- cross-posted to:
- opensource@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- opensource@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
I love that they specify that they’re not accepting pull requests.
Even funnier when it’s their own platform and it has been missing the feature to disable them for so long afaik
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[.]
In 2014, MS-DOS 1.25 and 2.0 were released under a Microsoft shared-source license (Microsoft Research License) which forbids redistribution
In 2018, both versions were published to GitHub and relicensed as MIT, making them properly open-source
Today, MS-DOS 4.00 was added to that repo, also under MIT.
Oh.
Ignore them. Send a pull request with the full source of Arch Linux.
Nah, just a giant compiled binary blob. That’s what all the cool hackers do these days.
I’ll try a supply chain attack! That’s a good trick!
dumb question maybe, but where is the full source of arch Linux? My understanding is that its just vanilla Linux that uses the pacman package manager.
Am I wrong in saying the pacman is the Arch source? Or is there more going on in the tar ball?
Cheers! It looks like this is then the PKGBUILD
https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/base/-/blob/main/PKGBUILD?ref_type=heads
In which case, there are no packages defined there which are Arch specific except pacman. So… pacman is the Arch source, right?
A lot of these packages have Arch-specific modifications. For example, filesystem doesn’t even have a non-Arch upstream as it defines the filesystem layout. That PKGBUILD and everything it depends on is the Arch source. Distributions are defined by which packages they include.
ah, thanks for the clarification!
is archived
There is even a sentence in
README.mdthat makes it explicit:The source files in this repo are for historical reference and will be kept static, so please don’t send Pull Requests suggesting any modifications to the source files […]
Somebody fork it then?
Time to fork!
LOL, some of the comments in the source are gold.
https://github.com/microsoft/MS-DOS/blob/main/v4.0/src/DOS/ABORT.ASM
Note: We do need to explicitly close FCBs. Reasons are as follows: If we ; are running in the no-sharing no-network environment, we are simulating the ; 2.0 world and thus if the user doesn't close the file, that is his problem ; BUT... the cache remains in a state with garbage that may be reused by the ; next process. We scan the set and blast the ref counts of the FCBs we own. ; ; If sharing is loaded, then the following call to close process will ; correctly close all FCBs. We will then need to walk the list AFTER here. ; ; Finally, the following call to NET_Abort will cause an EOP to be sent to all ; known network resources. These resources are then responsible for cleaning ; up after this process. ; ; Sleazy, eh?~This is what people mean when they say hostile to users damn wow
I imagine that’s already a compatibility thing. If the os closed the file handles at that point but the program was expecting to do that, it might crash.
I guess we now have a timeframe in which to expect the release of Windows.
30+ years after death. Better than 70+ years of copyright 🤷
FreeDos is better anyways
I wonder if this is of any use to them or if they’re already too far ahead.
To my knowledge, FreeDOS has been a fairly complete implementation of DOS for a very long time, so this is probably not useful to them.
Good question lmk if you find the answer. I just use FreeDos to play Chex quest
They couldn’t use it. MS DOS is released under a licence that restricts redistribution
It says here you can modify and distribute: https://github.com/Microsoft/MS-DOS/blob/main/LICENSE
They changed it to MIT. You can basically do what you want with it.
Neat!
Sure, but it’s still really interesting from a historic point of view.
MS-DOS, Source public available on March 25 2014 with MS Research License, released with as Free Software MIT license in 2018, this yer released as Open Source MS-DOS 4.0. Anyway, the Source code was available since 2014, only different licenses since then.
Take that FreeDOS!
Look at me, I AM FREE DOS now
Pretty soon they’ll need to change the name to HipsterDOS.
FreeDOS before it was cool.
deleted by creator
Laundering their reputation by open sourcing defunct historical code
If that’s the goal, probably a silly way to go about it. The people who care about FOSS won’t forget about their reputation, and most of the people who don’t care about their reputation don’t know anything about FOSS.
Probably Microsoft is trying to “save” some of its reputation after adding ads to Windows 11 one more time
They found a new 0-day exploit
They probably only got clearance from their lawyers (or IBM’s lawyers) just now.
A lot of proprietary software includes bits from other proprietary software that they don’t have the rights to open-source. And untangling and removing those bits takes time and effort.
What’s the use case that would upset Microsoft the most?
Idk, maybe fork it under the name MS-DOSNT
😆👏👍
Use it to program an functional DOS emulator for MacOS 8?
So cool, thanks. As a kid I spent so much time in DEBUG, stepping through DOS’s executables, and especially the Interrupt handlers. It’s so neat to see the actual source code-- way easier to read and follow. I didn’t know it was all written in assembly, from within Debug it sometimes seemed so messy and convoluted that I just assumed more was written in C.
Look at them, embracing open source like this, how wonderful.
I’m sure the only reason why they waited this long is that they needed to make sure it’s old enough that the companies they stole code from can’t sue.
Can’t wait for the OSS community to fork it and build some cool shit on top of this /s
Well, this should be incredibly useful for Dosbox and improving playability of retro games, right?
Perhaps, if there are some very specific compatibility issues that haven’t been solved yet.
That said, MS-DOS 4 isn’t even the most recent version, the last one was 6.22 to my knowledge, and IIRC a lot of games tended to require at least version 5 or 6.
deleted by creator
2 things, the project exists and is called ReactOS. 2nd, the kernel in the versions of Windows anyone thinks about is the NT kernel which they will never release to be open source. The NT Kernel was built specifically so that they didn’t have to use DOS to make Windows work.
And look at all of they ways they are extending the open source community via github and copilot!
They sure are extinguishing any posible fear I may have about the absolutely destroying anything beautiful.
when rust
deleted by creator
Question - did you delete your comment less than an hour after posting it? Or am I seeing that as some kind of glitch in the Sync app?
To me, your comment just says “deleted by creator.”
He left it in moist air and it rusted
deleted by creator
This one lasted at least 11 hours ¯\(◉°◉)/¯
Good decision in the long run I suppose
Woah MIT license. That’s a lot more permissive than I expected.
Where is the ctrl+alt+del function defined? I just want to see what made that sequence work. I’d also be interested in where ctrl+break is defined.
Ctrl+alt+delete was a separate interrupt line direct from the keyboard. That is, when you pressed the three keys, the interrupt signal was asserted, causing the CPU to jump to the interrupt service routine, which should be in the source code package.
is it in the source code, or is it just passed right to BIOS?
It was originally a BIOS interrupt, but eventually got captured by the OS. Here’s Dave Bradley talking about inventing it https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K_lg7w8gAXQ
Bill does not think that is funny.
