Re: [Freedos-user] Video complains that DOS should not be maintained
from John Vella: > I'm guessing that I'm the only one who isn't interested in connecting to > the Internet using freedos. I wouldn't have a problem with others doing > it,but for me it would be yet another distraction. ð I would like to connect to the Internet using FreeDOS, but I haven't found a compatible packet driver. Main purpose in connecting to the Internet from FreeDOS would be to prove it can be done. Tom ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Video complains that DOS should not be maintained
, Two things here: First, I've heard rumors (possibly true, possibly just people trying to make MS look incompetent) that MS actually lost the source code to some unspecified legacy version of Windows at some point (has to be legacy because if it had been a then-current main product line it probably would have killed them). So if they lost the entire DOS-kernel Windows source tree sometime after the release of XP, the reason they're not releasing sources for Win 3.x/9x may be that said sources no longer exist. Second, assuming they still have the sources, perhaps we can make it worth their while: basically, propose that they name a price and start a crowdfunding campaign. If the campaign meets the price they name, they release the code. Even if they did lose the code, getting a friendly license applied to the binaries and to stuff like the example code in the DDKs would be massively helpful: the binaries are definitely floating around, and being able to write compatibility drivers for FreeDOS/DOSBox/etc. would be quite helpful. We'd just need to find someone in the retrocomputing or FOSS community with the right connections and personality to pitch it to MS, and then we'd need the right sort of campaign to get people to pitch in (establishing a precedent of proprietary projects crowdfunding themselves to an open source release would be a huge win, we'd just need to convince people of that). Dec 25, 2021 16:35:41 Liam Proven : > > > Today, the entire DOS and Windows 3/9x codebase is basically entirely > obsolete and the company does not sell any products based on it. It > *could* release everything prior to the Windows NT line with no > substantial impact on any current product. > > However, this would cost it money. The code is probably a mess, and it > contains material from third parties which would have to be removed. A > large cleanup operation would be needed, which would take dozens of > people maybe years of work, and MS stands to gain nothing from it. > > However, it would help FreeDOS, and WINE, and ReactOS, and several > other FOSS projects, which MS management almost certainly does not > want to do. > > So, given it would benefit others but not the company, *and* it would > cost them serious money, I doubt it will happen. ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Video complains that DOS should not be maintained
On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 at 01:42, tom ehlert wrote: > I have to accept that as true. Though 'multiscreening' is not what > everybody thinks of when thinknig 'multitasking'. I can't help what people may think. All I can do is when I see people spreading incorrect information, I can answer with the facts. Multitasking is nothing whatsoever to do with windowing or windowing interfaces or GUIs. From the 1960s onwards, there were many multitasking OSes, including UNIX and DEC VAX-VMS, which existed long before the first terminals that could display a GUI. Many OSes can run many processes in the background, and possibly bring them to the foreground and let you interact with them, as well as letting multiple users connect to 1 computer and use it concurrently – but can't display any kind of GUI or windows or anything like it. Plain text-mode Linux without GUIs installed is still multitasking. Hundreds of millions of Linux servers around the world sit there multitasking, running web servers and databases and a million other things, without any ability to display 2 of those processes on screen at once. Concurrent CP/M and later Concurrent DOS multitask, but they don't and can't do windowing. On the console on the host box, you could use Alt+the numeric keypad to switch between 4 virtual consoles, and each could be running its own separate task, all at once. Plus multiple dumb terminals on serial ports, and those users could have 4 tasks each, too. Still no windowing. One at a time, full-screen. That is what DR-DOS does. Not in the kernel, no; the functionality is in a surprisingly small program called TASKMAX.EXE, which uses functionality in the DR DOS 386 memory manager, EMM386.EXE. It is described in the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DR-DOS#Novell_DOS_7_/_Contribution_by_Novell