From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Using Freedos in 2022
======================
I recently spoke with an older coworker of me (he is a bit over 70, semi- retired and an electronics - genius), who asked me if i could come over
to his house some day and help him with a few problems regarding his new
PC.

So, this weekend i grabbed my bicycle and rode over to him. He has now an semi-modern Fujitsu Thinkcentre and had already copied over all files from
his old computer and installed every software he needs. The only problem he
has is to get online. So, no problem you would probably think. The catch:
He uses FreeDOS as his primary operating system and since the days of
MS-DOS 6.22 never made the transition to Windows or Linux. So... this was
going to be an interesting afternoon.

To give you a perspective what software he uses daily (as far as i can remember):

* WordPerfect as text processor
* As-Easy-As as spreasheet calculator
* Arachne as webbrowser, email- and ftp software

Followed by a large collection of Shareware and PD Software for various
tasks.

But returning to the problem how to get him online: His main problem was
that he had no DOS compatible driver for integrated network card on his mainboard. I started to dig in the various (surprisingly plenty!) DOS
related forums and stumbled upon a nice tool named NICSCAN.EXE by
Georg Potthast [1] which should be able to identify the build in
network adapter. Which it did. The network card turned out to be Broadcom Netlink 57XX compatible so we just needed to download the packet driver
from Mr. Potthast's site, copy it over to his computer and put it into
his fdauto.bat (think of it as an init script). After this we only needed
to edit his wattcp.cfg (the network config of FreeDOS) and he was ready
to go again (things like configuring his email and so on was no problem
for him).

So... why did he stay with DOS i asked him. He answered that he liked the simplicity of the OS, that it is - at least in his opinion - more "human
sized" than bigger OSes like Linux or - god beware! - Windows. And, after taking a longer look at FreeDOS i kinda like it. It has clearly evolved
from its humble origins, and comes now with USB support, an apt like
package manager, Fat32 support and kinda everything you would otherwise
seek in a modern console based os. I think i will give it a try someday
in the future...

[1] <http://www.georgpotthast.de/sioux/packet.htm>

From: <gopher://sdf.org/0/users/ralfwause/freedos.txt>
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 4/21/2024 5:07 PM, Ben Collver wrote:

So... why did he stay with DOS i asked him. He answered that he liked the simplicity of the OS, that it is - at least in his opinion - more "human sized" than bigger OSes like Linux or - god beware! - Windows. And, after taking a longer look at FreeDOS i kinda like it. It has clearly evolved
from its humble origins, and comes now with USB support, an apt like
package manager, Fat32 support and kinda everything you would otherwise
seek in a modern console based os. I think i will give it a try someday
in the future...

I do like FreeDOS as such, but I would argue that Linux is much more
adaptable to human use. But well, I just like unixoid systems a lot.
I did start with MS-DOS when I was a kid, and I liked it back then, but
it always had too many limitations.
--
microblog: https://dice.camp/@kyonshi
macroblog: https://gmkeros.wordpress.com
pictures: https://portfolio.pixelfed.de/kyonshi
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> wrote:

Using Freedos in 2022
======================

<snip>

I think i will give it a try someday in the future...

[1] <http://www.georgpotthast.de/sioux/packet.htm>

From: <gopher://sdf.org/0/users/ralfwause/freedos.txt>

You and me both :)
I really miss the simplicity of DOS.
--
[t]csh(1) - "An elegant shell, for a more... civilized age."
- Paraphrasing Star Wars
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 2024-04-22, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/21/2024 5:07 PM, Ben Collver wrote:
I do like FreeDOS as such, but I would argue that Linux is much more adaptable to human use. But well, I just like unixoid systems a lot.
I did start with MS-DOS when I was a kid, and I liked it back then, but
it always had too many limitations.

From my start i tried to make DOS more Unix-like. Borland had
grep.exe and i remember using DesqView for multi-tasking.

Soapbox time:

Now i use Linux as my daily driver. As to whether Linux or DOS are
more human scale, i think it is similar to asking "Which is simpler?
ASCII or Unicode?" The obvious answer is that ASCII is simpler
because it is a subset of Unicode. But there's more to it than that.
All the world is not a Vax, so to say.

I still can't shake the obvious answer. ASCII is easier to fit into
my head than Unicode. The DOS source code is easier to grep through
than the Linux source code, simply because it is so much smaller.
A pocket-sized paper calendar seems to have fewer points of failure
than a digital calendar.

Another question is how far back will a retro-enthusiast rewind the
clock? In my case i am not inclined to use an abacus, sliderule,
pre-ASCII, or even pseudo-ASCII computers. But i think it is
important for people to enjoy those hobbies, if they wish, in order
to keep in touch with history and stay "honest".

I used to work with a supervisor whose father did not have a formal
education in engineering, but his hobby was to build model steam
engines that would perform different kinds of work. Steam engines
are undeniably obsolete but the steam engine itself is not the
important part. The important parts are the ingenuity and
resourcefulness that enable an uneducated person to construct working
steam engines. In my mind, these are not associated with the status
quo. They are outliers who are willing to try something different.

Linux used to be something different. It was the upstart perceived as
too much of a risk by the business types. Now it is Linux people in
positions of leadership who are labelling outliers as irrelevant.
Success went to their heads, so to say.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> wrote:

On 2024-04-22, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/21/2024 5:07 PM, Ben Collver wrote:
I do like FreeDOS as such, but I would argue that Linux is much more
adaptable to human use. But well, I just like unixoid systems a lot.
I did start with MS-DOS when I was a kid, and I liked it back then, but
it always had too many limitations.

From my start i tried to make DOS more Unix-like. Borland had
grep.exe and i remember using DesqView for multi-tasking.

