32 on 64

[muta...@gmail.com]

I thought that it was not possible to run 80386 software on an x64 in lm64 because they took away push eax etc so you only have push rax

But I just realized that you can manipulate the stack manually. Ie mov eax to offset 4 from esp etc.

And sub esp, 4

I don't mind writing a new compiler and I don't mind recompiling everything.

So

Is it possible to write 80386 code that runs on lm64 without issue?

Ie are sufficient instructions available for a general purpose application?

I would be running under 64 bit EFI

Using only memory below 4 GB

And without paging.

The 32 bit code would be in a.out format and I would load it myself.

Thanks

[muta...@gmail.com]

I just realized.

Even if it works, I'll hit the same problem I hit on the mainframe.

Negative indexes. A fundamental part of life.

For that to work I need to remap the 4 to 8 GB region onto 0 to 4

For that I presumably need to use paging.

For that I presumably need to exit boot services

Which I don't want to do

So I'm stuck again?

[Dan Cross]

In article <f0ead2ab-2a53-4151...@googlegroups.com>,

muta...@gmail.com <muta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I thought that it was not possible to run 80386 software on an x64 in lm64 because they took away push eax etc so you only have push rax
>
>But I just realized that you can manipulate the stack manually. Ie mov eax to offset 4 from esp etc.
>
>And sub esp, 4
>
>I don't mind writing a new compiler and I don't mind recompiling everything.

I wouldn't do that if I were you.

>So
>
>Is it possible to write 80386 code that runs on lm64 without issue?

Yes. That was one of the important design criteria for 64-bit
x86, in fact. However, you're generally going to do so by
entering 32-bit mode. E.g., the system might boot up and run in
64-bit mode in the kernel (ring 0), but then execute user code
in 32-bit mode (e.g., in ring 3).

>Ie are sufficient instructions available for a general purpose application?
>
>I would be running under 64 bit EFI
>
>Using only memory below 4 GB
>
>And without paging.

It's unclear what you mean here: if you're in long mode, you
must enable paging. That doesn't mean that you can't run 32-bit
code, but the machine must be an architecturally well-defined
state.

It's unclear what you mean when you say, "I would be running
under 64 bit EFI": do you mean you'd be executing something
integrated with UEFI (such as a DXE provider?) or do you mean
that that's just how your machine would boot?

>The 32 bit code would be in a.out format and I would load it myself.

Before one can really address this, one needs more contextual
information. Would this code be run in user mode? If so, what
you could do is simply leave the kernel and enter a 32-bit
user mode executing this code (e.g., in a 32-bit code segment).

But if begs the question: if you're willing to both write your
own compiler and recompile your code, why not simply build it
as 64-bit code and avoid the hassle?

- Dan C.

[muta...@gmail.com]

First of all, I'm back on - I realized that it will be a
non-optimizing compiler to start with, so I don't
think there will be negative indexes, there will
instead be an addition.

Oh. I just realized that the addition would require
a wrap too, so I'm back off, unless every addition
does a test for a negative number and does a
subtraction or manual wrap or whatever.

I guess that's the price to pay for the OS (EFI) not
mapping the 4-8 GiB region as required.

On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 9:44:08 PM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <f0ead2ab-2a53-4151...@googlegroups.com>,
> muta...@gmail.com <muta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I thought that it was not possible to run 80386 software on an x64 in lm64 because they took away push eax etc so you only have push rax
> >
> >But I just realized that you can manipulate the stack manually. Ie mov eax to offset 4 from esp etc.
> >
> >And sub esp, 4
> >
> >I don't mind writing a new compiler and I don't mind recompiling everything.
> I wouldn't do that if I were you.
> >So
> >
> >Is it possible to write 80386 code that runs on lm64 without issue?
> Yes. That was one of the important design criteria for 64-bit
> x86, in fact. However, you're generally going to do so by
> entering 32-bit mode.

I didn't want to enter 32-bit mode.

> E.g., the system might boot up and run in
> 64-bit mode in the kernel (ring 0), but then execute user code
> in 32-bit mode (e.g., in ring 3).
> >Ie are sufficient instructions available for a general purpose application?
> >
> >I would be running under 64 bit EFI
> >
> >Using only memory below 4 GB
> >
> >And without paging.
> It's unclear what you mean here: if you're in long mode, you
> must enable paging. That doesn't mean that you can't run 32-bit
> code, but the machine must be an architecturally well-defined
> state.

Ok, I didn't want to manipulate page tables then. I'll just
accept whatever EFI gives me.

> It's unclear what you mean when you say, "I would be running
> under 64 bit EFI": do you mean you'd be executing something
> integrated with UEFI (such as a DXE provider?) or do you mean
> that that's just how your machine would boot?

That's how my machine would boot, and I would be
using the EFI API, basically as the OS.

> >The 32 bit code would be in a.out format and I would load it myself.

> Before one can really address this, one needs more contextual
> information. Would this code be run in user mode?

I don't know. Before you exit boot services, are you in

user mode?

> If so, what
> you could do is simply leave the kernel and enter a 32-bit
> user mode executing this code (e.g., in a 32-bit code segment).
>
> But if begs the question: if you're willing to both write your
> own compiler and recompile your code, why not simply build it
> as 64-bit code and avoid the hassle?

I am only running in 64-bit mode under protest.

I consider 64-bit overkill and dangerous.

If we ever have to restart the computer industry, 32-bit will
come first, and that's where I want to be.

In "Life on Earth v2" there could be a 1000 year gap between
32-bit and 64-bit.

It may not be v2, it may simply be an indigenous North Korean
computer industry. Or Filipino or African.

I'm particularly interested in a Filipino software industry, but
the hardware would presumably follow that. The Soviets had
something too.

There could also be a 1000 year gap between 16-bit and 32-bit,
but that's not the problem I'm addressing at the moment.

Massive mainframes were 32-bit and had 2 MB of memory
circa 1967.

BFN. Paul.

[muta...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 10:02:33 PM UTC+8, muta...@gmail.com wrote:

> I guess that's the price to pay for the OS (EFI) not
> mapping the 4-8 GiB region as required.

Similar to the price to be paid when using huge
(not large) memory model for 8086.

Although in reality that's just a few percent, not as bad
as everyone imagines.

BFN. Paul.

[muta...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 10:02:33 PM UTC+8, muta...@gmail.com wrote:

> First of all, I'm back on - I realized that it will be a
> non-optimizing compiler to start with, so I don't
> think there will be negative indexes, there will
> instead be an addition.
>
> Oh. I just realized that the addition would require
> a wrap too, so I'm back off, unless every addition
> does a test for a negative number and does a
> subtraction or manual wrap or whatever.

No, I'm wrong again. A simple non-optimizing compiler
doing an add is all that is required - if eax and ebx are
added together, and ebx is negative, it will do the required
wrap, even on a 64-bit system.

BFN. Paul.

[Dan Cross]

In article <84de14f1-097a-421e...@googlegroups.com>,

muta...@gmail.com <muta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 9:44:08 PM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <f0ead2ab-2a53-4151...@googlegroups.com>,
>> muta...@gmail.com <muta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Is it possible to write 80386 code that runs on lm64 without issue?
>>
>> Yes. That was one of the important design criteria for 64-bit
>> x86, in fact. However, you're generally going to do so by
>> entering 32-bit mode.
>
>I didn't want to enter 32-bit mode.

Huh.

>> E.g., the system might boot up and run in
>> 64-bit mode in the kernel (ring 0), but then execute user code
>> in 32-bit mode (e.g., in ring 3).
>> >Ie are sufficient instructions available for a general purpose application?
>> >
>> >I would be running under 64 bit EFI
>> >
>> >Using only memory below 4 GB
>> >
>> >And without paging.
>> It's unclear what you mean here: if you're in long mode, you
>> must enable paging. That doesn't mean that you can't run 32-bit
>> code, but the machine must be an architecturally well-defined
>> state.
>
>Ok, I didn't want to manipulate page tables then. I'll just
>accept whatever EFI gives me.

Ok.

>> It's unclear what you mean when you say, "I would be running
>> under 64 bit EFI": do you mean you'd be executing something
>> integrated with UEFI (such as a DXE provider?) or do you mean
>> that that's just how your machine would boot?
>
>That's how my machine would boot, and I would be
>using the EFI API, basically as the OS.

Yes, it basically _is_ an OS for all intents and purposes.

>> >The 32 bit code would be in a.out format and I would load it myself.
>
>> Before one can really address this, one needs more contextual
>> information. Would this code be run in user mode?
>
>I don't know. Before you exit boot services, are you in
>user mode?

It depends entirely on what CPL the processor is running at.
However, it seems like it doesn't matter: you're executing in
the 64-bit EFI (more likely UEFI) environment, so you seem to be
imposing additional requirements on yourself that you not
deviate from that. So the issue of what ring you are in seems
moot.

>> If so, what
>> you could do is simply leave the kernel and enter a 32-bit
>> user mode executing this code (e.g., in a 32-bit code segment).
>>
>> But if begs the question: if you're willing to both write your
>> own compiler and recompile your code, why not simply build it
>> as 64-bit code and avoid the hassle?
>
>I am only running in 64-bit mode under protest.
>
>I consider 64-bit overkill and dangerous.
>
>If we ever have to restart the computer industry, 32-bit will
>come first, and that's where I want to be.
>
>In "Life on Earth v2" there could be a 1000 year gap between
>32-bit and 64-bit.
>
>It may not be v2, it may simply be an indigenous North Korean
>computer industry. Or Filipino or African.
>
>I'm particularly interested in a Filipino software industry, but
>the hardware would presumably follow that. The Soviets had
>something too.
>
>There could also be a 1000 year gap between 16-bit and 32-bit,
>but that's not the problem I'm addressing at the moment.
>
>Massive mainframes were 32-bit and had 2 MB of memory
>circa 1967.

Well, good luck to you then.

- Dan C.

[muta...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 9:20:58 AM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:

> >> Yes. That was one of the important design criteria for 64-bit
> >> x86, in fact. However, you're generally going to do so by
> >> entering 32-bit mode.
> >
> >I didn't want to enter 32-bit mode.

> Huh.

I could switch between 64 bit mode and 32 bit mode if
boot services allowed that.

But probably best to not rely on that.

Basically the intention is to run PDOS-generic as 32-bit code.

It can be entered by a pseudo BIOS layered on top a real
BIOS, so that it can run on a real 80386.

Or EFI can boot a bootx64.efi and it can run PDOS-generic.

PDOS-generic and all applications would all be a.out 80386
code.

And that would suffice as a starter system that should allow
further development of both 16-bit and 64-bit systems.

There are two things still on my mind:

1. Is there anything that would prevent 80386 code from
running in x64 mode? ie my original question hasn't been
answered.

2. Can you bootstrap a 64-bit compiler from a 32-bit
compiler? I thought Alex said that wasn't possible, but
on pdos.org there is cc32.c and cc32n.c which I believe
allow you to get to cc64.c.

BFN. Paul.

[muta...@gmail.com]

Someone has replied offline and said that call and ret won't
do 32-bit anymore, but it is probably possible to do that
manually.

I assume the syntax would be:

mov eax, after
mov [esp + 0], eax
mov eax, sub
jmp *eax
after:

sub:
...
mov eax, [esp + 0]
jmp *eax


And some instructions no longer exist, e.g. short form INC 0x40

But again, it sounds like this is a minority and there are no show-stoppers.


Another thing is that there is apparently no EFI call to get
into 32-bit mode, so the above technique is the only
solution I have.

BFN. Paul.

[wolfgang kern]

On 20/03/2023 01:21, muta...@gmail.com wrote:
...

> Someone has replied offline and said that call and ret won't
> do 32-bit anymore, but it is probably possible to do that
> manually.

> I assume the syntax would be:
>
> mov eax, after
> mov [esp + 0], eax
> mov eax, sub
> jmp *eax
> after:
>
> sub:
> ...
> mov eax, [esp + 0]
> jmp *eax

this may not work as you expect.
and what's wrong with call/ret in long mode

FF D0 .... C3
48 FF D0 .... C3

if you like to run 32 bit code within 64 bit environment then just
switch back and forth between this two modes.
Oh, you don't have a BIOS/UEFI function for such ? write your own.
__
wolfgang

[muta...@gmail.com]

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 8:54:21 PM UTC+8, wolfgang kern wrote:

> > I assume the syntax would be:
> >
> > mov eax, after
> > mov [esp + 0], eax
> > mov eax, sub
> > jmp *eax
> > after:
> >
> > sub:
> > ...
> > mov eax, [esp + 0]
> > jmp *eax
> this may not work as you expect.

Why not?

> and what's wrong with call/ret in long mode
>
> FF D0 .... C3
> 48 FF D0 .... C3

I want my 32-bit code to work on both an 80386 and on
an x64 in long mode.

> if you like to run 32 bit code within 64 bit environment then just
> switch back and forth between this two modes.
> Oh, you don't have a BIOS/UEFI function for such ? write your own.

I don't want to write my own. I want to follow the EFI
spec and have carefully-generated assembler that can
tolerate running on both 32 and 64-bit environments.

I'm not sure there is actually a way to write my own
even outside of the EFI spec. Don't I need access to
the GDT or whatever which can't be manipulated until
I exit boot services?

BFN. Paul.

[wolfgang kern]

On 20/03/2023 14:51, muta...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 8:54:21 PM UTC+8, wolfgang kern wrote:
>
>>> I assume the syntax would be:
>>>
>>> mov eax, after
>>> mov [esp + 0], eax
>>> mov eax, sub
>>> jmp *eax
>>> after:
>>>
>>> sub:
>>> ...
>>> mov eax, [esp + 0]
>>> jmp *eax
>> this may not work as you expect.
>
> Why not?

you think this stack position is as a save place to hold values ?
IRQs (timer/kbd/mouse/...) may use it. And that's why PUSH/POP were
implemented :)

mov eax,[rsp+0] act as MOVZXD rax,[rsp]

>> and what's wrong with call/ret in long mode
>>
>> FF D0 .... C3
>> 48 FF D0 .... C3
>
> I want my 32-bit code to work on both an 80386 and on
> an x64 in long mode.

Now this is a really bad idea, because this looses a lot of features
from both modes and will end up in weird detours for no reason.
The difference between this two modes is just too large and for switch
demands all options were designed and implemented..

>> if you like to run 32 bit code within 64 bit environment then just
>> switch back and forth between this two modes.
>> Oh, you don't have a BIOS/UEFI function for such ? write your own.

> I don't want to write my own. I want to follow the EFI
> spec and have carefully-generated assembler that can
> tolerate running on both 32 and 64-bit environments.

You cant build your own OS by "don't want to write..."
and you wont follow UEFI boot specs by using 32-bit code.

> I'm not sure there is actually a way to write my own
> even outside of the EFI spec. Don't I need access to
> the GDT or whatever which can't be manipulated until
> I exit boot services?

once the GDT is proper setup to cover LM64 and PM32 needs, the switches
don't need to alter GDT entries, only descriptors have to change.
__
wolfgang

[muta...@gmail.com]

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 11:54:27 PM UTC+8, wolfgang kern wrote:

> On 20/03/2023 14:51, muta...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 8:54:21 PM UTC+8, wolfgang kern wrote:
> >
> >>> I assume the syntax would be:
> >>>
> >>> mov eax, after
> >>> mov [esp + 0], eax
> >>> mov eax, sub
> >>> jmp *eax
> >>> after:
> >>>
> >>> sub:
> >>> ...
> >>> mov eax, [esp + 0]
> >>> jmp *eax
> >> this may not work as you expect.
> >
> > Why not?

> you think this stack position is as a save place to hold values ?
> IRQs (timer/kbd/mouse/...) may use it. And that's why PUSH/POP were
> implemented :)

Don't I just need to subtract something from the sp
before doing the manipulations?

> mov eax,[rsp+0] act as MOVZXD rax,[rsp]

Is that a problem?

> >> and what's wrong with call/ret in long mode
> >>
> >> FF D0 .... C3
> >> 48 FF D0 .... C3
> >
> > I want my 32-bit code to work on both an 80386 and on
> > an x64 in long mode.

> Now this is a really bad idea, because this looses a lot of features
> from both modes and will end up in weird detours for no reason.

This is all generated code. I don't need a lot of features,
I just need sufficient features for an arbitrary program.

> The difference between this two modes is just too large and for switch
> demands all options were designed and implemented..

Are you sure it is too large for my purposes?

> >> if you like to run 32 bit code within 64 bit environment then just
> >> switch back and forth between this two modes.
> >> Oh, you don't have a BIOS/UEFI function for such ? write your own.
>
> > I don't want to write my own. I want to follow the EFI
> > spec and have carefully-generated assembler that can
> > tolerate running on both 32 and 64-bit environments.

> You cant build your own OS by "don't want to write..."

Yes I can. As per the above design.

For the last almost 30 years I have successfully avoided
having to write hard disk drivers too.

> and you wont follow UEFI boot specs by using 32-bit code.

The BOOTX64.EFI will be 64-bit.

The 32-bit code will still be technically valid 64-bit code.

I may need some assembler to glue above two things
together, for when the 32-bit code calls a 64-bit API
exposed by the pseudo-bios (bootx64.efi).

It is unclear to me whether I can get the C compiler
to auto-generate the glue.

Or whether there is some other technique.

> > I'm not sure there is actually a way to write my own
> > even outside of the EFI spec. Don't I need access to
> > the GDT or whatever which can't be manipulated until
> > I exit boot services?

> once the GDT is proper setup to cover LM64 and PM32 needs, the switches
> don't need to alter GDT entries, only descriptors have to change.

And? Does the EFI spec provide a way to do all of that, without
exiting boot services?

BFN. Paul.

[wolfgang kern]

On 21/03/2023 01:10, muta...@gmail.com wrote:

>>>>> I assume the syntax would be:
>>>>>
>>>>> mov eax, after
>>>>> mov [esp + 0], eax
>>>>> mov eax, sub
>>>>> jmp *eax
>>>>> after:
>>>>>
>>>>> sub:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> mov eax, [esp + 0]
>>>>> jmp *eax
>>>> this may not work as you expect.
>>>
>>> Why not?

>> you think this stack position is as a save place to hold values ?
>> IRQs (timer/kbd/mouse/...) may use it. And that's why PUSH/POP were
>> implemented :)
>
> Don't I just need to subtract something from the sp
> before doing the manipulations?
>
>> mov eax,[rsp+0] act as MOVZXD rax,[rsp]
>
> Is that a problem?

no problem if you don't need the high part of RAX

>>> I want my 32-bit code to work on both an 80386 and on
>>> an x64 in long mode.

>> Now this is a really bad idea, because this looses a lot of features
>> from both modes and will end up in weird detours for no reason.

> This is all generated code. I don't need a lot of features,
> I just need sufficient features for an arbitrary program.

>> The difference between this two modes is just too large and for switch
>> demands all options were designed and implemented..

> Are you sure it is too large for my purposes?

fine if your purpose is just a hobby gadget rather than a serious OS.

>>>> if you like to run 32 bit code within 64 bit environment then just
>>>> switch back and forth between this two modes.
>>>> Oh, you don't have a BIOS/UEFI function for such ? write your own.

>>> I don't want to write my own. I want to follow the EFI
>>> spec and have carefully-generated assembler that can
>>> tolerate running on both 32 and 64-bit environments.

>> You cant build your own OS by "don't want to write..."

> Yes I can. As per the above design.
> For the last almost 30 years I have successfully avoided
> having to write hard disk drivers too.

I see, and by using BIOS you can avoid to write all HW-drivers like KBD,
mice,RTCL,PIT,PIC,mem-alloc,screen control/text/graphic and sound...
I wont call such a 'rely on BIOS only' thing an OS.

>> and you wont follow UEFI boot specs by using 32-bit code.
> The BOOTX64.EFI will be 64-bit.
> The 32-bit code will still be technically valid 64-bit code.

> I may need some assembler to glue above two things
> together, for when the 32-bit code calls a 64-bit API
> exposed by the pseudo-bios (bootx64.efi).

read CPU manuals about hw-implemented task-switches ...

> It is unclear to me whether I can get the C compiler
> to auto-generate the glue.
>
> Or whether there is some other technique.

sure there is: the NON-C approach!

>>> I'm not sure there is actually a way to write my own
>>> even outside of the EFI spec. Don't I need access to
>>> the GDT or whatever which can't be manipulated until
>>> I exit boot services?

>> once the GDT is proper setup to cover LM64 and PM32 needs, the switches
>> don't need to alter GDT entries, only descriptors have to change.

> And? Does the EFI spec provide a way to do all of that, without
> exiting boot services?

check on it, read GDT entries may not be a problem for an OS ? :)
__
wolfgang

[muta...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 4:58:37 PM UTC+8, wolfgang kern wrote:

> > Is that a problem?
> no problem if you don't need the high part of RAX

No, I don't care about the high parts.

> > Are you sure it is too large for my purposes?

> fine if your purpose is just a hobby gadget rather than a serious OS.

Ok, great.

It's more of a "starter system".

With this, you will have the tools available to reconstruct
the world, including what you call a "serious OS".

Without having to zap machine code.

Writing in C instead.

> >> You cant build your own OS by "don't want to write..."
>
> > Yes I can. As per the above design.
> > For the last almost 30 years I have successfully avoided
> > having to write hard disk drivers too.

> I see, and by using BIOS you can avoid to write all HW-drivers like KBD,
> mice,RTCL,PIT,PIC,mem-alloc,screen control/text/graphic and sound...
> I wont call such a 'rely on BIOS only' thing an OS.

MSDOS was called an OS for a long time (decades).

If you have a definition different from Microsoft, fine,
neither MSDOS nor PDOS are operating systems.

My definition is - manage memory, manage disk and
launch executables and provide an API for those
executables.

PDOS does all that.

BFN. Paul.

[Dan Cross]

In article <c02fd2fe-069e-469d...@googlegroups.com>,
muta...@gmail.com <muta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>[snip]

>My definition is - manage memory, manage disk and
>launch executables and provide an API for those
>executables.
>
>PDOS does all that.

It's fine to have your own toy hobby OS.

It sure seems like you're imposing a lot of constraints on
yourself in doing so, but if you find that fun, or even just
intellectually interesting, then who is to judge? A DOS clone
is not my cup of tea, but have at it.

- Dan C.

[muta...@gmail.com]

If you need public domain code for any reason, you don't
have a lot of choice.

I'm basically restarting (or perhaps - creating a parallel)
computer industry, with a public domain base.

No-one is going to own something so fundamentally
important as the operating system.

BFN. Paul.

[Dan Cross]

In article <0f486bf4-ab8a-4ed6...@googlegroups.com>,

muta...@gmail.com <muta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 8:12:09 PM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <c02fd2fe-069e-469d...@googlegroups.com>,
>> muta...@gmail.com <muta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >[snip]
>> >My definition is - manage memory, manage disk and
>> >launch executables and provide an API for those
>> >executables.
>> >
>> >PDOS does all that.
>
>> It's fine to have your own toy hobby OS.
>>
>> It sure seems like you're imposing a lot of constraints on
>> yourself in doing so, but if you find that fun, or even just
>> intellectually interesting, then who is to judge? A DOS clone
>> is not my cup of tea, but have at it.
>
>If you need public domain code for any reason, you don't
>have a lot of choice.

Practically speaking, that's not a goal for most
people.

>I'm basically restarting (or perhaps - creating a parallel)
>computer industry, with a public domain base.

That's quite the goal. Good luck.

>No-one is going to own something so fundamentally
>important as the operating system.

With all due respect, I suggest you double check
your priors.

- Dan C.

[muta...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 9:00:17 PM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:

> >No-one is going to own something so fundamentally
> >important as the operating system.

> With all due respect, I suggest you double check
> your priors.

Pardon?

MVS 3.8J was public domain, but can't be maintained
because it can't be built from source, the source is out
of date, the source is in assembler, and a lot of that
source is generated.

MVT has a subset of those issues.

What's the equivalent of PDOS? The other one I know of
is Temple OS. Is that what you're referring to?

BFN. Paul.

[wolfgang kern]

On 21/03/2023 13:55, muta...@gmail.com wrote:

>>> [snip]
>>> My definition is - manage memory, manage disk and
>>> launch executables and provide an API for those
>>> executables.

>>> PDOS does all that.

really an API? So your "OS" provide a GUI, hotkeys, mouse-config,
IRQ-redirection/hooking, RTCL alarm setup, printer(s), sound and net ???

>> It's fine to have your own toy hobby OS.

>> It sure seems like you're imposing a lot of constraints on
>> yourself in doing so, but if you find that fun, or even just
>> intellectually interesting, then who is to judge? A DOS clone
>> is not my cup of tea, but have at it.

> If you need public domain code for any reason, you don't
> have a lot of choice.

> I'm basically restarting (or perhaps - creating a parallel)
> computer industry, with a public domain base.

big dreams often end in a wet bed :)

> No-one is going to own something so fundamentally
> important as the operating system.

now I still own mine. and even >200 times delivered to paying clients as
part of a hard&software deal, it was/is not for sale.
And if I'd consider to put it as free in public domain nobody could use
it because it was written for the specific hardware it was delivered on.
__
wolfgang

[Dan Cross]

In article <88894e43-6c97-4ee0...@googlegroups.com>,

I'm not particularly interested in pursuing this matter, but
since you asked, what I mean is that this, as a goal, seems
mostly uninformed and very uninteresting.

I don't think most people much care about whether their OS is
"public domain" if it is available under some reasonable
license, which many operating systems are. A lot of lawyers
have spent a lot of hours going over these issues and have
come to the conclusion that copyleft licenses, permissive
licenses, and the ones in the middle are pretty reasonable and
fine.

So apparently someone does own the "fundamentally important"
operating system, and I don't see a problem with that. Linux,
for example, runs on literally billions of devices, and the GPL
has been tested in court. TempleOS and PDOS, on the other hand,
are toys. PDOS doesn't even appear to have a process
abstraction, let alone memory protection, both of which are
requisite for any sort of serious work these days.

On the other hand, people _do_ care about being able to use
their computers to solve real problems. Neither TempleOS nor
PDOS appear to be particularly useful for that. Consider the
context of this thread, for example; PDOS apparently can't
exist without making use of a BIOS or something similar. Well,
who owns that?

So the premise, that "No-one [sic] is going to own something
so fundamentally important as the operating system" seems both
meaningless and untrue.

Moreover, the world has moved on from 32-bit operating systems.
I can't imagine why anyone would feel compelled to use PDOS for
serious work, let alone TempleOS. Goof around with that stuff
to learn how simple program loaders and the machine works?
Sure, why not. But as a basis for serious work? Delusions of
grandeur notwithstanding, that's not going to happen.

- Dan C.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 14:33:00 +0100
wolfgang kern <now...@never.at> wrote:

>
>
> On 21/03/2023 13:55, muta...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> [snip]
> >>> My definition is - manage memory, manage disk and
> >>> launch executables and provide an API for those
> >>> executables.
>
> >>> PDOS does all that.
>
> really an API? So your "OS" provide a GUI, hotkeys, mouse-config,
> IRQ-redirection/hooking, RTCL alarm setup, printer(s), sound and net ???
>
> >> It's fine to have your own toy hobby OS.
>
> >> It sure seems like you're imposing a lot of constraints on
> >> yourself in doing so, but if you find that fun, or even just
> >> intellectually interesting, then who is to judge? A DOS clone
> >> is not my cup of tea, but have at it.
>
> > If you need public domain code for any reason, you don't
> > have a lot of choice.
>
> > I'm basically restarting (or perhaps - creating a parallel)
> > computer industry, with a public domain base.
>
> big dreams often end in a wet bed :)
>

Chuckle!

> > No-one is going to own something so fundamentally
> > important as the operating system.
>

But Public Domain code can be nick^w incorporated into a commercial system,
and then you've just given them all that for free.

> now I still own mine. and even >200 times delivered to paying clients as
> part of a hard&software deal, it was/is not for sale.
> And if I'd consider to put it as free in public domain nobody could use
> it because it was written for the specific hardware it was delivered on.

I'm sure some of it could be reused. But probably only in a Hobby OS, as
barely anything is written in x86 asm these days.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[muta...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 10:19:13 PM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <88894e43-6c97-4ee0...@googlegroups.com>,
> muta...@gmail.com <muta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 9:00:17 PM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:
> >
> >> >No-one is going to own something so fundamentally
> >> >important as the operating system.
> >
> >> With all due respect, I suggest you double check
> >> your priors.
> >
> >Pardon?

> >What's the equivalent of PDOS? The other one I know of
> >is Temple OS. Is that what you're referring to?

> I'm not particularly interested in pursuing this matter, but
> since you asked, what I mean is that this, as a goal, seems
> mostly uninformed and very uninteresting.

You asked me to check something.

If the thing to check is "are most people so stupid that
they are happy to let some asshole control something as
important as OSes that the world runs on?" then I already
knew the answer to that.

> I don't think most people much care about whether their OS is
> "public domain" if it is available under some reasonable
> license, which many operating systems are. A lot of lawyers
> have spent a lot of hours going over these issues and have
> come to the conclusion that copyleft licenses, permissive
> licenses, and the ones in the middle are pretty reasonable and
> fine.

I have a different opinion. While ever people insist on
copyrighting it, they're holding something back that
they couldn't restrict if it was public domain.

> So apparently someone does own the "fundamentally important"
> operating system, and I don't see a problem with that. Linux,
> for example, runs on literally billions of devices, and the GPL
> has been tested in court. TempleOS and PDOS, on the other hand,
> are toys. PDOS doesn't even appear to have a process
> abstraction, let alone memory protection, both of which are
> requisite for any sort of serious work these days.

There is no serious work these days except on the mainframe.

Everyone else is a clown factory.

> On the other hand, people _do_ care about being able to use
> their computers to solve real problems. Neither TempleOS nor
> PDOS appear to be particularly useful for that. Consider the
> context of this thread, for example; PDOS apparently can't
> exist without making use of a BIOS or something similar. Well,
> who owns that?

I'm not solving every problem simultaneously.

> So the premise, that "No-one [sic] is going to own something
> so fundamentally important as the operating system" seems both
> meaningless and untrue.

If you don't see a meaning to it, I do.

> Moreover, the world has moved on from 32-bit operating systems.

No, clowns have.

> I can't imagine why anyone would feel compelled to use PDOS for
> serious work, let alone TempleOS. Goof around with that stuff
> to learn how simple program loaders and the machine works?
> Sure, why not. But as a basis for serious work? Delusions of
> grandeur notwithstanding, that's not going to happen.

This is the serious work.

BFN. Paul.

[muta...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 11:29:49 PM UTC+8, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

> > > No-one is going to own something so fundamentally
> > > important as the operating system.
> >
> But Public Domain code can be nick^w incorporated into a commercial system,
> and then you've just given them all that for free.

That's exactly the point.

And to the idiot peddling virus licenses above, see above.

Virus licenses are "free" in the same way that living under
a communist dictator is "freedom" according to the
communist dictators.

BFN. Paul.

[wolfgang kern]

On 21/03/2023 16:29, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
...

