Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #151935 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-05-01 22:19 -0700 |
| Last post | 2020-05-18 13:25 +1200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 188 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-01 22:19 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 01:24 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 01:56 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 02:06 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment shi84516584@gmail.com - 2020-05-19 17:53 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 02:07 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 02:23 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment shi84516584@gmail.com - 2020-05-19 17:55 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2020-05-02 11:05 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 02:14 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-03 22:33 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-03 16:18 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-04 00:35 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-03 17:54 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-05-03 18:38 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-03 18:51 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-04 09:36 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 08:48 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 01:12 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-04 15:16 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 06:21 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-04 15:40 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 07:12 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-04 14:47 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 07:08 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 08:12 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2020-05-05 11:36 -0500
Re: pure C90 environment James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-05-19 11:25 -0400
Re: pure C90 environment James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-05-19 11:39 -0400
Re: pure C90 environment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 08:45 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-19 17:43 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-05-19 12:35 -0400
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-19 20:14 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-05-19 14:42 -0400
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 12:11 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-19 21:46 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 13:11 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 14:39 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 13:24 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-20 09:26 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-19 21:11 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-05-19 18:51 -0400
Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-19 23:26 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-20 09:33 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-04 11:49 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 04:00 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-04 17:58 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 10:18 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 13:57 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 12:11 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-02 11:26 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 13:06 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 04:26 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 04:53 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 16:21 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 11:20 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 16:20 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 07:33 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 16:35 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-02 17:30 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 18:37 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-02 18:18 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 19:25 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 19:25 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-05-02 22:45 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-02 23:29 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-05-03 03:55 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-03 13:07 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-05-03 05:24 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-05-03 05:26 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-03 14:27 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-05-03 22:38 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-05-03 22:06 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-04 00:28 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-05-03 02:16 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-05-03 16:23 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 16:41 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-05-04 16:59 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-05-04 11:01 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-02 11:13 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 03:53 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 05:14 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 06:30 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 12:49 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-05-13 03:01 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-13 14:43 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-17 06:30 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-17 05:41 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-05-17 13:02 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-17 22:47 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-17 14:03 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-18 08:54 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 06:11 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 06:51 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 07:12 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-18 15:47 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2020-05-18 16:25 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 07:41 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2020-05-18 17:32 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-18 17:09 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 08:52 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-18 17:05 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 09:18 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-18 19:55 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-05-19 01:42 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 20:35 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-19 16:12 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 10:02 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-19 17:42 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-19 18:16 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-19 13:00 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 05:09 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-19 15:20 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 08:18 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-19 17:58 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 10:45 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-19 19:31 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 11:58 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-19 20:44 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 13:03 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-19 22:34 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 15:41 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-20 00:03 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 16:10 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-20 01:46 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 22:49 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-20 11:26 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-20 04:43 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 16:40 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-19 23:11 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 11:40 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-20 05:48 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-20 06:19 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-05-20 16:38 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-20 09:15 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-20 09:37 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-20 10:43 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-05-20 10:58 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-20 11:36 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-20 12:37 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 17:43 -0800
Re: pure C90 environment "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 17:58 -0800
Re: pure C90 environment "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 18:03 -0800
Re: pure C90 environment "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 18:29 -0800
Re: pure C90 environment "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 19:54 -0800
Re: pure C90 environment "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 20:01 -0800
Re: pure C90 environment "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 20:04 -0800
Re: pure C90 environment "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 21:07 -0800
Re: pure C90 environment Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-03-10 23:10 -0800
Re: pure C90 environment "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-03-11 01:21 -0800
Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-03-11 15:26 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-19 17:18 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-19 09:52 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-19 17:39 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-19 16:17 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-05-19 22:54 +0100
Re: pure C90 environment Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2020-05-20 10:17 +1200
Re: pure C90 environment Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2020-05-19 16:28 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-19 17:30 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2020-05-19 19:39 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-18 15:12 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-18 19:51 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 13:02 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2020-05-18 15:52 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-18 17:15 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-18 20:10 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 13:18 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-18 23:21 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-19 13:21 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-19 13:12 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-19 16:21 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-18 19:48 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-18 19:47 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-19 13:23 +0200
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-17 13:54 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-05-17 16:45 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-17 17:27 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-18 14:44 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 08:17 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-18 21:39 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-18 21:58 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 16:40 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-19 00:22 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-05-19 00:27 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-19 16:10 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2020-05-18 14:59 -0700
Re: pure C90 environment scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-05-18 20:01 +0000
Re: pure C90 environment Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2020-05-18 13:25 +1200
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
| From | Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-01 22:19 -0700 |
| Subject | pure C90 environment |
| Message-ID | <005caece-e5a1-4376-8e05-7ed7b02afe4a@googlegroups.com> |
For decades I have been working on creating a public domain operating system called PDOS/386. You can see the project here: http://pdos.sourceforge.net/ About a week ago there was a major breakthrough - the OS has become self-hosting, ie you can use PDOS/386 to develop PDOS/386. PDOS/386 supports both a 32-bit MSDOS-like API as well as some of the Windows console mode API. The C library (PDPCLIB) has no extensions, meaning all applications need to be C90-compliant, and my focus is on porting all C90 applications to this new platform. If an application wishes to use Posix open() it is expected to provide its own mini-posix source file called e.g. unixio.c, which makes open() call fopen(). This was how GCC itself was ported, to the pure C90 environments of both MVS and PDOS/386. I also ported micro-emacs, which necessarily used the MSDOS API to provide functionality, instead of being C90-compliant, but that is the only exception so far. The alternative is to make people use edlin, which I have C90 source for. Anyway, I was wondering if any C fans had a desire to see or use a C90 environment, with a view to making it "clean". I don't yet have a working "make", but I think "make" can have a pure C90 target, that assumes all files are out of date, since C90 doesn't provide a way to get timestamps of files. But everything is up for grabs in this new environment. I am thinking that if I have pure C90 code it can be run on MVS/380 and MVS 3.8J too. I am a bit directionless at the moment, and still trying to rationalize what I am trying to achieve, other than I'm a big fan of C90, the universal language for computers. BFN. Paul.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-02 01:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <891ec12f-affe-4677-b7b7-0aef3d31dd72@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #151935 |
