Open Sourcing DOS 4 • Hacker News Board

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#351

Post by lelanthran » Sat, Apr 27, 2024, 3:26 PM UTC

Stratoscope wrote: post #139

WalterBright wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Walter, you and I have known each other for a long time. Not in person; we've never met. But through our interactions here on HN. I have a lot of respect for you and for everything you have accomplished. So I have to ask you directly: Is being "boring" or not the way we should decide how to express ourselves? Regarding a "quick test" vs. a "sanity test". Instead of judging this on what is "boring", why can't we make…

> why can't we make a choice on which is more respectful to our peers and colleagues?

What makes "quick" more respectful? Use "quick" and you'll be triggering everyone in standups every day :-)

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#352

Post by ryandrake » Sat, Apr 27, 2024, 3:58 PM UTC

eru wrote: post #181

stepupmakeup wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Modern operating systems don’t run binaries tampered with a hex editor. do you mean non-system ones?

Some OSs want their binaries to be signed and probably have checksums etc. It would be hard to keep those valid when mucking around with a hex editor.

This is fine if the user was empowered to re-sign it after the mucking. The problem is that the user is rarely in charge of their own computer anymore.

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#353

Post by h2odragon » Sat, Apr 27, 2024, 3:59 PM UTC

sponaugle wrote: post #274

metadat wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SCSI drives almost never go bad. Compared to IDE/SATA, they were significantly better built and had lower failure rates. I still have a few 15k RPM Cheetahs that still work, last I checked :).

In general, it is surprising how many old hard drives still work. I have a good number of old SCSI drives (even Seagate!) that still work 40 years on. The ST225 in one of my XTs still works great as well. I actually have a ST238R still new in box, and I'll be curious to see if it can spin up some day. I suspect the bearings might be a stuck after all of these years!

They can be baked to re-blend the lubricants and free up bearings. 200F for a couple hours, as i recall.

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#354

Post by someplaceguy » Sat, Apr 27, 2024, 5:15 PM UTC

shudza wrote: post #312

zooq_ai wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite Hex Editor hack was when I cracked a Windows software simply by changing the instruction "Equal to" to "Not Equal to" where it matches for Software Key with user entered key.

It was something like: find "74", change it to "75" lol

Yes, but the hard part is that were a lot of "74"s and you had to figure out which one had to be changed... :)

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#355

Post by anticensor » Sat, Apr 27, 2024, 6:06 PM UTC

tiernano wrote: post #3

Direct GitHub link to the repo. https://github.com/Microsoft/MS-DOS

now it's the turn for https://github.com/Microsoft/Windows

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#356

Post by randomdata » Sat, Apr 27, 2024, 7:57 PM UTC

latentsea wrote: post #317

elwell wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

goodbye() could offend someone whose father "went out to get a pack of smokes" and never came back

Ok, let's change it to fetchmilk()

Bound to offend someone who found out their father was the milkman.

Make it idontevenknowanymore()

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#357

Post by tomduncalf » Sat, Apr 27, 2024, 8:09 PM UTC

shudza wrote: post #312

zooq_ai wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite Hex Editor hack was when I cracked a Windows software simply by changing the instruction "Equal to" to "Not Equal to" where it matches for Software Key with user entered key.

It was something like: find "74", change it to "75" lol

Ahaha wow this brings back memories :)

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#358

Post by kminehart » Sat, Apr 27, 2024, 9:03 PM UTC

m4rtink wrote: post #336

tambourine_man wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many replies here argue that there are plenty of choices today for the hacker-inclined, many more than 40 years ago, which is true, of course. But I think what your post implies is that regular computers back then invited you to hack them. It might have awoken a curiosity that could have otherwise remained latent in many of us. A anecdote from the other side of the fence: Apple used to ship an app called ResEdit whos…

I think ots rose tinted glasses to a degree and survivorship bias - the learning curve was very steep, documentation lacking or absent + no one to ask for help. I was glad I could run some games on my C64 and never really got farther with it due to these limitations.

But I think the missing ingredient they had back then was there was nothing better to do. Being "bored" isn't as much of a thing anymore for anyone, not just children.

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#359

Post by latentsea » Sat, Apr 27, 2024, 11:25 PM UTC

randomdata wrote: post #356

latentsea wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, let's change it to fetchmilk()

Bound to offend someone who found out their father was the milkman. Make it idontevenknowanymore()

Ok... null() it is then!

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#360

Post by eru » Sun, Apr 28, 2024, 5:11 AM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #352

eru wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some OSs want their binaries to be signed and probably have checksums etc. It would be hard to keep those valid when mucking around with a hex editor.

This is fine if the user was empowered to re-sign it after the mucking. The problem is that the user is rarely in charge of their own computer anymore.

Outside of mobile operating systems, eg on Linux, Windows and MacOS (and all the BSDs etc) it's fairly trivial to run binaries you built yourself.

But: re-signing is an extra step that someone who's just starting out and mucking around with a hexeditor might not know how to do nor even be aware of.