On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 1:29 PM Ben Sauvin wrote:
>
> Legacy applications can also be a lot of fun.
For suitable values of the term. :-p
> I used to work for a "high tech" company that ran a kind of ERP on DOS
> machines. It was a mass of compiled COBOL, source code not available and the
>
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 7:33 PM Jim Hall wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 6:00 PM, dmccunney wrote:
> > Agreed on being as free as possible, and the question is how free
> > FreeDOS *can* be.
> >
> > The bigger question is "Why use FreeDOS at *all*?" No amount of
> > freedom will compensate for
Legacy applications can also be a lot of fun.
I used to work for a "high tech" company that ran a kind of ERP on DOS
machines. It was a mass of compiled COBOL, source code not available and
the company that produced it already gone out of business. Moving through
successive versions of Windows
In fact there are some companies still making money with DOS. I worked
for a company until mid 2016 building embedded 386EX systems, which they
still do up to now. They license Datalight ROMDOS as well as a BIOS from
another vendor, but for that I do not remember the name...
Once I was
On 9/30/2018 8:51 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 12:14 AM Random Liegh via Freedos-user
wrote:
On 9/29/2018 3:09 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 3:47 AM Random Liegh via Freedos-user
wrote:
I'm not sure this has any value for FreeDOS beyond experimenting (can
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 12:14 AM Random Liegh via Freedos-user
wrote:
> On 9/29/2018 3:09 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 3:47 AM Random Liegh via Freedos-user
> > wrote:
> >> I'm not sure this has any value for FreeDOS beyond experimenting (can
> >> this be built by the VAL
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 6:02 PM dmccunney wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 7:51 PM Rugxulo wrote:
> >
> > "No loss" might be inaccurate. While it may be trivial compared to
> > "newer technology", it's impossible to say that their (MSDN?) revenue
> > from such legacy software is so low as
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 7:51 PM Rugxulo wrote:
>> FreeDOS seems to mostly focus on "four freedoms" (free/libre), aka GPL
>> or OSI. As long as we're as "free" as possible, I think we're okay. It
>> gives us the most advantages, and it helps the most people. But I
>> don't think splitting hairs
On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 7:51 PM Rugxulo wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 8:17 AM dmccunney wrote:
> >
> > It's no loss to MS to make DOS 1.5 and 2.0 available under a permissive
> > license.
>
> "No loss" might be inaccurate. While it may be trivial compared to
> "newer technology", it's
On 9/30/2018 1:34 PM, geneb wrote:
Visual Studio for Macintosh will handle the issue for MacOS, Xamarin
will handle the issue for Linux and I don't know of anyone that uses a
GUI on FreeBSD. :) Yes, I know ARM isn't an OS. That's not the
point. The .NET Micro Framework specifically targets
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018, Ralf Quint wrote:
On 9/30/2018 10:18 AM, geneb wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, Ralf Quint wrote:
I couldn't care less about .NET, it's pretty much a non-portable, dead-end
technology, just years behind the curve. A lot of former Java fanatics
(for which .NET became a
On 9/30/2018 10:18 AM, geneb wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, Ralf Quint wrote:
I couldn't care less about .NET, it's pretty much a non-portable,
dead-end technology, just years behind the curve. A lot of former
Java fanatics (for which .NET became a substitute once M$ could not
get to terms with
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, Ralf Quint wrote:
I couldn't care less about .NET, it's pretty much a non-portable, dead-end
technology, just years behind the curve. A lot of former Java fanatics (for
which .NET became a substitute once M$ could not get to terms with Sun) have
jumped that ship already
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Random Liegh wrote:
>
>
> * On 9/29/2018 3:09 PM, Rugxulo wrote: *
>>
>>
>> * Hi,*
>> On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 3:47 AM Random Liegh wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure this has any value for FreeDOS beyond experimenting (can
>>> this be built by the VAL linker? seems
>
>
>
> > (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.)
>
>
Correct. Re-licensing the code base would require
On 9/29/2018 3:09 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 3:47 AM Random Liegh via Freedos-user
wrote:
I'm not sure this has any value for FreeDOS beyond experimenting (can
this be built by the VAL linker? seems doubtful) and possibly getting
some ideas
Not sure why you think VAL is
Hi,
On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 5:39 PM dmccunney wrote:
>
> Those were the days when MS was the outfit who got a start writing a
> version of BASIC for microcomputers, and got asked by IBM to craft
> an OS for the then new IBM PC.
Outsourcing software development was also a way for IBM to avoid
Hi,
On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 8:17 AM dmccunney wrote:
>
> It's no loss to MS to make DOS 1.5 and 2.0 available under a permissive
> license.
"No loss" might be inaccurate. While it may be trivial compared to
"newer technology", it's impossible to say that their (MSDN?) revenue
from such legacy
Hi,
On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 3:47 AM Random Liegh via Freedos-user
wrote:
>
> I'm not sure this has any value for FreeDOS beyond experimenting (can
> this be built by the VAL linker? seems doubtful) and possibly getting
> some ideas
Not sure why you think VAL is the main target or only 16-bit
On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 4:47 PM Ralf Quint wrote:
> On 9/29/2018 6:14 AM, dmccunney wrote:
> >
> > IIRC, the FreeDOS kernel is written largely in C, so the ASM source
> > isn't directly usable. It may be useful to go spelunking for the
> > algorithms used and how corner cases were handled.
> It
>> IIRC, the FreeDOS kernel is written largely in C, so the ASM source
>> isn't directly usable. It may be useful to go spelunking for the
>> algorithms used and how corner cases were handled.
> It certainly can help to deal with issues that arise out of undocumented
> features/bugs/issues, which
On 9/29/2018 6:14 AM, dmccunney wrote:
IIRC, the FreeDOS kernel is written largely in C, so the ASM source
isn't directly usable. It may be useful to go spelunking for the
algorithms used and how corner cases were handled.
It certainly can help to deal with issues that arise out of
On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 8:10 AM Jim Hall wrote:
>
> This is a very interesting update. Finally Microsoft has released the source
> code to MS-DOS under a recognized open source license. And interestingly, the
> MIT license (aka Expat license) is compatible with the GNU GPL
>
This is a very interesting update. Finally Microsoft has released the
source code to MS-DOS under a recognized open source license. And
interestingly, the MIT license (aka Expat license) is compatible with the
GNU GPL (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#Expat)
These are very old
Hi!
> "Re-open sourcing MS-DOS 1.25 and 2.0"
> https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/commandline/2018/09/28/re-open-sourcing-ms-dos-1-25-and-2-0/
...
> Under an MIT (OSI) License.
> I'm not sure this has any value for FreeDOS...
If anything, then maybe that ancient config.sys option
to support
25 matches
Mail list logo
