Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

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

16.05.2008, 15:10
 

Do you know MultiDOS? (Users)

Thread locked

Site is http://br.geocities.com/freedosg/

Unfortunately the download links are no longer working. Is there some mirror?

Anyone played with it? What are your experiences?

Steve(R)

Homepage E-mail

US,
18.05.2008, 09:17

@ mr
 

Do you know MultiDOS?

 

> Unfortunately the download links are no longer working. Is there some
> mirror?

The link on that page is working - it gets a boot diskette image of Enhanced DR-DOS 7.01.07 WIP with a bunch of hardware drivers. The various partitions referrred to at the site are not supported - no drivers to read them from DOS. Also, EDR-DOS is free but not Open Source and as far as I can tell, that applies to the existing drivers too. There's a batch file to load a graphical interface which isn't there... Problems, problems.

> Anyone played with it? What are your experiences?

Haven't played with it, don't plan to - it has nothing special. But I'm sure Japheth will want to see how someone uses EDR-DOS.

lucho

19.05.2008, 08:45

@ Steve
 

EDR-DOS

 

> EDR-DOS is free but not Open Source and as far as I can tell

It's exactly the opposite: it's open source but not "free software" in FSF terms

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
19.05.2008, 09:45

@ lucho
 

EDR-DOS

 

> > EDR-DOS is free but not Open Source and as far as I can tell
>
> It's exactly the opposite: it's open source but not "free software" in FSF
> terms

Still incorrect: Only IBMBIO, IBMDOS and COMMAND are open source. :-)

lucho

19.05.2008, 10:29

@ rr
 

EDR-DOS

 

> Still incorrect: Only IBMBIO, IBMDOS and COMMAND are open source. :-)

In other words, what comprises the Enhanced DR-DOS (the other parts are not enhanced).

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
19.05.2008, 11:25

@ lucho
 

EDR-DOS

 

> > Still incorrect: Only IBMBIO, IBMDOS and COMMAND are open source. :-)
>
> In other words, what comprises the Enhanced DR-DOS (the other parts are
> not enhanced).

So EDR-DOS is in fact a DOS kernel only.

lucho

19.05.2008, 14:43

@ rr
 

EDR-DOS

 

> So EDR-DOS is in fact a DOS kernel only.

Yes, plus the shell.

Moreover. An important part of an operating system is its multitasking (when it is present). It's implemented in EMM386 in DR-DOS. So EMM386 can be considered a part of its kernel. As EMM386 has its source code locked behind 7 locks by DRDOS Inc, it isn't enhanced. Therefore EDR-DOS doesn't even include the whole kernel.

Steve(R)

Homepage E-mail

US,
19.05.2008, 15:07

@ lucho
 

EDR-DOS

 

> > EDR-DOS is free but not Open Source and as far as I can tell
>
> It's exactly the opposite: it's open source but not "free software" in FSF
> terms

OpenDOS is free in the money sense, and is not Open Source in any sense. Unique EDR-DOS components may be declared Open Source by Udo, but OpenDOS components may not - only by the current owner (who is not Udo).

Anyway, that has nothing to do with the main point of my message, which is that there is no MultiDOS - it's an EDR-DOS boot disk, no big deal.

lucho

19.05.2008, 17:36

@ Steve
 

EDR-DOS

 

> OpenDOS is free in the money sense, and is not Open Source in any sense.
> Unique EDR-DOS components may be declared Open Source by Udo, but OpenDOS
> components may not - only by the current owner (who is not Udo).

They're not declared open source, their source was actually open by Caldera. Udo doesn't open any other sources (as he doesn't have them), he just offers patches which, successively applied, convert the open source part of OpenDOS to EDR-DOS.

Steve(R)

Homepage E-mail

US,
19.05.2008, 18:14

@ lucho
 

EDR-DOS

 

Oh, give it up already. You're playing with the word "open" and convincing nobody. 1) Even Udo states that OpenDOS is not Open Source. 2) The OpenDOS license does not mention Open Source at all - the granting of rights to use and modify OpenDOS are highly specified.

You are free(!) to like or dislike copyrights and licensing, but your opinion does not change facts.

lucho

19.05.2008, 18:45
(edited by lucho, 19.05.2008, 20:00)

@ Steve
 

EDR-DOS

 

The public availability of a source code means that it's open, doesn't it?

Steve(R)

Homepage E-mail

US,
19.05.2008, 21:06

@ lucho
 

EDR-DOS

 

> The public availability of a
> source
> code means that it's open, doesn't it?

No.

Rugxulo(R)

Homepage

Usono,
19.05.2008, 23:15

@ Steve
 

EDR-DOS

 

> > The public availability of a
> > source
> > code means that it's open, doesn't it?
>
> No.

OpenDOS/DR-DOS switched hands a lot: Digital Research (task switching in 6.0), Novell (true multitasking in 7.0), Caldera (7.03), Lineo, SCO, DeviceLogics, DR-DOS Inc. Only during 1997 was it called OpenDOS, and that ended with the release of DR-DOS 7.02. Caldera's last (and the last official, non-OEM version for public use???) was 7.03 (my copy bought online from DeviceLogics in 2004 still says Caldera everywhere). The source is a mess anyways (from what I hear), needing several compilers and assemblers (6 or 7 toolsets). Maybe Novell could afford to open source it "back in the day" (since their business is all Linux-based now), but the current guys are targeting the embedded market (and paid good money for the rights), so even though rumors of it being free for non-commercial use still fly around, it ain't so. I'll bet Matthias Paul could clear it up, but who knows how to find him these days??

P.S. Here's what I asked and what response I got (back in '04):

> From: Bryce J Burns <bryce_AT_drdos.blah>
> To: rugxulo_AT_bellsouth.blah
> Cc: sales_AT_drdos.blah
> Subject: Re: DR-DOS single-user, personal/non-commercial
> Date: Saturday, October 23, 2004 11:27:59 AM
>
>
> DR DOS 7.03 $35
> Bootable DOS 7.03 $20
> Bootable DOS v8 $25
>
>
> > rugxulo_AT_bellsouth.blah wrote:
> >
> > What versions (names, numbers) of Open/DR/Caldera/Novell DOS do you
> > currently have the rights to? How much is a single-user,
> > personal/non-commercial license for private use? $29, $35, other?

lucho

20.05.2008, 13:11

@ Rugxulo
 

DR-DOS

 

> > Subject: Re: DR-DOS single-user, personal/non-commercial
> > Date: Saturday, October 23, 2004 11:27:59 AM
> >
> > DR DOS 7.03 $35
> > Bootable DOS 7.03 $20
> > Bootable DOS v8 $25

Why did they withdraw the 8.0 along with the 8.1 although only the latter was found to be phony by us?
Hmm, there's something rotten in Denmark (pardon, In Utah)!

Steve(R)

Homepage E-mail

US,
20.05.2008, 17:30

@ Rugxulo
 

EDR-DOS

 

> OpenDOS/DR-DOS ... The source is a mess anyways (from what I hear),
> needing several compilers and assemblers (6 or 7 toolsets).

Matthias Paul covers that in Caldera OpenDOS - A fresh breeze in DOS technology (English version) and Caldera OpenDOS - Frischer Wind für DOS (German version). He says some of the code might go back to CP/M.

> Maybe Novell could afford to open source it "back in the day"

Novell went broke on it - bought DR-DOS and Unix in an attempt to become an all-in-one OS provider, better than MS. Didn't work.

> so even though rumors of it being free for non-commercial use
> still fly around, it ain't so. I'll bet Matthias Paul could clear it up,
> but who knows how to find him these days??

He sure ain't too visible. His Web pages are 6-7 years old.

> > From: Bryce J Burns <bryce_AT_drdos.blah>
> > To: rugxulo_AT_bellsouth.blah
> > Cc: sales_AT_drdos.blah
> > Subject: Re: DR-DOS single-user, personal/non-commercial
> > Date: Saturday, October 23, 2004 11:27:59 AM
> >
> >
> > DR DOS 7.03 $35
> > Bootable DOS 7.03 $20
> > Bootable DOS v8 $25

v8 is not listed at their website anymore. The other 2 items are, at same prices.

lucho

20.05.2008, 17:54

@ Steve
 

DR-DOS 8

 

> v8 is not listed at their website anymore. The other 2 items are, at same prices.

They withdrew it along with 8.1 which was proved to be phony by Udo and myself (it included an old version of the Udo's work, some PKWARE tools and some FreeDOS utilities without source code or even credit to anyone). Jim Hall asked them to comply with the GPL and they didn't. But after this story started to "stink" too much, they decided to remove version 8.1 instead. The question is why they removed version 8.0 too? It was 100% theirs and included much improved versions of some utlities. It may be becase its FAT32 support didn't work "as advertised". I don't know...

Anyway, this example shows how the GPL really works, unlike their strange licence.

Rugxulo(R)

Homepage

Usono,
20.05.2008, 21:49

@ Steve
 

EDR-DOS

 

> > OpenDOS/DR-DOS ... The source is a mess anyways (from what I hear),
> > needing several compilers and assemblers (6 or 7 toolsets).
>
> Matthias Paul covers that in
> Caldera OpenDOS - A
> fresh breeze in DOS technology (English version) and
> Caldera OpenDOS -
> Frischer Wind für DOS (German version). He says some of the code
> might go back to CP/M.

According to this FAQ:

"Estimates on source size are around 2900 files (53 Mb), plus another 2700 (78 Mb) for tools (until they can reduce the number of tools needed)"

"Caldera inherited a weird source control system that all the sources are stored in, and they use an even more weird build system. Getting them "releasable" is a two step process. First is to get all new makefiles written. At last estimate, there are about 120+ of them. After the makefile for each package is complete, it will be sent back to Caldera for approval. Gene assumes that they will release each package as the extraction/new makefile is done for each, but he's not sure. He really can't predict a timeline right now."

"Each part is built with a different development package. To build everything (once the sources are found and cleaned up), you'll need nine different development packages to build it all. The hope is that this list can be reduced to two or three. The current list is approximately "Turbo Cv2,v3, BCC v2,v3.1, Watcom C v7, 3 versions of MASM, 2 version of TASM... and a partridge in a pear tree.....", according to Gene! EMM386 is all in assembler. "

Also, notice this:

"Caldera has promised to make the sources for OpenDOS available to anyone, and OpenDOS may be used (modified or otherwise) without a license for any non-commercial use (i.e. your home computer). It is NOT freeware, public domain, shareware, or GPL. It is copyrighted by Caldera. "

Basically, they changed their mind, sold it off, and that was the end of that. So much for improving it, adding DPMI 1.0 w/ virtual memory, TCP/IP, etc.

EDIT: I don't count nine, only five or ten (take your pick). :-P

lucho

21.05.2008, 20:18

@ Rugxulo
 

DR-DOS vs. MS-DOS source code

 

> "Estimates on source size are around 2900 files (53 Mb), plus another
> 2700 (78 Mb) for tools (until they can reduce the number of tools needed)"

MS-DOS has more: over 4000 files and over 60 MB of source and tools only for the "leaked" part (subdirectories starting with A to I - the full list is probably about thrice as big, assuming that the starting letters of subdirectories are evenly distributed).

> The current list is approximately "Turbo Cv2,v3, BCC v2,v3.1, Watcom C v7,
> 3 versions of MASM, 2 version of TASM... and a partridge in a pear tree.....",
> according to Gene!

Not surprisingly, Microsfot used only their own tools - MSC, MASM, SED and some other utilities.

