111–120 of 211 posts
Windows source code was available for a long time. My university had access to Win 2000 and some latter versions. Nobody was interested since most kernel hackers used BSD and later Linux.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
MS-DOS is maybe the ugliest operating system I ever had the displeasure of using. There's very little to learn from operating system design point of view in there, and better sources are available under more permissive licenses -- ie open source licenses. It looks like a PR stunt to me.
It served it's purpose for it's time. When I had an 8088 computer, MS-DOS was great enough for me, it was simple, fun to understand and work with. Like any OS it had it's quirks, but it got out of the way. Yes, minix ran on 286, so MS could have/should have, but that was then. Don't judge them too harsh.
There was xenix. As inconceivable as people might find it today, people CHOSE to run simple DOS over Unix on their very resource-constrained hardware.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The full license text is right on the download page: http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/microsoft-research-lice...
Got a 503 on that link sadly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
are you privy to research in either of the organizations. I know its great to revere age old organizations but as we are speaking the best research is probably being conducted in a place we least expect. I am not privy to research at Ma Bell or only the published elements of Microsoft Research - so your reaction is more of an instinct than any factual basis.
> so your reaction is more of an instinct than any factual basis. Do Nobel prizes and Turing awards count as instinct or are they facts?
Its not comparing apples to apples but again, if dissing MSR for not being Bell Labs - great then.
And that's why Microsoft is at a turning point in 2014.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it will nevertheless be under copyright until long after we're all dead, so if you read it Microsoft could presumably still decide to sue you for copyright infringement if that ever happens to seem advantageous for them. I think that's what the parent comment was asking about.
> But it will nevertheless be under copyright until long after we're all dead, so if you read it Microsoft could presumably still decide to sue you for copyright infringement if that ever happens to seem advantageous for them. You'd have to actually, you know, infringe their copyrights. It's hard to know if you're one of the many who are confused about copyright, patent, and trademark but just reading the code doesn'…
Sort of like the "rangeCheck" portion of the Google v. Oracle case.
With patents it doesn't matter whether you read their code or not: you're screwed in any case. But with copyright the history of the code matters, so it could matter if you have seen their code before writings yours, I think.
Clarification: this is about MS Word 1.1a, which was released in 1990.
Under what license? Can we view, modify, redistribute? No one wants to get sued for these things, or being found to violate some end user license agreement with some other Microsoft software. On the other hand, I'd love to find out that people viewing this code contribute an improvement that no one in Microsoft saw in decades that helps them improve something today, leading them to soften their stance on Free Softwar…
If dos_ver == "dr dos" then
Print("error")
Abort()
End if