W dniu sobota, 2 maja 2020 07:19:10 UTC+2 użytkownik Paul Edwards napisał: > For decades I have been working on creating a > public domain operating system called PDOS/386. > You can see the project here: > > http://pdos.sourceforge.net/ > > About a week ago there was a major breakthrough - > the OS has become self-hosting, ie you can use > PDOS/386 to develop PDOS/386. > > PDOS/386 supports both a 32-bit MSDOS-like API > as well as some of the Windows console mode API. > > The C library (PDPCLIB) has no extensions, > meaning all applications need to be C90-compliant, > and my focus is on porting all C90 applications > to this new platform. > > If an application wishes to use Posix open() it > is expected to provide its own mini-posix source > file called e.g. unixio.c, which makes open() > call fopen(). This was how GCC itself was ported, > to the pure C90 environments of both MVS and > PDOS/386. > > I also ported micro-emacs, which necessarily > used the MSDOS API to provide functionality, > instead of being C90-compliant, but that is > the only exception so far. The alternative is > to make people use edlin, which I have C90 > source for. > > Anyway, I was wondering if any C fans had a > desire to see or use a C90 environment, with > a view to making it "clean". I don't yet have > a working "make", but I think "make" can have > a pure C90 target, that assumes all files are > out of date, since C90 doesn't provide a way > to get timestamps of files. > > But everything is up for grabs in this new > environment. I am thinking that if I have pure > C90 code it can be run on MVS/380 and MVS 3.8J > too. I am a bit directionless at the moment, > and still trying to rationalize what I am > trying to achieve, other than I'm a big fan > of C90, the universal language for computers. > > BFN. Paul. got no idea on writing oses but imo a goal that own os should be is to something that is 1) startable 2) got some kind of console interface 3) is able to see and read files in common disk formats 4) got at least one compiler ported 5) youre able to code what you need inside it (like file viewers and editors, cosket connections etc) what of this you got?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-02 01:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e9f76c94-7d47-4d13-be7a-d27f27d39190@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #151936 |
On Saturday, 2 May 2020 18:24:57 UTC+10, fir wrote: > got no idea on writing oses but imo a goal that > own os should be is to something that is > 1) startable Yes, I run it under Bochs. > 2) got some kind of console interface Yes, it has an MSDOS prompt. > 3) is able to see and read files in common disk formats Yes, it supports FAT-12, FAT-16 and FAT-32 including long file name support. > 4) got at least one compiler ported Yes, GCC 3.2.3 has been ported. > 5) youre able to code what you need inside > it (like file viewers and editors, cosket > connections etc) editors yes. socket connections no. It is still basically competing with MSDOS, and doesn't have networking or device drivers currently. It reads disks by dropping down to 16-bit real mode and doing a BIOS call. You can call it a "BIOS extender" as contrasted with a "DOS extender". Having said that, with PDOS/386 self-hosting, PDOS/386 can be used to add networking etc if that is the desired direction. But I was more thinking of writing a BBS that uses the COM port, which Bochs will emulate as a socket connection. But I would basically be writing to a 1990-era computer, with the C90 standard. ie at the time the C90 standard was approved, what OS should have been written for the 80386, which was around then? > what of this you got? Most of it. BFN. Paul.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-02 02:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dfc1de39-4a84-4b09-9534-055020805c56@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #151937 |
On Saturday, 2 May 2020 18:56:49 UTC+10, Paul Edwards wrote: > > 3) is able to see and read files in common disk formats > > Yes, it supports FAT-12, FAT-16 and FAT-32 > including long file name support. Actually, one of the things I was thinking of doing was having an EBCDIC FAT disk, and if a file is fopen()ed in text mode, when it does the OS call to open the file, it would specify OPEN_TEXT versus OPEN_BINARY and the OS would take care of translating to/from EBCDIC. Basically I'm thinking of cool things to do with a C90-focused operating system. BFN. Paul.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | shi84516584@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-19 17:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e06ea676-942c-47a0-845a-8aab573787c0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #151939 |
On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 5:07:07 PM UTC+8, Paul Edwards wrote: > On Saturday, 2 May 2020 18:56:49 UTC+10, Paul Edwards wrote: > > > > 3) is able to see and read files in common disk formats > > > > Yes, it supports FAT-12, FAT-16 and FAT-32 > > including long file name support. > > Actually, one of the things I was thinking > of doing was having an EBCDIC FAT disk, and > if a file is fopen()ed in text mode, when it > does the OS call to open the file, it would > specify OPEN_TEXT versus OPEN_BINARY and the > OS would take care of translating to/from > EBCDIC. > > Basically I'm thinking of cool things to do > with a C90-focused operating system. > > BFN. Paul. It is impossible to write oses and define a goal. Your own os should be an infrastructure with and possessed at the opposite level: 1) Can control the direction of jump ejection table 2) The address of the function entry point where the code must be written on the opposite side 3) Recursive introduction of rules under the definition of blocks that can read and scan disks and character devices 4) The ability to retrieve only one mutual declaration and collection of information from multiple code compilation devices and assembly supporting tools can be retrieved 5) I can identify and control one or more anyway enumerated products and software programs (character review and treasure generator, multi-declaration and multi-line secondary collection control top memory detection, etc.) )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-02 02:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <39e9ce7b-5c97-4f77-9117-323bb18b986d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #151937 |
W dniu sobota, 2 maja 2020 10:56:49 UTC+2 użytkownik Paul Edwards napisał:
> On Saturday, 2 May 2020 18:24:57 UTC+10, fir wrote:
>
> > got no idea on writing oses but imo a goal that
> > own os should be is to something that is
> > 1) startable
>
> Yes, I run it under Bochs.
>
> > 2) got some kind of console interface
>
> Yes, it has an MSDOS prompt.
>
> > 3) is able to see and read files in common disk formats
>
> Yes, it supports FAT-12, FAT-16 and FAT-32
> including long file name support.
>
> > 4) got at least one compiler ported
>
> Yes, GCC 3.2.3 has been ported.