I like the simplicity of DOS too, but when people talk about using
it instead of modern Linux or Windows it occours to me that after
loading USB, Ethernet, file system (long file name support), and
mouse drivers, Maybe even a full multi-tasking user environment as
you suggest, you're basically building a complex modern OS on top
of DOS one TSR program at a time. But without much documentation or
support. To that end you can run loadlin.exe and just boot Linux
from DOS (or start pre-NT Windows).

Perhaps the nice thing about FreeDOS could be that you can choose
exactly how much of that complexity you want more easily?
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 2024-04-22, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:

I like the simplicity of DOS too, but when people talk about using
it instead of modern Linux or Windows it occours to me that after
loading USB, Ethernet, file system (long file name support), and
mouse drivers, Maybe even a full multi-tasking user environment as
you suggest, you're basically building a complex modern OS on top
of DOS one TSR program at a time. But without much documentation or
support. To that end you can run loadlin.exe and just boot Linux
from DOS (or start pre-NT Windows).

Perhaps the nice thing about FreeDOS could be that you can choose
exactly how much of that complexity you want more easily?

Much of this stuff is a matter of perspective. For someone who has
never touched DOS, it will represent MORE complexity since it is an
additional learning curve on top of whatever they are used to. And
with all that configurability and minimalism come a lot of corner
cases and gotchas.

What got me started on my present retro kick was trying to run a
Linux VM on hardware that wasn't really up to the task. Then i
started DOSBox on the same hardware and it was quite zippy. I had
GNU stuff from DJGPP and some games.

In my perspective, this is where i see DOS shine. Within single-task constraints, the OS can run equivalent programs using a fraction of
the resources. A recent stock Linux kernel can't really do anything
useful in 32 mb of memory, but DOS can.

Useful for what? Not for consuming mass media. For making old
hardware run, for tinkering around, and having fun. For example: https://krg.club/gb3kd/
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote at 22:20 this Monday (GMT):

Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> wrote:

On 2024-04-22, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/21/2024 5:07 PM, Ben Collver wrote:
I do like FreeDOS as such, but I would argue that Linux is much more
adaptable to human use. But well, I just like unixoid systems a lot.
I did start with MS-DOS when I was a kid, and I liked it back then, but >>> it always had too many limitations.

From my start i tried to make DOS more Unix-like. Borland had
grep.exe and i remember using DesqView for multi-tasking.

I like the simplicity of DOS too, but when people talk about using
it instead of modern Linux or Windows it occours to me that after
loading USB, Ethernet, file system (long file name support), and
mouse drivers, Maybe even a full multi-tasking user environment as
you suggest, you're basically building a complex modern OS on top
of DOS one TSR program at a time. But without much documentation or
support. To that end you can run loadlin.exe and just boot Linux
from DOS (or start pre-NT Windows).

Perhaps the nice thing about FreeDOS could be that you can choose
exactly how much of that complexity you want more easily?

Ironically, Windows was built on DOS too.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 15:10:10 -0000 (UTC)
candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:

Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote at 22:20 this Monday (GMT):

Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> wrote:

On 2024-04-22, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/21/2024 5:07 PM, Ben Collver wrote:
I do like FreeDOS as such, but I would argue that Linux is much more
adaptable to human use. But well, I just like unixoid systems a lot.
I did start with MS-DOS when I was a kid, and I liked it back then, but >>> it always had too many limitations.

From my start i tried to make DOS more Unix-like. Borland had
grep.exe and i remember using DesqView for multi-tasking.

I like the simplicity of DOS too, but when people talk about using
it instead of modern Linux or Windows it occours to me that after
loading USB, Ethernet, file system (long file name support), and
mouse drivers, Maybe even a full multi-tasking user environment as
you suggest, you're basically building a complex modern OS on top
of DOS one TSR program at a time. But without much documentation or support. To that end you can run loadlin.exe and just boot Linux
from DOS (or start pre-NT Windows).

Perhaps the nice thing about FreeDOS could be that you can choose
exactly how much of that complexity you want more easily?

Ironically, Windows was built on DOS too.

A promising alternative was MS DOS 5's "DOSShell" program, but that go
killed off to save Windows sales.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosshell
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 17:49:58 +0100
"Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 15:10:10 -0000 (UTC)
candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:

Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote at 22:20 this Monday (GMT):

Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> wrote:

On 2024-04-22, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/21/2024 5:07 PM, Ben Collver wrote:
I do like FreeDOS as such, but I would argue that Linux is much more

[]

Ironically, Windows was built on DOS too.

A promising alternative was MS DOS 5's "DOSShell" program, but that go
killed off to save Windows sales.

DOS 4.0, sorry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosshell

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote at 16:49 this Tuesday (GMT):

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 15:10:10 -0000 (UTC)
candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> wrote:

Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote at 22:20 this Monday (GMT):

Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> wrote:

On 2024-04-22, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/21/2024 5:07 PM, Ben Collver wrote:
I do like FreeDOS as such, but I would argue that Linux is much more
adaptable to human use. But well, I just like unixoid systems a lot.
I did start with MS-DOS when I was a kid, and I liked it back then, but >> >>> it always had too many limitations.

From my start i tried to make DOS more Unix-like. Borland had
grep.exe and i remember using DesqView for multi-tasking.

I like the simplicity of DOS too, but when people talk about using
it instead of modern Linux or Windows it occours to me that after
loading USB, Ethernet, file system (long file name support), and
mouse drivers, Maybe even a full multi-tasking user environment as
you suggest, you're basically building a complex modern OS on top
of DOS one TSR program at a time. But without much documentation or
support. To that end you can run loadlin.exe and just boot Linux
from DOS (or start pre-NT Windows).

