Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > aus.computers > #73959 > unrolled thread

Microsoft open sources DOS 1.0

Back to article view | Back to aus.computers

Contents

  Microsoft open sources DOS 1.0 Axel <none@not.here> - 2026-05-05 10:04 +1000
    Re: Microsoft open sources DOS 1.0 JJ <jj4public@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 13:37 +0700
      Re: Microsoft open sources DOS 1.0 Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-05-05 12:57 +0000
        Re: Microsoft open sources DOS 1.0 Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-05-05 13:50 +0000
        Re: Microsoft open sources DOS 1.0 JJ <jj4public@gmail.com> - 2026-05-06 15:02 +0700
          Re: Microsoft open sources DOS 1.0 Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-05-06 14:09 +0000
            Re: Microsoft open sources DOS 1.0 JJ <jj4public@gmail.com> - 2026-05-07 03:29 +0700
              Re: Microsoft open sources DOS 1.0 Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> - 2026-05-07 10:49 +1000
              Re: Microsoft open sources DOS 1.0 Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2026-05-07 12:24 +0000
      Re: Microsoft open sources DOS 1.0 malxau <invalid@invalid.net> - 2026-05-23 04:09 +0000

#73959 — Microsoft open sources DOS 1.0

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

-- 
Linux Mint 22.3

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#73960

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73961

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73962

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..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73963

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?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73964

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73965

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73966

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73967

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73976

JJ <jj4public@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I've been working with the 4.0 release.  src\boot\msboot.asm should
generate boot.inc which is the code included by format.  I think it's
all there.

(...it's also quite nuts.  It checks that the system files are the first
two in the root directory, but loads the first cluster on the disk
to boot from whether the files point to it or not.  sys.com works by
defragging to ensure the first few clusters are free, poking the global
DOS memory to tell the allocator to look at the first cluster, and
creating a file.)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | aus.computers

csiph-web