Post by ***@gmail.comI'm not advocating, either. Like I've said multiple times, if
you want to release your little toy into the public domain, have
fun. I could honestly not care less.
You advocated, and continue to advocate, that GPL is
just fine, PD doesn't add any value.
Nope. All I'm saying is that it doesn't add the value that you
claim that it does. That doesn't mean that it is without value.
You claimed that it was perfectly fine and tested in court, as
if there was a definitive worldwide court.
If you are now changing your story, that's fine.
Post by ***@gmail.comI'd rather be immature than a commie slimebag peddling
the GPL.
Whatever. At least I'm not ripping off copyrighted material and
passing it off as being in the "public domain."
I'm certainly not doing that.
So far you've made a claim, without proof (especially not
a court ruling anywhere at all), that a trivial amount of code,
contributed by Alica, is allegedly ripped off.
And again, the fact that cretins like you cast aspersions like
that on the most minor amount of code, and claim that that
discredits the entire project, is exactly sand.
You're convincing me that as well as the new API I created,
I also need to create a new executable format.
But you can keep going and say that the C standard is
copyrighted too, so all C programs are ripoffs.
There needs to be some sanity brought to bear.
I have created (with help) an OS from scratch, but even
that is not fundamental enough apparently. Maybe I even
need a new language.
It's grim.
And it's not just PDOS - it's any OS that supports the ELF
format. I assume these names are pretty standard if they
are the documented names.
Post by ***@gmail.comAre you a lawyer? Because you seem awfully sure of yourself
when it comes to
No. Are you every judge in the world? Because you seem
awfully sure you can predict what every single one of them
is going to rule regarding GPL that there is no value in
public domain.
You seem to think all of them are going to agree with your
interpretations vis things that are in the "public domain."
No, you seem to have made up more bullshit.
I have no idea what every judge in the world is going to say.
What I do say is that at least with an explicit public domain
notice, at least there isn't an undisputed copyright holder.
Post by ***@gmail.com[quote more drivel]
Nah. You already started from an inferior technical base. Not
worth it.
My point is that if you are restricted to public domain
for some reason, you can develop your "super technical
base", using PDOS.
Why on earth would someone bother? What you don't seem to get
is that there's _nothing useful there_: it's just junk. One
would be better off starting from scratch and doing things
properly.
You CAN do that.
Again - if you are restricted to using a public domain OS, PDOS
will allow you to start from scratch, without having to write
machine code.
Post by ***@gmail.comWhat does that have to do with not "needing to write in machine
code"?
If you are given a S360/67 (which has switches to zap memory),
plus whatever public domain code you can find, what's your plan
to develop everything you need?
What fantasy world do you live in where that's a realistic
scenario?
It's an example. E.g. nuclear war, or sanctions. Or a drop
dead date embedded in every Intel and AMD processor.
I don't know what the future might bring.
You're the one with the alleged infallible cyrstal ball.
Post by ***@gmail.comRepeat for 80386, although I'm not sure what input tools
are available for that. You might need to go back to an
earlier machine that supports paper tape.
This is pure delusion. You have obviously never bootstrapped a
machine.
Paper tape, indeed.
What do you mean by "bootstrapped a machine"?
I have created an IPL deck of cards for z/PDOS.
I haven't personally punched them and loaded them onto
a card reader. So?
Post by ***@gmail.comYou will want to move to a higher level language as
soon as possible.
The S360/67 has a card reader too.
Are you high?
Nope.
Post by ***@gmail.comAnd if that's what you're concerned about, what about that
copyright BIOS or UEFI you want to do the heavy lifting for you
so you don't have to think about it? How about the copyright
firmware? Are you doing your own DRAM training?
I want to be able to debug my applications by putting debug
code into the OS as required. And fixing bugs in the OS as
required. For whatever reason I've never had an OS bug that
I needed to debug at the BIOS level.
Yes, because you're just a hobbyist. That's fine, but you are
clearly not a domain expert.
Probably most application programmers aren't either.
But they can now debug at least at the OS level.
Post by ***@gmail.comBut yes, I have bought
Chromebooks and given some thought about replacing
Seabios. It just hasn't been priority.
