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

101–110 of 382 posts

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#101

Post by Stratoscope »

steelbrain wrote: post #89
elwell wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now you can't even say "sanity check", much less mention brain damage.

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 the term "sanity check". We all know what it means. It's just that there are more descriptive and neutral terms available to us, so why not use them?

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#102

Post by arp242 »

steelbrain wrote: post #89
elwell wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now you can't even say "sanity check", much less mention brain damage.

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

According to some it's ableist language, e.g.: https://developers.google.com/style/inclusive-documentation#...

Not really interested in discussing this and not saying I agree (or disagree!) with that. Just answering the question.

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#103

Post by leeoniya »

steelbrain wrote: post #89
elwell wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now you can't even say "sanity check", much less mention brain damage.

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

since 1984 no one was offended by it, but in 2024 it became offensive to insane people

AFAIK "sanity check" doesnt even have a history like "retarded" (which actually became an offensive slur).

maybe some folks just feel left out if they cant rage about and feel offended by something these days.

::eyeroll::

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#104

Post by tracker1 »

stevetron wrote: post #90
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.

Around the year 2000, I was studying computer science at a university. Most of their PC's ran on Windows 3.1. I was using it at home. But one day, Microsoft sent me an offer: I could purchase the student release of Windows 2000 workstation for a mere $25.00. I went for it, and found it better than the Windows NT nap-sayers at school said. I don't know why I was contacted. Probbably because of other Microsoft programs…

Windows 2000 was a pretty great OS. Used to enjoy using a Litestep shell instead of explorer. While it wasn't great for a lot of games, many did run fine. I liked it a lot better than OS/2 that I ran previously.

I generally ran 2-4x the amount of RAM as most did. Still do. Pretty sure this made a lot of the difference.

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#105

Post by tom_ »

Dalewyn wrote: post #64
farmerbb wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Perhaps this release is not for historical research purposes.

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#106

Post by tracker1 »

thesuperbigfrog wrote: post #5

Interesting MS-DOS history to be uncovered with the source code of MS-DOS 4. I wonder if we will see MS-DOS 5 or 6 soon? FreeDOS, an open source DOS clone, has been around for a while: https://freedos.org/ https://github.com/FDOS

I'd like to see NTVDM open sourced... It's been leaked and there are unofficial builds to get support into 64-bit Windows through the emulation code. Could be a huge boost for general support.

Not sure how much work it would take for Linux or even just wine. But might displace DOSbox.

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#107

Post by glhaynes »

blobbers wrote: post #77
conkeisterdoor wrote: post #72

It looks like "brain damaged" was the developer's go-to insult when frustrated :D 2024-04-25 19:35 ~/sort/dl/MS-DOS % grep -nri 'brain[ -]damage' . ./v4.0/src/DOS/STRIN.ASM:70:; Brain-damaged TP ignored ^F in case his BIOS did not flush the ./v4.0/src/DOS/PATH.ASM:24:; MZ 19 Jan 1983 Brain damaged applications rely on success ./v4.0/src/DOS/FCBIO.ASM:28:; MZ 15 Dec 1983 Brain damaged programs close FCBs multiple ./v4…

Let's bring back those DOS 4.0 period sayings. Does this mean if you happen to be talking to BillG you could talk about brain damaged programs and he'd nod appreciatively?

It was BillG who famously called the 286 "brain damaged" after all.

EDIT: Upon doing a web search, actually it looks like it was "brain dead".

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#108

Post by tssva »

rnd0 wrote: post #37
chx wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you are thinking of 4.01 this is 4.0. Those are very different operating systems, this is DOS 3.2 + later abandoned very crude multitasking features. Roughly. And this matters because DOS 3.3 was a milestone. 4.01 comes from 4.00 which has nothing to do with 4.0 (yay for versions).

>And this matters because DOS 3.3 was a milestone DOS 3.3 couldn't understand large partitions -except for Compaq dos 3.31. But regular dos 3.3 couldn't. I don't think dos 3.2 could even understand extended partitions/logical drives -much less large disks. Still -pretty neat!

“DOS 3.3 couldn't understand large partitions -except for Compaq dos 3.31.”

This is not accurate. Several OEMs added proprietary variations of FAT which supported larger partitions. For instance I run Zenith MS-DOS 3.30+ which has this ability on a Zenith Z-161 XT compatible luggable.

Compaq’s 3.31 added FAT16B support which allowed larger partitions and was the standard for larger partition support going forward in standard MS-DOS.

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#109

Post by philistine »

nullindividual wrote: post #21
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.

Even ancient Windows includes many 3rd party libraries. I would not expect any Win 9x or NT 3.51+ version of Windows to be open sourced in it's entirety. I hope I'm wrong.

Yeah, just the font stuff was such a mess. I’m hopeful someone will power through those problems.

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#110

Post by shanselman »

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.
Post reply on HN