1. Forum
  2. USENET
  3. aus.computers

  • Microsoft open sources DOS 1.0

    From Axel@none@not.here to aus.computers on Tue May 5 10:04:47 2026
    From Newsgroup: aus.computers



    <https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-open-sources-dos-1-0-much-more-than-the-code/>
    --
    Linux Mint 22.3

    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From JJ@jj4public@gmail.com to aus.computers on Tue May 5 13:37:54 2026
    From Newsgroup: aus.computers

    On Tue, 5 May 2026 10:04:47 +1000, Axel wrote:
    <https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-open-sources-dos-1-0-much-more-than-the-code/>

    All Microsoft's released MS-DOS source codes are not true open source. All
    of them are missing the source code for the boot sector bootstrap code.
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Frank Slootweg@this@ddress.is.invalid to aus.computers on Tue May 5 12:57:01 2026
    From Newsgroup: aus.computers

    JJ <jj4public@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Tue, 5 May 2026 10:04:47 +1000, Axel wrote:
    <https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-open-sources-dos-1-0-much-more-than-the-code/>

    All Microsoft's released MS-DOS source codes are not true open source. All
    of them are missing the source code for the boot sector bootstrap code.

    Well, strictly speaking the boot sector bootstrap code is not part of
    MS-DOS, because it could boot any OS. But the fact that most of the time
    the boot sector bootstrap code will be *generated* by the relevant
    MS-DOS command (AFAIR 'SYS' in the old days) the point is rather theoretical/moot.
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Frank Slootweg@this@ddress.is.invalid to aus.computers on Tue May 5 13:50:39 2026
    From Newsgroup: aus.computers

    A liitle earlier, I wrote:
    JJ <jj4public@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Tue, 5 May 2026 10:04:47 +1000, Axel wrote:
    <https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-open-sources-dos-1-0-much-more-than-the-code/>

    All Microsoft's released MS-DOS source codes are not true open source. All of them are missing the source code for the boot sector bootstrap code.

    Well, strictly speaking the boot sector bootstrap code is not part of MS-DOS, because it could boot any OS. But the fact that most of the time
    the boot sector bootstrap code will be *generated* by the relevant
    MS-DOS command (AFAIR 'SYS' in the old days) the point is rather theoretical/moot.

    Oops, that probably should be FORMAT (or FDISK for a multi-partition
    disk), not SYS. SYS puts the (MS-DOS) io.sys and msdos.sys files (and -
    version dependent - command.com file) on the already formatted disk/
    partition.

    Anyway, as I said, the point is theoretical/moot, because other OSs
    can generate a boot sector, MBR, etc..
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From JJ@jj4public@gmail.com to aus.computers on Wed May 6 15:02:10 2026
    From Newsgroup: aus.computers

    On 5 May 2026 12:57:01 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

    JJ <jj4public@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Tue, 5 May 2026 10:04:47 +1000, Axel wrote:
    <https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-open-sources-dos-1-0-much-more-than-the-code/>

    All Microsoft's released MS-DOS source codes are not true open source. All >> of them are missing the source code for the boot sector bootstrap code.

    Well, strictly speaking the boot sector bootstrap code is not part of MS-DOS, because it could boot any OS. But the fact that most of the time
    the boot sector bootstrap code will be *generated* by the relevant
    MS-DOS command (AFAIR 'SYS' in the old days) the point is rather theoretical/moot.

    DOS is not an assembly compiler. It does not generate the bootstrap from scratch. The bootstrap binary had to be at least precompiled, and that precompiled bootstrap binary must come from somewhere. Or unless you're suggesting that, the bootstrap binary was made using a hex editor?
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Frank Slootweg@this@ddress.is.invalid to aus.computers on Wed May 6 14:09:18 2026
    From Newsgroup: aus.computers

    JJ <jj4public@gmail.com> wrote:
    On 5 May 2026 12:57:01 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

    JJ <jj4public@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Tue, 5 May 2026 10:04:47 +1000, Axel wrote:
    <https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-open-sources-dos-1-0-much-more-than-the-code/>

    All Microsoft's released MS-DOS source codes are not true open source. All >> of them are missing the source code for the boot sector bootstrap code.

    Well, strictly speaking the boot sector bootstrap code is not part of MS-DOS, because it could boot any OS. But the fact that most of the time the boot sector bootstrap code will be *generated* by the relevant
    MS-DOS command (AFAIR 'SYS' in the old days) the point is rather theoretical/moot.

    DOS is not an assembly compiler. It does not generate the bootstrap from scratch. The bootstrap binary had to be at least precompiled, and that precompiled bootstrap binary must come from somewhere. Or unless you're suggesting that, the bootstrap binary was made using a hex editor?

    All true, but my point is that the boot sector bootstrap code is not
    really a part of MS-DOS, so that code is not really "missing" from what Microsoft released.

    All you need is the binary code and you can get that from anywhere.

    Also other OSs can create (probably 'generate' was not the best word)
    a boot sector on a disk and some of them - noteably Linux - *will* have
    the source code for (their version of) the boot sector code.

    So I fail to see that there is really anything "missing" here.
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From JJ@jj4public@gmail.com to aus.computers on Thu May 7 03:29:42 2026
    From Newsgroup: aus.computers

    On 6 May 2026 14:09:18 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

    All true, but my point is that the boot sector bootstrap code is not
    really a part of MS-DOS,

    Yes it does. You can't use boot sector bootstrap code from e.g. IBM PC-DOS
    or FreeDOS, to boot MS-DOS.

    You're probably referring to the MBR bootstrap code, which is OS
    independent.
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Keithr0@nothing.to.see@here.com.au to aus.computers on Thu May 7 10:49:45 2026
    From Newsgroup: aus.computers

    On 7/05/2026 6:29 am, JJ wrote:
    On 6 May 2026 14:09:18 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

    All true, but my point is that the boot sector bootstrap code is not
    really a part of MS-DOS,

    Yes it does. You can't use boot sector bootstrap code from e.g. IBM PC-DOS
    or FreeDOS, to boot MS-DOS.

    You're probably referring to the MBR bootstrap code, which is OS
    independent.

    https://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/mbr/DOS50FDB.htm

    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Frank Slootweg@this@ddress.is.invalid to aus.computers on Thu May 7 12:24:43 2026
    From Newsgroup: aus.computers

    JJ <jj4public@gmail.com> wrote:
    On 6 May 2026 14:09:18 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

    All true, but my point is that the boot sector bootstrap code is not really a part of MS-DOS,

    Yes it does. You can't use boot sector bootstrap code from e.g. IBM PC-DOS
    or FreeDOS, to boot MS-DOS.

    If you say so, but that still doesn't explain why you need the source
    code.

    Anyway, Keith' reference sort of gives the source code, at least for
    MS-DOS 5.0! :-)

    You're probably referring to the MBR bootstrap code, which is OS
    independent.

    No, I was/am talking about the boot sector. (I mentioned the MBR and
    FDISK in side notes.)

    (AFAIC,) EOD.
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2