Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Back to index page
Thread view  Board view
xChris(R)

Birmingham, UK,
26.03.2014, 17:39
 

In case you missed it... (Miscellaneous)

Microsoft MS-DOS 2.0 source code

---
Real RPN users keep track of their stacks in their heads

Rugxulo(R)

Homepage

Usono,
26.03.2014, 18:27

@ xChris
 

In case you missed it...

"To access this material, you must agree to the terms of the license displayed here, which permits only non-commercial use and does not give you the right to license it to third parties by posting copies elsewhere on the web."

xChris(R)

Birmingham, UK,
26.03.2014, 19:26

@ Rugxulo
 

In case you missed it...

> "To access this material, you must agree to the terms of the license
> displayed here, which permits only non-commercial use and does not give you
> the right to license it to third parties by posting copies elsewhere on the
> web."

so what? I doubt they released the code as PD...

---
Real RPN users keep track of their stacks in their heads

bocke(R)

27.03.2014, 10:28

@ xChris
 

In case you missed it...

> Microsoft
> MS-DOS 2.0 source code

It's funny seeing people getting excited about this. Even it had an open license (which it hasn't), it's an ancient version from the times PCs were much simpler machines and MS-DOS was still pretty much CP/M like. It would be pretty much useless for any modern DOS clone. Good place to research the history of MS-DOS "possibilities" is Ralph Brown's Interrupt List. You can see how many functions have been added since DOS 2.x.

TL;DR: This is only interesting to computer history buffs.

DOS386(R)

30.03.2014, 14:59

@ bocke
 

piracy

> TL;DR: This is only interesting to computer history buffs

Right. Nothing worth pirating inside ;-)

---
This is a LOGITECH mouse driver, but some software expect here
the following string:*** This is Copyright 1983 Microsoft ***

bocke(R)

01.04.2014, 15:22

@ DOS386
 

piracy

> > TL;DR: This is only interesting to computer history buffs
>
> Right. Nothing worth pirating inside ;-)

Uhm... It was released under MS Research License, so it wouldn't be pirating if used in those limited ways the license permits (non-commercial, personal and research only). :)

Anyways, I don't see why some people don't like FreeDOS. It's more modern than the last version of MS DOS (not to mention the last commercial version), it comes with the tools that are mostly good enough (some a bit better, some maybe a bit worse) and generally does everything MS DOS does. :) So, if someone needs a DOS source, there is already one that is in good enough shape and works 99% of time. Not to mention it's available under an open license so you can distribute source, binaries and derivatives. :)

glennmcc(R)

Homepage E-mail

North Jackson, Ohio (USA),
02.04.2014, 03:24

@ bocke
 

piracy

If I gather correctly,
the point DOS386 was attempting to make is that as per usual, MS has
"released" something that is of no real use to anyone except as a bit
of trivia and it is at best a novelty for historic and nostalgia purposes.

Further, that as per usual, MS has not actually "released" it but rather
has simply made it available for only very limited personal use.

Thereby making it virtually useless for any 'real-world purpose'.

;-)

> > > TL;DR: This is only interesting to computer history buffs
> >
> > Right. Nothing worth pirating inside ;-)
>
> Uhm... It was released under MS Research License, so it wouldn't be
> pirating if used in those limited ways the license permits (non-commercial,
> personal and research only). :)
>
> Anyways, I don't see why some people don't like FreeDOS. It's more modern
> than the last version of MS DOS (not to mention the last commercial
> version), it comes with the tools that are mostly good enough (some a bit
> better, some maybe a bit worse) and generally does everything MS DOS does.
> :) So, if someone needs a DOS source, there is already one that is in good
> enough shape and works 99% of time. Not to mention it's available under an
> open license so you can distribute source, binaries and derivatives. :)

---
--
http://glennmcc.org/

ron(R)

Homepage E-mail

Australia,
02.04.2014, 04:46

@ glennmcc
 

piracy

> Further, that as per usual, MS has not actually "released" it but rather
> has simply made it available for only very limited personal use.
>
> Thereby making it virtually useless for any 'real-world purpose'.

Much the same as Windows, really.

---
AUSREG Consultancy http://www.ausreg.com
Tadpole Tunes http://www.tadpoletunes.com
Sna Keo Il http://www.tadpoletunes.com/sna_keo_il/

Doug(R)

E-mail

02.04.2014, 06:04
(edited by Doug, 02.04.2014, 20:14)

@ bocke
 

piracy

> Anyways, I don't see why some people don't like FreeDOS. It's more modern
> than the last version of MS DOS (not to mention the last commercial
> version), it comes with the tools that are mostly good enough (some a bit
> better, some maybe a bit worse) and generally does everything MS DOS does.
> :) So, if someone needs a DOS source, there is already one that is in good
> enough shape and works 99% of time. Not to mention it's available under an
> open license so you can distribute source, binaries and derivatives. :)

Well, all i can say to that is that by looking into the MS-DOS code, you can get a good idea how Microsoft does things. <cough, cough> ;-)

- Doug B.

Edit: Or maybe i should say "Seattle Computer Products"....

Back to index page
Thread view  Board view
15108 Postings in 1358 Threads, 246 registered users, 6 users online (0 registered, 6 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum