Microsoft released DOS 1.25 and 2.00 under the MIT license

Useless piece of shit. It's like a bad copy of Unix.

Does make you wonder why they didn't release it up to version 6 or 7, though. Surely this IP can't still be meaningful for them.

It's a clone of CP/M retard

What was the boot procedure, actually? What kind of software was installed into the boot sector?

brainlet zoomer here, does this matter at all

It's all assembler, I was expecting C.

>v2.0/source/QUICK.txt
>EDLIN
> Ridiculous editor
Interesting that Microsoft thought that already back then.

kys

interesting. whats better then, this or FreeDOS?

How could you possibly have been expecting that? I'm not even sure there was an x86 C compiler back then.

please leave Jow Forums or kys

>DIR - Directory and path cracking
>path cracking
I've never heard this phrase before.

The term is new to me too, but it obviously mean to tokenize paths.

Does anyone know how it boots? What would have been in the boot sector?

In practical terms, not a great deal. This is mostly just a curiosity for programmers of a certain age. But it could possibly lead to some better compatibility in projects like FreeDOS and DosBox.

Well FreeDOS is going to have way more features and support more overall, but there might be some highly specific and obscure software that only worked right on genuine DOS.

>ruin my Jow Forums
We're so sorry your majesty, but don't worry your carriage awaits you to travel back to /v/. Have a good trip.

Attached: majesty.jpg (212x237, 15K)

this is all very interesting. So this was released on an MIT license? Does that allow FreeDOS to take code from it?

wtf i love dos now

yes

Well, I hope the FreeDOS project takes advantage of this. I have been planning on running FreeDOS on one of my computers for some time now, just havent gotten around to it.

>I have been planning on running FreeDOS on one of my computers for some time now
genuine question: why, though? curiosity, nostalgia or does DOS have something interesting for your use case? it's very old and it's basically a subset of everything available today

D.O.S. 5 or 6.20 when? Anything else is useless for dosbox.

>1.25 and 2.00
Why not 5.0 or 6.22? Those would actually be somewhat useful.

Maybe never. That's about when Microsoft were "allegedly" doing some dodgy things in DOS to make sure some of their productivity software only ran on their operating system. I doubt they'd want the absolute proof of that out there, even this many years later.

>curiosity
yes

>nostalgia
I never used DOS, I grew up on Apple IIs, then MacOS6, and so on. I think I could still get nostalgia though, just from using an OS that was widely used when I was growing up, but yeah not quite. Maybe for me to experience what could have been, had I not been raised in an Apple family?

>or does DOS have something interesting for your use case?
quite possibly. I love simple projects, and DOS is a nice light operating system. There is something very appealing about an operating system that can fit into 1.4MB. Doesnt a lot of CNC stuff still run on DOS?

>releasing the secrets that drove companies out of business in the 90's
this

>I never used DOS, I grew up on Apple IIs, then MacOS6, and so on. I think I could still get nostalgia though, just from using an OS that was widely used when I was growing up, but yeah not quite. Maybe for me to experience what could have been, had I not been raised in an Apple family?
I think that yes, you can. I grew up in a DOS/Windows PC household, and later had a play around with classic Mac OS on old machines. (Mostly actually as part of my quest to run Linux on as many diverse platforms as I could, but that's another story.) Was interesting seeing how the "other side" actually was when I was just mindlessly attacking them for not being IBM-compatible.

>quite possibly. I love simple projects, and DOS is a nice light operating system. There is something very appealing about an operating system that can fit into 1.4MB. Doesnt a lot of CNC stuff still run on DOS?
A proper install of DOS will not fit into 1.4MB, but is still pretty damn small compared to anything modern. I'm not sure just how much CNC equipment is still DOS-based, but I do remember it being pretty normal for "current" CNC equipment to be running DOS 3.3 at a time when PCs were typically running Windows 2000.

>Mostly actually as part of my quest to run Linux on as many diverse platforms as I could
Nice, my first time installing Linux was on a G3 (Debian). Ive since run Linux on various PPC Macs, as well as various SPARC systems, in addition to my MIPS based router and Arm based Pi. I thought I installed Linux on more architectures but thats all I can think of...

Nice. I'd done Linux on a couple of generations of PowerPC-based Mac - starting with a NuBus PowerMac, which for various reasons couldn't directly boot Linux so you had to use a classic Mac OS application that crashed Mac OS to load Linux. Done some MIPS-based routers, RasPis of course, a couple of SPARCs, tried to get my hands on an Acorn machine to do an "original" ARM as well, but a deal to get one fell through. And likewise I have a feeling I'd done at least one other architecture, but can't remember what.

> starting with a NuBus PowerMac
Nice, as a teen my personal computer was a Quadra 950 that got upgraded with an 80MHz PPC601 card w 4x 72pin RAM slots. Thing had 20 RAM slots total. Had some great NuBus cards for it too. Had to sell it all as an adult when I left a job and had to pay rent. It hurt selling that PPC601 card w RAM slots, only got like $150 for it, and it was rare as fuck. Will probably never find another one in my life. Would love to have tried Linux on that wonky ass setup

As a side note I remember the 68K often had better performance than the PPC (you could choose which you booted into), presumably the software was 68k native and running in an emulation mode

Oh, and the RAM on the PPC card was accessible while in 68K mode. officially it supported 384MB RAM total, though it may have been possible to run more; the PowerPro w RAM expansion just wasnt well tested with SIMMs larger than 32MB

Don't you fools understand?
We now have a kernel! Based Windows basically gave us a kermel base to build a new libre OS! We have a way out of the Linux curse!!!