Perhaps the nice thing about FreeDOS could be that you can choose
exactly how much of that complexity you want more easily?

Ironically, Windows was built on DOS too.

A promising alternative was MS DOS 5's "DOSShell" program, but that go
killed off to save Windows sales.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosshell

Interesting, I'd never heard of it.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> wrote:

On 2024-04-22, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:

I like the simplicity of DOS too, but when people talk about using
it instead of modern Linux or Windows it occours to me that after
loading USB, Ethernet, file system (long file name support), and
mouse drivers, Maybe even a full multi-tasking user environment as
you suggest, you're basically building a complex modern OS on top
of DOS one TSR program at a time. But without much documentation or
support. To that end you can run loadlin.exe and just boot Linux
from DOS (or start pre-NT Windows).

Perhaps the nice thing about FreeDOS could be that you can choose
exactly how much of that complexity you want more easily?

Much of this stuff is a matter of perspective. For someone who has
never touched DOS, it will represent MORE complexity since it is an additional learning curve on top of whatever they are used to.

Well it's less complex for the computer running it. Hence faster to
start, more memory free. But for the human trying to understand it
all, yes it did come with a book-sized manual, and a lot of
standard Linux functionality only becomes available once you load
3rd party TSR programs on top of that, which have their own
documentation to read.

What got me started on my present retro kick was trying to run a
Linux VM on hardware that wasn't really up to the task. Then i
started DOSBox on the same hardware and it was quite zippy. I had
GNU stuff from DJGPP and some games.

In my perspective, this is where i see DOS shine. Within single-task constraints, the OS can run equivalent programs using a fraction of
the resources. A recent stock Linux kernel can't really do anything
useful in 32 mb of memory, but DOS can.

32MB is pretty generous and really if you build a current Linux
kernel with minimal options enabled and drivers built-in (still
doing far more than a bare DOS installation), you'll have over half
of that RAM free. The trouble is that all the user-space software
you run on top will usually chew through RAM even more agressively.
But Linux doesn't make you run all that software, to run a single
program you could start the kernel with "init=my_program" and it
will just run "my_program", nothing else, and if my_program doesn't
need more than ~16MB RAM then you're set. Like I said before you
can even use LOADLIN.EXE to start Linux from DOS, so you could even
select Linux programs to launch from inside DOS and start them like
that using LOADLIN. You'd have to reboot when you're done though.

I doubt you could build current Linux kernels to be useful on a
computer with 3MB of RAM, but if you go back to Linux software from
the very end of the MSDOS era then you get things like BasicLinux: http://distro.ibiblio.org/baslinux/

There you also have the advantage of the software running on top of
Linux being smaller and faster because it's all become so much
fatter since then. DOS software generally didn't get enough
attention in years after that in order to get fat.

But of course the real case for DOS is if you want a useful system
with 640KB of RAM, and there Linux won't help you. In fact if you
never need more than 640KB of RAM in your life then DOS is pretty
much made for you. :)

Useful for what? Not for consuming mass media. For making old
hardware run, for tinkering around, and having fun. For example: https://krg.club/gb3kd/

That looks like something where a single-task OS might be an
advantage for real-time operation. Another example of how the
technical complexity of Linux can be a disadvantage.
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 12:20:08 -0000 (UTC), John McCue wrote:

I really miss the simplicity of DOS.

Nobody is stopping you from running it.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:05:38 -0000 (UTC), Ben Collver wrote:

Linux used to be something different. It was the upstart perceived as
too much of a risk by the business types. Now it is Linux people in positions of leadership who are labelling outliers as irrelevant.

Linux is Open Source, and Open Source is whatever you want to make it.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 15:10:10 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:

Ironically, Windows was built on DOS too.

And it still carries some of that 8-bit legacy, like an albatross around
its neck. Example: drive letters.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 00:34:29 -0000 (UTC), Ben Collver wrote:

What got me started on my present retro kick was trying to run a Linux
VM on hardware that wasn't really up to the task. Then i started DOSBox
on the same hardware and it was quite zippy. I had GNU stuff from DJGPP
and some games.

How about xv6, a reimagining of Bell Labs Unix version 6 <https://github.com/mit-pdos>?

Or UZI, a Unix-like system for a Z80 processor <https://github.com/chettrick/uzics>? Or something similar for the 6502-
based C64 <https://github.com/ytmytm/c64-lng>?
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 07:52:10 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 15:10:10 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:

Ironically, Windows was built on DOS too.

And it still carries some of that 8-bit legacy, like an albatross around
its neck. Example: drive letters.

Do keep up. You've been able to mount drives on folders for a long time
now.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 12:20:08 -0000 (UTC), John McCue wrote:

I really miss the simplicity of DOS.

Nobody is stopping you from running it.

True

But I hate VMs and I need to find hardware, plus, more
importantly, a place to set up the hardware where I am
living now :)
--
[t]csh(1) - "An elegant shell, for a more... civilized age."
- Paraphrasing Star Wars
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote at 09:26 this Wednesday (GMT):

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 07:52:10 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 15:10:10 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:

Ironically, Windows was built on DOS too.

And it still carries some of that 8-bit legacy, like an albatross around
its neck. Example: drive letters.

Do keep up. You've been able to mount drives on folders for a long time
now.

The option is kinda hidden in the Device Manager.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 2024-04-24, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

How about xv6, a reimagining of Bell Labs Unix version 6
<https://github.com/mit-pdos>?

