• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Chinese 8088-based laptop system with pirated 8088 BIOS

The way I see it, this is just par for the course.
The resurgence of arcade machines in the early 2010's and the Raspi allowed you to make replicas or mini multigame arcade cabinets, mainly using ROM files distributed without knowledge or authorization from the likes of Capcom, SNK, or Incredible Technologies. Initially they fought it but eventually there was no way to chase after every numbered company making retropi boxes, iCade/ELF multigame modules, or just MiSTer. Casual piracy.
On top of this, to make it worse, companies including some who's roms are in question here IIRC, have used stolen emulator code to sell their rom boxes. It's a mess.

Recently a former MAME dev got rights to some CAVE games and sent a cease and desist to MAME, the very project he contributed to for years. The drama in the arcade scene is deep.
 
What if those people who bought this laptop replaced the BIOS with the one of Sergey? OK, not complete justice but at least Sergey gets the credits he earns.
 
What if those people who bought this laptop replaced the BIOS with the one of Sergey? OK, not complete justice but at least Sergey gets the credits he earns.
Those people would already know that he made the BIOS, so it makes no difference.

It's about a Chinese company taking credits for something they did not create themselves, hiding the origin of the work and even violating the license that came with it. The people who don't know it's Sergey's work are the ones that are fooled.
 
I'd love to see an honest review / Teardown of one, looking at the pics, The XUB is a very old revision, The Chinese USB drivers i have seen are very slow though the one in the pic seem's to have a date of 2020 ?, How many buyers would have the necessary gear and know how to Upgrade the System BIOS / XUB ??
 
Yeah, no I won't be discouraging anyone from buying it and any future clones. I'm sorry if that makes an enemy out of me.
I've been critical for years of people who develop something and then either sell it in very small and slow production batches or just sit on the designs and bark at anyone who dares try and push them off their throne, either with a cheaper product or by tampering with the demand-induced value.

I'm directly talking to you, Amiga and Apple community.

Saying otherwise here contradicts me.
GPL sucks. It's mainly in there so that if your code ends up in a commercial product it's not locked away and you have legal leverage to challenge for access. That works when going against BigCorp. in a western country. Like I said before it holds absolutely no weight in the rest of the world. You can fight it. You can kill the product if you so wanted because it violates GPL because your name was removed. Ultimately I see it as sabotaging a product to which it's got no real competition and vilifies you in the eyes of anyone who wanted to buy, just because you didn't see your name on it.
I know I have code and designs in things that don't have my name on it anymore. I released all that to the public to have fun with I genuinely don't care. If I have something I don't want people messing around with I don't release it to the public or commercially license it.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, no I won't be discouraging anyone from buying it and any future clones. I'm sorry if that makes an enemy out of me.
I've been critical for years of people who develop something and then either sell it in very small and slow production batches or just sit on the designs and bark at anyone who dares try and push them off their throne, either with a cheaper product or by tampering with the demand-induced value.

I'm directly talking to you, Amiga and Apple community.

Saying otherwise here contradicts me.
GPL sucks. It's mainly in there so that if your code ends up in a commercial product it's not locked away and you have legal leverage to challenge for access. That works when going against BigCorp. in a western country. Like I said before it holds absolutely no weight in the rest of the world. You can fight it. You can kill the product if you so wanted because it violates GPL because your name was removed. Ultimately I see it as sabotaging a product to which it's got no real competition and vilifies you in the eyes of anyone who wanted to buy, just because you didn't see your name on it.
I know I have code and designs in things that don't have my name on it anymore. I released all that to the public to have fun with I genuinely don't care. If I have something I don't want people messing around with I don't release it to the public or commercially license it.
Do you really need a crappy chinese 8088 laptop that badly? :cautious:
 
This one? No. I already have piles of crap x86 luggables and laptops. Sticking loyal to real machines does have its drawbacks of reliability, a lack of a battery and the fragile manner of the plastics to name a few.
(as a tangent here I do remember speaking the opposite for repro Lisa boards years ago, but this is different. Laptops universally suck to serivce.)

Some people however would consider me entitled for being able to say I have machines like that in plural. Crappy Chinese laptop or not, it's still a cost-viable option and most importantly, it's a NEW product and it's not just an emulated system on a klunky Raspi DOS box. The product is aimed at Millennials and Gen-Z's who don't have space for a real PC or time to learn how to fix a 90's Toshiba Satellite, but do have money.
(I mean I also don't like the idea of throwing money at things to fix a problem either but the computer discords are overflowing with these kinds of people)
 
Last edited:
I've been critical for years of people who develop something and then either sell it in very small and slow production batches or just sit on the designs and bark at anyone who dares try and push them off their throne, either with a cheaper product or by tampering with the demand-induced value.
And many of these people rely on the income from it, because, well, they have to pay bills just like all of us. You pretty much say the work of these people has no value...