See what you just wrote above about bootstrapping doesn't even
make sense with this ... whatever this is. You're obviously ok
using a BIOS to bootstrap the machine, or for that matter,
cross-compiling. So why do you feel like you need a machine
with a paper tape reader? What does your weird little program
loader have to do with machine code?
If someone wants to write a fantastic OS, from scratch,
and all they have is a machine with wiped disks, what do
you suggest they do?
Then ... what do you suggest they do if they are allowed to
use any public domain software they can find.
Perhaps some sort of clean-room OS by Fujitsu.
They don't want slimy assholes like you claiming that
software was stolen.
So there is no source code.
Post by ***@gmail.comPost by ***@gmail.comPost by ***@gmail.comThat's a very good foundation.
Nope. I looked at the code; it's really not very good.
You don't need to read the code. You can write something
better using it, if you believe you have the skills.
That's irrelevant. You're the one claiming that your "PDOS" is
a suitable "foundation" for building real systems. It's
demonstrably not.
It demonstrably is. You can use it to compile C code
and develop a replacement OS that you think is better.
I can do that on almost any extant system today. I can even put
the result into the public domain.
Why would I bother with your little toy?
Again - those extant systems are all copyright.
What if say North Korea wants to develop an OS and they
insist that their commie OS should not be tainted by any
copyright material as that is a sign of evil capitalism?
Post by ***@gmail.comYeah, let's go back to the state of the art circa 1981. That's
a great idea!
To find a definition? Sure.
Nope. That's the wrong set of abstractions to start with.
Nope. OSes existed long before clowns like you started
changing terminology.
Post by ***@gmail.comPost by ***@gmail.comAgain, if you use a different definition of OS to Microsoft,
that's fine, you can have a semantic debate on your own.
You'll note that Microsoft hasn't shipped MS-DOS in 20+ years.
You'll note that that is a red herring.
The "OS" in "MSDOS" stands for "operating system". If you
wish to write to Microsoft and tell them that their OS is
misnamed and should be called "MSPL", go right ahead.
I don't have a dispute with Microsoft on that.
Has it occurred to you to wonder why MSFT is no longer working
on DOS?
They have something nominally better.
And they make money by forcing upgrades.
Post by ***@gmail.comPost by ***@gmail.comWhat you have written is
much closer to a program loader with a minimal API based on
antiquated standards. It's clear, looking at the implementation
that you don't have a good handle on any of the issues involved.
What's clear is that there is very little choice when it
comes to public domain. Almost everything else has an
owner who refuses to relinquish that.
It appears that you started with a bunch of code other people
wrote,
"appears" based on what? Just more crap you made up?
No. I started with nothing other than tools (Turbo C)
and an 8086 computer and a book with a BIOS reference.
Well, look at `elf.h` in your source tree for starters. Then
compare, say, the structure definitions therein against the
System V ABI document.
And what is the date that elf.h was added to the repository?
How about looking at that for starters?
And compare it to when the project started - 1994.
You're the one claiming I STARTED from other people's code,
rather than from scratch.
Another unsupported lie.
Post by ***@gmail.commoved the deck chairs around a bit, and declared yourself
some kind of visionary.
Two more bits of crap you made up.
If you're so hell-bent on a "public
domain operating system", why don't you figure out how to do
something like implement a POSIX-compatible API with PD code?
You know, something that'd actually be useful?
Because I think POSIX is shit.
But DOS isn't.
Correct.
Clearly the conensus expert opinion.
See previous references to "clowns".
Post by ***@gmail.comBut the I/O primitives are similar anyway.
Nah, they really aren't.
Yeah, they really are.
The MSDOS source code even mentions Xenix.
Post by ***@gmail.comBut even they should be hidden by the C library. Which
they pretty much are.
Cool. So ... can I `fork` a new process with PDOS? That string
does not appear in your source base, so I'm going to go out on a
limb and say "no."
forking is exactly why Posix is shit.
system() exists in C90, and fork() doesn't, for a reason.
The reason is that not everyone is a clown.
Post by ***@gmail.comPost by ***@gmail.comPost by ***@gmail.comYou know it. I know it.
What I know is that you've got a toy you keep claiming is some
kind of weird "backstop" against something that'll never happen,
because you neither understand operating systems nor how
software licensing works.
Again, we both understand, but you are hiding the fact that
you are deliberately trying to pretend that public domain
has no extra value. While refusing to make code public
domain because you know damned well it does.
Nah, it really doesn't. As for "understanding" I'm quite
confident that you do not understand the issues involved.
And I'm quite confident that you're a commie ratbag.
Internet tough-guys gonna Internet tough-guy. But that's ok;
incidentally, people like were usually the first to wash out
when I was in the military. But do go on: keep telling me what
a "commie" I am.
And commie scum like you are the first to make up lies
about me not writing PDOS starting from scratch.
Post by ***@gmail.comPost by ***@gmail.comPost by ***@gmail.comBut you pretend that there isn't because you're peddling
virus licenses and don't want that challenged.
If you don't like "viral" licenses, try ISC.
Ask the ISC folks why they don't make their code public
domain, and you'll see the issue.
Irrelevant. You're the one claiming that I'm "peddling viral
licenses and don't want that challenged." As I've said
repeatedly, you can put your code in the public domain if want;
You didn't JUST say that. You also peddled GPL as perfectly
fine according to the courts, no need for PD.
GPL has been tested and upheld in court; that is a fact. I
merely pointed that out.
It is a fact that GPL product authors take people to court.
Very different from public domain.
That is something to be wary of, not something to
wave about as perfectly fine.
That license was specifically designed
to prevent the things you seem to be so concerned about.
That's a claim made by commie scum.
And no, it doesn't.
It prevents a closed-source competitor like Fujitsu from
taking on Microsoft and/or IBM unless they write their own,
from scratch. That's a huge barrier.
That
doesn't mean I'm _advocating_ for it. In fact, I don't much
care for it, but that's just me.
Yeah, well maybe you shouldn't have brought it up.
Post by ***@gmail.comPost by ***@gmail.comI have S/380 as well.
Your commits all look like you're modifying hercules
configurations and doing some minor JCL startup stuff. Nothing
particularly interesting.
Your comments all look like you haven't looked in the
"s370" directory and seen a fucking OS and spouted
bullshit instead.
Oh I looked. What's in there is a joke.
Better than any other public domain OS for the mainframe.
And a functioning OS is not a joke.
BTW, what exactly is your non-joke OS?
Post by ***@gmail.comPost by ***@gmail.comIf you have to ask this, then clearly you're not aware of the
technical issues involved in writing an operating system that is
not a toy.
If you insist that your question is relevant when you're talking
to someone who has written an x86 OS from scratch, you are
clearly a commie scumbag trying to hide the advance in
public domain software.
You didn't write your operating system from scratch. Unless you
Lie.
are also Alica Okano, Durand Miller, NECDET COKYAZICI, Paul
Edwards, and a other names that show up in various source files.
Well I am Paul Edwards, but I started my OS long before any of
those other people turned up.
I didn't say I was the only contributor.
You said you wrote your own OS, from scratch; that's
demonstrably false.
No. It's not false.
It was a functioning OS before any of those people turned up.
But as I said - I needed assistance to get into PM32.
Post by ***@gmail.comIn fact, it looks like most of the non-trivial code was written
by other people.
I did the RM16 to PM32 transition code. But there was a bug
in it that I couldn't solve and Matthew Parker solved it.
This is not the flex you think it is, bro.
Bro, I wrote all the components of an OS (starting
with 8086). If the hardest part was not the RM16 to
PM32 in your opinion, that's fine, but whatever else
it was, I wrote it.
Post by ***@gmail.comI also wrote the FAT read and write code for FAT-16.
And the memory manager.
And the MZ and a.out program loader.
And created the API, but that was largely based on MSDOS.
That's all the components of an OS.
Oh, and most of the C library too.
So...what most undergrad students are asked to do in their OS
classes. Neato.
No idea.
I only know what I did, not what they did.
You have been lying about what I did.
Post by ***@gmail.comFurther, some things look like they're lifted
directly from other sources.
If there is public domain code available to do something
already, I am happy to lift it. There wasn't very much
already available. Close to nothing.
For instance, the ELF headers are
literally taken from the System V ABI document (copyright AT&T
and The Santa Cruz Operation). The only difference is
whitespace; the identifiers weren't even changed.
I actually think this is pretty hilarious.
That's a very small amount of code, and it was contributed
by Alica. I don't know how she constructed it, but I can see
that there was something missing that was probably
C:\devel\pdos\bios>git log elf.h
commit d8ec66831878a85c20a1678dd48f8b3b2aabfad4
Date: Tue Apr 20 01:33:42 2021 +1000
add Elf32_Rela
So whatever she did, it wasn't a direct copy, otherwise it
wouldn't be missing something I needed.
The variable names would be the same if she looked at
code that made use of those names.
I don't believe the variable names themselves can be
copyrighted.
So you admit copying from the standard without attribution, as
well.
No. That's a lie you made up.
I didn't copy a damned thing from any standard, except
for C90 function names.
There was no standard for the MSDOS API function names,
so I had to make that myself.
Post by ***@gmail.comBut yeah - you're hitting a problem already with copyright
notices slapped on everything - even header files - such
that the whole industry is built on sand.
If necessary I will write my own executable format or
create new variable names after reverse-engineering
an ELF executable.
More sand.
You clearly don't understand how copyright works. You can
copyright the _expression_ of a thing, and your "from scratch"
operating system that you _claim_ is all public domain clearly
copied many of the _expressions_ of the ELF structures from the
System V ABI. But the structure itself isn't copyright, and you
can, say, rename the members or something to create a novel
expression, which would Not fall under the existing copyright.
But your code doesn't do that.
No, you don't understand how a standard works.
It would be odd to change the variable names just the same as
changing the function names in the C library.
It can be done if necessary in both cases, if a court insists
that that be done.
Regardless, the fact that we are having this discussion at all is sand.
This is just one example; I'm sure your code has more. "Someone
else did it!" doesn't really make it ok, though it does neatly
illustrate pretty much everything I've said here.
You're "sure" based on .. you pulled it out of your ass?
You're lucky that this probably _does_ fall under fair use, but
this is precisely what copyright and licenses were designed to
prevent: someone taking a work, slapping their name on it, and
passing it off as their own. Exactly what you've done under the
guise of producing a completely from-scratch, "public domain"
operating system.
It isn't a guise. It was from scratch. More lies you made up.
Yes, someone contributed ELF support later. Did that person
cut and paste from a manual? I don't know for sure.
Did Google and Microsoft cut and paste from some manual?
I don't know that either.
It's all sand. Theoretically the alleged copyright holder can take
everyone above to court.
At best you're a shoddy maintainer; at worst a liar and a thief.
You're the liar.
And a desperate liar too. Trying to dismiss tens of thousands
of lines of code because of a single header file - with no proof
of even that being copied.
Post by ***@gmail.comPost by ***@gmail.comYes, you are correct: people "slap on copyright notices for a
good reason."
Whether that was what you intended to write or not, that's just
a fact. If you think you have a good reason to "challenge"
that, then by all means, consult a lawyer.
Or - I can see what the state of public domain code is, so that
I don't have to rely on lawyers and the whim of judges.
There's something you may not have heard of called a "patent",
but you will likely be shocked to learn that being in the public
domain does not defend someone from a patent infringement suit.
You may be shocked to learn that patents only last 20 years,
and I am writing software deliberately targeted to systems
from 1990 and relying on upward compatibility.
Wow. You ... really don't understand how ANY of this works, do
you?
Wow, you tried to get by without an actual counter-argument
AGAIN hoping that no-one would notice.
Oops. Sorry for noticing.
Post by ***@gmail.comBut again - more sand if you don't restrain yourself and stick
to 2003 at most.
More delusion.
More absence of counter-argument.
Post by ***@gmail.comI already know that you don't understand that claims being in
You don't "know" any such thing. That's just more crap you made up.
the public domain are actually dependent on those very same
judges you seem to have such a problem with.
Sure. But that's the best I can do. Go to a judge and say
that the author clearly made zero attempt to copyright
this code, and every attempt to disclaim copyright, so
if he/she is suing me in court today (as the undisputed
author), well that's terrible, and I hope you'll throw the
case out and award me damages.
Or! And I know, this is crazy, but bear with me....
Or! You could just pick a license that grants specific rights
that would prevent that person from suing you, and do your best
to comply with the terms of that license.
And then find out that the author has a different
"interpretation" of his license than you do.
Or! And I know, this is crazy, but bear with me...
Pick public domain code.
Perhaps consider that people who are both smarter and better
informed than you have done this _because_ it's safer for all
parties involved.
Or perhaps they are jackasses like you.
This is just more of your commie drivel. Touting virus licenses
as safer than public domain.
Post by ***@gmail.comThat's the best I can do without rewriting everything from
scratch myself. (assuming I was using someone else's PD code).
Perhaps you should read some basic information about IP law;
maybe talk to a lawyer who knows something about the area.
Because it's clear that you do not.
Or maybe you should stop being a moron who is using licenses
that need lawyers and claiming that involving lawyers is better
solution than public domain.
Post by ***@gmail.com[quote more nonsense]
I don't think you do. You seem to think the term is synonymous
with machines from IBM.
That's where the professionals are.
Some, but really quite a minority.
No. All of them.
Post by ***@gmail.com[snip more weird claims about being "professional"]
Post by ***@gmail.comDo you? Do you really? Because you keep talking about "viral"
this and "IBM could stop selling" that, and it really, really
seems like maybe you don't quite understand how these things
work.
Please ask a specific question.
Well, you said, "of course I know they're all different" but
what you write strongly implies that you do not, so I'm asking
if you really know that they are different, because I do not
believe that you do.
If "diff licensea.txt licenseb.txt" produces any data, then yes,
they are different.
Ah, so your understanding of the differences is limited to the
superficial. Well, that's as I suspected. So much for being a
"professional."
I didn't claim to be a professional.
I said that IBM mainframes are a professional environment.
Post by ***@gmail.comPost by ***@gmail.comThere's nothing to answer in the above drivel.
Post by ***@gmail.comBut they
all have undisputed copyright holders, who can take you to
court any time they want. And then you get to argue the toss
in front of some judge.
Huh? Wow. Uh, no...that's not how that works.
Yes it is.
If I may ask, where did you get your law degree?
I don't have one. Even if you do, I wouldn't trust your
judgement as far as I could throw it, as you have a
habit of lying and being full of shit.
Jerry Stuckle, is that you?
Red Herring? You called again?
Post by ***@gmail.com[snip]
Nah, you wrote a little toy and are posturing about it on USENET
like it's 1996.
A "little toy" that is capable of building OSes.
Not really a little toy. Something useful.
Nope.
Yep.
Post by ***@gmail.comPost by ***@gmail.comNah, I don't care if you want to put your toy under a public
domain license or not. I just don't like misinformation and
blantent crankery. I'd love if there were actually a forum
for discussing, you know, OS development that wasn't dominated
by blatherings about DOS replacements and weird conspiracy
theories.
You say that, and yet you're the one who made an effort
to insist that public domain has no value and "trust me -
the courts confirm that GPL is fine".
At the end of the day, the only thing that actually matters is
legal precedent, but whatever. You sound like one of those
"sovereign citizen" types.
No. What actually matters is that courts worldwide can
overturn decisions and make crap up so that you never
know where you stand.
Yet you seem to think that being in the public domain is somehow
immune to this.
Not immune. Best chance of defense is if you are using
something that no-one has attempted to claim ownership
of, and instead has done their best to disown.
Post by ***@gmail.comPost by ***@gmail.comWhy do I need to do that?
I've already written an OS that uses the GDT anyway.
Why, because you don't appear to understand how to mode switch
between 64- and 32-bit mode, of course. You asked the question,
duh.
I don't think I asked that.
No, you asked how you could run unchanged 32-bit code in 64-bit
mode, then made some weird ravings about the stack pointer. I
and others who actually know how this works explained to you
that the way you do this is to run your code in 32-bit mode.
This apparently confused you, and you wanted to argue about it
No, it didn't confuse me.
That's just you not understanding basic English - again.
and make claims about writing a compiler or something, but it's
honestly hard to see through your nonsense.
It's not hard to see that you're a commie slimebag peddling the GPL.
Post by ***@gmail.comIt's true that I've never written code to switch from PM32 to LM64.
Only RM16 to PM32.
Going from real mode to protected is like a dozen instructions,
my dude.
It's a lot of effort. At least for what I wanted to do - which is
be able to transition back. And no diagnostics on real hardware.
Regardless, if you are a brain box who can whip this up while
you drink coffee - great, go ahead.
I'm not claiming to be a brain box.
BFN. Paul.