>
> > 5) youre able to code what you need inside
> > it (like file viewers and editors, cosket
> > connections etc)
>
> editors yes. socket connections no. It is
> still basically competing with MSDOS, and
> doesn't have networking or device drivers
> currently. It reads disks by dropping down
> to 16-bit real mode and doing a BIOS call.
> You can call it a "BIOS extender" as
> contrasted with a "DOS extender".
>
> Having said that, with PDOS/386 self-hosting,
> PDOS/386 can be used to add networking etc
> if that is the desired direction. But I was
> more thinking of writing a BBS that uses
> the COM port, which Bochs will emulate as a
> socket connection. But I would basically be
> writing to a 1990-era computer, with the
> C90 standard. ie at the time the C90 standard
> was approved, what OS should have been written
> for the 80386, which was around then?
>
> > what of this you got?
>
> Most of it.
>
> BFN. Paul.
imo:
get it 64 bit
do irc client working on it
if you wana make somethng new you should put ome of my idea of new kind of disk files ogganisation to work (the idea is that files should be not organized in directory tree but rather as multidimensional trees ('based on tags') also eeach file should have its author not only title (just like books) and automatic versioning info and hard checks for integrity
then you can go ointo something new further
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-02 02:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2a73b04a-41ac-42e7-a219-2a3ad66b9080@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #151940 |
On Saturday, 2 May 2020 19:07:14 UTC+10, fir wrote:
> get it 64 bit
Ok. PDOS actually has a 16-bit flavor,
PDOS/86, from the same source base. There
is nothing wrong with creating a 64-bit
flavor too. But most applications will
run perfectly happily in 4 GiB of memory.
> do irc client working on it
Ok. And what do you think if this is done
via a COM port? Bochs has the ability to
make a COM port link to a socket. I was
thinking that I could have a "modem"
application on my PC for Bochs to link to,
so that my PDOS/386 comms program could
do an ATDirc.freenode.net:xx
> if you wana make somethng new you should
> put ome of my idea of new kind of disk
> files ogganisation to work (the idea is
> that files should be not organized in
> directory tree but rather as multidimensional
> trees ('based on tags') also eeach file
> should have its author not only title (just
> like books) and automatic versioning info
> and hard checks for integrity
>
> then you can go ointo something new further
Ok, it could be used to experiment with new
ideas like that. Thanks for your suggestions.
BFN. Paul.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | shi84516584@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-19 17:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c41d9327-1c67-4124-9865-ad6e2c9012f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #151942 |
On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 5:23:41 PM UTC+8, Paul Edwards wrote:
> On Saturday, 2 May 2020 19:07:14 UTC+10, fir wrote:
>
> > get it 64 bit
>
> Ok. PDOS actually has a 16-bit flavor,
> PDOS/86, from the same source base. There
> is nothing wrong with creating a 64-bit
> flavor too. But most applications will
> run perfectly happily in 4 GiB of memory.
>
> > do irc client working on it
>
> Ok. And what do you think if this is done
> via a COM port? Bochs has the ability to
> make a COM port link to a socket. I was
> thinking that I could have a "modem"
> application on my PC for Bochs to link to,
> so that my PDOS/386 comms program could
> do an ATDirc.freenode.net:xx
>
> > if you wana make somethng new you should
> > put ome of my idea of new kind of disk
> > files ogganisation to work (the idea is
> > that files should be not organized in
> > directory tree but rather as multidimensional
> > trees ('based on tags') also eeach file
> > should have its author not only title (just
> > like books) and automatic versioning info
> > and hard checks for integrity
> >
> > then you can go ointo something new further
>
> Ok, it could be used to experiment with new
> ideas like that. Thanks for your suggestions.
>
> BFN. Paul.
It is impossible to write oses and define a goal. Your own os should be an infrastructure with and possessed at the opposite level:
1) Can control the direction of jump ejection table
2) The address of the function entry point where the code must be written on the opposite side
3) Recursive introduction of rules under the definition of blocks that can read and scan disks and character devices
4) The ability to retrieve only one mutual declaration and collection of information from multiple code compilation devices and assembly supporting tools can be retrieved
5) I can identify and control one or more anyway enumerated products and software programs (character review and treasure generator, multi-declaration and multi-line secondary collection control top memory detection, etc.) )
It does not matter according to the character size type. Both 32-bit and 64-bit can be marked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-02 11:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <r8jd4b$css$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #151935 |
I can see the elegance of using pure standard C. But why did you choose C90 instead of a later C standard? Philipp
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-02 02:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cd34b076-2f9c-4d6d-98a7-6f7c158c50ae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #151938 |
On Saturday, 2 May 2020 19:05:25 UTC+10, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: > I can see the elegance of using pure standard C. Can you elaborate on that? Do you have a vision? > But why did you choose C90 instead of a later C standard? The project started in 1994. And the goal I had was to replace everything I was using, e.g. using BBSes, with public domain C code. It's a very long road just to implement C90, nevermind chasing a moving target. Once C90 has been done to my satisfaction, I'll consider updating to a newer standard. But that also means writing a public domain C compiler for the 80386. I'm not particularly expecting to accomplish that in my lifetime. Basically the public does not yet own the technology to build and maintain a system from the early 1990s. BFN. Paul.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-03 22:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <r8ngrs$d1i$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl> |
| In reply to | #151941 |
Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, 2 May 2020 19:05:25 UTC+10, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
>
> > I can see the elegance of using pure standard C.
>
> Can you elaborate on that? Do you have a
> vision?
>
> > But why did you choose C90 instead of a later C standard?
>
> The project started in 1994. And the goal
> I had was to replace everything I was using,
> e.g. using BBSes, with public domain C code.
>
> It's a very long road just to implement C90,
> nevermind chasing a moving target. Once C90
> has been done to my satisfaction, I'll
> consider updating to a newer standard.
>
> But that also means writing a public domain
> C compiler for the 80386. I'm not particularly
> expecting to accomplish that in my lifetime.
>
> Basically the public does not yet own the
> technology to build and maintain a system
> from the early 1990s.
It is rather unclear what you really want. There are
several freely available C compilers. There
are several freely available compiler books.
So implementations and knowledge is there.
Writing a "bastard C" compiler could be done
in less than one month. Few more months and
it would be better than many C compilers from
1990.
Concerning systems from early 1990s, at that
time I switched to 386BSD and then Linux.
Both are available (trough reqular archives
offer you successors...). Concerning software
for micros from that time and earlier IMHO
utalitarian value of most this is close to
zero: there are better systems and programs
now. I understand and respect that you may
want to work with old systems. But various
otherwise nasty restrictions like "no
commercial use" do not bother me so much
for old software since it does not have
commercial value anyway.
And combination of "system from the early 1990s"
and "pure C90" looks odd: old software for micros
were habitualy nonstandard, used nonportable
low-level tricks etc...
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-03 16:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <72add221-4f32-43f2-905f-0e52db2aa2f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #151995 |
On Monday, 4 May 2020 08:33:40 UTC+10, anti...@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: > It is rather unclear what you really want. To establish a public domain baseline, armed with the C90 standard. That was the point at which we had a standardized language for writing systems software. > want to work with old systems. But various > otherwise nasty restrictions like "no > commercial use" do not bother me so much They bother me. I'm looking for pure public domain software with no caveats. > And combination of "system from the early 1990s" > and "pure C90" looks odd: old software for micros > were habitualy nonstandard, used nonportable > low-level tricks etc... GCC, AS and LD can all be written as pure C90 applications. It's true I need some non-C90 code in order to operate a modem so that I can download more C90 software. And it's true that I need some non-C90 software to have a fullscreen editor. But apart from that I think I can do what I want, e.g. having a BBS in the Vietnamese language using VISCII, using C90 locales. BFN. Paul.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-04 00:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <r8no0t$hev$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl> |
| In reply to | #151996 |
Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 4 May 2020 08:33:40 UTC+10, anti...@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote:
>
> > It is rather unclear what you really want.
>
> To establish a public domain baseline, armed
> with the C90 standard. That was the point at
> which we had a standardized language for
> writing systems software.
>
> > want to work with old systems. But various
> > otherwise nasty restrictions like "no
> > commercial use" do not bother me so much
>
> They bother me. I'm looking for pure public
> domain software with no caveats.
So you find MIT licence too problematic? Note
that "public domain" has caveats too: there
are examples of things taken out of "public domain"...
Or do you realy mean that you want software that
you wrote yourself and can give away to others?
> > And combination of "system from the early 1990s"
> > and "pure C90" looks odd: old software for micros
> > were habitualy nonstandard, used nonportable
> > low-level tricks etc...
>
> GCC, AS and LD can all be written as pure C90
> applications.
>
> It's true I need some non-C90 code in order
> to operate a modem so that I can download
> more C90 software. And it's true that I need
> some non-C90 software to have a fullscreen
> editor. But apart from that I think I can do
> what I want, e.g. having a BBS in the
> Vietnamese language using VISCII, using C90
> locales.
You can write nontrivial things in pure C90.
My points are:
- if you drop requirement of compatiblity ("recreating")
old systems your task would be much easier
- if this is intended to be more than intelectuctal
excercise, then you probably want something that
works natively or semi-natively on modern
hardware
- if you want do things that people want you
need to handle hardware
Also, nontrivial sofware uses libraries. Library
may be pure C90, but code that uses it is only
conditonaly C90 -- it depends on presence of the
library.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-03 17:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ebdcfe90-81ef-4662-bb16-75818db7fd0c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #151999 |
On Monday, 4 May 2020 10:35:50 UTC+10, anti...@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote:
> > They bother me. I'm looking for pure public
> > domain software with no caveats.
>
> So you find MIT licence too problematic? Note
Yes I do. I don't want to see "copyright"
anywhere at all. I want to instead see an
explicit "released to the public domain"
with no caveats. For whatever reason people
are unwilling to write that on their code,
I am unwilling to accept anything less.
> that "public domain" has caveats too: there
> are examples of things taken out of "public domain"...
I'm after things that are of the same
status as Shakespeare's "Hamlet" -
unambiguously released to the public domain.
> Or do you realy mean that you want software that
> you wrote yourself and can give away to others?
No, I don't care who writes it so long as
they unambiguously place it in the public domain.
> You can write nontrivial things in pure C90.
> My points are:
> - if you drop requirement of compatiblity ("recreating")
> old systems your task would be much easier
I want to traverse the computer industry
in both directions - forward and back.
I want to be able to recreate the computer
industry from scratch. ie if there was some
sort of disaster, I want to be able to outline
what hardware and software needs to be
created.
> - if this is intended to be more than intelectuctal
> excercise, then you probably want something that
> works natively or semi-natively on modern
> hardware
Pure C90 applications will work on modern
hardware too. I expect "long" to be 64 bits
and "void *" to be 64 bits.
> - if you want do things that people want you
> need to handle hardware
I would like to see how far I can go with
C90. E.g. I only need to diverge slightly
from C90 in order to run a BBS.
> Also, nontrivial sofware uses libraries. Library
> may be pure C90, but code that uses it is only
> conditonaly C90 -- it depends on presence of the
> library.
I am happy to start building up libraries
of C90 functionality, e.g. recreating CXL,
a text windowing system for MSDOS. I want
a 32-bit version of it so that BBS messages
can be read easily.
Thankyou for your messages. I am trying to
clarify what I am trying to achieve.
Basically in 1990 when I was using BBSes
and writing C90 code, I wondered if it was
possible to replace everything I was using
with public domain code. After achieving
that I might like to write a cross-compiler
to target the 6502 or some other 8-bit
processor. ie I want to go backwards, not
just forwards. I don't want to use kludges
like overlays, I want to do cross-compilation
instead.
BFN. Paul.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-03 18:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87k11s32dz.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #152000 |
Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> writes:
> On Monday, 4 May 2020 10:35:50 UTC+10, anti...@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote:
>> > They bother me. I'm looking for pure public
>> > domain software with no caveats.
>>
>> So you find MIT licence too problematic? Note
>
> Yes I do. I don't want to see "copyright"
> anywhere at all. I want to instead see an
> explicit "released to the public domain"
> with no caveats. For whatever reason people
> are unwilling to write that on their code,
> I am unwilling to accept anything less.
