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

121–130 of 382 posts

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#121

Post by acuozzo »

Stratoscope wrote: post #101
steelbrain wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, I missed the bus on this one. What's wrong with "sanity check"?

As someone who recently asked our QA team to change the name of one of our test suites from "sanity test" to "quick test", maybe I can provide some perspective. Many software developers like me have faced challenges to our mental health. Indeed, there has been a time or two when I questioned my own sanity. And perhaps the sanity of some of my colleagues! It's not so much that there is something inherently wrong with…

> It's just that there are more descriptive and neutral terms available to us, so why not use them?

"quick test" does not convey what is usually intended with "sanity test". The intention of the latter is to verify that a base set of assumptions hold true whereas "quick test" can be just about anything.

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#122

Post by hernandipietro »

I remember looking at MSDOS binaries with hex editors and seeing "MS Runtime Library", like many tools were written in C -- may be my memory is completely failing ... but probably MSDOS 5.0 included many utilities written in C? I used 5.0 with a 386, circa '93.

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#123

Post by davidgnz »

roytam87 wrote: post #115
snvzz wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DR-DOS also open source now.

But only OpenDOS 7.01, not older(DR DOS 3.30-7.00) or newer(7.02-8.0/8.1) versions.

OpenDOS isn't open-source, its source-available. The license reads more like trial software:

"Caldera grants you a non-exclusive license to use the Software in source or binary form free of charge if your use of the Software is for the purpose of evaluating whether to purchase an ongoing license to the Software. The evaluation period for use by or on behalf of a commercial entity is limited to 90 days; evaluation use by others is not subject to this 90 day limit but is still limited to a reasonable period"

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#124

Post by elwell »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #113
Stratoscope wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who recently asked our QA team to change the name of one of our test suites from "sanity test" to "quick test", maybe I can provide some perspective. Many software developers like me have faced challenges to our mental health. Indeed, there has been a time or two when I questioned my own sanity. And perhaps the sanity of some of my colleagues! It's not so much that there is something inherently wrong with…

1. Other terms are neither more descriptive nor more neutral. 2. If someone has a problem with the term "sanity check", they are overly sensitive and they need to adjust to the realities of life. It is unreasonable to expect everyone to coddle them.

Can we please change PHP's die() function to unalive()?

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#125

Post by grishka »

lchengify wrote: post #12

So if MS-DOS 4 was released in 1986, and it is now 2024, that's a 37 year gap between release and open source. That means Windows XP should be open sourced by ... 2038. Not as far away as it seems. I'll add it to my calendar.

I doubt Microsoft would ever open-source any NT Windows versions because the current ones are based on the same code, just with added touchscreen nonsense, adware, and overt contempt for the user.

We may see Windows 9x open-sourced. But then again, it's a stretch because Win32 API is still in wide use today. Releasing the sources for 32-bit Windows versions even this old may have an adverse effect on Microsoft's market domination.

But maybe ReactOS will reach beta by 2038. Does this count as an open-source version of Windows XP? :D

If you really wish to look at XP sources and don't care much about the legal aspect of it, you can do so right now. They were leaked.

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#126

Post by davidgnz »

snvzz wrote: post #100
_mlbt wrote: post #4

Holy cow, this is huge! DOS 1.x and 2.x are too old to run a lot of vintage DOS software, but 4.x would run just about everything.

IF running software is what matters, there's dosemu2 and dosbox-x. For the actual hardware or PCem, FreeDOS exists and is alive. DR-DOS has also been open sourced.

DR-DOS hasn't been open sourced. Caldera did release the source for the kernel and a few other bits, but the license only allowed free use for evaluation purposes. After 90 days (for a company) or "a reasonable period" for non-commercial entities you were required to buy a license.

Bryan Sparks did open-source CP/M a little while back, but AFAIK he hasn't said anything about DR-DOS so far.

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#127

Post by _mlbt »

shanselman wrote: post #110
moody__ wrote: post #73

I appreciate the work in getting this open sourced but I find it telling that this had to be done through an outside motivator. There seems to be no internal "ticking clock" to get some of these things out in to the open. That's fine no one is owed the source code for this stuff or anything, but it would be nice if there was more interest on the side of the companies to get some of their formative history out so peop…

That's valid feedback. There is no clock, but there maybe should be. In this case, yes, Jeff and I had to PUSH. And that's a hassle. I'll ask around.

I appreciate your hard work on open sourcing this!

If you’re taking requests I’d love to see MS-DOS 5.0 or at least QBasic next.

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#128

Post by jagged-chisel »

jmspring wrote: post #119

My brain is rusty, but I feel like MSDOS 5.11 was where things finally just worked. TSRs, memory managers, etc. Moving a lot and not being a packrat I've lost some of that history. It'd be interesting to see 5.x and 6.x released.

IIRC 6.22 was the pinnacle of MS-DOS, with all the comfort and niceties one could expect at the time. Then began the Windows era.

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#129

Post by NewsaHackO »

moody__ wrote: post #73

I appreciate the work in getting this open sourced but I find it telling that this had to be done through an outside motivator. There seems to be no internal "ticking clock" to get some of these things out in to the open. That's fine no one is owed the source code for this stuff or anything, but it would be nice if there was more interest on the side of the companies to get some of their formative history out so peop…

For some insight, look how people are combing for curse words/ devs making jokes about people being brain damaged etc. There is no upside for the company, and all that has to happen is some unsavory politically incorrect joke to get missed from sanitization and the are on the cancelled chopping block.

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#130

Post by userbinator »

jagged-chisel wrote: post #128
jmspring wrote: post #119

My brain is rusty, but I feel like MSDOS 5.11 was where things finally just worked. TSRs, memory managers, etc. Moving a lot and not being a packrat I've lost some of that history. It'd be interesting to see 5.x and 6.x released.

IIRC 6.22 was the pinnacle of MS-DOS, with all the comfort and niceties one could expect at the time. Then began the Windows era.

I think the pinnacle goes to MS-DOS 7.1, which while bundled with Windows was also usable as a DOS by itself and contained features like FAT32 support. MS-DOS 8 was the last version that came with the ill-fated Windows Me and significantly neutered.
Post reply on HN