Re: [Freedos-user] Video complains that DOS should not be maintained
On Wed, 29 Dec 2021 00:33:01 +0100 Liam Proven wrote: > On Tue, 28 Dec 2021 at 23:23, Deposite Pirate > Fascinating! Thank you very much. I learned something this evening. > :-) > No problem. If you poke around this website you'll also learn that earlier IBM were also behind a few utilities shipped with DOS such as TREE, ASSIGN, FDISK and fixed disk support in FORMAT, SYS, CHKDSK and some other DOS utilities, internationalized keyboard support. -- ___ 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 Tue, 28 Dec 2021 at 23:23, Deposite Pirate wrote: > > > > If you know differently, please share some evidence, because I'd > > really like to know. > > > > https://www.os2museum.com/wp/dos/dos-3-3/ > > "A much less obvious but no less significant change was that unlike all > previous versions, DOS 3.3 development was done solely at IBM. > Microsoft was busy working on OS/2 (not yet under that name) and the > OS/2 development team included many core DOS developers, such as Mark > Zbikowski." Fascinating! Thank you very much. I learned something this evening. :-) -- 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 Tue, 28 Dec 2021 19:56:26 +0100 Liam Proven wrote: > On Tue, 28 Dec 2021 at 19:45, Deposite Pirate > wrote: > > > > It's not up to Microsoft to release MS/PC-DOS > 2.x. IBM did the > > bulk of the work on "MS" DOS for a while after 2.x and they would > > have to have IBM's permission to even think about releasing it. > > With the exception of the versions released _after_ MS stopped > developing, offering or selling DOS as a standalone product (i.e. PC > DOS 6.3, 7.0, 2000 and 7.1) then the *only* version of MS-DOS mainly > developed by IBM was MS-DOS 4.0x. > > If you know differently, please share some evidence, because I'd > really like to know. > https://www.os2museum.com/wp/dos/dos-3-3/ "A much less obvious but no less significant change was that unlike all previous versions, DOS 3.3 development was done solely at IBM. Microsoft was busy working on OS/2 (not yet under that name) and the OS/2 development team included many core DOS developers, such as Mark Zbikowski." -- ___ 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 Tue, 28 Dec 2021 at 19:45, Deposite Pirate wrote: > > It's not up to Microsoft to release MS/PC-DOS > 2.x. IBM did the bulk of > the work on "MS" DOS for a while after 2.x and they would have to > have IBM's permission to even think about releasing it. With the exception of the versions released _after_ MS stopped developing, offering or selling DOS as a standalone product (i.e. PC DOS 6.3, 7.0, 2000 and 7.1) then the *only* version of MS-DOS mainly developed by IBM was MS-DOS 4.0x. If you know differently, please share some evidence, because I'd really like to know. -- 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 Sun, 26 Dec 2021 22:27:26 +0100 Aitor Santamaría wrote: > I would dare say that even Bill Gates himself must have those sources > somewhere in one harddrive of his own (for historical purposes). :) > > Aitor It's not up to Microsoft to release MS/PC-DOS > 2.x. IBM did the bulk of the work on "MS" DOS for a while after 2.x and they would have to have IBM's permission to even think about releasing it. -- ___ 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
> If Microsoft did not do it, imagine how nice it would be that there > were in FreeDOS an open source version of VMM32 with a good set of > well written VxDs (and that the very first thing it does after > loading is NOT to find that KRNL386.EXE and run it). Of course, > that's an outstanding challenge, I don't think anyone would do it :( even assuming a) we have a well written design of 'a good set of well written VxDs' b) lots of highly qualified programmers that would turn this design into well written code, thereby wasting many years of precious life time what exactly do you think would happen? there are no programs around that would do anything useful with these wonderful VXDs. and now the life time is really wasted ;) the problem here is that a multitasking DOS (like OS/2 1.9) is much more work by an order of magnitude, and nobody around FreeDOS is doing any reasonable programming work (with the possible exception of Ercsan, and he is not qualified). can we please close this issue? 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 12/26/21 3:18 PM, Aitor Santamaría wrote: My point here is, NT has indeed quite a bunch of more stable and better thought features of an operating system that was conceived in the late 80's rather in the late 70's (a better filesystem, more suitable to networks, and basically, a brand new Win32 API more suitable for writing stable applications), but I don't see multitasking as the feature that killed DOS. It was the feature that killed DOS. It's not that DOS couldn't multitask (though that depends a bit on how you define multitasking), it's that it couldn't do so safely and fully back-compatibly. The first generation x86 processors that DOS originally ran on didn't have any features to allow the operating system to isolate applications from the hardware. So tons of applications opted to interact with the hardware directly, because that was often more performant. By the time that the 286 and 386 added features that allowed robust multitasking, there were too many applications that interacted directly with the hardware, and by the time that features that would allow the OS to emulate hardware showed up in the 386, there were just too many different bits of hardware that the OS might need to emulate. So at that point, any DOS that wanted to multitask had to choose whether to maintain back-compatibility with applications that performed direct hardware access, at the cost of less completely isolating applications from each other, and from the OS, or whether to go for strict isolation, at the cost of back compatibility. Jon Brase ___ 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
Plain right! A LiLO that loads a small Linux distro which is multi-consoled, text-only, and whose unique Shell is DOSEMU. That would make it too, without the pain of writing VxDs, Linux will do the job :) Aitor On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 at 18:58, tom ehlert wrote: > > > Well, as said above, this has precisely been proved to be extracted > > from Windows and used for stand-alone DOS environment. Just because > > it is called VMM32.VXD (and not the original DOS386.EXE name), and > > has been sold just with Windows, and not DOS, does not mean it is an > un-dettachable part of Windows. > > To the same extent that if HIMEM hadn't ever been sold with MS-DOS, > > does not mean it is not an extension of DOS. > > the easiest way to have a multitasking 'DOS' is LiLo. > > 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
> Well, as said above, this has precisely been proved to be extracted > from Windows and used for stand-alone DOS environment. Just because > it is called VMM32.VXD (and not the original DOS386.EXE name), and > has been sold just with Windows, and not DOS, does not mean it is an > un-dettachable part of Windows. > To the same extent that if HIMEM hadn't ever been sold with MS-DOS, > does not mean it is not an extension of DOS. the easiest way to have a multitasking 'DOS' is LiLo. 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
Hi, On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 at 14:36, Liam Proven wrote: > On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 at 22:19, Aitor Santamaría wrote: > > > > > Why DOS386.EXE (later renamed to VMM32.VXD) would run "on top" of DOS > and not be DOS itself, the natural way DOS adapts to a 386? > > Just because, for commercial reasons, Microsoft never sold this DOS > unbundled from their GUI, I don't see this to be part of Windows, but DOS. > > This is a red herring. It isn't what you think it is. It's not a > multitasking add-on for DOS; it's a component of Windows. > I disagree. In "Undercover Windows 95" the author shows how you can rename COMMAND.COM into KRNL386.EXE and actually have a DOS (not windows) with preemptive multitasking and virtual memory. If I recall correctly, he builds a DOS program that uses XMS to get memory, and DOS386 (or VMM32 if you like) manages to give it more memory than the actual physical RAM memory the machine had. Not GUI (Windows) at all, just pure DOS. > Windows has DOS multitasking long before Windows 3. There was a > special 386 edition of Windows 2.01 that also could multitask DOS > apps: > http://oldcomputermuseum.com/os/windows_386_v2.10.html > > I think this is what I am talking about. > > (and if it isn't, where is the technical limit? EMM386.EXE is more alike > to VMM32.VXD than to MSDOS.SYS) > > But this is still Windows and not DOS. You are again confusing product > lines. > > No, DOS multitasking was not some separate function that could be > extracted from Windows and made stand-alone. It was an integral part > of Windows right back to Windows/386. Windows 3 did not introduce > Well, as said above, this has precisely been proved to be extracted from Windows and used for stand-alone DOS environment. Just because it is called VMM32.VXD (and not the original DOS386.EXE name), and has been sold just with Windows, and not DOS, does not mean it is an un-dettachable part of Windows. To the same extent that if HIMEM hadn't ever been sold with MS-DOS, does not mean it is not an extension of DOS. Aitor ___ 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 22:19, Aitor Santamaría wrote: > > Why isn't multitasking just another feature that you "add" on top? It was. There were multiple multitaskers for DOS, of which the best was generally agreed to be DESQview. The snag was the 640 kB memory limit. On an 8086 or 80286, all apps had to fit into that 640 kB along with DOS and the multitasker itself. You had about 500 kB to try to fit 2 apps side by side. Doesn't allow much. The main use was that you could leave your work, open a DOS prompt and format a floppy or move some files around or something. DESQview/386 changed that. It ran in conjunction with the QEMM386 memory manager, ran an 80386 or higher in virtual 86 mode, so you could use multiple megabytes of RAM to run many DOS programs side by side. The slight snag was that you needed to load all your drivers first -- CD, sound card, network, mouse, etc. Maybe network stack. *Then* DESQview. So your apps didn't get 640 kB each. They got whatever was left after loading DESQview each: but 550 kB or so each was doable, and allowed a lot of flexibility. So, yes, this was 100% viable as an add-on, and TBH I do not really understand why you would pick on a component of Windows as being notable. This seems to me a bit like saying that one particular building was significant, when what you're talking about is bricks. The benefit of Windows 3 was that everyone got this functionality as standard -- but that came at a very high price. You had to buy Windows as well as DOS, then you needed a lot more RAM -- DESQview was useful in 1MB and quite capable in 2MB, whereas Windows really wanted 4MB to work well. And Windows was not just big, it was also slow. DESQview imposed no perceptible overhead, really. Windows made your whole PC slower because it was a GUI for its own GUI apps that just happened to have DOS multitasking as a bonus feature. The one clever thing in Windows 3.x was the concept of the "system VM". Windows had a special dedicated DOS box for running drivers and things in, which meant it could load some of your network stack or something in that VM via a special batch file that most people didn't know about. This meant that you got a network redirector or whatever available to Windows but it didn't take up memory in DOS boxes. But Windows was not unique in adding multitasking. MS had its own special MS-DOS 4 with multitasking, which was only released via a few OEMs in Europe: http://www.os2museum.com/wp/multitasking-ms-dos-4-0-lives/ ... such as Goupil: http://www.os2museum.com/wp/multitasking-ms-dos-4-0-goupil-oem/ This evolved into a pre-OS/2 prototype multitasking OS, MT-DOS or CP-DOS: https://www.os2museum.com/wp/before-os2-was-os2/ > Why DOS386.EXE (later renamed to VMM32.VXD) would run "on top" of DOS and not > be DOS itself, the natural way DOS adapts to a 386? > Just because, for commercial reasons, Microsoft never sold this DOS unbundled > from their GUI, I don't see this to be part of Windows, but DOS. This is a red herring. It isn't what you think it is. It's not a multitasking add-on for DOS; it's a component of Windows. Windows has DOS multitasking long before Windows 3. There was a special 386 edition of Windows 2.01 that also could multitask DOS apps: http://oldcomputermuseum.com/os/windows_386_v2.10.html > (and if it isn't, where is the technical limit? EMM386.EXE is more alike to > VMM32.VXD than to MSDOS.SYS) But this is still Windows and not DOS. You are again confusing product lines. No, DOS multitasking was not some separate function that could be extracted from Windows and made stand-alone. It was an integral part of Windows right back to Windows/386. Windows 3 did not introduce major new functionality: what it did was _combine_ Windows 2, Windows/286 and Windows/386 into a single product that detected which kind of computer you had and enabled the appropriate level of functionality when you started the GUI. But what you are getting wrong is that DOS multitasking was something separate or additional. An entirely separate, unrelated line of MS OSes included DOS multitasking, independently of and before Windows. This shows that Microsoft was aware of the need and the abilities of newer PCs. IBM wrote PC DOS 4, not Microsoft. It's the only major version of DOS that MS adapted from IBM rather than the other way round. The worldwide retail MS-DOS 4 had no multitasking. IBM marketing didn't want it and made other mistakes, such as restricting OS/2 1.x to the 80286, leaving it crippled and unable to use the hardware-assisted DOS multitasking of the 386. The problem here is that if you bolt multitasking right into the DOS kernel, then programs that aren't compatible with multitasking, or which need to interact with it (such as filesystem redirectors, needed for networking and for CD-ROM drive support) need to be rewritten to be multitasking-compatible. A multitasking DOS is not and can't really be 100% compatible with all DOS apps, and I think
Re: [Freedos-user] Video complains that DOS should not be maintained
Hi, On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 at 16:28, Liam Proven wrote: > On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 at 05:06, Jon Brase wrote: > > > 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. > > It could be. OTOH, there were multiple versions, and I'd be surprised > if _all_ of them were lost. > It would be sad if it were true. But I don't think so. I've seen today that the whole of SIMTEL apparently weights 10 GB. I would dare say that even Bill Gates himself must have those sources somewhere in one harddrive of his own (for historical purposes). :) Aitor ___ 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 Tom, I mostly agree with your arguments. However... On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 at 01:42, tom ehlert wrote: > however DesqView, GEM and Windows 3.x are certainly multitasking systems > running on top of DOS. that doesn't make DOS a multitaskig system. > Why isn't multitasking just another feature that you "add" on top? I mean, from 1980 to 1998 DOS has been surprisingly surviving from a series of innovations and obstacles that made it is what it is today (or was in 1998): - A system that originally could do just FAT, created the redir (and later ifs) to be able to mount other drives, - A single user, to add share to be able to operate in networks, - From 1 MB memory to higher with xms (HIMEM) - From single tasking to preemptive multitasking (with DOS386.EXE) Why DOS386.EXE (later renamed to VMM32.VXD) would run "on top" of DOS and not be DOS itself, the natural way DOS adapts to a 386? Just because, for commercial reasons, Microsoft never sold this DOS unbundled from their GUI, I don't see this to be part of Windows, but DOS. (and if it isn't, where is the technical limit? EMM386.EXE is more alike to VMM32.VXD than to MSDOS.SYS) My point here is, NT has indeed quite a bunch of more stable and better thought features of an operating system that was conceived in the late 80's rather in the late 70's (a better filesystem, more suitable to networks, and basically, a brand new Win32 API more suitable for writing stable applications), but I don't see multitasking as the feature that killed DOS. If Microsoft did not do it, imagine how nice it would be that there were in FreeDOS an open source version of VMM32 with a good set of well written VxDs (and that the very first thing it does after loading is NOT to find that KRNL386.EXE and run it). Of course, that's an outstanding challenge, I don't think anyone would do it :( Aitor > > >> 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 > ___ 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 06:00, Thomas Mueller wrote: > > 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. > Define "connecting to the Internet". I mean, people do this fairly > routinely; you can serve web pages from DOS if you want. There were > DOS email and chat and FTP clients; that stuff's fairly easy. > It's the Web that's hard. > Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Connecting to the Internet can be complicated if the Ethernet chip is not supported by the driver. This is a problem with many of the newer chips with DOS. Many Web designers make their sites overcomplicated, requiring great gymnastics to navigate, creating great difficulties for Unix-type OSes and hopeless for DOS. 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
My problem is that I sit down wanting to write a chapter or two, and the ideas are in my head, (no, really!) but then I'll accidentally fire up YouTube or even worse, Kick Off 2 Online. Once that happens, the chances of getting any work done are reduced to virtually zero! On Sun, 26 Dec 2021, 16:22 Bryan Kilgallin, wrote: > Dear John: > > > 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. > > I think of the Internet as a bag of vulnerabilities! I don't need my > FreeDOS PC connected.-- > members.iinet.net.au/~kilgallin/ > > > ___ > 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
Dear John: 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. I think of the Internet as a bag of vulnerabilities! I don't need my FreeDOS PC connected.-- members.iinet.net.au/~kilgallin/ ___ 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 06:00, Thomas Mueller wrote: > > 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. Define "connecting to the Internet". I mean, people do this fairly routinely; you can serve web pages from DOS if you want. There were DOS email and chat and FTP clients; that stuff's fairly easy. It's the Web that's hard. -- 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 Sun, 26 Dec 2021 at 05:06, Jon Brase wrote: > > 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). I wouldn't be at all surprised. I daresay that there are only a handful of techies left at MS who date back 25+ years. > 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. It could be. OTOH, there were multiple versions, and I'd be surprised if _all_ of them were lost. > 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. I think that the problem isn't money, it's programmer time. Win9x contained several versions of browsers that supported Flash, Java, RealPlayer, etc. This is non-MS code, so the company won't have the permissions to release it. So it has to be removed. I don't think Win9x contained a Netware client, but NT did. Similarly, some network protocols may contain code from other companies. That can't be released. It may contain code from individuals who can't be traced, or who are dead and so cannot give permission. It's not just a case of "what's it worth". It's a case of "how many skilled people working for how long will be needed to go through every line and remove anything that is not MS property." Is there enough documentation of what isn't MS code? Is there code the company can't admit to having stolen without permission? This talk by one of the core engineers of Sun Solaris and later of the Illumos FOSS descendant talks about some of the problems: https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc It's an hour long, fast-paced, goes into some technical detail, and I wasn't able to follow it at any more than 1x speed. There's a lot that is irrelevant, too, but if you can spare an hour, you will see the problems faced by a company that _wanted_ to release its OS as FOSS, and the vast effort it took. MS _doesn't_ want to. It's not just about money. -- 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 12/25/2021 11:47 PM, Thomas Mueller wrote: from John Vella: 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. Obviously it *can* be done. As mentioned before, ka9q can do this, rlfossil is another interface method (it allows standard communications packages to use standard modem commands to reach internet sites, so that standard communications programs that are compatible with fossil drivers to connect to the internet. I've used both of these methods in the past to connect to the internet both on MSDOS and DRDOS, though interestingly enough, I don't believe I tried opendos for any kind of internet connectivity. But, since it's all (at least with the above mentioned programs) based on packet drivers, you'll need a compatible packet driver to handle the connection for you. If you haven't checked the main packet drivers collection from simtelnet, (don't have the exact url immediately at hand, but can probably find it if necessary), then you'll definitely want to do that. Failing that, you can try some programs that have built-in internet capabilities, though those are few and far between, though nettamer was one of those programs if you need one to test. It doesn't handle nearly as much as ka9q does, but it's a relatively decent irc/ftp/usenet package. I'm sure there's other programs that can connect to the internet on their own, but I can't recall any others off the top of my head. Hope this helps. ___ 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
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
Re: [Freedos-user] Video complains that DOS should not be maintained
Yes, Microsoft actually released the source to MS-DOS twice. Once under a license that was not friendly to open source, and again much later under the MIT license. The second release is significant because the MIT license is compatible with the GNU GPL that we use in the FreeDOS kernel and other programs, meaning you can study the MS-DOS code and then contribute to FreeDOS. Under the previous license, that was not the case. I wrote an article about it at the time: https://opensource.com/article/18/10/microsoft-open-source-old-versions-ms-dos On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 10:49 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
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
Re: [Freedos-user] Video complains that DOS should not be maintained
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. On 12/24/2021 4:59 PM, 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
Re: [Freedos-user] Video complains that DOS should not be maintained
I understand what you were saying. But remember that FreeDOS as an open-source project was created back in the 1990s, and more than 20 years had passed since then. Similarly, Linux as an open-source project was also created in the 1990s, and it has been getting mainstream support. There should be no doubt that both are open-source OSes, so the fact of being open-source project alone cannot explain the difference between FreeDOS and Linux. DOS and Linux have very different command-line styles. Both styles have their own advantages, and it is not the case that one is "better" than the other. Some people prefer the DOS style over the Linux style, so running Linux is not really the solution for them. While the kernels of most DOS flavors are single-tasking, there have been a lot of examples of achieving multi-tasking abilities on DOS systems, such as Windows 3.x and DESQView/X, although the latter has several limitations. Even Windows 9x is based on DOS, and it can be considered a greatly improved version of WFW 3.11. You can open several DOS command prompts in either Windows 3.x or 9x, and they are pretty stable for the most part. This did demonstrate that multi-tasking based on DOS is completely possible, and theoretically one can extract or try to replicate this ability from Windows 3.x or 9x and either made it a standalone multitasking manager for DOS, or embed it in an open-source DOS kernel. It does not need to be done by a single person - GNU/Linux is not developed by one person either, but many developers in the open-source community. This has not happened for the DOS community mostly because (unfortunately) many people mistakenly considered that multitasking is not possible for DOS, when it certainly can be done. Once there is a stable multitasking open-source DOS environment, then more people will realize the real potential of DOS, and there is a much better chance that DOS will develop in a way like Linux. Also, DOS is never limited to 16-bit. There are a lot of 32-bit programs or development environment for DOS, with DOS/4GW, DJGPP, and HX DOS Extender being some famous examples. So 32-bit is nothing new for DOS. HX-DOS Extender can even run some Windows 32 GUI PE programs on DOS, which is why programs like Bochs and DOSBox-X can run on DOS itself. Clearly, it is certainly possible for DOS to work like a modern OS like Linux, but some relatively common misconceptions of DOS severely limit its further developments so that it has not evolved into a modern environment. But if it gets substantial developments which attract more people in the open-source community, then it will develop even faster, unlike the current situation that its use cases getting more and more limited. WengierOn Friday, December 24, 2021, 09:07:11 p.m. EST, dmccunney wrote: On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 5:47 PM Wengier W via Freedos-user 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. Got access to lots and lots of money to throw at the problem? No? Assume it won't be solved. Aside from the questions of whether some of what you see as needed are *possible* on a single-tasking, single threaded system in a 16 bit environment, what you want will require serious system level hacking. The folks who *can* do that do it for a living and expect to be paid comparable salaries. They aren't going to spend the time and effort involved to contribute it as open source software to a hobby project that isn't even their hobby. If you want support for things like a modern OS like Linux does, *run* Linux. Assume DOS of any flavor will never have that level of support. __ Dennis > Wengier > > On Friday, December 24, 2021, 05:35:06 p.m. EST, John Vella > 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
Re: [Freedos-user] Video complains that DOS should not be maintained
On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 5:47 PM Wengier W via Freedos-user 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. Got access to lots and lots of money to throw at the problem? No? Assume it won't be solved. Aside from the questions of whether some of what you see as needed are *possible* on a single-tasking, single threaded system in a 16 bit environment, what you want will require serious system level hacking. The folks who *can* do that do it for a living and expect to be paid comparable salaries. They aren't going to spend the time and effort involved to contribute it as open source software to a hobby project that isn't even their hobby. If you want support for things like a modern OS like Linux does, *run* Linux. Assume DOS of any flavor will never have that level of support. __ Dennis > Wengier > > On Friday, December 24, 2021, 05:35:06 p.m. EST, John Vella > 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 -- ___ Dennis ___ 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 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 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
Re: [Freedos-user] Video complains that DOS should not be maintained
And beyond industrial systems, it is sometimes common to see DOS (and FreeDOS especially) used as part of firmware flashing processes for BIOS, IDE, SCSI, SATA, SAS, HBA, Ethernet and WiFi controllers especially in enterprise and network hardware. On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 11:08 AM Travis Siegel wrote: > Someone really should tell these guys that dos is still widely used in > industrial processes today, wonder what they'd say about that. :) > > > On 12/24/2021 12:53 PM, Parodper wrote: > > O 24/12/21 ás 18:30, Ralf Quint escribiu: > >> On 12/24/2021 4:48 AM, Bryan Kilgallin wrote: > >>> The comment against open-source DOS is at the end of this > >>> discussion. See after 26 minutes. > >>> https://youtu.be/Opqgwn8TdlM > >>> > >> 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... > >> > >> Ralf > >> > > > > They only mention MS-DOS as an example, at the end. Quote from 24:13 > > to 24:50: > > > > > [Talking about open source projects being maintained by only one or > > > two people] > > > You could see, for example, bits of software that really should be > > > allowed to die. But, [for example] let's suppose that MS-DOS was open > > > source. You can guarantee that there would probably be a community of > > > people still maintaining MS-DOS today. We probably don't want bits of > > > software like MS-DOS still being maintained. They're interesting > > > historical curiosities, [but] they're not software that should be used > > > today. And that's the danger, that the software exists beyond its sell > > > by date, because anyone can maintain it and it still looks useful. > > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > 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 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
Re: [Freedos-user] Video complains that DOS should not be maintained
On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 7:50 AM Bryan Kilgallin wrote: > > The comment against open-source DOS is at the end of this discussion. > See after 26 minutes. ,<...> The concern I see is "legacy" code. There are millions of lines of legacy code in production. They were tested and debugged, and considered bug free. So you get things like the problems with "bind" years back, where bad actors found a vulnerability they could use to compromise systems. The threats resulting did not exist when the bind code was written, and it got incorporated into an enormous number of things. The Log4J vulnerability is another example. Almost no programs are self-contained now. Just about everything uses libraries, which are *inte3nded* to promote code reuse. Log4J got incorporated into huge numbers of Java projects. So everyone faces the issue of fully understanding all of the parts that make up their application, with what library functions are called, and the practical impossibility of doing a full security audit on all of it. (Open source is one thing, but what if there is proprietary code you can't get source for tmpm do the audit? And no, proprietary code will not go away in favor of open source. Tough. Deal. And it assumes you are *competant* to perform a full security audit. Odds are, you aren't.) Things will get fixed when someone *breaks* them. Till then, everyone has other things to do. I'm aware of the Log4J vulnerability, but did not (and won't) wat6ch the video. I can *read* far faster than I can watch, and my scarce resource is time. But that said, I don't *care* that the chap on the video suggested DOS should go away. I'm a little surprised other folks do care. DOS, in both commercial and open source versions, is still in use, and isn't going away. It won't go away till folks stop using it. His opinion is simply irrelevant. __ Dennis ___ 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 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
Re: [Freedos-user] Video complains that DOS should not be maintained
I should probably add to my previous message that I don't think that the possibility that someone might expose FreeDOS in a business-critical embedded system to the network means it shouldn't be maintained, just that such an opinion isn't completely far-fetched. ___ 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
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... ___ 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 12/24/2021 11:06 AM, Travis Siegel wrote: Someone really should tell these guys that dos is still widely used in industrial processes today, wonder what they'd say about that. :) That's part of the problem, those are university goons, they don't live in the real world... >:) Ralf ;-) -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ 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
Someone really should tell these guys that dos is still widely used in industrial processes today, wonder what they'd say about that. :) On 12/24/2021 12:53 PM, Parodper wrote: O 24/12/21 ás 18:30, Ralf Quint escribiu: On 12/24/2021 4:48 AM, Bryan Kilgallin wrote: The comment against open-source DOS is at the end of this discussion. See after 26 minutes. https://youtu.be/Opqgwn8TdlM 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... Ralf They only mention MS-DOS as an example, at the end. Quote from 24:13 to 24:50: > [Talking about open source projects being maintained by only one or > two people] > You could see, for example, bits of software that really should be > allowed to die. But, [for example] let's suppose that MS-DOS was open > source. You can guarantee that there would probably be a community of > people still maintaining MS-DOS today. We probably don't want bits of > software like MS-DOS still being maintained. They're interesting > historical curiosities, [but] they're not software that should be used > today. And that's the danger, that the software exists beyond its sell > by date, because anyone can maintain it and it still looks useful. ___ 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
On 12/24/2021 9:53 AM, Parodper wrote: O 24/12/21 ás 18:30, Ralf Quint escribiu: On 12/24/2021 4:48 AM, Bryan Kilgallin wrote: The comment against open-source DOS is at the end of this discussion. See after 26 minutes. https://youtu.be/Opqgwn8TdlM 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... Ralf They only mention MS-DOS as an example, at the end. Quote from 24:13 to 24:50: > [Talking about open source projects being maintained by only one or > two people] > You could see, for example, bits of software that really should be > allowed to die. But, [for example] let's suppose that MS-DOS was open > source. You can guarantee that there would probably be a community of > people still maintaining MS-DOS today. We probably don't want bits of > software like MS-DOS still being maintained. They're interesting > historical curiosities, [but] they're not software that should be used > today. And that's the danger, that the software exists beyond its sell > by date, because anyone can maintain it and it still looks useful. Yes, I saw the video now, but given the subject of that "discussion" in the video, that dude was just blowing hot air. It would be extremely hard to even intentionally create a vulnerability like Log4j/JNDI, as DOS is a single tasking, single thread OS to begin with. Just show me a single practical use case where a remote execution exploit would be really possible... The real threat of things like the Log4Shell stuff is because specially in Java (but also in languages like C++ or C#) too many lazy programmers are just inheriting the crap out of existing classes/methods so that nobody really knows what all is happening along the way in a call to a function. In DOS, and really DOS applicable languages (language implementations), due to the size constraints, this isn't really the case. Unless someone, like a lot of people in recent years, don't take DOS for being DOS anymore, but try to use "modern" concepts/libraries, just to do a quick job and don't care (even know) about such constraints anymore. And a reason why I am always rather critical when people try to use in FreeDOS tools and do things like, for example, in Linux... Ralf Ralf -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ 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
O 24/12/21 ás 18:30, Ralf Quint escribiu: On 12/24/2021 4:48 AM, Bryan Kilgallin wrote: The comment against open-source DOS is at the end of this discussion. See after 26 minutes. https://youtu.be/Opqgwn8TdlM 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... Ralf They only mention MS-DOS as an example, at the end. Quote from 24:13 to 24:50: > [Talking about open source projects being maintained by only one or > two people] > You could see, for example, bits of software that really should be > allowed to die. But, [for example] let's suppose that MS-DOS was open > source. You can guarantee that there would probably be a community of > people still maintaining MS-DOS today. We probably don't want bits of > software like MS-DOS still being maintained. They're interesting > historical curiosities, [but] they're not software that should be used > today. And that's the danger, that the software exists beyond its sell > by date, because anyone can maintain it and it still looks useful. ___ 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 12/24/2021 4:48 AM, Bryan Kilgallin wrote: The comment against open-source DOS is at the end of this discussion. See after 26 minutes. https://youtu.be/Opqgwn8TdlM 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... Ralf -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
[Freedos-user] Video complains that DOS should not be maintained
The comment against open-source DOS is at the end of this discussion. See after 26 minutes. https://youtu.be/Opqgwn8TdlM -- members.iinet.net.au/~kilgallin/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
