bios440.filename option

Here you can provide suggestions on how to improve the product, website, etc.
frank
Oracle Corporation
Posts: 3362
Joined: 7. Jun 2007, 09:11
Primary OS: Debian Sid
VBox Version: PUEL
Guest OSses: Linux, Windows
Location: Dresden, Germany
Contact:

Post by frank »

The reason for the two releases are that we (at least currently) have not the manpower to maintain two different projects. So OSE is derived from PUEL and if someone wants to modify the OSE source code then fine, do it but if you want to go this modification into the official tree then we have to merge it (if the contributor allows so).

If we would release DLLs with the closed source code then we had to make sure that the interface is stable and that it works for every distribution which we cannot. Keep in mind that we provide a bunch of packages for different Linux distributions, every package is compiled with its own gcc version.

And another point is as soon as there are modified VirtualBox releases (that is, some modified OSE code together with the closed source PUEL DLLs) debugging of problems would be very much harder. We simply cannot provide this support (at least not now).
TerryE
Volunteer
Posts: 3572
Joined: 28. May 2008, 08:40
Primary OS: Ubuntu other
VBox Version: PUEL
Guest OSses: Ubuntu 10.04 & 11.10, both Svr&Wstn, Debian, CentOS
Contact:

Post by TerryE »

I understand and have quite a lot of sympathy with what you say here, so I don't want to make a bit issue out of this. This is more an "over a beer" debate (apart from the fact that I am lying in bed with my laptop on my tummy, rather then sitting with a beer in my hand, but let's forget that for now. :lol:)

What we face is here a standard "there is no simple answer to this one" type of Q. On the one hand allowing the core build to be more easily extensible etc is going to involve more work for a very resource limited development team. On the other by creating such divide between the PEUL and OSE versions means that external developers can only modify the system if they are willing to lose all of the additional PUEL functionality, with the consequence that you are also potentially isolating yourselves from a valuable development resource in the community.

F, I think that we've done this one to death now, so there's no need to answer. Thanks.
Read the Forum Posting Guide
Google your Q site:VirtualBox.org or search for the answer before posting.
NeBlackCat
Posts: 154
Joined: 3. Aug 2008, 13:37

Post by NeBlackCat »

+1 for some way to be able to modify functionality within the OSS parts without losing the ability to use PUEL features.
TerryE
Volunteer
Posts: 3572
Joined: 28. May 2008, 08:40
Primary OS: Ubuntu other
VBox Version: PUEL
Guest OSses: Ubuntu 10.04 & 11.10, both Svr&Wstn, Debian, CentOS
Contact:

Post by TerryE »

Sorry, but we've done this debate to death in Open-Source Community and the (lack-of) Developers. The VBox team will not consider developers having access to PUEL code even under PUEL licence terms. They seem to be treating this as an almost religious 'black and white' issue: if you want to develop you then use the OSE version (and forgo the extra PUEL functionality). So you have to choose: if you need PUEL features then live with the standard product. Sorry.
Read the Forum Posting Guide
Google your Q site:VirtualBox.org or search for the answer before posting.
NeBlackCat
Posts: 154
Joined: 3. Aug 2008, 13:37

Post by NeBlackCat »

I wasn't suggesting having access to the protected code. I was agreeing that the software should be modular enough to be able to update bits of the full proprietary installation if you have the source for those bits (at the right version).

This is routine in far larger and more complicated software projects that virtualbox.

Otherwise there's a third option than the two you gave - use one of the fully open vmm's.
TerryE
Volunteer
Posts: 3572
Joined: 28. May 2008, 08:40
Primary OS: Ubuntu other
VBox Version: PUEL
Guest OSses: Ubuntu 10.04 & 11.10, both Svr&Wstn, Debian, CentOS
Contact:

Post by TerryE »

NeBlackCat, I discussed this as one of the options on the post that I referenced. Still no joy. In fact you can extend VBox PEUL in certain ways but its not documented or encouraged. :-(
Read the Forum Posting Guide
Google your Q site:VirtualBox.org or search for the answer before posting.
NeBlackCat
Posts: 154
Joined: 3. Aug 2008, 13:37

Post by NeBlackCat »

Hi Terry - yes I just read that thread after posting (it was very interesting). I'd interpreted Frank Mehnert's post (above) to mean that it wasn't really possible to drop in FOSS-based changes into the commercial version, but that thread you linked to seems to suggest otherwise.