Not many software projects use public domain. SQLite is perhaps the
most prominent one that does. If you want to do the same, you might
want to take a look at how they deal with it.
https://sqlite.org/copyright.html
I presume you're aware that means I could grab a copy of your code,
remove your name from it, and include it in a commercial product.
(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I am not offering advice or
suggesting that using public domain is a good or bad idea.)
Licensing issues are at best marginally topical in clc, so I suggest
not carrying on a long discussion about them here.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-03 18:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <14772fdb-2476-4464-99bd-43a118a3d944@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #152003 |
On Monday, 4 May 2020 11:38:57 UTC+10, Keith Thompson wrote: > Not many software projects use public domain. Yes, which is why PDOS/386 has little competition, and why I have to do so much of the work myself, so that the public owns an operating system. > I presume you're aware that means I could grab a copy of your code, > remove your name from it, and include it in a commercial product. They are welcome to do that. I'm glad that they find the code useful. BFN. Paul.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-04 09:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <r8oglg$12r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152000 |
On 04/05/2020 02:54, Paul Edwards wrote:
> On Monday, 4 May 2020 10:35:50 UTC+10, anti...@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote:
>
>>> They bother me. I'm looking for pure public
>>> domain software with no caveats.
>>
>> So you find MIT licence too problematic? Note
>
> Yes I do. I don't want to see "copyright"
> anywhere at all. I want to instead see an
> explicit "released to the public domain"
> with no caveats. For whatever reason people
> are unwilling to write that on their code,
> I am unwilling to accept anything less.
>
Are you limiting all this to your particular country (I'm guessing that
is the USA - it usually is when people don't appear to appreciate that
there is a world outside their borders)?
The concept of "Public domain", and what it means, varies hugely from
country to country. AFAIK, Germany does not have the concept at all -
the software will be automatically copyright the author, and while you
can transfer the copyrights you cannot remove them. (I hope someone
more familiar with German rules can correct me if I'm wrong.) In some
countries, I could take your "Public domain" software, put my own
copyright notice on it, and then sue you for copyright infringement if
you don't pay me a license.
Maybe you know all about this sort of stuff - but usually when people
say "we'll release this as public domain", they mean "I want it to be as
free as possible, so people can use it as they want", without giving the
matter appropriate thought and research.
This group is probably not the best place to get the information you
require - I am merely encouraging you to ask the right questions and
think about things a bit more, rather than trying to give you the answers.
>> that "public domain" has caveats too: there
>> are examples of things taken out of "public domain"...
>
> I'm after things that are of the same
> status as Shakespeare's "Hamlet" -
> unambiguously released to the public domain.
>
You have to die, and then wait for between 50 and 100 years (depending
on the country). (For some countries, "expired copyright" is very
different from "never had copyright" or "copyrights explicitly revoked".)
>> Or do you realy mean that you want software that
>> you wrote yourself and can give away to others?
>
> No, I don't care who writes it so long as
> they unambiguously place it in the public domain.
>
>> You can write nontrivial things in pure C90.
>> My points are:
>> - if you drop requirement of compatiblity ("recreating")
>> old systems your task would be much easier
>
> I want to traverse the computer industry
> in both directions - forward and back.
>
> I want to be able to recreate the computer
> industry from scratch. ie if there was some
> sort of disaster, I want to be able to outline
> what hardware and software needs to be
> created.
That is perhaps a /little/ ambitious. You are not the first person to
want something like this. You'll have the same trouble they all do -
it's a project that would take tens of thousands of dedicated people,
without hope of getting any kind of financial backing, and every
volunteer would have different opinions on how to do it. Concentrate on
/one/ thing, and don't reveal your plans for world domination until you
have built up a substantial following.
>
>> - if this is intended to be more than intelectuctal
>> excercise, then you probably want something that
>> works natively or semi-natively on modern
>> hardware
>
> Pure C90 applications will work on modern
> hardware too. I expect "long" to be 64 bits
> and "void *" to be 64 bits.
>
>> - if you want do things that people want you
>> need to handle hardware
>
> I would like to see how far I can go with
> C90. E.g. I only need to diverge slightly
> from C90 in order to run a BBS.
>
>> Also, nontrivial sofware uses libraries. Library
>> may be pure C90, but code that uses it is only
>> conditonaly C90 -- it depends on presence of the
>> library.