It even supports some graphical games. If you load the ViewMax shell, it can control TaskMax. I am told PC GEOS can as well, but I have not tested this yet. Some testing results are here: https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?t=62270 > however DesqView, GEM and Windows 3.x are certainly multitasking systems > running on top of DOS. that doesn't make DOS a multitaskig system. No, but DR DOS is not MS-DOS. DR DOS started out as a cut-down version of Concurrent DOS, a true multiuser multitasking OS. Multitasking support is a built-in function that is included with the base OS and does not require any GUI or other layer installed. It can be used from the DOS command line. > >> programs would only multitask if specifically written to the DRDOS API > >> - which almost nobody did (for commercial avalable software). > > > This is not true. > ou might be right, but I would be surprised. I am telling you. I have done it. I have tested it. There are download links for boot disks I've built to demonstrate it on my blog, but the last time I posted a link to my blog, Jim Hall accused me of spamming, so I will not post it again. Google my name; I'm the only person with it. > I have no idea what you are arguing about. You said that there was no FOSS release of DOS by Microsoft. There was. This is nothing whatsoever to do with any leaked code, which must be regarded as stolen and cannot be used in anything else. -- Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven UK: (+44) 7939-087884 ~ Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053 ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Video complains that DOS should not be maintained
Yes, 6.2, not 5.0 as I mentioned in my previous reply to this thread, thanks for that correction. On 12/25/2021 3:03 PM, tom ehlert wrote: That was caldera that released their opendos as opensource, not Microsoft. Caldera released Digital Research's DR DOS 7.01 as FOSS. It then changed its mind and made v7.092 closed-source again, but 7.01 remains FOSS and turned into OpenDOS, AKA DR OpenDOS and Open DR DOS. And, for what it's worth, DR DOS has multitasking, and I've tried it, and it works. while technically true, it couldn't just multitask ramdom DOS programs as multi tasking systems like OS/2 or better always could. programs would only multitask if specifically written to the DRDOS API - which almost nobody did (for commercial avalable software). There were versions of ms dos that escaped into the wild, but it wasn't a sanctioned release from microsoft. This is not true. that is true. the (mostly) complete source code MSDOS 6.2 escaped into the wild, even if not widely available. Microsoft has released MS-DOS 1.25, 2.0 and 2.11 as FOSS. The OS/2 Museum have rebuilt it from source: https://www.os2museum.com/wp/pc-dos-1-1-from-scratch/ https://www.os2museum.com/wp/dos-2-11-from-scratch/ MSDOS 2.11 might be interesting from a museum/historic prespective. as an operating system it's completely obsolete and useless, and you will not learn much by studying the source code. there's a LOT that happened between 2.11 (october 1983) and 6.22 (april 1994) Tom ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Video complains that DOS should not be maintained
I did see msdos 5.0 source code online several years ago. I'm fairly certain MS never released that as any kind of source distribution, but nonetheless, it's out there. On 12/25/2021 10:38 AM, Liam Proven wrote: On Sat, 25 Dec 2021 at 05:43, Travis Siegel wrote: That was caldera that released their opendos as opensource, not Microsoft. Caldera released Digital Research's DR DOS 7.01 as FOSS. It then changed its mind and made v7.092 closed-source again, but 7.01 remains FOSS and turned into OpenDOS, AKA DR OpenDOS and Open DR DOS. And, for what it's worth, DR DOS has multitasking, and I've tried it, and it works. There were versions of ms dos that escaped into the wild, but it wasn't a sanctioned release from microsoft. This is not true. Microsoft has released MS-DOS 1.25, 2.0 and 2.11 as FOSS. The OS/2 Museum have rebuilt it from source: https://www.os2museum.com/wp/pc-dos-1-1-from-scratch/ https://www.os2museum.com/wp/dos-2-11-from-scratch/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Video complains that DOS should not be maintained
>> while technically true, it couldn't just multitask ramdom DOS programs >> as multi tasking systems like OS/2 or better always could. > Yes, it can. I have tested it with, for example, the MS-DOS Editor > from Windows 98SE on one screen, WordPerfect 6.2 on another screen and > MS Word 6 on a third screen. I have to accept that as true. Though 'multiscreening' is not what everybody thinks of when thinknig 'multitasking'. however DesqView, GEM and Windows 3.x are certainly multitasking systems running on top of DOS. that doesn't make DOS a multitaskig system. >> programs would only multitask if specifically written to the DRDOS API >> - which almost nobody did (for commercial avalable software). > This is not true. ou might be right, but I would be surprised. >> that is true. the (mostly) complete source code MSDOS 6.2 escaped into the >> wild, >> even if not widely available. > You said, quote: >> > it wasn't a sanctioned release from microsoft. > Don't try to revise this now. I have no idea what you are arguing about. MSDOS 6.2x sources went into the wide plains of the internet, and probably are still available now in public. Just don't expect to have google to turn up sensible sources for 'msdos 6.21 source code' And this is completely irrelevant in 2021, or forever (except for historical reasons). beside this: everybody a nice christmas and a happy new year! Tom ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Video complains that DOS should not be maintained
On Sat, 25 Dec 2021 at 19:25, Jim Hall wrote: > > Caldera's release of DR-DOS and OpenDOS was definitely NOT under an "open > source" or "FOSS" license. Caldera claimed it was. Here is the press announcement: https://web.archive.org/web/19961018220910/http://caldera.com/news/pr002.html > The terms were basically "look but do not touch." You could not make any > derivatives from that source code, and could only refer to it for > "educational" purposes. That is a reasonable summary. The licences are here: https://github.com/the-grue/OpenDOS/blob/master/README.TXT https://github.com/the-grue/OpenDOS/blob/master/LICENSE.TXT No, it's not compatible with any true FOSS licence. But it *did* release the source -- I have a copy of the CD myself, direct from the company. And people *did* make derivative products from it, namely, the Open DR DOS Enhancement Project. https://archiveos.org/drdos/ The last release was 10Y ago, in 2011. Under the legal principle of laches, if DeviceLogics or DRDOS Inc wanted to bring any legal action on the basis of this, it had plenty of time -- a decade -- to do so. It has not. Nobody has. Therefore, nobody now can. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity) -- Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven UK: (+44) 7939-087884 ~ Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053 ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Video complains that DOS should not be maintained
On Sat, 25 Dec 2021 at 21:21, tom ehlert wrote: > > while technically true, it couldn't just multitask ramdom DOS programs > as multi tasking systems like OS/2 or better always could. Yes, it can. I have tested it with, for example, the MS-DOS Editor from Windows 98SE on one screen, WordPerfect 6.2 on another screen and MS Word 6 on a third screen. > programs would only multitask if specifically written to the DRDOS API > - which almost nobody did (for commercial avalable software). This is not true. > that is true. the (mostly) complete source code MSDOS 6.2 escaped into the > wild, > even if not widely available. You said, quote: > > it wasn't a sanctioned release from microsoft. Don't try to revise this now. Yes, there have been fully-sanctioned releases of MS-DOS from Microsoft. As I said: 1.25, and a set of source files containing a mix of 2.0 and 2.11 source code. Yes, there are *two* fully legal source code releases of MS-DOS from Microsoft itself. > MSDOS 2.11 might be interesting from a museum/historic prespective. > as an operating system it's completely obsolete and useless, and you will not > learn > much by studying the source code. This is true but an entirely different question which had not previously been discussed in this thread. Sure, yes, MS-DOS 2 is ancient and no real use now. However, you said that MS had not released DOS and that's wrong. You did not say "MS did not release the final version of DOS as FOSS", or "MS did not release a late enough version of MS-DOS to be useful." Those statements are true, but they aren't what you said. No, it's not really much use. Yes, it's only an archaeological curiosity. MS is not truly any friend or fan of FOSS and it only releases tiny useless dribs and drabs of FOSS code, such as DOS 1 and 2, Word for Windows 1.1, the Windows 3 File Manager and a few other trivial little things. That is because, IMHO, it's just a PR exercise. Today, the entire DOS and Windows 3/9x codebase is basically entirely obsolete and the company does not sell any products based on it. It *could* release everything prior to the Windows NT line with no substantial impact on any current product. However, this would cost it money. The code is probably a mess, and it contains material from third parties which would have to be removed. A large cleanup operation would be needed, which would take dozens of people maybe years of work, and MS stands to gain nothing from it. However, it would help FreeDOS, and WINE, and ReactOS, and several other FOSS projects, which MS management almost certainly does not want to do. So, given it would benefit others but not the company, *and* it would cost them serious money, I doubt it will happen. So if you had said that it hadn't released any _useful_ version of DOS, I'd agree. But you didn't say that. You said MS did not release DOS, and that is wrong. It's there and it's legit. > there's a LOT that happened between 2.11 (october 1983) and 6.22 (april 1994) 100% agree. -- Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven UK: (+44) 7939-087884 ~ Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053 ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Video complains that DOS should not be maintained
>> That was caldera that released their opendos as opensource, not Microsoft. > Caldera released Digital Research's DR DOS 7.01 as FOSS. It then > changed its mind and made v7.092 closed-source again, but 7.01 remains > FOSS and turned into OpenDOS, AKA DR OpenDOS and Open DR DOS. > And, for what it's worth, DR DOS has multitasking, and I've tried it, > and it works. while technically true, it couldn't just multitask ramdom DOS programs as multi tasking systems like OS/2 or better always could. programs would only multitask if specifically written to the DRDOS API - which almost nobody did (for commercial avalable software). >> There were versions of ms dos that escaped into the wild, but it wasn't >> a sanctioned release from microsoft. > This is not true. that is true. the (mostly) complete source code MSDOS 6.2 escaped into the wild, even if not widely available. > Microsoft has released MS-DOS 1.25, 2.0 and 2.11 as FOSS. > The OS/2 Museum have rebuilt it from source: > https://www.os2museum.com/wp/pc-dos-1-1-from-scratch/ > https://www.os2museum.com/wp/dos-2-11-from-scratch/ MSDOS 2.11 might be interesting from a museum/historic prespective. as an operating system it's completely obsolete and useless, and you will not learn much by studying the source code. there's a LOT that happened between 2.11 (october 1983) and 6.22 (april 1994) Tom ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Video complains that DOS should not be maintained
Caldera's release of DR-DOS and OpenDOS was definitely NOT under an "open source" or "FOSS" license. The terms were basically "look but do not touch." You could not make any derivatives from that source code, and could only refer to it for "educational" purposes. On Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 9:39 AM Liam Proven wrote: > > Caldera released Digital Research's DR DOS 7.01 as FOSS. It then > changed its mind and made v7.092 closed-source again, but 7.01 remains > FOSS and turned into OpenDOS, AKA DR OpenDOS and Open DR DOS. > > ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Video complains that DOS should not be maintained
Hello Travis, linux box setup and transferred the domain to that. The nice thing about using dos for your networking, (which someone else said way more eloquently than I could, paraphrasing here), is that since dos doesn't have a native tcp/ip stack, if the app dies, so does the tcp/ip connection, so you don't have to worry about folks exploiting your system to get in via backdoors. or buffer overruns. Actually I think it is a bit of a misconception to say that (MS-)DOS is secure because it lacks kernel-space device drivers. The reality with MS-DOS and compatibles, is that there is not much of a security boundary between the system kernel and user processes. This is exactly why one can write a network device driver as a user application --- because a user process often has unlimited access to the PC hardware anyway, just like the system kernel (!). Anyway, other than that DOS programs tend to be simpler and smaller, I do not really see much that makes DOS intrinsically "more secure" than more modern systems. There has been a lot of work done in the last few decades or so towards hardening modern OSes --- e.g. there is work to harden the Linux kernel, from kernel versions 2.x all the way to the current 5.x (https://www.openwall.com/linux/). At least some of this work will need to be adapted to programs running on DOS, if they need to be truly secure. Thank you! -- https://gitlab.com/tkchia :: https://github.com/tkchia ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Video complains that DOS should not be maintained
