Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The original sources of MS-DOS 1.25 and 2.0

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 119 posts

Re: The original sources of MS-DOS 1.25 and 2.0

#74

Post by omneity »

tdeck wrote: post #71
0xabe wrote: post #36

Microsoft, please release QuickBasic to the world

I think the source is floating around somewhere. At least, back when I wrote QuickBasic it seemed like some people in the community had copies.

Are you the original author of QuickBasic?

Re: The original sources of MS-DOS 1.25 and 2.0

#75

Post by tinus_hn »

codesnik wrote: post #63
userbinator wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. More explanation: https://hackernoon.com/how-to-hack-github-kind-of-12b08a46d0... It looks like git uses the standard Unix epoch for its internal timestamp format, and not e.g. a format unable to represent dates before its creation, but that still means it can't really handle pre-Unix dates: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/21787872/is-it-possible-... Edit: downvoters, care to explain what I'm wrong a…

I didn't downvote you, but what you say doesn't make much sense. git is distributed and works offline, this means that nothing could prevent you from making commit with a "fake" date, you always can change time on your machine. So there's nothing really hackish in that, and that has nothing to do with format in which time stored in git internally. And you can have legitimate uses for "faking" commit date. I'd say rep…

The format Git uses determines the range of dates it can store. If it uses the normal Unix epoch system 0 means 1-1-1970 so you can’t represent dates before that.

Re: The original sources of MS-DOS 1.25 and 2.0

#76

Post by pjmlp »

userbinator wrote: post #26
giancarlostoro wrote: post #6

Wonder if and when we will get closer to seeing existing windows apps open sourced. It looks like they may be doing clean up of old codebases to release

...or perhaps even Windows itself? I'm a bit ambivalent about this (and all the "open sourcing" MS has been doing recently.) On the one hand, it's great to see source code. On the other hand, everything can be reverse-engineered anyway and it feels like this is a sign of a "shedding" (for lack of better term) MS --- one that doesn't see software as having intrinsic commercial value anymore, but instead is turning to…

It has worked pretty well for Google

Re: The original sources of MS-DOS 1.25 and 2.0

#77

Post by krylon »

mdip wrote: post #35
unixhero wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you, when 6.22 has better tools and features?

I wasn't a fan of the 6.x series of DOS but I can't remember exactly why. I have fond memories of DOS 5.0, but that's also the first version I ran on my 486 that we built in the 90s (I came from an 8088, so this was an unfathomable upgrade). It was the first version of DOS that I could finally run some interesting games on. One thing I do recall about the 6.x series that drove me nuts was that the installer progress…

> the installer progress bar was ... peculiar

Windows 95 was really annoying in that regard, the progress bar would race to 95%, and then stay there for a long time. We used to joke that the installation routine would only start doing any actual work upon reaching that 95% mark.

Re: The original sources of MS-DOS 1.25 and 2.0

#78

Post by Dowwie »

rangibaby wrote: post #22
gerdesj wrote: post #9

Well it has a place, I suppose. For me: I wasted a lot of time and effort farting around with config.sys and autoexec.bat getting drivers to load etc. Could I sue for lifetime wasted?

Messing with SET BLASTER (port 220 IRQ 5 DMA 1) to get sound to work in "Rise of the Triad" was probably the defining moment of my early PC misadventures. That and making a boot disk for Dark Forces, and labelling it "boot dick" by accident (thanks for kicking me in the nuts, mum)

And you had to tweak the jumpers on your card, surely
Post reply on HN