I was unaware of xv6. Seriously cool, thanks! I'm adding
that to my list of things to check out.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

In article <l8s1hsFt8lfU2@mid.individual.net>,
Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 07:52:10 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 15:10:10 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:

Ironically, Windows was built on DOS too.

And it still carries some of that 8-bit legacy, like an albatross around
its neck. Example: drive letters.

Do keep up. You've been able to mount drives on folders for a long time
now.

Try telling that to (l)users. I might refer to network shares by their UNC path, but most of the people I work with have those shares mapped to various drive letters. They're not always the same between departments, or even
within departments, and we have no documentation of who's using what drive letters to map to which shares. It can make troubleshooting a bit of a
pain. :-P
--
_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

John McCue <jmclnx@SPAMisBADgmail.com> wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 12:20:08 -0000 (UTC), John McCue wrote:

I really miss the simplicity of DOS.

Nobody is stopping you from running it.

True

But I hate VMs and I need to find hardware, plus, more
importantly, a place to set up the hardware where I am
living now :)

It doesn't take much hardware, which is part of the nice thing about it!
And FreeDOS will actually run off a USB stick, which makes it incredibly
handy to run small stuff because you don't have to dedicate a machine completely to it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:04:43 -0000 (UTC)
Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> wrote:

On 2024-04-24, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

How about xv6, a reimagining of Bell Labs Unix version 6
<https://github.com/mit-pdos>?

I was unaware of xv6. Seriously cool, thanks! I'm adding
that to my list of things to check out.

from github

comment from Auf 2020

Be more explicit that we are not maintaining the x86 version anymore
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:30:10 +0000, candycanearter07 wrote:

Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote at 09:26 this Wednesday (GMT):

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 07:52:10 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 15:10:10 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:

Ironically, Windows was built on DOS too.

And it still carries some of that 8-bit legacy, like an albatross
around its neck. Example: drive letters.

Do keep up. You've been able to mount drives on folders for a long time
now.

The option is kinda hidden in the Device Manager.

Or in Disk Management, which is perfectly logical.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

In article <20240424200725.00a0ffad377d868938b9f670@127.0.0.1>,
Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:04:43 -0000 (UTC)
Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> wrote:

On 2024-04-24, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

How about xv6, a reimagining of Bell Labs Unix version 6
<https://github.com/mit-pdos>?

I was unaware of xv6. Seriously cool, thanks! I'm adding
that to my list of things to check out.

from github

comment from Auf 2020

Be more explicit that we are not maintaining the x86 version anymore

xv6 is a pedagogical system, and not really suitable for general
purpose use (by design). MIT has switched the nexus of their
instructional materials to RISC-V; that versioin of xv6 is still
maintained, but as a pedagogical system is deliberately almost
too simple to be generally useful.

There are reimplementations that may or may not be more useful.
For example, I did a reimplementation a few years ago in Rust: https://github.com/dancrossnyc/rxv64

- Dan C.

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 20:07:25 +0100, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

Be more explicit that we are not maintaining the x86 version anymore

Notice the versions they *are* maintaining?
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:30:10 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:

The option is kinda hidden in the Device Manager.

Why is it an “option”, in this day and age?
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 12:32:11 -0000 (UTC), John McCue wrote:

... I hate VMs ...

You hate tools which were invented specifically to make it easier what you would like to do?
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 22:21 this Wednesday (GMT):

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:30:10 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:

The option is kinda hidden in the Device Manager.

Why is it an “option”, in this day and age?

Tradition, probably.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 22:20:58 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 20:07:25 +0100, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

Be more explicit that we are not maintaining the x86 version anymore

Notice the versions they *are* maintaining?

No I didn't; all my computers are x86.
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Being partial to DOS-era games, I've adopted FreeDOS for my
Am386-based gaming box, which I also occasionally use for
other purposes (such as taking notes or listening to .mod /
.rad / etc. music.) So I suppose I can add my $0.02 to the
thread as well.

The advantages of using such a setup are pretty obvious:

* it's a system you can, with reasonable effort, get to know
very much inside-out; it's simple and stable enough that
it won't surprise you with a sudden change of, say, its
init system (if only for the reason that it doesn't have
any to speak of in the first place);

* it can run on older hardware that you either already have
or can get for little to no cost; it won't require you to
shop for newer hardware, ever, not even when you decide to
upgrade to a newer version;

* there's a decent selection of reasonably lightweight
software, written over the decades of DOS existence.

Nevertheless, for the reasons I'll try to elaborate
upon below, it's by no means a perfect solution for every
concievable use case. I hope it doesn't come off as
discouraging, but I believe than one looking to make use
of FreeDOS is better to have an idea of the obstacles they
might face.

Corrections and constructive criticism are of course welcome.


First and foremost, FreeDOS doesn't seem to have much manpower
behind it. Some of its software was ported, rather than
written from scratch, and going by the listing.gz [1] file,
some of the ports lag behind the latest upstream versions.
For example, of the software I use both in and out of FreeDOS,
the latter's versions are:

vim 7.3a - Improved version of the "vi" editor
lynx 2.9.0-dev.10r2 - Lynx text and graphics WWW browser

[1] http://ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/repositories/latest
/listing.gz (URI split for readability.)

For comparison, on my Debian "Bookworm" (current stable)
install, I have those at versions 9.0.1378 and 2.9.0-dev.12,
respectively. And while I'm hardly in the habit of chasing
latest software features, I /do/ interact with the outside
world, and as such, prefer to use software that is /maintained/
at least for security issues.

And despite of how unlikely this is to happen in practice,
I'd hesitate to open a random .txt file with FreeDOS' Vim for
the concern that such an old version might have an unfixed
bug that'll cause it to, say, format my SSD (CF) C:.

This is also a more pressing concern for FreeDOS than it'd
be for a multiuser system, as not only it lacks the concept
of user privilege separation, it also doesn't separate user-
and kernel-spaces. Attempting to access the IDE controller
directly on a Unix-like x86 system outside of the system's
kernel code will earn you SIGSEGV (or similar); not so in
FreeDOS.


Now, FreeDOS is a volunteer-driven effort anyone can contribute
to, so the manpower issue is something the community, in
principle, /can/ fix. There's a catch, though. If you're
familiar with, say, NetBSD, you might expect to install GCC
and tools, unpack the sources, patch them as strikes your
fancy, run $ make, and have the system built.

Won't be as simple with FreeDOS, alas: a lot of the software
there was developed by volunteers over the course of decades,
and often using whichever development tools the particular
developer has had at hand. The system appears to supply a
plenty of compilers currently, such as DJGPP (DOS GCC x86-32
port), Open Watcom C/C++, IA-16 GCC fork, and Bruce's CC...
and yet you might stumble upon individual packages that
require Turbo C, or Turbo Pascal, to build.


One another issue is hardware compatibility. As a somewhat
"out of left field" example, one of my IRC pals [*] is living
off-the-grid and hence during the winter, about the only
computer they can run within their solar energy budget is an
outdated Android tablet. Quite obviously, they can't run
FreeDOS there, and neither can they replace it with some
random off-the-shelf FreeDOS-compatible machine, for power
consumption reasons alone.

[*] I'm currently on a break from most of my usual IRC channels,
but you can still find me on several low-traffic ones, such as
irc://irc.efnet.org/%23coders .

Most of the systems it'd be reasonable to run FreeDOS on are
only available second hand, and those come with reliability
implications. If your DOS box breaks, it's unlikely you'll
be able to replace it with the same model and make. Older
systems (up to about Pentium-class) are more of a collector's
item at this point, and are probably overpriced as such.

Newer systems will be cheaper, but will have their newer
idiosynchrasies, and incompatibilities as well; such as:

* system-wide drivers were more of an exception in DOS
software; you can run, say, Wolfenstein 3D on a relatively
recent x86 box, but the chances are that it won't have a
SoundBlaster-compatible audio card installed (on account
of most of those being ISA-based, and general purpose
mainboards haven't been equipped with ISA slots for some
15 years now); and it's one of the few ones the game
supports; same goes for audio players;

* another particular example is USB support, or the effective
lack thereof; sure, FreeDOS will support whichever keyboard
is supported by BIOS, and depending on the BIOS version,
that might include USB keyboards; other than that, I've had
some success running usbdos.zip, but it only supports UHCI,
and the use of such chips was apparently shortlived; I've
only found one on an AGP-enabled "i686" box; furthermore,
my understanding is that FreeDOS will only support the USB
mass storage device it's booted from (yet again, so far as
BIOS supports it), while flash drives attached while
FreeDOS is running won't be accessible;

* NIC packet drivers are somewhat of an exception: even
relatively recent NICs might have DOS-compatible drivers
available; they might be proprietary, though, and as such,
not part of FreeDOS;

* another issue is that, as a rule, DOS software doesn't make
use of the x86 HLT instruction, and thus it will keep the
CPU core it runs on busy all the time (FreeDOS core
components are an exception, though: if all you want to run
is COMMAND.COM, it /will/ use HLT as appropriate, provided
you have IDLEHALT=1 in your FDCONFIG.SYS); it wasn't much
of an issue for 386-class CPUs, but on more recent hardware,
it might make quite a difference, whether to your battery
time, or to your utility bill;

* the same applies to running FreeDOS under a virtual machine:
your idling good old text editor might be usable on a 286,
but it will still happily take 100% of one of your system's
GHz cores when run under QEMU.

One of the rather few alternatives I'm aware of are weeCee
(e. g., [2, 3]), which is a reasonably compact DOS-compatible
machine with a CS4237-based SoundBlaster-compatible audio.

[2] http://vogons.org/viewtopic.php?t=80651&start=580
[3] http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/History_of_video_games/Platforms/weeCee

If you're interested in running DOS software (rather than
a full standalone DOS system), the obvious choice is DOSBox.
As it inherently limits the amount of CPU cycles available
to guest software, the lack of HLTs is less of a problem.
However, it doesn't aim to offer as good /isolation/ as,
say, QEMU, so you might want to run it under a separate user
account, lest DOS malware tamper your host system $HOME.


For those curious, the following are specific issues I've
noticed over the years of using FreeDOS.

There're a few free (as in "free software") programs that I
think should've been included in the distribution, but aren't.
There's LDPCXTGA simplistic .pcx / .tga image viewer [4], and
there're SBMIX and ISAPNP packages [5, 6] that are essential
if your sound card is a software-configured (ISA PnP) one
(see, e. g., [7]. Granted, there's sound/sbpmixer.zip in [1],
now; no idea how it compares to SBMIX.)

[4] http://archive.org/download/simtelnet_bu_mirror_2013_04
/simtelnet.bu.mirror.2013.04.zip/simtelnet%2Fmsdos%2Fgraphics
%2Fldpcxtga.zip (URI split for readability.)
[5] http://roestockfox.co.uk/isapnptools/index.html
[6] http://bttr-software.de/products/sbmix/
[7] news:20220624105031.m6wk4sa7ztce6lkm@violet.siamics.net
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid
&MSGI=%3c20220624105031.m6wk4sa7ztce6lkm@violet.siamics.net%3e
(URI split for readability.)

On the topic of sound, the OpenCP player chokes on some ID3
tags in .mp3 files. (It's also too heavy on the CPU to be
of any use on a 386; though it does run well on a Pentium.)

The Adplay player included doesn't support some of the
formats (presumably those introduced after its last update in
2007) and also seems to have stability issues.

The FreeDOS kernel does have FAT32 support (unless I'm
misremembering: my primary FreeDOS box uses FAT16 / ECMA 107
for its 128 MB SSD), yet FreeDOS DEFRAG doesn't.

As to networking, it bears to mention that while a DOS packet
driver is a resident (TSR) program, the TCP/IP stack is a
library (+ support tools), statically-linked into a given
application. The traditional choice for such a library was
the Waterloo TCP (WATTCP) package. It is used by the FreeDOS
build of Lynx, among others. A newer (and, at a glance,
better / maintained) such package is mTCP. It comes with
such tools as PING, IRC and SNTP clients, and an HTTP/1 server.
Naturally, these packages / libraries each use their own
configuration files, which is potentially confusing.
Worse still, neither supports IPv6, which is a sure downer
for a /64 network operator and a networking amateur I am.
(I have a distinct recollection of being able to successfully
configure and use at least some parts of the picoTCP package,
but somehow, it's an experience I wasn't able to recreate.)


Lastly, on the alternatives. FreeDOS is a decent choice for
those intending to put their 8088- .. 80386-class systems to
good use. There's not much alternative even on Pentium-class
hardware when you're aiming to run (non-free) DOS-era software
on the box, such as games. (Though it should be noted that
some of the popular DOS games /do/ have free software ports /
clones; there's Chocolate Doom that aims to be very faithful
to the original, Tyr Quake, and much extended but still very
much in the same vein OpenTTD.)

If DOS-era software is not a concern, there's a Unix-like
ELKS system you can try instead on 8088- and 80286-class
hardware.

From 486DX onwards, it becomes possible to run NetBSD instead.
(Other *BSD systems might also support such hardware; NetBSD
is the only *BSD I'm personally familiar with.)

In case you have interest in OS development, and specifically
in exploring implementing OS internals in unconventional ways,
you can probably give GNU/Hurd a try.

Outside of x86, if you're looking for an embedded platform,
the 8-bit AVR MCUs are perhaps somewhat limited and costly,
but they're old enough to have good support from free software
development tools. Say, I was able to write a test suite for
the AVR firmware I've been developing in Perl (with Test::More)
and run it against said firmware loaded into the Simavr
emulator. Once debugged, it ran the same on the real MCU.

Then there's Z80 and CP/M. The latter was re-released under
a free software license a while back, though the terms were
somewhat vague until the copyright holder clarified them
several years ago. The hardware to run a CP/M install will
perhaps be even harder to come by, but Z80 reportedly has
considerable support from free software development tools
(check SDCC and z80pack, for instance.)

For STM32 and the like, there's Contiki-ng. It does come
with a TCP/IP stack, though in this day and age, networked
computers are probably better to support strong encryption
and remote SSH access to facilitate security upgrades and
emergency configuration tweaks.

Which in turn leads us to 64-bit ARM-based SBCs running the
aforementioned NetBSD, or GNU/Linux (see, e. g., [8].)
Sure, this thread was started [**] on the observation how one
doesn't need Chromium and Gnome and whatnot and can use FreeDOS
instead, but the point is: you don't need Chromium and Gnome
and whatnot even if you /don't/ use FreeDOS. For an example,
I use Lynx as my primary Web UA, and I've been ignoring DEs
for about as long as I've been using GNU/Linux.

[**] I'm exaggerating.
[8] http://wiki.debian.org/CheapServerBoxHardware
--
FSF associate member #7257 np. My heart yearns for you by Joseph Nimoh
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 2024-04-25, Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> wrote:

Corrections and constructive criticism are of course welcome.

It looks as though some effort was put into composing this message.
Nice work, assuming it is human generated.

Do you seriously think that vim 7.3 is going to reformat your flash
drive?

I don't think DOS is a supported platform for vim any more, so
unless someone steps up to the plate, there never will be a newer
version than 7.3. FreeDOS is the wrong platform for anyone for whom
that will be a deal breaker.

It's the right platform for someone who would enjoy that challenge,
or for someone who can deal with dead/stable software. One could also
opt for an editor that IS still supported on DOS, such as sved or xvi.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 14:30:13 +0000, candycanearter07 wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 22:21 this Wednesday
(GMT):

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:30:10 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:

The option is kinda hidden in the Device Manager.

Why is it an “option”, in this day and age?

Tradition, probably.

Backwards compatibility. It's what the majority of users are used to.

But Lawrence has to pursue his agenda.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 19:09:58 +0100, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 22:20:58 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 20:07:25 +0100, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

Be more explicit that we are not maintaining the x86 version anymore

Notice the versions they *are* maintaining?

No I didn't; all my computers are x86.

There’s a RISC-V emulator (both 32-bit and 64-bit) available, just an “apt-get install qemu-system-misc” away. You could try that at essentially no cost <https://packages.debian.org/bookworm/qemu-system-misc>.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

A promising alternative was MS DOS 5's "DOSShell" program, but that go
killed off to save Windows sales.

DOS 4.0, sorry.

Is that included in yesterday's MS-DOS 4.0 source code release?

<https://cloudblogs.microsoft.com/opensource/2024/04/25/open-sourcing-ms-dos-4-0/>

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 2024-04-25, Ben Collver wrote:

It looks as though some effort was put into composing this
message. Nice work, assuming it is human generated.

When working time and again as a part-time university
lecturer, I'd typically feed bits of my students' works to
Duckduckgo to detect plagiarism. Makes me wonder if this
approach can be adapted for detecting AI-generated texts.