> EMM386 is all in assembler.

Also for MS-DOS.

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
21.05.2008, 22:10

@ lucho
 

DR-DOS vs. MS-DOS source code

 

> MS-DOS has more: over 4000 files and over 60 MB of source and tools only
> for the "leaked" part (subdirectories starting with A to I - the full list
> ...

Please understand that we don't talk about "leaked" programs or other illegal stuff in this forum. Thank you!

lucho

22.05.2008, 15:40

@ rr
 

Micro$0ft

 

> Please understand that we don't talk about "leaked" programs or other
> illegal stuff in this forum. Thank you!

Sorry, for any other company but Micro$0ft I would agree with you. But Micro$0ft deserve the worst punishment for the great damage that they've done to the world and my opinion is that they should be disbanded forcefully and all their billions should be given to Africa, including the personal wealth of William Henry Gates III. No person that I know really respects them, except, at least officially, some colleagues, whose job is connected with them and they don't want to "cut the branch they're sitting on".

Do you really respect them or just fear them as do millions of people worldwide?

OK, I understand, so I won't "pull the lion's tail" anymore. My apologies!

lucho

20.05.2008, 08:24

@ Steve
 

EDR-DOS

 

> > The public availability of a source code means that it's open, doesn't it?
>
> No.

So I don't know English at all.

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
20.05.2008, 09:47

@ lucho
 

EDR-DOS

 

> > > The public availability of a
> source
> code means that it's open, doesn't it?
> >
> > No.
>
> So I don't know English at all.

It's just a little bit difficult. ;-) There's the term "open source" as defined in Open Source Definition (OSD) by the Open Source Initiative. And there are just the words "open" and "source" concatenated. So yes, it's open source (because you're allowed to look at it), but not in the meaning of the OSD.

lucho

20.05.2008, 10:08

@ rr
 

EDR-DOS

 

> So yes, it's open source (because you're allowed to look at it)

Not only look at it, but also modify it, which is exactly what Udo does.

> but not in the meaning of the OSD.

OK, does this mean that only source code released under some of the OSI-approved licences is open?
If so, maybe even 4DOS isn't open-source then?!

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
20.05.2008, 10:17

@ lucho
 

EDR-DOS

 

> > but not in the meaning of the OSD.
>
> OK, does this mean that only source code released under some of the
> OSI-approved licences is open?

No. It's the same with "Windows" and "Windows". Which one is the operating system and which one is the "hole in wall"? It depends on the context, but there's still room for interpretation, because these are very common words.

lucho

20.05.2008, 10:52

@ rr
 

WINDOWS and GATES

 

> No. It's the same with "Windows" and "Windows". Which one is the operating
> system and which one is the "hole in wall"? It depends on the context, but
> there's still room for interpretation, because these are very common words.

The difference is in the first letter, it's capital for the OS and small for the real window. If you "capitalise" both, the ambiguity becomes full, like in the following pun which I made up more than a decade ago (not to be taken too seriously!):

THIS PROGRAM REQUIRES CLOSED WINDOWS AND OPEN GATES. GATES MUST BE OPENED BY A QUALIFIED SURGEON.

:-D :-D :-D

marcov(R)

21.05.2008, 14:39

@ rr
 

EDR-DOS

 

> It's just a little bit difficult. ;-) There's the term "open source" as
> defined in Open Source
> Definition (OSD) by the Open
> Source Initiative
. And there are just the words "open" and "source"
> concatenated. So yes, it's open source (because you're allowed to look at
> it), but not in the meaning of the OSD.

That's a bit revisionist. Much of Open Source originated in the early unix world, stuff that was all still strictly not legally redistributable. (the unix source was copyrighted).

The open source was more like being available to users and them to modify and recompile them for own use. Rights for redistribution were a separate idealized goal, but that was added only later after GNU.

lucho

21.05.2008, 20:34

@ marcov
 

Lawyers

 

> Much of Open Source originated in the early unix world

Things were much simpler in the good old times, not so much formalised and legalised.