I very much agree with you on the core issue - you shouldn't lose access to important functionality just because you want to change something that's open source code, and there should be some sort of master roadmap so you know if anything you plan to do is already covered by the experts.
TerryE
Volunteer
Posts: 3572
Joined: 28. May 2008, 08:40
Primary OS: Ubuntu other
VBox Version: PUEL
Guest OSses: Ubuntu 10.04 & 11.10, both Svr&Wstn, Debian, CentOS
Contact:

Post by TerryE »

By way of an example, if you look at the VBox.log and search for *** CFGM dump *** this enumerates the VBox configuration that has been loaded from for the VM. You can extend this with the VboxManage setextradata command or through the API to add extra keys to PDM/Drivers, e.g.
  • /PDM/Drivers/MyVMextension/Path = "MyVMextension"
this will load the shareable image MyVMextension.so / .dll during VM startup. The PDM resolves at runtime the entry points VBoxDevicesRegister and VBoxDriversRegister and if they exist calls them with a pointer to the relevant callback table. This routines can then declare any devices and drivers that you want to add to the VM. In this way you can extend the VMM virtualised configuration. An example of how his works is given in Builtins.cpp. But as I said, none of this is openly documented, so getting to grips with all this requires you to get to grips with 400K lines of source.
Read the Forum Posting Guide
Google your Q site:VirtualBox.org or search for the answer before posting.
TerryE
Volunteer
Posts: 3572
Joined: 28. May 2008, 08:40
Primary OS: Ubuntu other
VBox Version: PUEL
Guest OSses: Ubuntu 10.04 & 11.10, both Svr&Wstn, Debian, CentOS
Contact:

Post by TerryE »

Returning to the original topic of this post and denzo's Q, I was following another post and was drilling down into DevPcBios.cpp when I noticed that in addition to the DMI parameters, one of the CFGM parameters enumerated and processed by the pcbiosConstruct routine which is called to build the VM BIOS is the BiosRom parameter and if this is specified then the corresponding BIOS file is loaded instead of the default BIOS included in VBox. Hence setting

Code: Select all

VBoxManage setextradata MyVM  "VBoxInternal/Devices/pcbios/0/Config/BiosRom" "MyBIOS.bin"
should have the desired result. I haven't got my own BIOS so can't test it, but the facility does seem to be in the code.
Read the Forum Posting Guide
Google your Q site:VirtualBox.org or search for the answer before posting.
wmb@firmworks.com
Posts: 3
Joined: 29. Dec 2008, 02:58

Post by wmb@firmworks.com »

I tried the "VBoxManage" recipe from TerryE and thus persuaded VirtualBox to execute some custom BIOS code. There are some problems which I detailed in http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/1929#comment:3
TerryE
Volunteer
Posts: 3572
Joined: 28. May 2008, 08:40
Primary OS: Ubuntu other
VBox Version: PUEL
Guest OSses: Ubuntu 10.04 & 11.10, both Svr&Wstn, Debian, CentOS
Contact:

Post by TerryE »

Thanks Mike. BTW, we recommend that you don't use an email address for your userID if unless you really like getting bombarded with spam. If you want to change it, then email SanderVL with a request letting him know what you'd like your account name to be and he can change it.
Read the Forum Posting Guide
Google your Q site:VirtualBox.org or search for the answer before posting.
wmb@firmworks.com
Posts: 3
Joined: 29. Dec 2008, 02:58

Post by wmb@firmworks.com »

> BTW, we recommend that you don't use an email address for your userID if unless you really like getting bombarded with spam

8) That email address has been active for 15 years and has already been harvested by every spam list on the planet. At that point hiding the address is no longer helpful, and the problem reduces to maintaining the filters. Let's all take a silent moment to wish that all spammers can get productive jobs in the New Year :P
wmb@firmworks.com
Posts: 3
Joined: 29. Dec 2008, 02:58

Post by wmb@firmworks.com »

If anybody here is keen on trying out alternative firmware under emulation, you might be interested in http://www.openfirmware.info/Building_OFW_for_QEMU

Open Firmware is the "BIOS" that is used in Suns, most PowerPC machines, and the One Laptop Per Child machine. It's essentially a miniature operating system, including a built-in programming language (Forth).

The instructions cited above build a ROM image that works under QEMU. It might work with VirtualBox if http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/1929#comment:4 were fixed. The latest comment on that ticket suggests a trivial patch that would probably work. If anyone here has a VBox build environment already set up, I'd be very interested to know if OFW works with that patch.
Post Reply