Do you seriously think that vim 7.3 is going to reformat your
flash drive?

I didn't seriously think that an xz-utils upgrade would
compromise my SSH setup, and it still happened. (Or would
have happened, were I to have any Debian testing installs,
as was my intent.)

I don't think DOS is a supported platform for vim any more, so
unless someone steps up to the plate, there never will be a newer
version than 7.3. FreeDOS is the wrong platform for anyone for
whom that will be a deal breaker.

JFTR, I think I'd be fine with Vim 7 so long as it's
maintained. I'd probably be able to contribute to the
effort, too; just not a task I'd try to pull all by myself.

It's the right platform for someone who would enjoy that
challenge, or for someone who can deal with dead/stable software.

That's one of my points: depending on what you're aiming
at, using FreeDOS might come with its own set of challenges,
including software- and hardware-related ones.

For instance, it took me some time to get a working multi-IO
card for my Am386 (though perhaps the issue was with me
misinterpreting the silkscreen configuration reminders and
configuring the jumpers the wrong way on the card I did have.)

Then I had to replace the dead onboard 3.6 V NiMH rechargable
battery; I was unable to find an exact replacement so had to
use a 1 F 5.5 V supercap instead. (It does hold the CMOS
settings awhile, but the RTC stops within 24 hours of the
machine being powered off.)

The old "AT" PSU had a faulty 80 mm sleeve bearing fan. It also
had to be replaced, with a ball bearing Jamicon JF0825B-
something. (Given my prior experience with such fans, I'd
expect it to outlast the PSU itself.)

Then there was the issue of my CompactFlash drive having no
CHS geometry data on the label, and the 386 BIOS not having
the IDE HDD autodetection code, either; solved by plugging
the card into a Pentium box and copying the autodetection
results from there.

Supposedly weeCee is runnable off an SD card (SDHC, I hope),
but my understanding is that it's only available in what's
effectively a "kit": you'll need to do the soldering yourself
if you're going to go that way.

One could also opt for an editor that IS still supported on DOS,
such as sved or xvi.

I can't say I'm aware of many Vi-like editors for DOS.
If there's a list somewhere (other than the already mentioned
FreeDOS' listing.gz), I'd appreciate a pointer.

FreeDOS comes with a build of Elvis from 2003, and on the
one hand, it seems workable (I don't use /that/ much of the
Vim functionality; I mostly rely on the vim-tiny build from
Debian, http://packages.debian.org/stable/vim-tiny ), though
I do recall having trouble finding alternatives to some of
the things I came to take for granted with Vim.

On the other hand, it doesn't seem to be maintained, either.
--
FSF associate member #7257 np. HTTP by Master Boot Record
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

In article <MWayucb32sgc0oNH@violet.siamics.net>,
Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> wrote:

Then there's Z80 and CP/M. The latter was re-released under
a free software license a while back, though the terms were
somewhat vague until the copyright holder clarified them
several years ago. The hardware to run a CP/M install will
perhaps be even harder to come by, but Z80 reportedly has
considerable support from free software development tools
(check SDCC and z80pack, for instance.)

I'd think that vintage hardware is still somewhat readily available. In addition to that, you could build a working system from new parts even
today. There is a minor catch, though: the Z80 is about to go out of production ater the better part of 50 years:

https://www.mouser.com/PCN/Littelfuse_PCN_Z84C00.pdf

Can't say I did anything with CP/M back in the day other than booting it
once or twice on an Apple II with a Softcard clone, but I stumbled across
the RC2014 a while back and thought I'd try building a system from scratch
that way.

https://gitlab.alfter.us/salfter/rc2014-compat

So far, I've assembled the z80-cpu and paged-rom-ram-1mb boards. The
z80-cpu board uses the Z84C0010AEG running at 10 MHz. So far, I've tested
it by hard-wiring a NOP on the data bus, which causes the address bus to
cycle through its entire range...basically, the CPU is turned into a 16-bit counter. :) I'm in the middle of assembling the 68b50-dual-serial
board...had to stop the other evening when I found one of the parts I'd
ordered was in the wrong package because the DigiKey part number I'd used
was off by one.

There's a CP/M image available for these that can run from ROM, if you have enough of it. The board I've built has 512K of flash memory, which can be paged into the CPU's address space in 16K chunks. 1 MB of SRAM can be paged
in similarly.

(I also ran across a way to put the 6502 onto the RC2014 bus that is implemented in the 6502-cpu board. I've not built it yet, but I definitely have more familiarity with the 6502 and will get around to it eventually.)
--
_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 2024-04-26, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

A promising alternative was MS DOS 5's "DOSShell" program, but that go
killed off to save Windows sales.

DOS 4.0, sorry.

Is that included in yesterday's MS-DOS 4.0 source code release?

<https://cloudblogs.microsoft.com/opensource/2024/04/25/ open-sourcing-ms-dos-4-0/>

No, dosshell is not included. Nor is gwbasic, himem.sys, nor
xmaem/xma2ems.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 2024-04-26, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

Is that included in yesterday's MS-DOS 4.0 source code release?

<https://cloudblogs.microsoft.com/opensource/2024/04/25/ open-sourcing-ms-dos-4-0/>

How Not To Release Historic Source Code
=======================================
Posted on April 26, 2024 by Michal Necasek

This is how to not do it:

GitHub
<https://github.com/microsoft/MS-DOS/tree/main/v4.0>

Don't get me wrong, it's absolutely brilliant that Microsoft was able to release a fairly complete (minus DOSSHELL) source code for MS-DOS 4.00
or 4.01 (see below). As much as it was hated, DOS 4.0 was an important milestone and DOS 5.0 was much more similar to DOS 4.0 than not. This
source code will be an excellent reference of modern-ish DOS until
Microsoft officially releases the long ago leaked MS-DOS 6.0 source
code. The source code includes all required build tools, which makes
building it (compared to many other source releases) extremely easy.