>
> I am happy to start building up libraries
> of C90 functionality, e.g. recreating CXL,
> a text windowing system for MSDOS. I want
> a 32-bit version of it so that BBS messages
> can be read easily.
>
> Thankyou for your messages. I am trying to
> clarify what I am trying to achieve.
> Basically in 1990 when I was using BBSes
> and writing C90 code, I wondered if it was
> possible to replace everything I was using
> with public domain code. After achieving
> that I might like to write a cross-compiler
> to target the 6502 or some other 8-bit
> processor. ie I want to go backwards, not
> just forwards. I don't want to use kludges
> like overlays, I want to do cross-compilation
> instead.
>
I can't honestly say I understand what you are trying to do here, much
less /why/, but I wish you luck anyway. As long as you have fun working
on it!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-04 08:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r8ohbi$521$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152007 |
On 04/05/2020 08:36, David Brown wrote: ... > In some > countries, I could take your "Public domain" software, put my own > copyright notice on it, and then sue you for copyright infringement if > you don't pay me a license. Which countries are those? AIUI the problem with copyright is not putatively having it but defending it. PD ought to be one of the best ways of avoiding legal action either as plaintiff or defendant ... but it may not be. -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-04 01:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c9aae692-0514-447c-9861-692c9264bdc2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #152007 |
On Monday, 4 May 2020 17:36:26 UTC+10, David Brown wrote: > Are you limiting all this to your particular country (I'm guessing that > is the USA - it usually is when people don't appear to appreciate that > there is a world outside their borders)? I'm Australian, and I provide CC0 as an alternative for anyone who finds "public domain" problematic. > The concept of "Public domain", and what it means, varies hugely from > country to country. AFAIK, Germany does not have the concept at all - > the software will be automatically copyright the author, and while you > can transfer the copyrights you cannot remove them. (I hope someone > more familiar with German rules can correct me if I'm wrong.) In some > countries, I could take your "Public domain" software, put my own > copyright notice on it, and then sue you for copyright infringement if > you don't pay me a license. You can't sue me (and win) if it is established that I was the one who wrote the software. Establishing who actually wrote it is a problem that is common to all code, not just public domain code. > > I'm after things that are of the same > > status as Shakespeare's "Hamlet" - > > unambiguously released to the public domain. > > > > You have to die, and then wait for between 50 and 100 years (depending > on the country). Or I can release it to the public domain now. > > I want to be able to recreate the computer > > industry from scratch. ie if there was some > > sort of disaster, I want to be able to outline > > what hardware and software needs to be > > created. > > That is perhaps a /little/ ambitious. You are not the first person to > want something like this. You'll have the same trouble they all do - > it's a project that would take tens of thousands of dedicated people, > without hope of getting any kind of financial backing, and every > volunteer would have different opinions on how to do it. I don't see why understanding computers sufficiently to be able to OUTLINE a path to recreating computers as they were in 1991 would require tens of thousands of people. BFN. Paul.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-04 15:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <r8p4ja$v3b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #152009 |
On 04/05/2020 10:12, Paul Edwards wrote: > On Monday, 4 May 2020 17:36:26 UTC+10, David Brown wrote: > (All I want is to make sure you think about this and the consequences of it - if you /have/ thought about it and want to call everything "public domain", fair enough. It seems to me that CC0 is a better choice, however - that is a marking that has been considered in detail by lawyers from many countries, rather than just a few programmers.) >>> I want to be able to recreate the computer >>> industry from scratch. ie if there was some >>> sort of disaster, I want to be able to outline >>> what hardware and software needs to be >>> created. >> >> That is perhaps a /little/ ambitious. You are not the first person to >> want something like this. You'll have the same trouble they all do - >> it's a project that would take tens of thousands of dedicated people, >> without hope of getting any kind of financial backing, and every >> volunteer would have different opinions on how to do it. > > I don't see why understanding computers > sufficiently to be able to OUTLINE a path > to recreating computers as they were in 1991 > would require tens of thousands of people. > You said you want to be able to recreate the computer industry from scratch. I agree that merely outlining a plan for it would be much less work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web