Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open Sourcing DOS 4

hanselman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 382 posts

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#61

Post by hi-v-rocknroll »

bombcar wrote: post #41
skissane wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They changed line 70 of v4.0/src/DOS/STRIN.ASM from [0]: ; Brain-damaged Tim Patterson ignored ^F in case his BIOS did not flush the to [1]: ; Brain-damaged TP ignored ^F in case his BIOS did not flush the [0] https://github.com/OwnedByWuigi/DOS/blob/ffd70f8b4fb77e2e6af... [1] https://github.com/microsoft/MS-DOS/blob/main/v4.0/src/DOS/S...

If Tim is still around he should PR a change back; I'd not want my name shortened to "TP".

Agreed. My initialisms are almost as bad. (Thanks clueless parents!)

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#62

Post by _whiteCaps_ »

bfors wrote: post #39

Looking at this code is a nice reminder that I have virtually no real understanding of how computers work, and every part I work with is a nice polished abstraction that hides 99% of the complexity involved in actually creating value with a computer.

You might like: https://www.amazon.ca/Definitive-Guide-How-Computers-Math/dp...

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#64

Post by Dalewyn »

farmerbb wrote: post #34
rwl4 wrote: post #11

Weird that for a couple minutes, these paths existed: * https://github.com/microsoft/MS-DOS/tree/main/v4.0/bin * https://github.com/microsoft/MS-DOS/tree/main/v4.0/bin/DISK1 * https://github.com/microsoft/MS-DOS/tree/main/v4.0/pdf But they disappeared as I browsed the repo. I guess they didn't want that part public? Edit: I knew I wasn't seeing things! Somebody forked it along with those files: https://github.com/Own…

They force-pushed the repo to remove an insult towards Tim Patterson in one of the source files.

If this release is for historical research purposes, the release should be pristine including the unsavory bits. Whitewashing of history should never be accepted.

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#67

Post by freedomben »

zdimension wrote: post #32

https://github.com/microsoft/MS-DOS/blob/2d04cacc5322951f187... > ; REV 2.15 7/13/83 ARR BECAUSE IBM IS FUNDAMENTALY BRAIN DAMAGED, AND Someone was angry that day. Wonder if any IBM dev ever stumbled upon this when MS and IBM worked together.

This was the good 'ol days, back when you could put stuff in comments like that and not worry about legal

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#68

Post by hi-v-rocknroll »

aap_ wrote: post #18
glonq wrote: post #14

4.0 was a buggy release. Where's the DOS 4.01 source?

I would assume that with some disassembling 4.01 could be reconstructed from 4.0 without too much trouble.

No. The comments aren't there and 4.01 was also a major rewrite after Microsoft took the project back from IBM.

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#69

Post by freedomben »

skeeter2020 wrote: post #56
optimalquiet wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Windows 2000 was part of the professional NT line, though, and was the companion of Me for the millennium releases. As far as I know, 2000 wasn't marketed to home users. I think what the comment you replied to is saying is the the transition away from DOS wasn't completed for both professional and home markets until XP, which unified everything under NT for all markets.

this is accurate; the 2000 line targeted business, and if you remember having a consumer computer with 2000 pro it didn't support a lot of hardware.

Can confirm. I upgraded my 98 box to 2000 and never did get some of my hardware working. When I told people I was using 2000 everybody assumed I had stolen it from work. I didn't. My friend stole it from work and shared it with me ;-)

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#70

Post by hi-v-rocknroll »

smolsky wrote: post #8

OMG, I remember copying official 5.25 disks back in the 90s...

Clunk, clunk, clunk, bzt-urg, clunk, clunk, clunk, clunk... :)

While hole punchers and opaque tape worked for notching and denotching, there were also floppy notchers. It turns out these bits of accessories are rarely found on secondary markets or go for something like $80 USD. There are still quite a few 5.25" drive cleaning kits still for sale.

I don't miss floppies because they were slow, fragile, and prone to developing unrecoverable errors. I did discover through experimentation that 3.5" floppies were fairly resistant to crude direct magenetic attack. I had to open the window and touch the media surface to a small speaker's magnet to induce errors. Praise be to the greaseweazle and the Copy II PC Deluxe Option Board 2.0 (the 1.0 doesn't support 3.5" 1.44 MB).

2.88 MB drives are worth a small fortune because they are still used for industrial purposes. Also, SCSI floppy drives exist.

Post reply on HN