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

111–120 of 382 posts

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#111

Post by WalterBright »

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?

Because it's boring.

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#113

Post by bigstrat2003 »

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…

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.

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#117

Post by rnd0 »

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.

The whole opendos thing is pretty questionable, too. CPM is open source as is its' derivatives. Cool so far. But is DR-DOS a derivative of it? Or is it bound by the 'non commercial' license of the 90's which a) was revoked b)isn't exactly open source (limits distribution) in the first place.

Microsofts' releases have the benefit of being unambiguous.

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#118

Post by Dalewyn »

tom_ wrote: post #105
Dalewyn wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is for historial research purposes:

>The MS-DOS v1.25 and v2.0 files were originally shared at the Computer History Museum on March 25th, 2014 and are being (re)published in this repo to make them easier to find, reference-to in external writing and works, and to allow exploration and experimentation for those interested in early PC Operating Systems.

>For historical reference

>The source files in this repo are for historical reference and will be kept static, so please don’t send Pull Requests suggesting any modifications to the source files, but feel free to fork this repo and experiment.

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#119

Post by jmspring »

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.

Re: Open Sourcing DOS 4

#120

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN