Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS on SSD
Rayman Bathurst- Hi, -I'm impressed with your cred with CP/M and PDPs. But, maybe you're so experienced that it's difficult to ask questions as a newbie? I mean, did you skip right into Windows from there or do you have any experience with IBM-, MS- or DR-DOS? Also, for example, it's difficult to understand what you mean by "idiotproof" without explaining your purpose, like: why would you want to do such an unusual thing? For any 32 or 64-bit PC or evaluation board, on a fresh SSD, you'd want to install a tiny linux, bsd, or even risc-os (on Raspberry Pi) first, and emulate or dual boot DOS in one way or another from there. It's hard to imagine why one would want to do what you ask (unless a hacked antique PC or 16-bit board maybe?). I went from Apple ProDOS, a VAX account in college, to 68k Mac, then DOS. It was a challenge to self-teach myself back then, but I feel like I have some DOS cred now. Additional note to Ghostdewolf: I never trust "Linus Tech Tips" or any Youtube video that starts with some guy making bizarre or shocked expressions in the intro: they're exploiting algorithms that indicates that faces with strange expressions attract clicks, not to mention exploiting Linus Torvold's name. Sure, Linus isn't too unusual a name, but I'm certain with "tech tips" he's purely exploiting the name for marketing purposes. I curse Google's Adwords for letting this get out of control on YouTube. Anyways, an explanation of what the exact application is here would help those of us who know DOS and SSDs, but who have never attempted this particular task because it's too impractical for 99+% use cases. > > 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] FreeDOS website
I'm glad this is being cleared up a bit here. Yes, I should have made the civil/criminal distinction. Yes, it's too expensive to be practical for commercial companies. But still, at least in my fantasies, Stallman would have done a big fundraiser to bring such a case to court, since he seems to be attached to principals rather than personal enrichment. My ex worked for the remnants of Symbolics. Ironically, when someone was interested in buying and making the company an educational non-profit, one new employee took it upon himself to propose Macsyma, among their other software, be open sourced, to the "benefactor." This undermined the CEO's pitch, though I have no clear idea what else made the negotiation fail, except the Harvard math department got the money instead(!). But I got hooked on linux and, at least the theory of, Open Source. ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
[Freedos-user] FreeDOS website
Brand new to this mailing list, but I wanted to respond to a conversation about Open source licences, and apologies to the authors, I lost track of who said what in the following: >>> (Speaking personally, I'd love to see *FreeDOS* re-licensed under >>> something other than the GPL.) >> I don't honestly know if that's even legally possible now that Pat >> has died. (Gotta love legalese, ugh. No, I'm not a lawyer.) > I don't believe it is possible. >> I also don't think GPL hinders many potential contributors (versus, >> what, BSD two-clause??). I'll admit that GPL can cause some practical >> problems, in rare cases, but it also avoids or solves some other >> practical problems (again, in some rare cases). Firstly, *GPL still presently has no American legal force behind it!* dmccunney (I believe) mentioned Stallman's lack of touch with reality, and, I think this is reflected most importantly in the fact that he hasn't rallied behind any court case against any GPL violators. American law, based on the *common law* system, builds upon legal court precedent. When no one sues (admittedly an expensive process, that someone like Stallman might have to get funding for), it remains in legal limbo. Maybe I'm just unaware, and some company like Red Hat has already embarked on legal proceedings. But until then, violating GPL will *only *bring anger from the "open source community". The situation for an American violator parallels that of Chinese company that's unafraid of violating American copyright: No legal enforcement; minimal repercussions. Complaining about FreeDOS being GPL'd is a little silly. If your commercial company doesn't want or need the goodwill of the "FOSS movement", and can get a reasonable profit while violating any GPL, they might as well do so. Some companies might be afraid of this changing in the future, licencing is written so they might have a good case when it does, thus compliance is higher than it might otherwise be. PS I understand "legalese" because I earned an Associates degree in Paralegal Studies, not because I'm a lawyer. In fact I steered away from that career precisely because so many lawyers and law firms are jerks, and squeeze paralegals for all they can. Courts are also among the last to adopt new tech, which is why some paralegals might be interested in adopting software like FreeDOS. Compatibility with old apps and formats (WP 5.1 for DOS) is in demand with paralegals (more importantly with their deep-pocketed bosses). ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