> The open source was more like being available to users and them to modify
> and recompile them for own use. Rights for redistribution were a separate
> idealized goal, but that was added only later after GNU.

So what was once open source may no longer be, and what source is open and what not is now decided by a committee of lawyers, specialists in the so-called "intellectual property".

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" - Dick the Butcher, Henry VI, William Shakespeare (http://www.spectacle.org/797/finkel.html)

Khusraw

21.05.2008, 21:36
(edited by Khusraw, 21.05.2008, 23:17)

@ marcov
 

EDR-DOS

 

In the (Edit: EVOLVED :-D :-D :-D) burgeoise society people have THE REAL thing left: to simulate. To simulate thought, love, pain etc., i.e. everything human. Nothing serious, nothing sincere, only simulation. Long live THE LAWYER!

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
21.05.2008, 22:13

@ Khusraw
 

EDR-DOS

 

> In the burgeoise society people have THE REAL thing left: to simulate. To
> simulate thought, love, pain etc., i.e. everything human. Nothing serious,
> nothing sincere, only simulation. Long live THE LAWYER!

This discussion is off topic here. If you wish to continue, please start a new thread in category "Miscellaneous". Thank you!

Khusraw

21.05.2008, 22:49

@ rr
 

EDR-DOS

 

> This discussion is off topic here. If you wish to continue, please start a
> new thread in category "Miscellaneous". Thank you!

What have to do lawerish things with DOS? If you accept the lawerish things, accept also my comments. And please be mature enough to understand that if I post here I'm not bound to bow the head after your moods. I registered here ony to help, I had nothing new to learn. If you want to ban me, BAN ME WHENEVER YOU WANT... Please belive me that I have nothing to lose. I only answered, never asked.

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
21.05.2008, 23:35

@ Khusraw
 

EDR-DOS

 

> > This discussion is off topic here. If you wish to continue, please start
> a
> > new thread in category "Miscellaneous". Thank you!
>
> What have to do lawerish things with DOS?

All and nothing like any other software.

> If you accept the lawerish things, accept also my comments.

I accepted your comment, of course. But I think, it was time to stop this thread, because it became off topic in a MultiDOS thread. Yours was the last answer, so I replied to you. Nothing there to get me wrong.

> And please be mature enough to understand that if I post here I'm not bound
> to bow the head after your moods.

Did I request anything like that?

> I registered here ony to help, I had nothing new to learn.

You're still welcome!

> If you want to ban me, BAN ME WHENEVER YOU WANT... Please belive me that I
> have nothing to lose. I only answered, never asked.

Why do you always get pissed by simple pleas? Maybe you should better think about your moods.

Khusraw

21.05.2008, 23:44

@ rr
 

EDR-DOS

 

> Why do you always get pissed by simple pleas? Maybe you should better
> think about your moods.

Nice and expected reaction. Perhaps you have to edit your post?!

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
22.05.2008, 07:48

@ Khusraw
 

EDR-DOS

 

> > Why do you always get pissed by simple pleas? Maybe you should better
> > think about your moods.
>
> ... Perhaps you have to edit your post?!

Why should I? Whatever I write you see it as a personal attack. So it doesn't really matter.

Khusraw

22.05.2008, 09:29
(edited by Khusraw, 22.05.2008, 09:45)

@ rr
 

EDR-DOS

 

> Why should I? Whatever I write you see it as a personal attack. So it
> doesn't really matter.

You totally misunderstand me. We can't be always serious. When people put too much passion in a discussion I deliberately impersonate the troll in order to relax the atmosphere. I only play a character. My intention is to amuse, not to offend, and I don't feel at all offended or personaly attacked by the replies. This is my way of joking. You are missing this because perhaps we have a different kind of humour. If you want to know what we find amusing here, please read about our celebrated Republic of Ploiesti.

