3.0_fr_win64.exe
Even though this relates to the installation of a developer tool, most would consider this particular type of question as generally off topic for stackoverflow. Your question also contains too little information to determine what the problem really is.
However, let's just mention some obvious things to see if it helps you solve your own problem:
Did you try the setup on another computer (or a virtual machine). This could be a good way to avoid the whole problem rather than spending a lot of time trying to fix it.
Did you locate any log files for the failed install?
A quick look seems to indicate that you can find log files at: %SystemDrive%\Program Files\Oracle\Inventory\logs (%SystemDrive% is normally C:\).
Or %SystemDrive%\Program Files (x86)\Oracle\Inventory\logs for 32bit installers on 64 bit systems).
Found in the troubleshoot section here - have a look yourself too - read from the top.
And the most obvious of all: did you contact Oracle support or search their user community or knowledge bases? Somebody will have seen this problem before. Looks like you need to register: https://support.oracle.com/
A quick search reveals that the Oracle Universal Installer is a Java based installer. Could Java be broken on the box you install on? (looks like the launcher should install the runtime automatically, but this could fail due to special conditions on the box. Try on a clean virtual machine). How to check whether java is installed on the computer.
Try disabling your anti-virus as well before running the setup on the problem box. Some setups even try to access the Internet during installation, and then your firewall could be a problem too. I would hate to turn that off though.
I had a practical question for my own work at home. I want to use quad monitor for my coding and other work. I can do this with my macbook pro attached to external triple monitor. But it is not practical because of all the cable management and Macbook Pro is barely keeping up with the performance running it. So what I wanted to do was having my PC run triple monitor and my Macbook as forth screen. Code on my pc and share/update the files in the htdocs directory on my OS X. Like how FTP works.
I found this link: http://www.itworld.com/article/2844141/how-to-share-mac-os-x-yosemite-files-with-windows-10.html
But I'm not sure if I will face sudden obstacles in doing this with my htdocs directory or other directories where my work is stored and updated from time to time.(example:Symfony projects)
I hope I mentioned everything. Thanks in advance!
Well, you can use one of the free cloud based, file-sharig service, like Microsoft OneDrive, Google Drive or Dropbox.
But files will not be updated immediately, you need to wait few seconds (in the best case scenario). So it might get frustrating quickly.
Also, from my experience, OneDrive on Mac is not the best choice when it comes to a Symfony project - it stops working after a while, probably because a lot of cache files, so I need to restart it and it's not usable at all.
Another solution might be using a version control system (f.e. Git) - but you would be able to see the code changes only after a commit and push (and do it manually, of course).
I was wondering if there was a way to make a *.dll that mounts archives in Windows without the need for installing drivers. I've tried mounting *.isos (and was successful), but I needed to install drivers, which was not something my intended audience wants to do (or can do). The other relevant alternatives were for Linux (fuse-zip) or dead projects (zipios++).
Something along the lines of this...http://mountziplibrary.codeplex.com/
Oh, and it'd be great if the solution was GPL v3'd or at least open source.
Thanks.
Have you looked at Dokan? It looks like a Windows equivalent to Fuse.
What you're describing is called an Installable File System (IFS). It theory you don't need a driver: implement a SMB server in application space, and let the existing kernel network client talk to that. It's just TCP/IP at that level.
The proper solution is indeed an IFS driver. Fundamentally, drives are objects in the kernel namespace. As such, the code for them should be part of the kernel, and an application never is.
There was a hobbyist project called WinFUSE once, which worked as an SMB server and redirected FS requests to your .NET code. But it's gone, as far as I know. Proper way is to use a driver-based approach. The driver can be installed and removed on-the-fly if the user has admin rights, and if he doesn't, installation of the application requires admin rights anyway. In Unix/Linux it's the same - you can't mount a disk (not saying about the driver now) if you are not an admin. Could I not mention that Callback File System is the only professional supported solution that lets you accomplish the task?
I've decided to Google around for some answers.
One of particular interest was zziplib. It's for C and transparently accesses archives, just like Windows does, treating it as an actual folder.
Of course, the other implementations given by users work too. This one just fit the bill for me.
Maybe this one helps you: ZLib
I was reading the post Installation file names in Windows Vista when I thought about Installation File Names. I'm a addicted software downloader, and frequently I've got installation names like "setup.exe" or "install.exe", that says nothing about the program to be installed.
I think that an installation file must be like:
Install[ProgramName][ProgramVersion][Platform].[exe|msi|etc]
or
[ProgramName][ProgramVersion][Platform].Setup.[exe|msi|etc]
What your thoughts?
I much prefer descriptive install file names. Sometimes, you want an emergency 'restore' disk to get a machine up and running even without internet connectivity. When all your installs are named "setup.exe", you either have to rename them all, or create a directory with a descriptive name for each one.
An example of where such a disk would have been really handy was when I took my brand new laptop in to work to use while I upgraded my desktop to Vista 64, and then Windows 7. I only have one wired LAN point, so my laptop needed a wireless connection for internet access, to download my installs. I had to download them all on my desktop, and then transfer by flash drive to my laptop. Very inconvenient.
Not sure this is entirely programming-related... but installer files are usually meant to be transient. You download them, run them, and delete them. (Or at least, I think most people do) So it doesn't matter much what the filename is.
I don't think there's any reason not to give the installer a descriptive name... but I certainly wouldn't say it "must" have one.
For CD-Rom based installation, I'd suggest sticking with SETUP.EXE which helps with autorun detecting software to install from the disk.
For downloadable files, just add the appropriate manifest to the EXE and Vista won't have a problem with it. I'd suggest something semi-descriptive, but there's no need to go into great detail unless it's something like hardware drivers that a person may archive off for reuse, otherwise the file name is confusing to non-technical people.