Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


patchworks

Open Sourcing Windows 9x

Recommended Posts

Also give up this concept you guys have about "public domain", I don't think you understand what it means. There is no magic date that comes and MS has to give out the source code.
Well there should be I think. For example, when a drug company patents a new molecule they have created, their exclusive rights for manufacturing and selling that molecule lasts only for twenty years. After that anyone can manufacture and market the molecule. But it's also valid for glues and whatever else whatever the developement and licensing costs. And hence you have branded and generic drugs for example. So why shouldn't this apply to software ?
MS will not "open source" their OS code because it still exists in newer versions of windows for compatibility reasons. MS DOS may not be used as the boot-up for Win2x,XP,2003,etc but it still exists inside command.com or some DLL.

See above. Other example : Dupont did invent PTFE and patented the name Teflon for it but today, because of what I explain, not only you can buy pans coated with PTFE labelled Teflon and manufactured by Dupont but you also can buy pans coated with PTFE not labelled Teflon and manufactured by other companies than Dupont. It is not because a company still commercialize a product after the expiration of their exclusive rights that they maintain those exclusive rights. The only exclusive rights they can keep is the use of their brand name.

Yes there are tons of improvements that can be done to 9x, and they are called Win 2000.

Is this true ? Win2000 is an improved WinNT not an improved Win9x. NT 3.51 coexisted with 95. NT 4 with 98 and 2000 with ME.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The goal is not the re-invent the wheel but to have several windows/dos compatible OS'es concurencing each others.

Mac and Linux don't realy make concurence to M$ because those who would turn to Mac or Linux would have not only give up windows, but all the softwares they used so far, (except for the rare case when a version exists for these OS'es).

Only alternative windows compatible OS'es can make a serious concurence to M$. And it's good for M$ because it force them to constantly improve their product. (note the singular)

To do that, there are two ways:

1/reinventing the wheel: Those who tried that, except Linus, never went very far. You can read on their website that soon the new version will support e-mail client. Last update: dec. 2002. How encouraging...

2/changing what's already there: new component for existing windows OS.

Until now, only M$ has been done that to critical w98 parts. Proof that such process is paradoxaly positive for M$.

First it set the long term value of their product(s ?). Poeple know that in seven years, there are chances that there will still be updates for the OS they buy today.

Second it's R&D. Doing that they may find new ideas for something new.

Aleternative Windows also revelates the demand of some M$ potentialy renewed clients. The need for something else than mainstream XP.

We are all here, at the "Unofficial Win98 SE Service Pack" forum because we want an OS the way we want it and not the way it was forced upon us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they will ever release the source code. Software is copyrighted not patented. Copyrights do not expire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi RJM,

So what about Linux ? If I understand well, it is written after UNIX code (of the sixties ?). Was not UNIX code also copyrighted and/or patented and fell in the public domain before being worked upon by Torvalds and then the other Linux devellopers ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:whistle: who needs open source when people in here are slicing dicing 9x and making it better,as far as w2k goes its got a better kernel like i care.and w2k like 6 months older than 98se anyway.if u use 98se its because u like the simpicity its light easy 2 use and u probably arent on a massive network or give a rats a** about sercurity u playing pogo games and emailing granpma or yahoo messenging your friends you probably couldnt care less about the guts of 98se only appeciate the little proggies that enchance the look.if u can run 99%of your stuff on it who cares if xp or 2000 got more stupid features.im tech savy but ill run anything thats got a browser.it always seems 2 come back to the 98se is a dinosaur bit ,lets face it its all old including 2001 xp home.why dont they stop making new versions and settle on a base os and update it with service pack every 2 years be alot easlier maybe ill call bill at remond probably home ill straightn this out np. open source is always a good idea it allows people to prefect things.that explains microsofts problems lol.i know your reading this bill email me anytime same addy chow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi eidenk, Here is the UNIX LIUNX story.

In 1994 Novell (who had acquired the UNIX systems business of AT&T/USL) decided to get out of that business. Rather than sell the business as a single entity, Novell transferred the rights to the UNIX trademark and the specification (that subsequently became the Single UNIX Specification) to The Open Group (at the time X/Open Company). Subsequently, it sold the source code and the product implementation (UNIXWARE) to SCO. The Open Group also owns the trademark UNIXWARE, transferred to them from SCO more recently.

Today, the definition of UNIX ® takes the form of the worldwide Single UNIX Specification integrating X/Open Company's XPG4, IEEE's POSIX Standards and ISO C. Through continual evolution, the Single UNIX Specification is the defacto and dejure standard definition for the UNIX system application programming interfaces. As the owner of the UNIX trademark, The Open Group has separated the UNIX trademark from any actual code stream itself, thus allowing multiple implementations. Since the introduction of the Single UNIX Specification, there has been a single, open, consensus specification that defines the requirements for a conformant UNIX system.

There is also a mark, or brand, that is used to identify those products that have been certified as conforming to the Single UNIX Specification, initially UNIX 93, followed subsequently by UNIX 95, UNIX 98 and now UNIX 03.

The Open Group is committed to working with the community to further the development of standards conformant systems by evolving and maintaining the Single UNIX Specification and participation in other related standards efforts. Recent examples of this are making the standard freely available on the web, permitting reuse of the standard in open source documentation projects , providing test tools ,developing the POSIX and LSB certification programs.

And another link http://www.davids-website.com/linux/linux.html

Edited by RJM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think they will ever release the source code. Software is copyrighted not patented. Copyrights do not expire.

You are correct!

These comparisons of teflon and source code are apples and oranges.

Anyways if this "magic date source code for all" myth was true, can anybody tell me where to get the MS Dos 1.0/2.0/3.0/5.0/etc source code, because according to this myth logic, it was released a long time ago :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These comparisons of teflon and source code are apples and oranges.
Apples and oranges have so many things in common. They are both fruits growing on trees. And when I go at the market they have both the same status.
Anyways if this "magic date source code for all" myth was true, can anybody tell me where to get the MS Dos 1.0/2.0/3.0/5.0/etc source code, because according to this myth logic, it was released a long time ago.

Interesting question.

Question : When was Free Dos born ? Was it born only when the principles used by MS to write MS-DOS weren't patented anymore ? Or is it simply a clone that outwardly mimics the behaviour of Dos like Reactos mimics Windows NT without using any of its internals.

Edited by eidenk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa... so many misconceptions here.

1. Open source software can in fact be sold.

2. Open source/free software can in fact be developed and shipped commercially (eg, GNU Ada)

3. Linux is not an operating system, it is a kernel. The operating system commonly called "Linux" really is GNU/Linux

4. Linus only developed Linux, not the whole GNU/Linux operating system; in fact, he hasn't done anything outside of the kernel! the GNU operating system started in 1983, 1991 was only the date that Linus plugged his kernel (Linux) into the GNU operating system. Linux is not the official GNU kernel, and that's why the resulting operating system is called GNU/Linux instead of just GNU.

5. Linux is not based off of any Unix code. Likewise, GNU for the most part doesn't have any Unix code either, except in cases where it has become public domain or free software, which is rare but it has happened and sometimes been incorporated into GNU (eg, BSD code).

http://gnu.org/

http://fsf.org/

http://opensource.org/

http://kernel.org/

k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was it born only when the principles used by MS to write MS-DOS weren't patented anymore ? Or is it simply a clone that outwardly mimics the behaviour of Dos like Reactos mimics Windows NT without using any of its internals.

It seems we only disagree on semantics here, not the issue. Yes, Win9x can be mimic'd, it probably could have been mimic'd 10yrs ago (assuming MS wouldn't have sued). Oneday MS loses the ability/feasibility to sue over this mimicking. My point is (and has been) that MS doesn't have to release the source code, nor will they ever do so for many reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Win98 is crap. Why bother spending any time and effort on it.

This sounds like an insult (to me) for the active people that works on Unofficial Service Packs ! :}

I don't think they will ever release the source code.

THEY ? Who ? Microsoft ? :blink::D:D

My idea is to WRITE (or better, to gradually substitute) any windows 9x component with an open source one.

Why 'wasting' time on closed source Service Packs (that is unauthorized in any case), when you can save an os _permanently_ from the certain death ?

Edited by patchworks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Patch, apologies, no insult was intended towards you and all the great work that's been done by you and others to improve Win98SE. :blushing:

Of the Win9x versions, its' the OS I like the best. I always had crash problems with it, however, and when I switched to Win2k, the stability was so much better that I converted.

I've taken the time to read the Win98 forums and I'm amazed at the work you guys have done on this OS. :thumbup

Although I'm a big Win2k fan, I have 2 really old laptops (128MB RAM, 450 and 500Mhz PIII) with relatively small hard disk drives.

After reading through the great work you guys have done, I'm tempted to install Win98 on 'em again, install the service pack you guys have put together (2.02 I believe), run 98lite, and then install the WinME files.

My only thought at looking at all this is, wow, the steps involved to do this require multiple installs. You guys should check out HFSLIP (click logo at bottom) and see if you can do something similar for this.

Edited by saugatak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Question : When was Free Dos born ? Was it born only when the principles used by MS to write MS-DOS weren't patented anymore ? Or is it simply a clone that outwardly mimics the behaviour of Dos like Reactos mimics Windows NT without using any of its internals.

Take a look at the about section of Freedos.org: http://freedos.org/freedos/about/

The FreeDOS project began in 1994 as a small project called PD-DOS (see above link mentioned). At the time, DR-DOS's source code wasn't available, but once it was, pretty much full-compatibility of MS-DOS apps became apparent in FreeDOS. I remember running Free-DOS on an old laptop, around 1998, and having trouble running any MS-DOS- based software. Now-a-days, it seems that the inclusion of DR-DOS code has made is possible to mimic MS-DOS with fully GPL'd code.

That system, to clarify, had 4MB of RAM, and probably was not suited to run FreeDOS anyway.

Edited by jimmsta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone wants to join such a project they should join either the ReactOS or E/OS LX. It is not impossible to start a project buy why start from scratch when two projects have already done so much work in the area. If anyone wanted to start from scratch 20 years really would be a good timeline. I think it is quite safe to say that computers 20 years from now will not even run on windows 98.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think they will ever release the source code. Software is copyrighted not patented. Copyrights do not expire.
that (ignoring the rest of the topic) is untrue.

copyrights do expire.

(afaik on work produced after January 1, 1978, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter) also it worth remembering that national laws do not apply everywhere (stated example is under US law).

http://www.piercelaw.edu/tfield/copySof.htm

as for the rest of the topic seems like reinventing the wheel to me but them thats been done before sooooo i dunno, but i ain't gonna jump on anybody.

Edited by miko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...