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
22.05.2008, 10:06

@ Khusraw
 

EDR-DOS

 

> > Why should I? Whatever I write you see it as a personal attack. So it
> > doesn't really matter.
>
> You totally misunderstand me.

Erm, I see.

> This is my way of joking. You are missing this because perhaps we have a
> different kind of humour.

I think, I'm missing that, because English is not our native language and because you never use any smilies. I can't see your face to guess your mood, when you're writing here.

Khusraw

21.05.2008, 23:58

@ rr
 

EDR-DOS

 

In the burgeoise society the LAW is always interpretable. Only the LAWYER can bring light. There is a joke: "Let the lawyer judge!".

lucho

22.05.2008, 16:19

@ Khusraw
 

Lawyers and DOS

 

> In the burgeoise society the LAW is always interpretable. Only the LAWYER
> can bring light. There is a joke: "Let the lawyer judge!".

Very true! If you've watched the film "A few good men", they show very well how the lawyers of both sides decide the output of trial before the trial begins.

But I bet that no lawyer will waste his time with any DOS legal issues now. They know that it's regarded too obsolete. So except for ethical restrictions, legal restrictions about DOS nowadays look like the legal restrictions for motor cars applied to horse powered vehicles (or maybe vice-versa, depending on the point of view)...

lucho

22.05.2008, 16:03

@ Steve
 

Open source vs. free software

 

> > The public availability of a source code means that it's open, doesn't it?
>
> No.

I tend to agree with the FSF stance on open source:

"Free software is a political movement; open source is a development model."

So you're wrong - if the source is open, this is open source, but not necessarily free software.

Japheth(R)

Homepage

Germany (South),
19.05.2008, 10:00

@ Steve
 

Do you know MultiDOS?

 

>
> site are not supported - no drivers to read them from DOS. Also, EDR-DOS
> is free but not Open Source

It's not freeware, since the license is restricted to an "evaluation" period.

> Haven't played with it, don't plan to - it has nothing special. But I'm
> sure Japheth will want to see how someone uses EDR-DOS.

I like EDR-DOS a lot, but since my evaluation period has expired, I cannot use it anymore.

---
MS-DOS forever!

lucho

19.05.2008, 10:38

@ Japheth
 

OpenDOS licence

 

> I like EDR-DOS a lot, but since my evaluation period has expired, I cannot
> use it anymore.

If your use is non-commercial, the evaluation period is undetermined, so you can't know whether it's expired or not:

> The evaluation period for use by or on behalf of a commercial entity is
> limited to 90 days; evaluation use by others is not subject to this 90 day
> limit but is still limited to a reasonable period

Nobody can say how long this "reasonable period" is.

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
19.05.2008, 11:27

@ lucho
 

OpenDOS licence

 

> > The evaluation period for use by or on behalf of a commercial entity is
> > limited to 90 days; evaluation use by others is not subject to this 90
> day
> > limit but is still limited to a reasonable period
>
> Nobody can say how long this "reasonable period" is.

That's why I don't use it.

lucho

19.05.2008, 14:53

@ rr
 

OpenDOS licence

 

> > Nobody can say how long this "reasonable period" is.
>
> That's why I don't use it.

This licence reminds me the absurd English laws dated 5 centuries ago, not speaking that it's unenforceable. So, don't worry, if you like it - use it.

rr(R)

Homepage E-mail

Berlin, Germany,
19.05.2008, 15:25

@ lucho
 

OpenDOS licence

 

> > > Nobody can say how long this "reasonable period" is.
> >
> > That's why I don't use it.
>
> This licence reminds me the absurd English laws dated 5 centuries ago, not
> speaking that it's unenforceable. So, don't worry, if you like it - use it.

No, thanks. I have valid MS-DOS licences here. Plus there's FreeDOS.

Back to index page
Thread view  Board view
15108 Postings in 1358 Threads, 246 registered users, 12 users online (0 registered, 12 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum