LinuxQuestions.org
Share your knowledge at the LQ Wiki.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > LinuxQuestions.org > Linux - News
User Name
Password
Linux - News This forum is for original Linux News. If you'd like to write content for LQ, feel free to contact us.
All threads in the forum need to be approved before they will appear.

Notices



Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 04-01-2014, 04:43 PM   #16
rtmistler
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Milford, MA. USA
Distribution: Angstrom, Debian, Ubuntu, MINT
Posts: 1,448
Blog Entries: 8

Rep: Reputation: 537Reputation: 537Reputation: 537Reputation: 537Reputation: 537Reputation: 537

That's an odd way to justify or explain release of the source code.

What I believe they ought to do is accompany it with documentation about the designs of those codes and discuss the evolution to the points where they either ended or evolved into what they are today. DOS is obviously gone as far as Microsoft is concerned unless they consider their command prompt the current incarnation of it. Word is obviously still around, I get that it's proprietary, but if they're releasing version 1.0 of that code (1) it's probably a lot of code, and (2) to benefit academic learning it would be beneficial for them to at least make an effort to document the code architecture as opposed to simply releasing it to a museum and claiming this is for the children.

For that matter, how about releasing a description of the first BIOS and how DOS tied into it? That's just as important as the OS itself.

Otherwise just handing out the code is pure PR and looks good, but if someone has to decipher the design (a) they may make invalid assumptions and (b) they may may not be able too, leading back to condition (a) where they'll "make it up".

The whole point here is to incite historical learning to benefit those studying computer architecture. Much the same as why computer scientists learn about Turning machines or Moore and Mealy FSMs. In this case it would be so that someone would have a background on how the first operating systems were constructed, the pitfalls of them, and what options could've been chosen to have made that better. Much like you read about old operating systems or designs which were actually very good, but didn't take off from a business sense, so they never made it. Microsoft can tout a lot of the line that they did and were successful. OK, they have their kudos and the money to boot. But some coverage of how it was constructed to go along with "here ... have some code" would be helpful.

Perhaps they are releasing documentation to go along with it.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: Microsoft Word for DOS it's FREE and just might be useful, even if you don't LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 12-07-2008 04:50 AM
Porting DOS program to Linux. I have the C source code ... Micro420 Programming 8 04-19-2008 08:36 AM
LXer: Microsoft Releases Code for Windows 95, 98, Me and MS-DOS For One Day Only! LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 04-01-2008 02:11 PM
LXer: Microsoft makes claim on Linux code LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 11-20-2006 06:03 PM
LXer: Will public schools use Microsoft or open source? LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 02-07-2006 05:16 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:29 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration