DOS ain't dead - In case you missed it...

xChris

Birmingham, UK,
26.03.2014, 17:39

In case you missed it... (Miscellaneous)

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

Rugxulo Usono, 26.03.2014, 18:27 @ xChris	In case you missed it... Post reply
	"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

Birmingham, UK,
26.03.2014, 19:26

@ Rugxulo

In case you missed it...

Post reply

> "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

27.03.2014, 10:28

@ xChris

In case you missed it...

Post reply

> 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

30.03.2014, 14:59

@ bocke

piracy

Post reply

> 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

01.04.2014, 15:22

@ DOS386

piracy

Post reply

> > 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

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

@ bocke

piracy

Post reply

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

Australia,
02.04.2014, 04:46

@ glennmcc

piracy

Post reply

> 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

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

@ bocke

piracy

Post reply

> 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"....