On Sat, 25 Dec 2021 at 05:43, Travis Siegel wrote: > > That was caldera that released their opendos as opensource, not Microsoft. Caldera released Digital Research's DR DOS 7.01 as FOSS. It then changed its mind and made v7.092 closed-source again, but 7.01 remains FOSS and turned into OpenDOS, AKA DR OpenDOS and Open DR DOS. And, for what it's worth, DR DOS has multitasking, and I've tried it, and it works. > There were versions of ms dos that escaped into the wild, but it wasn't > a sanctioned release from microsoft. This is not true. Microsoft has released MS-DOS 1.25, 2.0 and 2.11 as FOSS. The OS/2 Museum have rebuilt it from source: https://www.os2museum.com/wp/pc-dos-1-1-from-scratch/ https://www.os2museum.com/wp/dos-2-11-from-scratch/ -- Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven UK: (+44) 7939-087884 ~ Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053 ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Video complains that DOS should not be maintained
Actually, there's a program called ka9q (and some derivatives such as tnos) that can handle all the internet stuff for you. They use packet drivers to handle the connections, and I remember I used to use them with some 3com 509 cards I had. I ran my softcon.com domain off of ka9q for nearly a year when I first set it up back in 1996 before I got my linux box setup and transferred the domain to that. The nice thing about using dos for your networking, (which someone else said way more eloquently than I could, paraphrasing here), is that since dos doesn't have a native tcp/ip stack, if the app dies, so does the tcp/ip connection, so you don't have to worry about folks exploiting your system to get in via backdoors. or buffer overruns. So, in that vein, it's actually potentially very useful thing to run your internet processes on a dos box, depending on what you're doing, since most hacking attempts can't succeed against you. That's very important for some applications. On 12/25/2021 9:42 AM, John Vella wrote: I'm guessing that I'm the only one who isn't interested in connecting to the Internet using freedos. I wouldn't have a problem with others doing it,but for me it would be yet another distraction. On Sat, 25 Dec 2021, 14:19 Travis Siegel, wrote: How very cool. Wasn't aware that had been done. Thanks for that. Now I need to find some time to actually look at that, old as it is, I'm always fascinated by such things. Would have been nice if they'd released 3.3 though, since that's a lot closer to being useful. :) On 12/24/2021 11:47 PM, Jon Brase wrote: > This is much more recently than I think you're thinking: > > https://github.com/Microsoft/MS-DOS > > Dec 24, 2021 22:42:44 Travis Siegel : > > >> That was caldera that released their opendos as opensource, not Microsoft. >> >> There were versions of ms dos that escaped into the wild, but it wasn't a sanctioned release from microsoft. > > ___ > Freedos-user mailing list > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Video complains that DOS should not be maintained
I'm guessing that I'm the only one who isn't interested in connecting to the Internet using freedos. I wouldn't have a problem with others doing it,but for me it would be yet another distraction. On Sat, 25 Dec 2021, 14:19 Travis Siegel, wrote: > How very cool. Wasn't aware that had been done. Thanks for that. Now > I need to find some time to actually look at that, old as it is, I'm > always fascinated by such things. > > Would have been nice if they'd released 3.3 though, since that's a lot > closer to being useful. :) > > > On 12/24/2021 11:47 PM, Jon Brase wrote: > > This is much more recently than I think you're thinking: > > > > https://github.com/Microsoft/MS-DOS > > > > Dec 24, 2021 22:42:44 Travis Siegel : > > > > > >> That was caldera that released their opendos as opensource, not > Microsoft. > >> > >> There were versions of ms dos that escaped into the wild, but it wasn't > a sanctioned release from microsoft. > > > > ___ > > Freedos-user mailing list > > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user > > > ___ > Freedos-user mailing list > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user > ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Video complains that DOS should not be maintained
How very cool. Wasn't aware that had been done. Thanks for that. Now I need to find some time to actually look at that, old as it is, I'm always fascinated by such things. Would have been nice if they'd released 3.3 though, since that's a lot closer to being useful. :) On 12/24/2021 11:47 PM, Jon Brase wrote: This is much more recently than I think you're thinking: https://github.com/Microsoft/MS-DOS Dec 24, 2021 22:42:44 Travis Siegel : That was caldera that released their opendos as opensource, not Microsoft. There were versions of ms dos that escaped into the wild, but it wasn't a sanctioned release from microsoft. ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Video complains that DOS should not be maintained