But please please don't mutilate historic source code by shoving it into (stupid) git.

First of all, git does not preserve timestamps, which causes
irreversible damage. Knowing when a source file was last modified is
valuable information.

Second of all, the people releasing the source code clearly thought,
hey, it's source code, let's shove it into git, what could possibly go
wrong. Well, this is what could go wrong:

Nope, not building
<http://www.os2museum.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ dos40src-error1-640x356.png>

For practical purposes, old source files are not text files. They are
binary files, and must be preserved without modification. It is not OK
to take an old source file and convert it to UTF-8. For one thing, UTF-8
didn't even exist in the times of MASM 5.10 and Microsoft C 5.1, of
course old tools can't deal with it!

The above problem was most likely caused by taking a source line using
codepage 437 characters and badly converting them to UTF-8. That made
the source line too long, past the circa 512 byte line length limit of
MASM.

In the case of getmsg.asm it's easy enough to manually delete the too
long line in a comment. But it's much worse with the src\SELECT\USA.INF
file. Here, the misguided use of git not only made some comment lines
too long for MASM, but it also actively destroyed the original source
code. The byte arrays defined near labels PANEL36 and PANEL37 got turned
into junk, or more accurately into a sequence of Unicode replacement characters.

<https://github.com/microsoft/MS-DOS/blob/main/v4.0/src/SELECT/USA.INF>

This blunder is all the more regrettable because similar problems
affected the previous GW-BASIC source release (very old MASM versions
cannot deal with UNIX style line endings).

<https://www.os2museum.com/wp/gw-basic-source-notes/>

The timestamp destruction makes it harder to pin down what the source
code actually is. The DOS 4.0 release was very confused because IBM
first released PC DOS 4.0 in June 1988 (files dated 06/17/1988), but
soon followed with a quiet update (files dated 08/03/1988) where the
disks were labeled 4.01 but the software still reported itself as 4.00.

The just released source code almost certainly corresponds to this quiet
4.01 update. At least one source comment implies 8/5/88 modification,
i.e. August 1988.

At least the core files (IO.SYS, MSDOS.SYS, COMMAND.COM, FORMAT.COM,
FDISK.SYS, SYS.COM) built from the source release are a perfect match
for the files on "MS-DOS 4.00" disk images that can be found on
winworldpc.

<https://winworldpc.com/product/ms-dos/4x>

Said files are dated 10/06/1988 and DOS reports itself as 4.00. However,
the released source code, in the file SETENV.BAT, includes the following
line:

echo setting up system to build the MS-DOS 4.01 SOURCE BAK...

This further suggests that the source code in fact corresponds to the
quiet update of DOS 4.01 and not to the original IBM DOS 4.00 from June
1988, which to the best of my knowledge was never available from
Microsoft. After a few months, perhaps in late 1988 Microsoft changed
DOS to report itself as 4.01 because—unsurprisingly—the 4.00 version
number was confusing customers.

As a historic footnote, BAK stood for Binary Adaptation Kit. MS-DOS OEMs
would receive the BAK to adapt to their hardware. However, most OEMs did
not receive the full source code, only the code to components that
likely needed modification, such as IO.SYS.

But the fact that the "Source BAK" was something that Microsoft shipped
to (select lucky) customers is actually great—since it's supposed to be
built by 3rd parties, it includes all of the required tools and is in
fact quite easy to build.

Executive Summary
=================
It's terrific that the source code for DOS 4.00/4.01 was released! But
don't expect to build the source code mutilated by git without problems.

Historic source code should be released simply as an archive of files,
ZIP or tar or 7z or whatever, with all timestamps preserved and every
single byte kept the way it was. Git is simply not a suitable tool for
this.

From:
<https://www.os2museum.com/wp/how-not-to-release-historic-source-code/>

Comments
========
According to HN comments, some of the source was even censored a bit as
a hot-fix (original contained a not-so-nice comment about Tim Paterson):

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40163766>
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 21:21:52 -0000 (UTC), Ben Collver wrote:

But please please don't mutilate historic source code by shoving it into (stupid) git.

Well, Linus himself described Git as “the stupid content tracker”. It’s even in the man page synopsis.

First of all, git does not preserve timestamps, which causes
irreversible damage. Knowing when a source file was last modified is
valuable information.

One that can be recorded in Git, the same way you would in any other VCS:
use the commit date. You want help to figure that out? Have a look at the fake_git script here <https://bitbucket.org/ldo17/fake_vcs/src/master/>.

Well, this is what could go wrong:

Wonderful. Posting screen shots of text error messages, instead of posting
the actual text itself. Has this become some kind of ingrained habit among DOS/Windows users? Is software development still some kind of novelty to
you?
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.misc



On Fri, 26 Apr 2024, Ivan Shmakov wrote:

On 2024-04-25, Ben Collver wrote:

It looks as though some effort was put into composing this
message. Nice work, assuming it is human generated.

When working time and again as a part-time university
lecturer, I'd typically feed bits of my students' works to
Duckduckgo to detect plagiarism. Makes me wonder if this
approach can be adapted for detecting AI-generated texts.

Granted, it is not university level work or students, but what I do is to
just compare students work. The AI-people more often than not, hand in the exact same source, same spelling, same variable names. That is enough
proof for me to not pass them.

But sophisticated cheaters rewrite, and then it is of course a bit more difficult. In that case I do manage to catch them during code reviews when they cannot explain what they do or the algorithm.

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114