Everyone has the right to decide how his/her work may be used. And everyone else has to respect that. Otherwise, open-source hard- and software will stop being made, as people lose motivation.
 
Copyright issues aside, it does look like an interesting piece of hardware. Everything seems to be socketed as well, which would bode well for part failures/maintenance. The idea of engineering a little docking station for it using the cable connector and ISA expansion board is also very appealing.
 
Crappy Chinese laptop or not, it's still a cost-viable option and most importantly, it's a NEW product and it's not just an emulated system on a klunky Raspi DOS box.

A raspberry Pi DOS box isn't going to burn your house down(*); let's get real, here, this thing is nowhere close to UL approved and who here hasn't had a less-than-positive experience with a knockoff laptop battery? I don't want to ***t to hard on whoever designed this, they may be a very talented engineer, but frankly until I see Big Clive tear one apart and give a thumbs up I would recommend not leaving this thing to charge when you're not home.

(* I mean, sure, to be fair maybe it will burn your house down if you tinker together your own battery charging circuit and use Aliexpress-sourced lithium cells of unknown quality, but then that would actually be *your* fault. If you're not qualified to build something like that maybe you should just root an old Chromebook and run your emulators on that, at least there's some assurance there that your crap $200 laptop underwent some actual QA by a team of more than one.)

And sure, you could say the same thing about any homebrew/hacker project, but on at least a philosophical level I kind of feel like there's a difference in the level of "assumed responsibility" between, say, someone who buys some PCBs (populated or not) to build their own RC2014 or whatever homebrew machine vs. buying a preassembled unit. In the former case there's a lot more plausible deniability for the seller to say "if using this somehow leads to the murder of everybody you love and care about it's your fault, you obviously did something wrong and should have known better".

Everyone has the right to decide how his/her work may be used. And everyone else has to respect that. Otherwise, open-source hard- and software will stop being made, as people lose motivation.

This. I get it, China ***ting on intellectual property rights has its good points for the consumer (in terms of getting the maximum amount of stuff for free, right now), but this attitude really is telling everyone who puts their blood, sweat, and tears into these projects that unless they're willing to do all that work for free (even if all they're asking for is credit) they should just f-off.

As I mentioned before, I'm *very* curious, assuming these actually show up in the wild, if the CF card they come with is going to be loaded up with all the software you see in that demo video (and in photos in the listing), including the not-open-source-at-all-and-still-being-sold-for-money Planet X3. I get it, there are conversations that probably need to be had about how copyright regimes in the west can be overly heavy-handed and expansive when it comes to arguably "ephemeral" works like software for extinct platforms or made by extinct companies, etc (maybe it should be more like trademark and expire if the work isn't actually being *used* by a legal successor to the original holder), but none of this applies, it's straight up piracy. Nobody has the "right" to run this stuff because some ***hole is mass copying it to CF cards in an unaccountable factory somewhere.
 
Saying otherwise here contradicts me.
GPL sucks. It's mainly in there so that if your code ends up in a commercial product it's not locked away and you have legal leverage to challenge for access. That works when going against BigCorp. in a western country. Like I said before it holds absolutely no weight in the rest of the world. You can fight it. You can kill the product if you so wanted because it violates GPL because your name was removed. Ultimately I see it as sabotaging a product to which it's got no real competition and vilifies you in the eyes of anyone who wanted to buy, just because you didn't see your name on it.
I know I have code and designs in things that don't have my name on it anymore. I released all that to the public to have fun with I genuinely don't care. If I have something I don't want people messing around with I don't release it to the public or commercially license it.

This is not a GPL problem. Replace GPL in your comment with "copyright" and you'll agree that any copyrighted work can have this problem. If copyright sucks, and you don't want to use it, it's fine. But I think as someone who even has seen copyright issues in closed source that it ends up in China, I think I'd like to know who are the honest people out there, even on little things.
 
Everyone has the right to decide how his/her work may be used. And everyone else has to respect that. Otherwise, open-source hard- and software will stop being made, as people lose motivation.
Have I missed the whole part of Open-Source where you are expecting to be paid for your work, beyond voluntary donations?
Last I recall if you wanted to make money off your programming you didn't make it open-source.

It sucks sergey had this happen, but that's just what happens when you make your efforts completely public. It's always a calculated risk if not only will people credit you for your work but if someone takes it and runs. You have no security over what someone else is going to do with your code.
Enjoy the product. We appreciate the nice BIOS and so did someone else it seems.
 
Last edited:
It sucks sergey had this happen, but that's just what happens when you make your efforts completely public. It's always a calculated risk if not only will people credit you for your work but if someone takes it and runs. You have no security over what someone else is going to do with your code.

Why do you keep this attaching this to open source? This argument applies to any software released in any form and, frankly, is why software companies are starting to resort to subscription models with incredibly intrusive DRM for everything. "Enjoy the product" is why we can't have nice things.

Not following the license agreement for open source software in particular is just stupid. Full stop, especially for something like this, where it's not going to "cost them" a cent to comply with it. (Sorry, I don't get the impression that this was anything but a hackdown job, I kinda doubt they added a bunch of trade secret extensions they "need" to keep secret.) Frankly I think they filed the serial numbers off Sergey's BIOS out of habit because, well, piracy is how they roll, right? It's not like they don't have thirty years of experience doing that to the 200+ Nintendo cartridge images they've been cramming in every ripoff console they've ever sold starting from those awful 1-chip-NES things you used to be able to buy every Christmas from that shady looking guy that rented the island in the mall crammed full of said consoles, lousy remote control vehicles, and misshapen Pokemon toys.
 
I'm a n00b who has ordered one of these (BOOK 8088), without knowing anything, then I stumbed on this forum post.

Just wanted to let you know, although it hasn't shipped yet, I just received a message from the seller on aliexpress, leading to a link to a ZIP file containing the product manual as well as a copy of the BIOS source, including copyright.tmpl file containing "Copyright (C) 2010 - 2020 Sergey Kiselev."
 
@Andys , welcome to the forum!

Would you be willing to send a message to the seller and request that they re-add Sergey's copyright info to the BIOS? If they modded it, they're entitled to add their own, but not to remove his.

- Alex
 
I'm a n00b who has ordered one of these (BOOK 8088), without knowing anything, then I stumbed on this forum post.

Just wanted to let you know, although it hasn't shipped yet, I just received a message from the seller on aliexpress, leading to a link to a ZIP file containing the product manual as well as a copy of the BIOS source, including copyright.tmpl file containing "Copyright (C) 2010 - 2020 Sergey Kiselev."
Could you share the zip file? I haven't gotten a link to the manual yet myself for the one I ordered.
 
Why do you keep this attaching this to open source? This argument applies to any software released in any form and, frankly, is why software companies are starting to resort to subscription models with incredibly intrusive DRM for everything. "Enjoy the product" is why we can't have nice things.
I don't care. Genuinely don't.
I see innovation. Someone was passionate enough to make their own PC BIOS and someone else was passionate enough to see there being a viable market for ultra-compact DOS machines that they invested into designing one commercially. In fact against your own word, here's two nice things. Here y'all are taking it and ignoring what's been created because you don't want someone's feelings to be hurt. Someone who posted the source code for their work in public.
Every single one of us on this forum do not comply with copyrights, even though it's written in the rules and we'd never copy that floppy and dump that BIOS, right? We have absolutely no reason to respect Sergey's either when we buy this new product which is his work, just without his name on it. We can, but then you are the equivalent to the person who lurks around the mall at Christmas telling children in line at Santa's chair that the dude up there isn't really Santa.

Enjoy the product.
If you wish to appreciate Sergey's efforts you can. You can compliment him for starting the project, donate financially if that's his thing, acknowledge that his work is being used without acting like an absolute loser or there's an amazing idea since this is using his older work: motivate development of a fork with his latest BIOS that you can flash to it. Now you get all the features and bugfixes of the latest BIOS, plus he gets his name back on the screen.
Or, just act like [AN AMIGA FORUM] or [AN APPLE FORUM] where nothing gets done and key innovators are left to stand on high towers, preventing anyone else from making better products.

[drops mic]
 
Or, just act like [AN AMIGA FORUM] or [AN APPLE FORUM] where nothing gets done and key innovators are left to stand on high towers, preventing anyone else from making better products.

WTF are you even talking about? Who is “preventing anyone else from making better products”? The deal with “intellectual property” as a legal construct is that it provides a framework in which the fruit of someone’s labor can be “shared”, IE put on the market to be consumed by others, in exchange for ”consideration”, in whatever degree, for the original creator. (Consideration usually being monetary, but not necessarily always.) If you don’t like the terms of said consideration then STFU about people on high towers not giving you shit under the terms you want and make your own thing *from scratch* instead of f-ing stealing it.

And again, this attitude really makes you look like an ass when the only consideration that’s being requested is credit and an agreement to share the benefits forward.

And your analogy about Santa Claus? If Santa Claus is stealing the toys he’s handing out then people need to know, whether or not it upsets them, because there are some legal situations where accepting stolen property is a crime. Sorry.
 
Back
Top