Hello! Merry Christmas above all. I wouldn't mind have dos or freedos for a main computer, but i mainly have more games than programs (not games aren't programs) and the problem with both DOS is hardware. I've stated before the main and i wont say "problem" but issue is hardware. In my main PC i have a HDD for Windows 10, another for Linux Mint and considering another for Windows 11. Since Windows 11 came out of the closet i've been using Linux Mint and i like it very much, however i can't play windows games because they won't run with wine and virtual machines even worst. So linux is better than windows in many ways, but i can't discard windows because of games and some software that doesn't exist for linux or just can't do the same things. I grow up the DOS, i still have my first pc IBM 286, but i don't have many floppy disk for it and i won't speak in hardware for maintaining it. So DOS/FreeDOS for companies/end users that have the need for it, yes and should be maintained, but for games it simply is a no go. You just can't show up on a store and by a sound card or graphics or even a pc for that matter. I have two Pentium 2 and Pentium 3 and i'm not using because of sound and graphics not to say monitor... To end DOS Rules, Windows Drools! On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 10:47 PM Wengier W via Freedos-user < freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: > I certainly hope to see more people using DOS/FreeDOS as the only (or > primary) operating system. However, without things like full support for > Internet and modern hardware (modern sound card, USB devices, etc) this > cannot occur, unfortunately. IMO, DOS/FreeDOS need to support things just > like a typical "modern" OS (e.g. Linux) does, so that the general public > won't consider DOS a "legacy" OS, or a system that is limited to very > specific uses. > > Wengier > > On Friday, December 24, 2021, 05:35:06 p.m. EST, John Vella < > john.ve...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'm going to make it my new year project to finish getting the 80486 pc > working, and once I've upgraded the memory, (4 Meg isn't going to be > enough, is it?) I'll be using freedos as the only operating system for my > distraction free writing pc. > > On Fri, 24 Dec 2021, 22:00 Jim Hall, wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 2:11 PM Jon Brase wrote: > > They're not talking about it in the context of log4j itself, they're > > talking about it in the context of other open source projects, that > > don't have something like the Apache foundation behind them, that > > are critical infrastructure, but have one or two maintainers working > > on them as a labor of love alongside a day job, and the potential, > > as such projects become legacy software, for them to still be > > half-maintained (and maybe maintain a significant user base) long > > after an institutionally maintained project would have officially > > been EOLed. > > > > And there is something of that kind of risk with any DOS variety > > still in use. Any remote execution vulnerability, through any > > network-aware DOS software, is basically automatically a remote root > > vulnerability by the nature of the system. Now, most FreeDOS users > > are probably using it for retrogaming and such and not for anything > > business-critical, but anybody using it in an embedded setting needs > > to be really careful about exposing it to the network. > > > > I really wonder how that would effect DOS, after all there is no > > web interface, nor any Java in (Free)DOS. So (without having watched > > this rather long video yet), any such conclusion seems to be a bit > > far fetch IMHO... > > > The statement in the video (starts at about 24:00, for others who want > to watch it) was awkwardly made. This person makes the statement that > some open source projects should just shut down rather than keep going > (I'm paraphrasing broadly here). And gives the example of "If MS-DOS > were open source" he opines that it shouldn't go on. > > Putting aside the fact that Microsoft did eventually release (early > versions of) MS-DOS under an open source license, this guy is just > wrong. Lots of people use DOS and FreeDOS to do useful things, like > running classic DOS games or applications, and supporting some > embedded systems or control systems. > > I usually try to see the other person's point of view - but in this > case, he's off base. Whatever. > > Jim > > > ___ > Freedos-user mailing list > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user > > ___ > Freedos-user mailing list > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user > ___ > Freedos-user mailing list > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user > ___ Freedos-user mailing list
