Comment on Microsoft open sources MS-DOS 4.0

Outtatime@sh.itjust.works ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• MudMan@fedia.io ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  To complete that question:

  Why... not 6.22?

  source

  • Outtatime@sh.itjust.works ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Precisely. I guess others seemed to get offended

    source
  • Hotzilla@sopuli.xyz ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I assume 6.22 is still in production, and might be that even someone is paying Microsoft for support.

    source

    • MudMan@fedia.io ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Well, the two relevant questions there are: A) is it?, and B) so what?

      It's not like you're not allowed to provide paid support for a piece of open source software.

      At this point I'm not sure what portion of the difference between 4 and 6.22 is relevant or unknown. That's a pretty well explored platform. I guess this way FreeDOS stays relevant a bit longer? Maybe? It's not like it isn't trivial to pull a copy of 6.22. It was trivial when it was new.

      source

      • Hotzilla@sopuli.xyz ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        If 6.22 is used in military/banking/insurance/emergy systems deep in the critical infrastructure, you don’t want attackers finding weakness in OS that is not patchable.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Why question a good thing?

  source

  • Voyajer@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Why wouldn’t you? Why not a later version, or every version? Wouldn’t you like to know the reasoning behind the decision for doing this with MS-DOS 4 specifically?

    source