Oh man, CPU card setups like that have always fascinated me, but I've never had a chance to play with one. I feel for you having to get rid of that one, it sounded awesome.

BSD has always been there, user.

No one cares about DOS 1.25 and 2.00
Release 6.0+ or fuck off.

How the fuck am I supposed to run x86 on an ARM machine??

My thoughts as well. Wonder if they're getting any income from 6 at all.

Emulation.

>No one cares about DOS 1.25 and 2.00
I care about every commercially released version, internal version, and piece of software Microsoft has ever created

Attached: 820dmwwsgki11.png (1588x1600, 812K)

>Millennial
Only people 18+ are allowed on Jow Forums.

dude, any time a major software is released as open-source it is a big deal. especially by microsoft, and especially an entire operating system. Agreed, they should release newer versions, and, well, everything else including windows xp and windows 10. before this announcement, there was one less open source operating system in the world. the world is now a better place. I hope what comes of this is improvements to FreeDOS, and Microsoft getting lots of praise for it to encourage them to do the same. Saying "who cares, release DOS6" is unappreciative of a nice thing they have done. Saying "thanks very much, maybe some day you could release DOS6" is the way to show appreciation while getting your point across

The term "millennial" includes people who are 30+ in case you didn't realize

This. Release the last version, not the first. Duh.

t. 30 year old boomer

Correction, 24 year old boomet

Microsoft has lost its way.

good?

sad imo

it is a bad way to have an operating system be closed-source. I think closed-source applications are acceptable, but not the operating system.

when microsoft released Halo2 for PC, they made it require Windows Vista, even though there was no technological reason for it to not run on XP. They did this just to force people who wanted to play Halo2 to have to shell out more money for a whole new operating system. Is this what you consider a good way?

gtfo tripfag

Nothing since they didn't release a working copy of MASM to compile it with.

Yes, it's a good way. As a company you don't want to spread your resources too thin. If you are trying to support a decade old OS and a new current one at the same time you're going to have to cut corners somewhere. Only have one OS to maintain? It's more likely that you'll be able to do a better job.

There's nothing wrong with a closed source OS - the only problem Microsoft really has is the need to be backwards compatible for unreasonably long times which makes them have to invest way too many resources for GeneriBank 2000 that is too Jew to upgrade to a modern OS. That's why they try to force upgrades.

>boomet
hello bby ;)

Pretty sure they can't release anything higher than 2 since there is licensed code from third parties in MSDOS 3 and onwards

The sources for MS-DOS 5 have been floating around the internet since 1999 or so.

On the one hand, I do agree with in that it's never a bad thing for more open source code to be released to the world, even if it is decades old and more curio than useful, and Microsoft have never been under any obligation to release any code publicly. And as such we shouldn't be dicks about it and demanding other things. On the other hand, releasing only the very earliest version(s) possible, like they did with this and File Manager, does seem like a pretty empty gesture when they could release a more recent version. Windows 7 or the current version of Explorer isn't very reasonable to expect them to open source, but the latest version of a no-longer-supported system such as DOS would be a better gesture that contributes decently, even if it's still not very relevant in a modern context.

On the other other hand though, DOS 5+ source code likely includes proof of various anticompetitive practices they've been vigorously denying all this time, so of course they're not going to release that.

In fairness, a lot of corporate reluctance to upgrade software is less cheapness and more "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" - no-one wants to upgrade and have production suddenly break when just keeping the old one works fine.

>There's nothing wrong with a closed source OS
yes, yes there is. the operating system is what runs your hardware, hardware which you own. by having a closed source OS, you don't truly have control over your own computer

Slashdot is actually a pretty good social media site. It's remained unchanged for the past ten years, which means its mostly dodged the craziness that has engulfed the internet.

>yes, yes there is. the operating system is what runs your hardware, hardware which you own. by having a closed source OS, you don't truly have control over your own computer
GTFO Stallman cultist. There's enough fully documented shit on how Windows work that you can be fairly confident on what's happening. At the end of the day, you have to eventually just trust at some point.
Say you're a total GNU niggerfaggot and that's all that is ok for you - there's still some point at which you have to step back and say, "OK I trust that this is safe". Only the fullest autist understands how a computer works from OS down to the molecular level.

>There's enough fully documented shit on how Windows work that you can be fairly confident on what's happening
Hey how many snapshots of your desktop and programs does Windows 10 send back? What is all of the telemetry bullshit in it and why does it continue to phone home after you disable every single piece of it and opt out of all programs?

What? You don't know? But I thought you were fairly confident on what was happening.

>At the end of the day, you have to eventually just trust at some point.
Absolutely, but you still need to carefully consider what to trust and what not to. Like, between this dude I've known for years who's done a bunch of favours for me and I've done a bunch for him, or this random dude who's behaving erratically and has these strange brown-red stains on his shirt, I need to choose to trust one not to stab me.

>I only trust third party audits when they're done on the OS I use

You mean zoomer underage, even millennials know what MSDOS is.

>GTFO Stallman cultist
I said I thought it was OK if applications were closed-source. what kind of fagget are you?

just get out Rich

linux is nowadays full bloat and *bsd is full autism so i'm thinking to switch to this os. just asking before doing that is there a good repo for this msdos version which includes firefox and foobar?