Tux Machines

Linux Foundation and Openwashing in Proprietary GitHub

Posted by Roy Schestowitz on Apr 27, 2024,

updated Apr 28, 2024

AlmaLinux engineer opens path for migration away from CentOS 6

Free, Libre, and Open Source Software, GNU. BSD, and More

Why is Open Source important? Hear from our community member.

↺ Why is Open Source important? Hear from our community member.

> Community is everything at The Xen Project. We spoke to Ayan, a dedicated community member who has been working on the Xen Project on his experience.

GamingOnLinux ☛ Microsoft open sources MS-DOS 4.0 [Ed: Very useless and also openwashing; a shame that a "Linux" site gives this PR any iota of attention]

↺ Microsoft open sources MS-DOS 4.0

> More open source surprises for you today, coming from Microsoft too which is always interesting to see as they've now open sourced MS-DOS 4.0.

Hackaday ☛ Microsoft Updates MS-DOS GitHub Repo To 4.0 [Ed: "Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish"... and proprietary platform used for openwashing while Microsoft continues to attack Free software in a wide range of ways]

↺ Microsoft Updates MS-DOS GitHub Repo To 4.0

> We’re not 100% sure which phase of Microsoft’s “Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish” gameplan this represents, but just yesterday the Redmond software giant decided to grace us with the source code for MS-DOS v4.0.

Tom's Hardware ☛ Microsoft releases MS-DOS 4 source code on GitHub — 45 year old code now open-source

↺ Microsoft releases MS-DOS 4 source code on GitHub — 45 year old code now open-source

> The MS-DOS 4.00 Intel 8086 assembly code, binaries, disk images, and documentation are now available on GitHub. If you want to quickly run the OS for yourself, you can find the two disk images in the v4.0-ozzie/bin directory. Enthusiasts with serviceable old hardware like an original IBM PC XT, or a newer Pentium system, can run / install the OS natively. Others can play in the open-source PCem and 86box emulators, for example. The same GitHub repository holds MS-DOS 1.25 and 2.0 source code.

An update

3 more, issues noted:

MS-DOS 4.0 Source Code Fails to Compile

↺ MS-DOS 4.0 Source Code Fails to Compile

> [...]

> Yeah. You read that first bullet point right. It does not compile. I'll walk you through the details (including a step-by-step guide for how you can fail to compile MS-DOS 4.0 yourself).

Microsoft Releases DOS 4.0 Source Code... but it Doesn't Compile!

↺ Microsoft Releases DOS 4.0 Source Code... but it Doesn't Compile!

> Listen now (56 mins) | Plus: Source comments, by Microsoft, calling the creator of DOS "brain-damaged" get censored.

Museum criticizes Microsoft for 'mutilated' MS-DOS 4 open source release — posting on 'stupid' git blamed for the buggy blunder

↺ Museum criticizes Microsoft for 'mutilated' MS-DOS 4 open source release — posting on 'stupid' git blamed for the buggy blunder

> As called out by noted developer and operator of blog OS/2 Museum Michal Necasek in How Not To Release Historic Source Code, git failing to preserve timestamps and converting files to UTF-8 pretty much breaks everything. Necasek praised the release of the code but criticized the bugs introduced in the process, saying, "But please please don’t mutilate historic source code by shoving it into (stupid) git."

> Of the two issues, source files being converted to UTF-8 may be more severe. This is because the old tools characteristic of those operating systems can't actually parse UTF-8 and likely can't be updated to do so, either. The byte line length limit of MS-DOS 4's MASM was 512 bytes, and the UTF-8 conversion brings specific files above that limit, making them unreadable.

How Not To Release Historic Source Code | OS/2 Museum

↺ How Not To Release Historic Source Code | OS/2 Museum

> First of all, git does not preserve timestamps, which causes irreversible damage. Knowing when a source file was last modified is valuable information.

> Second of all, the people releasing the source code clearly thought, hey, it’s source code, let’s shove it into git, what could possibly go wrong. Well, this is what could go wrong: [...]

> For practical purposes, old source files are not text files. They are binary files, and must be preserved without modification. It is not OK to take an old source file and convert it to UTF-8. For one thing, UTF-8 didn’t even exist in the times of MASM 5.10 and Microsoft C 5.1, of course old tools can’t deal with it!

gemini.tuxmachines.org