>>> I'm basically restarting (or perhaps - creating a parallel)
>>> computer industry, with a public domain base.

>> big dreams often end in a wet bed :)
>>
> Chuckle!

>>> No-one is going to own something so fundamentally
>>> important as the operating system.

> But Public Domain code can be nick^w incorporated into a commercial system,
> and then you've just given them all that for free.

Paul is told this often since long... but he wont accept the obvious.

>> now I still own mine. and even >200 times delivered to paying clients as
>> part of a hard&software deal, it was/is not for sale.
>> And if I'd consider to put it as free in public domain nobody could use
>> it because it was written for the specific hardware it was delivered on.

> I'm sure some of it could be reused. But probably only in a Hobby OS, as
> barely anything is written in x86 asm these days.

KESYS is completely written in bare metal machine code and contains lots
of reusable code parts like the mode switches from/to RM/PM16&32/LM and
all rare used CM as well.
After all my contracts expire (Dec.2024) I may post some snippets of it.
btw: Frank is still there but I cannot post to CLAX ...
__
wolfgang

[muta...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 12:23:50 AM UTC+8, wolfgang kern wrote:

> > But Public Domain code can be nick^w incorporated into a commercial system,
> > and then you've just given them all that for free.

> Paul is told this often since long... but he wont accept the obvious.

Pardon? I've been told what, and I won't accept which
thing that is allegedly obvious?

Can you quote something I actually said, rather than
bullshit you made up?

BFN. Paul.

[Dan Cross]

In article <a56868b8-060a-4498...@googlegroups.com>,

muta...@gmail.com <muta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 10:19:13 PM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <88894e43-6c97-4ee0...@googlegroups.com>,
>> muta...@gmail.com <muta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 9:00:17 PM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:
>> >
>> >> >No-one is going to own something so fundamentally
>> >> >important as the operating system.
>> >
>> >> With all due respect, I suggest you double check
>> >> your priors.
>> >
>> >Pardon?
>
>> >What's the equivalent of PDOS? The other one I know of
>> >is Temple OS. Is that what you're referring to?
>
>> I'm not particularly interested in pursuing this matter, but
>> since you asked, what I mean is that this, as a goal, seems
>> mostly uninformed and very uninteresting.
>
>You asked me to check something.
>
>If the thing to check is "are most people so stupid that
>they are happy to let some asshole control something as
>important as OSes that the world runs on?" then I already
>knew the answer to that.

Wow.

>> So apparently someone does own the "fundamentally important"
>> operating system, and I don't see a problem with that. Linux,
>> for example, runs on literally billions of devices, and the GPL
>> has been tested in court. TempleOS and PDOS, on the other hand,
>> are toys. PDOS doesn't even appear to have a process
>> abstraction, let alone memory protection, both of which are
>> requisite for any sort of serious work these days.
>
>There is no serious work these days except on the mainframe.
>
>Everyone else is a clown factory.

Wow.

>> On the other hand, people _do_ care about being able to use
>> their computers to solve real problems. Neither TempleOS nor
>> PDOS appear to be particularly useful for that. Consider the
>> context of this thread, for example; PDOS apparently can't
>> exist without making use of a BIOS or something similar. Well,
>> who owns that?
>
>I'm not solving every problem simultaneously.

You don't appear to be solving any problems.

>> So the premise, that "No-one [sic] is going to own something
>> so fundamentally important as the operating system" seems both
>> meaningless and untrue.
>
>If you don't see a meaning to it, I do.

Well, have fun.

>> Moreover, the world has moved on from 32-bit operating systems.
>
>No, clowns have.

Wow.

>> I can't imagine why anyone would feel compelled to use PDOS for
>> serious work, let alone TempleOS. Goof around with that stuff
>> to learn how simple program loaders and the machine works?
>> Sure, why not. But as a basis for serious work? Delusions of
>> grandeur notwithstanding, that's not going to happen.
>
>This is the serious work.

No.

*Plonk*

- Dan C.

[muta...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 12:16:12 AM UTC+8, muta...@gmail.com wrote:

> There is no serious work these days except on the mainframe.
>
> Everyone else is a clown factory.

Sorry - let me clarify that.

Dedicated systems like Wolfgang has that are properly
supported are not clown factories either.

Linux and other virus licenses are laughable. If I have a
problem they expect me to pay them full contract rates
for however long it takes them to fix it.

It should be them paying me full contract rates.

Windows runs a different scam, making money by forcing
computer upgrades.

IBM runs that scam too, but they're not fully reliant on it.

BFN. Paul.

[muta...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 12:35:32 AM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:

> >I'm not solving every problem simultaneously.

> You don't appear to be solving any problems.

You're apparently one of those above people I mentioned
who are too stupid to see the problem.

And it is being solved.

There is now a public domain base to work from instead
of being tied to someone's virus license.

> >> So the premise, that "No-one [sic] is going to own something
> >> so fundamentally important as the operating system" seems both
> >> meaningless and untrue.
> >
> >If you don't see a meaning to it, I do.

> Well, have fun.

Sure. And you have fun too.

> >This is the serious work.

> No.

Um, yes. Building a solid foundation is important.
Instead of having the entire world of computers built
on sand.

Even the mainframe is built on sand. IBM can jack up
the price of z/OS 70-fold tomorrow (like was done with
some medicine some years back), and the entire world
has to just suck it up. There is literally no alternative.
z/PDOS is providing a backstop, so at least that much
is secure, but that's not a lot. But it's not zero like before
either.

> *Plonk*

Another person who can't stand the free marketplace of ideas.

BFN. Paul.

[Dan Cross]

In article <903ffbfa-f297-4a0e...@googlegroups.com>,

muta...@gmail.com <muta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 12:35:32 AM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:
>
>> >I'm not solving every problem simultaneously.
>
>> You don't appear to be solving any problems.
>
>You're apparently one of those above people I mentioned
>who are too stupid to see the problem.

You should dust off your copy of, "How to Win Friends and
Influence People."

>And it is being solved.

Ok.

>There is now a public domain base to work from instead
>of being tied to someone's virus license.

The ISC license has existed for years and is not "viral" in the
way you describe.

>> >> So the premise, that "No-one [sic] is going to own something
>> >> so fundamentally important as the operating system" seems both
>> >> meaningless and untrue.
>> >
>> >If you don't see a meaning to it, I do.
>
>> Well, have fun.
>
>Sure. And you have fun too.
>
>> >This is the serious work.
>
>> No.
>
>Um, yes. Building a solid foundation is important.

PDOS is not a solid foundation for anything. It's a hobbyist
toy.

>Instead of having the entire world of computers built
>on sand.

Guy who doesn't understand how the x86 stack pointer works says
what, now?

>Even the mainframe is built on sand. IBM can jack up
>the price of z/OS 70-fold tomorrow (like was done with
>some medicine some years back), and the entire world
>has to just suck it up. There is literally no alternative.

Yes there is. You aren't aware of them, because you're not
very well informed, but they exist.

>z/PDOS is providing a backstop,

No it's not.

>so at least that much
>is secure, but that's not a lot. But it's not zero like before
>either.

PDOS is a toy.

>> *Plonk*
>
>Another person who can't stand the free marketplace of ideas.

Nah, I'm just at a point where I've realized that life is too
short to indulge know-nothing kooks with delusions of grandeur
on USENET.

- Dan C.

[muta...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 12:54:36 AM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:

> >You're apparently one of those above people I mentioned
> >who are too stupid to see the problem.

> You should dust off your copy of, "How to Win Friends and
> Influence People."

Or you can stop being a dickhead.

I prefer the latter solution.

> >There is now a public domain base to work from instead
> >of being tied to someone's virus license.

> The ISC license has existed for years and is not "viral" in the
> way you describe.

Again - while ever they are holding something back, that's
just more sand.

> >Um, yes. Building a solid foundation is important.

> PDOS is not a solid foundation for anything. It's a hobbyist
> toy.

It is solid in the fact that it is public domain.

That's the solid foundation that is required.

Progress on the public domain front is indeed what you
call a "toy".

But that's the limit of the actual foundation of the
computer industry.

The other public domain offerings are impractical for
reasons I already outlined.

> >Instead of having the entire world of computers built
> >on sand.

> Guy who doesn't understand how the x86 stack pointer works says
> what, now?

Says I have a working operating system that is public domain.
And that is the required foundation.

> >Even the mainframe is built on sand. IBM can jack up
> >the price of z/OS 70-fold tomorrow (like was done with
> >some medicine some years back), and the entire world
> >has to just suck it up. There is literally no alternative.

> Yes there is. You aren't aware of them, because you're not
> very well informed, but they exist.

That support the MVS API? CMS exists, also from IBM.

MUSIC/SP does to some extent. Is that what you are
referring to?

> >z/PDOS is providing a backstop,

> No it's not.

Yes, it is.

It may never actually be used as that backstop, but it is
being created regardless.

It is within IBM's power to simply refuse to sell z/OS and
watch the world burn.

They are unlikely to do that, and they are also unlikely to
suddenly jack the price up 70-fold.

So the backstop will probably not be exercised.

But maybe IBM will decide that some country pisses
them off (Russia would be one example), and suddenly
yank the licenses.

It might be difficult to do a country, because the country
can just change the copyright laws - which I think is
exactly what Russia did.

But IBM can target a company it doesn't like instead.

I don't know exactly what they can or may do.

I don't think anyone expected the cost of their medicine
to go up 70-fold overnight either. But it was always a
possibility.

> >so at least that much
> >is secure, but that's not a lot. But it's not zero like before
> >either.

> PDOS is a toy.

A toy is the only actual foundation we have.

> >> *Plonk*
> >
> >Another person who can't stand the free marketplace of ideas.

> Nah, I'm just at a point where I've realized that life is too
> short to indulge know-nothing kooks with delusions of grandeur
> on USENET.

I always make time to put down slimy bastards peddling
virus licenses and insisting that the computer industry is
just fine and doesn't need a backstop.

BFN. Paul.

[muta...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 10:19:13 PM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:

> and the GPL has been tested in court.

BTW, are these the same courts that "tested" Roe vs Wade
and found out that it depended on the personal whim of
judges?

And it was suddenly changed because someone was
stupid enough to die when the other party was in power,
instead of resigning when their party was in power?

Yeah, sounds like a solid foundation to me too.

BFN. Paul.

[wolfgang kern]

On 21/03/2023 17:26, muta...@gmail.com wrote:

>>> But Public Domain code can be nick^w incorporated into a commercial system,
>>> and then you've just given them all that for free.

>> Paul is told this often since long... but he wont accept the obvious.

> Pardon? I've been told what, and I won't accept which
> thing that is allegedly obvious?

If you put anything into public domain then everyone can take it and
make money out of it.

> Can you quote something I actually said, rather than
> bullshit you made up?

you said it more than once to make your stuff "free public".
and no need to become impolite.
__
wolfgang

[muta...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 1:20:17 AM UTC+8, wolfgang kern wrote:

> >>> But Public Domain code can be nick^w incorporated into a commercial system,
> >>> and then you've just given them all that for free.
>
> >> Paul is told this often since long... but he wont accept the obvious.
>
> > Pardon? I've been told what, and I won't accept which
> > thing that is allegedly obvious?

> If you put anything into public domain then everyone can take it and
> make money out of it.

I didn't need to be told such a thing. I already know that.
And people are welcome to do exactly that.

When did I ever say anything otherwise?

> > Can you quote something I actually said, rather than
> > bullshit you made up?

> you said it more than once to make your stuff "free public".

Pardon? I told someone to do something? I don't remember that.
Who and when? People are free to write code and say "this can
only be used by communists and rapists". It's a free world. I'm
not going to tell them they can't do that. I'm not even going to
tell them what they "should" do with their own fucking hard work.

I explained why I made my stuff public domain, and then
responded to anyone who attempted to say that public
domain was inferior.

> and no need to become impolite.

Are you being impolite by putting words into my mouth?

Basically lying about me.

Or is that fair play?

BFN. Paul.

[muta...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 1:27:02 AM UTC+8, muta...@gmail.com wrote:

> Pardon? I told someone to do something? I don't remember that.
> Who and when? People are free to write code and say "this can
> only be used by communists and rapists". It's a free world. I'm
> not going to tell them they can't do that. I'm not even going to
> tell them what they "should" do with their own fucking hard work.

There was some US official in Iraq who made an effort to
show all the lies that Al Jazeera was putting out about Iraq.

And someone in the audience said "are you saying we
shouldn't watch Al Jazeera?".

The response from the official was "It isn't my job to tell you
what you should or shouldn't watch. It's a free country.
Watch whatever you want.".

Beautiful.

BFN. Paul.

[Dan Cross]

In article <53016f6b-5bb1-446b...@googlegroups.com>,

muta...@gmail.com <muta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 12:54:36 AM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:
>
>> >You're apparently one of those above people I mentioned
>> >who are too stupid to see the problem.
>
>> You should dust off your copy of, "How to Win Friends and
>> Influence People."
>
>Or you can stop being a dickhead.

Physician, heal thyself.

>> >There is now a public domain base to work from instead
>> >of being tied to someone's virus license.
>
>> The ISC license has existed for years and is not "viral" in the
>> way you describe.
>
>Again - while ever they are holding something back, that's
>just more sand.

You seem to not understand the difference between different
software licenses.

>> >Um, yes. Building a solid foundation is important.
>
>> PDOS is not a solid foundation for anything. It's a hobbyist
>> toy.
>
>It is solid in the fact that it is public domain.

So what? It's not useful. It's a toy.

PDOS is like creating "Hello, World!", putting it into
the public domain and then making a bunch of pretentious
claims about how it's saving the world.

>That's the solid foundation that is required.

No.

>Progress on the public domain front is indeed what you
>call a "toy".

Because it is a toy.

>But that's the limit of the actual foundation of the
>computer industry.

Nope.

>The other public domain offerings are impractical for
>reasons I already outlined.

You're placing supreme importance on this "public domain"
thing, but that's not important.

>> >Instead of having the entire world of computers built
>> >on sand.
>
>> Guy who doesn't understand how the x86 stack pointer works says
>> what, now?
>
>Says I have a working operating system that is public domain.

Yes, you have a working toy. Congratulations.

>And that is the required foundation.

It is not a "foundation" for anything important.

>> >Even the mainframe is built on sand. IBM can jack up
>> >the price of z/OS 70-fold tomorrow (like was done with
>> >some medicine some years back), and the entire world
>> >has to just suck it up. There is literally no alternative.
>
>> Yes there is. You aren't aware of them, because you're not
>> very well informed, but they exist.
>
>That support the MVS API? CMS exists, also from IBM.
>
>MUSIC/SP does to some extent. Is that what you are
>referring to?

Nah, just don't use mainframes.

>> >z/PDOS is providing a backstop,
>
>> No it's not.
>
>Yes, it is.

Nope.

>It may never actually be used as that backstop, but it is
>being created regardless.

Because it's useless.

>It is within IBM's power to simply refuse to sell z/OS and
>watch the world burn.

The world wouldn't burn. It'd be annoying, but it would not be
catastrophic.

>They are unlikely to do that, and they are also unlikely to
>suddenly jack the price up 70-fold.
>
>So the backstop will probably not be exercised.

The "backstop" is simply moving off of the mainframe.

>But maybe IBM will decide that some country pisses
>them off (Russia would be one example), and suddenly
>yank the licenses.

Or be prevented by decree, but I don't think you would
understand the difference or the nuances involved, just as you
don't seem to understand anything about licenses.

>It might be difficult to do a country, because the country
>can just change the copyright laws - which I think is
>exactly what Russia did.
>
>But IBM can target a company it doesn't like instead.

Suuuure.

>I don't know exactly what they can or may do.

Well, you got that part right.

>I don't think anyone expected the cost of their medicine
>to go up 70-fold overnight either. But it was always a
>possibility.

You seem to have trouble understanding the differences between
types of licenses. For example, copyleft, permissive, and
commercial licenses all have very different properties, but you
seem to be conflating them and assuming that "public domain" is
the solution to some set of problems that you perceive they all
share. This suggests to me that you don't know very much about
software licensing, or for that matter, how software in the
public domain, works.

>> >so at least that much
>> >is secure, but that's not a lot. But it's not zero like before
>> >either.
>
>> PDOS is a toy.
>
>A toy is the only actual foundation we have.

Nah. Real systems that people use to do real work, your
ignorant protestations notwithstanding, have existed for
decades, under licenses that protect the very rights you
seem to think are in danger.

But my guess is that you're one of those people who wants to
feel "special" and "significant" by doing something that you've
defined as world-saving (but is really just crankery). Kind of
like the flat-earth people, you probably feel that you "know"
some truth that other are either incapable of or unwilling to
recognize, and that that makes you smarter/braver/better than
those around you.

>> >> *Plonk*
>> >
>> >Another person who can't stand the free marketplace of ideas.
>
>> Nah, I'm just at a point where I've realized that life is too
>> short to indulge know-nothing kooks with delusions of grandeur
>> on USENET.
>
>I always make time to put down slimy bastards peddling
>virus licenses and insisting that the computer industry is
>just fine and doesn't need a backstop.

By all means: continue to post along these lines. You don't
seem to have a particularly strong command of the technical
(let along legal or ethical) issues involved, but you've got
strong opinions on the health of the "industry." All your
posts are doing is demonstrating this very clearly, which is
useful since it will serve to ward others away from this
nonsense.

- Dan C.

[wolfgang kern]

On 21/03/2023 18:27, muta...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 1:20:17 AM UTC+8, wolfgang kern wrote:
>
>>>>> But Public Domain code can be nick^w incorporated into a commercial system,
>>>>> and then you've just given them all that for free.
>>
>>>> Paul is told this often since long... but he wont accept the obvious.
>>
>>> Pardon? I've been told what, and I won't accept which
>>> thing that is allegedly obvious?

>> If you put anything into public domain then everyone can take it and
>> make money out of it.

> I didn't need to be told such a thing. I already know that.
> And people are welcome to do exactly that.

> When did I ever say anything otherwise?

So you're fine when someone gains money by selling your OS ?

>>> Can you quote something I actually said, rather than
>>> bullshit you made up?

>> you said it more than once to make your stuff "free public".

<totally out of context>

> Pardon? I told someone to do something? I don't remember that.
> Who and when? People are free to write code and say "this can
> only be used by communists and rapists". It's a free world. I'm
> not going to tell them they can't do that. I'm not even going to
> tell them what they "should" do with their own fucking hard work.

</>

> I explained why I made my stuff public domain, and then
> responded to anyone who attempted to say that public
> domain was inferior.

sharing is a nice thing (clerics and communist were pleased),
but our world is a place for the greedy, not for philanthropist.

end of this thread for me yet.
__
wolfgang

[muta...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 1:33:30 AM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:

> >Again - while ever they are holding something back, that's
> >just more sand.

> You seem to not understand the difference between different
> software licenses.

No. We both understand exactly what we are fighting for.

You are fighting to keep critical software copyrighted.

I am doing the opposite.

You pretend that there's no significant difference, but
that's just a bluff, and everyone knows it's a bluff, which
is why they insist on slapping on a copyright notice.

> >> >Um, yes. Building a solid foundation is important.
> >
> >> PDOS is not a solid foundation for anything. It's a hobbyist
> >> toy.
> >
> >It is solid in the fact that it is public domain.

> So what? It's not useful. It's a toy.

It is useful.

You can develop software without needing to write in machine code.

That's a very good foundation.

> PDOS is like creating "Hello, World!", putting it into
> the public domain and then making a bunch of pretentious
> claims about how it's saving the world.

Nice try.

There is a difference between a "hello world" and an
operating system.

You know it. I know it.

But you pretend that there isn't because you're peddling
virus licenses and don't want that challenged.

> >But that's the limit of the actual foundation of the
> >computer industry.

> Nope.

Yep.

> >The other public domain offerings are impractical for
> >reasons I already outlined.

> You're placing supreme importance on this "public domain"
> thing, but that's not important.

Nice try, again. :-)

You'll convince various dickheads, if that's your goal.

> >> >Instead of having the entire world of computers built
> >> >on sand.
> >
> >> Guy who doesn't understand how the x86 stack pointer works says
> >> what, now?
> >
> >Says I have a working operating system that is public domain.

> Yes, you have a working toy. Congratulations.

And the relevance of the x86 stack pointer when I have
a working operating system?

> >And that is the required foundation.

> It is not a "foundation" for anything important.

Yes it is.

People slap on copyright notices for a good reason, and
that reason is being challenged. Finally.

> >> >Even the mainframe is built on sand. IBM can jack up
> >> >the price of z/OS 70-fold tomorrow (like was done with
> >> >some medicine some years back), and the entire world
> >> >has to just suck it up. There is literally no alternative.
> >
> >> Yes there is. You aren't aware of them, because you're not
> >> very well informed, but they exist.
> >
> >That support the MVS API? CMS exists, also from IBM.
> >
> >MUSIC/SP does to some extent. Is that what you are
> >referring to?

> Nah, just don't use mainframes.

A stupid suggestion. They're the only professional environment.

> >It may never actually be used as that backstop, but it is
> >being created regardless.

> Because it's useless.

Nope. It's the most sophisticated starting point available,
unless you want to toe someone else's copyrighted line.

> >It is within IBM's power to simply refuse to sell z/OS and
> >watch the world burn.

> The world wouldn't burn. It'd be annoying, but it would not be
> catastrophic.

Taking out the only professional system in the world would
indeed be catastropic.

> >They are unlikely to do that, and they are also unlikely to
> >suddenly jack the price up 70-fold.
> >
> >So the backstop will probably not be exercised.

> The "backstop" is simply moving off of the mainframe.

Easier said than done. While ever it is the only professional
system available, no-one is going to move.

What they should be doing though is making sure their code
is written in C or some similar solution so that they're in with
a shot of moving off.

But even if they can quickly move off, they would still be
moving off a professional system and onto a clown factory.

Until another commercial enterprise creates their own MVS.

> >But maybe IBM will decide that some country pisses
> >them off (Russia would be one example), and suddenly
> >yank the licenses.

> Or be prevented by decree, but I don't think you would
> understand the difference or the nuances involved, just as you
> don't seem to understand anything about licenses.

As before. We both understand, and you are attempting
to bluff.

> >It might be difficult to do a country, because the country
> >can just change the copyright laws - which I think is
> >exactly what Russia did.
> >
> >But IBM can target a company it doesn't like instead.

> Suuuure.

They have refused to sell z/OS licenses in the past.

> >I don't know exactly what they can or may do.

> Well, you got that part right.

You don't either. I'm just honest.

> >I don't think anyone expected the cost of their medicine
> >to go up 70-fold overnight either. But it was always a
> >possibility.

> You seem to have trouble understanding the differences between
> types of licenses. For example, copyleft, permissive, and
> commercial licenses all have very different properties, but you
> seem to be conflating them and assuming that "public domain" is
> the solution to some set of problems that you perceive they all
> share. This suggests to me that you don't know very much about
> software licensing, or for that matter, how software in the
> public domain, works.

Another bluff. Of course I know they're all different. But 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.

I have seen courts completely fabricate that the Australian
constitution has an "implied" freedom of speech in it.

> >> >so at least that much
> >> >is secure, but that's not a lot. But it's not zero like before
> >> >either.
> >
> >> PDOS is a toy.
> >
> >A toy is the only actual foundation we have.

> Nah. Real systems that people use to do real work, your
> ignorant protestations notwithstanding, have existed for
> decades,

Yes, people do work on clown systems because there is no
choice.

> under licenses that protect the very rights you
> seem to think are in danger.

And there we have the Big Lie from the Virus License
Peddlers - that freeware needs a copyright to "protect" it.

Your lies work as well as Marx's did - quite well.

> But my guess is that you're one of those people who wants to
> feel "special" and "significant" by doing something that you've
> defined as world-saving (but is really just crankery).

My guess/observation is that you're one of those Virus
License peddlers trying to peddle some copyright
license as saving'protecting the world.

> Kind of
> like the flat-earth people, you probably feel that you "know"
> some truth that other are either incapable of or unwilling to
> recognize, and that that makes you smarter/braver/better than
> those around you.

No. We both know the truth. You're just trying to hide what
you're up to.

> >I always make time to put down slimy bastards peddling
> >virus licenses and insisting that the computer industry is
> >just fine and doesn't need a backstop.

> By all means: continue to post along these lines. You don't
> seem to have a particularly strong command of the technical
> (let along legal or ethical) issues involved, but you've got
> strong opinions on the health of the "industry." All your
> posts are doing is demonstrating this very clearly, which is
> useful since it will serve to ward others away from this
> nonsense.

The same way ginger works to ward off evil spirits?

Yeah, some people are stupid enough to believe your lies.

I can't do much about that.

But I sure as hell can expose your scumbaggery.

BFN. Paul.

[muta...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 1:44:14 AM UTC+8, wolfgang kern wrote:

> > When did I ever say anything otherwise?

> So you're fine when someone gains money by selling your OS ?

Yep. I believe in capitalism/free market.

Unlike some commie scumbags above.

If someone can make some money from selling my OS
(changed or unchanged), when the buyer could have got
it for free (at least the unchanged version), they have
added some value. Even if that value is just making
someone aware that this body of software exists.

> > I explained why I made my stuff public domain, and then
> > responded to anyone who attempted to say that public
> > domain was inferior.

> sharing is a nice thing (clerics and communist were pleased),

That's another thing I am addressing.

Communists are very good at the "to each according to
their need" (and they always "need" a lot), but when it
comes to "from each according to their ability", they all
suddenly have sore backs.

Now that PDOS exists I can point them to it and say "ok,
you love communism - what can you contribute according
to your ability - documentation? testing?".

Of course they're not going to contribute anything.

I just want to show them up for being slimebag commies.

You don't need to vote for a communist government.
If you want to give according to your ability you can
do it just fine under capitalism - demonstrably.

> but our world is a place for the greedy, not for philanthropist.

Sure.

So the greedy (it's not really greed - it's a market opportunity -
why is making a living "greed"?) can sell PDOS.

And the commies can improve PDOS for free. Or rather,
be called out for not doing that.

Both things sound great to me.

Being extorted by monopolies is not great. Monopolies
naturally arise in capitalism and are a known problem.
Normally the government steps in. But in the case of
IBM and Microsoft that is apparently too difficult.

So - I made a reasonable attempt to challenge them
myself. Both of those major APIs have a PDOS flavor.

BFN. Paul.

[Dan Cross]

In article <3fd7629e-38f3-4542...@googlegroups.com>,

muta...@gmail.com <muta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 1:33:30 AM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:
>
>> >Again - while ever they are holding something back, that's
>> >just more sand.
>
>> You seem to not understand the difference between different
>> software licenses.
>
>No. We both understand exactly what we are fighting for.

I'm not "fighting" for anything here. Well, I suppose I'm
"fighting" against delusion and ignoranc,e but that's obviously
a lost cause.

>You are fighting to keep critical software copyrighted.

Nah. I just don't like misinformation.

>I am doing the opposite.

Nah. You're just misinformed and deliberately ignorant.

>You pretend that there's no significant difference, but
>that's just a bluff, and everyone knows it's a bluff, which
>is why they insist on slapping on a copyright notice.

Oh no, there's a difference. That's obvious. But you don't
seen to understand what the difference is, and moreover, you
seem to have fallen into the trap of assuming that your
"argument" (if one can call it that) is the only correct one.

>> >> >Um, yes. Building a solid foundation is important.
>> >
>> >> PDOS is not a solid foundation for anything. It's a hobbyist
>> >> toy.
>> >
>> >It is solid in the fact that it is public domain.
>
>> So what? It's not useful. It's a toy.
>
>It is useful.

Nah. It's not at all suitable for serious work.

>You can develop software without needing to write in machine code.

What? I can do that without your toy.

>That's a very good foundation.

Nope. I looked at the code; it's really not very good.

>> PDOS is like creating "Hello, World!", putting it into
>> the public domain and then making a bunch of pretentious
>> claims about how it's saving the world.
>
>Nice try.
>
>There is a difference between a "hello world" and an
>operating system.

Define "operating system." You don't even have memory
protection or a process abstraction. What 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.

>You 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.

>But 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.

>> >But that's the limit of the actual foundation of the
>> >computer industry.
>
>> Nope.
>
>Yep.

Says you, but you've demonstrated you have minimal technical
expertise, and no legal understanding.

>> >The other public domain offerings are impractical for
>> >reasons I already outlined.
>
>> You're placing supreme importance on this "public domain"
>> thing, but that's not important.
>
>Nice try, again. :-)
>
>You'll convince various dickheads, if that's your goal.

No need. You're doing just fine on your own with that.

>> >> >Instead of having the entire world of computers built
>> >> >on sand.
>> >
>> >> Guy who doesn't understand how the x86 stack pointer works says
>> >> what, now?
>> >
>> >Says I have a working operating system that is public domain.
>
>> Yes, you have a working toy. Congratulations.
>
>And the relevance of the x86 stack pointer when I have
>a working operating system?

If 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.

>> >And that is the required foundation.
>
>> It is not a "foundation" for anything important.
>
>Yes it is.

Nah. It's a toy. No one cares about it.

>People slap on copyright notices for a good reason, and
>that reason is being challenged. Finally.

Yes, 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.

>> >> >Even the mainframe is built on sand. IBM can jack up
>> >> >the price of z/OS 70-fold tomorrow (like was done with
>> >> >some medicine some years back), and the entire world
>> >> >has to just suck it up. There is literally no alternative.
>> >
>> >> Yes there is. You aren't aware of them, because you're not
>> >> very well informed, but they exist.
>> >
>> >That support the MVS API? CMS exists, also from IBM.
>> >
>> >MUSIC/SP does to some extent. Is that what you are
>> >referring to?
>
>> Nah, just don't use mainframes.
>
>A stupid suggestion. They're the only professional environment.

A stupid assertion.

If you think that mainframes are "the only professional
environment" then you are obviously ignorant.

Moreover, if you really believe that, why are you bothering with
x86 and EFI?

Do you understand what a "mainframe" even is?

>[snip a bunch of nonsensical drivel]

>What they should be doing though is making sure their code
>is written in C or some similar solution so that they're in with
>a shot of moving off.

Wow, you really don't understand how any of this works, do you?

>But even if they can quickly move off, they would still be
>moving off a professional system and onto a clown factory.
>
>Until another commercial enterprise creates their own MVS.

I know it's just punching down at this point, but I confess I am
morbidly curious. Can you explain _why_ you think that MVS is
the "only professional system" and everything else is a "clown
factory"?

>> >But maybe IBM will decide that some country pisses
>> >them off (Russia would be one example), and suddenly
>> >yank the licenses.
>
>> Or be prevented by decree, but I don't think you would
>> understand the difference or the nuances involved, just as you
>> don't seem to understand anything about licenses.
>
>As before. We both understand, and you are attempting
>to bluff.

Bluff about what? I don't have a dog in your flea circus.

I just think blatant misinformation shouldn't go completely
unchallenged.

>> >It might be difficult to do a country, because the country
>> >can just change the copyright laws - which I think is
>> >exactly what Russia did.
>> >
>> >But IBM can target a company it doesn't like instead.
>
>> Suuuure.
>
>They have refused to sell z/OS licenses in the past.
>
>> >I don't know exactly what they can or may do.
>
>> Well, you got that part right.
>
>You don't either. I'm just honest.
>
>> >I don't think anyone expected the cost of their medicine
>> >to go up 70-fold overnight either. But it was always a
>> >possibility.
>
>> You seem to have trouble understanding the differences between
>> types of licenses. For example, copyleft, permissive, and
>> commercial licenses all have very different properties, but you
>> seem to be conflating them and assuming that "public domain" is
>> the solution to some set of problems that you perceive they all
>> share. This suggests to me that you don't know very much about
>> software licensing, or for that matter, how software in the
>> public domain, works.
>
>Another bluff. Of course I know they're all different.

Do 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.

>But 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.

>I have seen courts completely fabricate that the Australian
>constitution has an "implied" freedom of speech in it.

What?

>> >> >so at least that much
>> >> >is secure, but that's not a lot. But it's not zero like before
>> >> >either.
>> >
>> >> PDOS is a toy.
>> >
>> >A toy is the only actual foundation we have.
>
>> Nah. Real systems that people use to do real work, your
>> ignorant protestations notwithstanding, have existed for
>> decades,
>
>Yes, people do work on clown systems because there is no
>choice.

Well, I'm sure as soon as you complete your modern MVS
replacement based on a bad clone of DOS running on the
mainframe people will just drop everything they've built and
flock to using your "backstop" in droves. That sounds super
realistic and is very likely to happen.

>> under licenses that protect the very rights you
>> seem to think are in danger.
>
>And there we have the Big Lie from the Virus License
>Peddlers - that freeware needs a copyright to "protect" it.

You seem to have problems with reading comprehension. I didn't
say that "freeware needs a copyright to 'protect' it." What I
said is that the licenses used by projects like Linux, FreeBSD,
etc, protect users and programmers from the imaginary problems
you seem to think that being in the public domain protects you
from.

>Your lies work as well as Marx's did - quite well.

...are the lies in the room with us right now?

>> But my guess is that you're one of those people who wants to
>> feel "special" and "significant" by doing something that you've
>> defined as world-saving (but is really just crankery).
>
>My guess/observation is that you're one of those Virus
>License peddlers trying to peddle some copyright
>license as saving'protecting the world.

Nah, 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.

>> Kind of
>> like the flat-earth people, you probably feel that you "know"
>> some truth that other are either incapable of or unwilling to
>> recognize, and that that makes you smarter/braver/better than
>> those around you.
>
>No. We both know the truth. You're just trying to hide what
>you're up to.

Nope, I'm pretty sure you're the only one here who "knows" that
the early is flat.

>> >I always make time to put down slimy bastards peddling
>> >virus licenses and insisting that the computer industry is
>> >just fine and doesn't need a backstop.
>
>> By all means: continue to post along these lines. You don't
>> seem to have a particularly strong command of the technical
>> (let along legal or ethical) issues involved, but you've got
>> strong opinions on the health of the "industry." All your
>> posts are doing is demonstrating this very clearly, which is
>> useful since it will serve to ward others away from this
>> nonsense.
>
>The same way ginger works to ward off evil spirits?
>
>Yeah, some people are stupid enough to believe your lies.
>
>I can't do much about that.
>
>But I sure as hell can expose your scumbaggery.

Getting back to your original question, you should probably take
some time and figure out how the GDT works before you take that
on.

- Dan C.

[Dan Cross]

In article <dc82b407-8eb0-4bbb...@googlegroups.com>,
muta...@gmail.com <muta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>[snip some drivel]

>Communists are very good at the "to each according to
>their need" (and they always "need" a lot), but when it
>comes to "from each according to their ability", they all
>suddenly have sore backs.
>
>Now that PDOS exists I can point them to it and say "ok,
>you love communism - what can you contribute according
>to your ability - documentation? testing?".
>
>Of course they're not going to contribute anything.
>
>I just want to show them up for being slimebag commies.

Have you considered that people may not want to contribute to
your project because they don't want to work with you, or find
it technically substandard, or aren't interested in spending
time on an eighth-baked toy?

>You don't need to vote for a communist government.
>If you want to give according to your ability you can
>do it just fine under capitalism - demonstrably.
>
>> but our world is a place for the greedy, not for philanthropist.
>
>Sure.
>
>So the greedy (it's not really greed - it's a market opportunity -
>why is making a living "greed"?) can sell PDOS.

Good luck finding someone who wants to buy it. *shrug*

>And the commies can improve PDOS for free. Or rather,
>be called out for not doing that.

So you're suggesting that anyone who's not interested in working
on your little toy hobby project should be "called out"?

>Both things sound great to me.
>
>Being extorted by monopolies is not great. Monopolies
>naturally arise in capitalism and are a known problem.
>Normally the government steps in. But in the case of
>IBM and Microsoft that is apparently too difficult.
>
>So - I made a reasonable attempt to challenge them
>myself. Both of those major APIs have a PDOS flavor.

The delusion is strong with this one.

- Dan C.

[muta...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 2:38:39 AM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:

> >> >Again - while ever they are holding something back, that's
> >> >just more sand.
> >
> >> You seem to not understand the difference between different
> >> software licenses.
> >
> >No. We both understand exactly what we are fighting for.

> I'm not "fighting" for anything here. Well, I suppose I'm
> "fighting" against delusion and ignoranc,e but that's obviously
> a lost cause.

Advocating. Whatever.

The fundamental fact is that you're a commie slimebag trying
to hide that.

> >You are fighting to keep critical software copyrighted.

> Nah. I just don't like misinformation.

Then stop peddling lies about "rights" being "protected"
by a copyright.

> >I am doing the opposite.

> Nah. You're just misinformed and deliberately ignorant.

No. We're both informed. You're just peddling a communist utopia
but trying to hide that fact.

> >You pretend that there's no significant difference, but
> >that's just a bluff, and everyone knows it's a bluff, which
> >is why they insist on slapping on a copyright notice.

> Oh no, there's a difference. That's obvious. But you don't
> seen to understand what the difference is, and moreover, you
> seem to have fallen into the trap of assuming that your
> "argument" (if one can call it that) is the only correct one.

Present an actual counter-argument and I'm all ears.

> >> >> >Um, yes. Building a solid foundation is important.
> >> >
> >> >> PDOS is not a solid foundation for anything. It's a hobbyist
> >> >> toy.
> >> >
> >> >It is solid in the fact that it is public domain.
> >
> >> So what? It's not useful. It's a toy.
> >
> >It is useful.

> Nah. It's not at all suitable for serious work.

All serious work can be developed, in C, using PDOS.

> >You can develop software without needing to write in machine code.

> What? I can do that without your toy.

Only with copyrighted software.

> >That'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.

> >> PDOS is like creating "Hello, World!", putting it into
> >> the public domain and then making a bunch of pretentious
> >> claims about how it's saving the world.
> >
> >Nice try.
> >
> >There is a difference between a "hello world" and an
> >operating system.

> Define "operating system."

I already did. Manage memory, hard disk, provide an API,
launch applications.

> You don't even have memory
> protection or a process abstraction.

Nor did MSDOS.

Again, if you use a different definition of OS to Microsoft,
that's fine, you can have a semantic debate on your own.

> What 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.

> >You 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.

> >But 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.

> >> >But that's the limit of the actual foundation of the
> >> >computer industry.
> >
> >> Nope.
> >
> >Yep.

> Says you, but you've demonstrated you have minimal technical
> expertise, and no legal understanding.

Talk is cheap.

I have an OS.

I have S/380 as well.

What you have is a slimebag commie ulterior motive.

> >> >The other public domain offerings are impractical for
> >> >reasons I already outlined.
> >
> >> You're placing supreme importance on this "public domain"
> >> thing, but that's not important.
> >
> >Nice try, again. :-)
> >
> >You'll convince various dickheads, if that's your goal.

> No need. You're doing just fine on your own with that.

Sure. You've been exposed.

> >> >> >Instead of having the entire world of computers built
> >> >> >on sand.
> >> >
> >> >> Guy who doesn't understand how the x86 stack pointer works says
> >> >> what, now?
> >> >
> >> >Says I have a working operating system that is public domain.
> >
> >> Yes, you have a working toy. Congratulations.
> >
> >And the relevance of the x86 stack pointer when I have
> >a working operating system?

> If 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.

> >> >And that is the required foundation.
> >
> >> It is not a "foundation" for anything important.
> >
> >Yes it is.

> Nah. It's a toy. No one cares about it.

No-one cared about budgeting for a 70-fold increase in
the cost of medicine.

Their funeral. Literally.

> >People slap on copyright notices for a good reason, and
> >that reason is being challenged. Finally.

> Yes, 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.

> >> >> >Even the mainframe is built on sand. IBM can jack up
> >> >> >the price of z/OS 70-fold tomorrow (like was done with
> >> >> >some medicine some years back), and the entire world
> >> >> >has to just suck it up. There is literally no alternative.
> >> >
> >> >> Yes there is. You aren't aware of them, because you're not
> >> >> very well informed, but they exist.
> >> >
> >> >That support the MVS API? CMS exists, also from IBM.
> >> >
> >> >MUSIC/SP does to some extent. Is that what you are
> >> >referring to?
> >
> >> Nah, just don't use mainframes.
> >
> >A stupid suggestion. They're the only professional environment.

> A stupid assertion.
>
> If you think that mainframes are "the only professional
> environment" then you are obviously ignorant.

No. You've just never seen anything other than a clown factory.

> Moreover, if you really believe that, why are you bothering with
> x86 and EFI?

So that there is a path to native execution.

> Do you understand what a "mainframe" even is?

Um, yes?

> >[snip a bunch of nonsensical drivel]
> >What they should be doing though is making sure their code
> >is written in C or some similar solution so that they're in with
> >a shot of moving off.

> Wow, you really don't understand how any of this works, do you?

Talk is cheap.

> >But even if they can quickly move off, they would still be
> >moving off a professional system and onto a clown factory.
> >
> >Until another commercial enterprise creates their own MVS.

> I know it's just punching down at this point, but I confess I am
> morbidly curious. Can you explain _why_ you think that MVS is
> the "only professional system" and everything else is a "clown
> factory"?

They fix bugs. And they don't find a sucker to bill for it.
They often fix the bug after a single occurrence. They
don't say "I can't reproduce it in dev - can't help you".

They don't say "try rebooting". If you need to reboot to
solve a problem, they will hold a post-mortem and
actually fix the bug.

> >> >But maybe IBM will decide that some country pisses
> >> >them off (Russia would be one example), and suddenly
> >> >yank the licenses.
> >
> >> Or be prevented by decree, but I don't think you would
> >> understand the difference or the nuances involved, just as you
> >> don't seem to understand anything about licenses.
> >
> >As before. We both understand, and you are attempting
> >to bluff.

> Bluff about what? I don't have a dog in your flea circus.
>
> I just think blatant misinformation shouldn't go completely
> unchallenged.

I'm the one challenging your misinformation.

Please ask a specific question.

There's nothing to answer in the above drivel.

> >But 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.

> >I have seen courts completely fabricate that the Australian
> >constitution has an "implied" freedom of speech in it.

> What?

What's your question?

> >> >> >so at least that much
> >> >> >is secure, but that's not a lot. But it's not zero like before
> >> >> >either.
> >> >
> >> >> PDOS is a toy.
> >> >
> >> >A toy is the only actual foundation we have.
> >
> >> Nah. Real systems that people use to do real work, your
> >> ignorant protestations notwithstanding, have existed for
> >> decades,
> >
> >Yes, people do work on clown systems because there is no
> >choice.

> Well, I'm sure as soon as you complete your modern MVS
> replacement based on a bad clone of DOS running on the
> mainframe people will just drop everything they've built and
> flock to using your "backstop" in droves. That sounds super
> realistic and is very likely to happen.

I didn't say it was or wasn't realistic. You're the one who
insists that having a public domain OS has no value
since there are plenty of better copyrighted ones available.

You made the claim - you have to show your crystal ball.

Also, I'm not expecting to "complete" a modern MVS
replacement. It would likely require a company like
Oracle to do that.

I just made a start.

> >> under licenses that protect the very rights you
> >> seem to think are in danger.
> >
> >And there we have the Big Lie from the Virus License
> >Peddlers - that freeware needs a copyright to "protect" it.

> You seem to have problems with reading comprehension. I didn't
> say that "freeware needs a copyright to 'protect' it." What I
> said is that the licenses used by projects like Linux, FreeBSD,
> etc, protect users and programmers from the imaginary problems
> you seem to think that being in the public domain protects you
> from.

Ok, no, those licenses don't offer the "protection" that
a public domain backstop does. They tie people into a
clown factory.

> >My guess/observation is that you're one of those Virus
> >License peddlers trying to peddle some copyright
> >license as saving'protecting the world.

> Nah, 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".

> >> Kind of
> >> like the flat-earth people, you probably feel that you "know"
> >> some truth that other are either incapable of or unwilling to
> >> recognize, and that that makes you smarter/braver/better than
> >> those around you.
> >
> >No. We both know the truth. You're just trying to hide what
> >you're up to.

> Nope, I'm pretty sure you're the only one here who "knows" that
> the early is flat.

Straw man.

> >> >I always make time to put down slimy bastards peddling
> >> >virus licenses and insisting that the computer industry is
> >> >just fine and doesn't need a backstop.
> >
> >> By all means: continue to post along these lines. You don't
> >> seem to have a particularly strong command of the technical
> >> (let along legal or ethical) issues involved, but you've got
> >> strong opinions on the health of the "industry." All your
> >> posts are doing is demonstrating this very clearly, which is
> >> useful since it will serve to ward others away from this
> >> nonsense.
> >
> >The same way ginger works to ward off evil spirits?
> >
> >Yeah, some people are stupid enough to believe your lies.
> >
> >I can't do much about that.
> >
> >But I sure as hell can expose your scumbaggery.

> Getting back to your original question, you should probably take
> some time and figure out how the GDT works before you take that
> on.

Why do I need to do that?

I've already written an OS that uses the GDT anyway.

BFN. Paul.

[muta...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 2:44:00 AM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:

> >[quote some drivel]

> >Communists are very good at the "to each according to
> >their need" (and they always "need" a lot), but when it
> >comes to "from each according to their ability", they all
> >suddenly have sore backs.
> >
> >Now that PDOS exists I can point them to it and say "ok,
> >you love communism - what can you contribute according
> >to your ability - documentation? testing?".
> >
> >Of course they're not going to contribute anything.
> >
> >I just want to show them up for being slimebag commies.

> Have you considered that people may not want to contribute to
> your project because they don't want to work with you, or find
> it technically substandard, or aren't interested in spending
> time on an eighth-baked toy?

It's just an example. They can write their own public
domain OS, or do something else to benefit the world.
They don't need a communist government to force
them to do that.

> >You don't need to vote for a communist government.
> >If you want to give according to your ability you can
> >do it just fine under capitalism - demonstrably.
> >
> >> but our world is a place for the greedy, not for philanthropist.
> >
> >Sure.
> >
> >So the greedy (it's not really greed - it's a market opportunity -
> >why is making a living "greed"?) can sell PDOS.

> Good luck finding someone who wants to buy it. *shrug*

I'm not really looking. See above about "added value".

> >And the commies can improve PDOS for free. Or rather,
> >be called out for not doing that.

> So you're suggesting that anyone who's not interested in working
> on your little toy hobby project should be "called out"?

No. Commies should be called out for insisting that they
need a communist government, because Marx's ideals
can't be satisfied under a capitalist system.

So I point out one of Marx's ideals.

And then I point them to PDOS and say "for example,
improve this, or write a better version".

> >Both things sound great to me.
> >
> >Being extorted by monopolies is not great. Monopolies
> >naturally arise in capitalism and are a known problem.
> >Normally the government steps in. But in the case of
> >IBM and Microsoft that is apparently too difficult.
> >
> >So - I made a reasonable attempt to challenge them
> >myself. Both of those major APIs have a PDOS flavor.

> The delusion is strong with this one.

The denial of PDOS's existence and API isn't going to fly.

BFN. Paul.

[Dan Cross]

In article <c3e367d6-6067-4546...@googlegroups.com>,

muta...@gmail.com <muta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 2:38:39 AM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:
>> I'm not "fighting" for anything here. Well, I suppose I'm
>> "fighting" against delusion and ignoranc,e but that's obviously
>> a lost cause.
>
>Advocating. Whatever.

I'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.

>The fundamental fact is that you're a commie slimebag trying
>to hide that.

Well, I see that you are mature.

>> >You are fighting to keep critical software copyrighted.
>
>> Nah. I just don't like misinformation.
>
>Then stop peddling lies about "rights" being "protected"
>by a copyright.

Are you a lawyer? Because you seem awfully sure of yourself
when it comes to

>> >I am doing the opposite.
>
>> Nah. You're just misinformed and deliberately ignorant.
>
>No. We're both informed. You're just peddling a communist utopia
>but trying to hide that fact.

Well, one of us is informed, and it's not you.

>> >You pretend that there's no significant difference, but
>> >that's just a bluff, and everyone knows it's a bluff, which
>> >is why they insist on slapping on a copyright notice.
>
>> Oh no, there's a difference. That's obvious. But you don't
>> seen to understand what the difference is, and moreover, you
>> seem to have fallen into the trap of assuming that your
>> "argument" (if one can call it that) is the only correct one.
>
>Present an actual counter-argument and I'm all ears.

Nah, you aren't.

>> Nah. It's not at all suitable for serious work.
>
>All serious work can be developed, in C, using PDOS.

Nah. You already started from an inferior technical base. Not
worth it.

>> >You can develop software without needing to write in machine code.
>
>> What? I can do that without your toy.
>
>Only with copyrighted software.

What does that have to do with not "needing to write in machine
code"?

And 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?

>> >That'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.

>> >> PDOS is like creating "Hello, World!", putting it into
>> >> the public domain and then making a bunch of pretentious
>> >> claims about how it's saving the world.
>> >
>> >Nice try.
>> >
>> >There is a difference between a "hello world" and an
>> >operating system.
>
>> Define "operating system."
>
>I already did. Manage memory, hard disk, provide an API,
>launch applications.

So...a program loader is an OS to you?

>> You don't even have memory
>> protection or a process abstraction.
>
>Nor did MSDOS.

Yeah, let's go back to the state of the art circa 1981. That's
a great idea!

>Again, 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.

>> What 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, moved the deck chairs around a bit, and declared yourself
some kind of visionary. 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?

>> >You 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.

>> >But 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;
I don't care, I'm certainly not going to use it (because it
looks like a dumpster fire of bad design and implementation, not
because I have some moral objection to software in the public
domain, mind you).

But in mentioning ISC is that you seem incapable of
understanding that there exist licenses that are not viral.

ISC is not viral.

>> >> >But that's the limit of the actual foundation of the
>> >> >computer industry.
>> >
>> >> Nope.
>> >
>> >Yep.
>
>> Says you, but you've demonstrated you have minimal technical
>> expertise, and no legal understanding.
>
>Talk is cheap.
>
>I have an OS.
>
>I 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.

>What you have is a slimebag commie ulterior motive.

Yeah, ok, bud. You got me.

>[snip some drivel]

>> If 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
are also Alica Okano, Durand Miller, NECDET COKYAZICI, Paul
Edwards, and a other names that show up in various source files.
In fact, it looks like most of the non-trivial code was written
by other people. Further, some things look like they're lifted
directly from other sources. 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.

>[snip]

>> Yes, 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.

I already know that you don't understand that claims being in
the public domain are actually dependent on those very same
judges you seem to have such a problem with.

>[snip some more drivel]

>> If you think that mainframes are "the only professional
>> environment" then you are obviously ignorant.
>
>No. You've just never seen anything other than a clown factory.

Yeah, ok.

>> Moreover, if you really believe that, why are you bothering with
>> x86 and EFI?
>
>So that there is a path to native execution.

IBM mainframes don't use x86 processors.

>> Do you understand what a "mainframe" even is?
>
>Um, yes?

I don't think you do. You seem to think the term is synonymous
with machines from IBM.

>[snip some more drivel]

>> I know it's just punching down at this point, but I confess I am
>> morbidly curious. Can you explain _why_ you think that MVS is
>> the "only professional system" and everything else is a "clown
>> factory"?
>
>They fix bugs. And they don't find a sucker to bill for it.
>They often fix the bug after a single occurrence. They
>don't say "I can't reproduce it in dev - can't help you".
>
>They don't say "try rebooting". If you need to reboot to
>solve a problem, they will hold a post-mortem and
>actually fix the bug.

Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

>[snip some more boring nonsense]

>> >> You seem to have trouble understanding the differences between
>> >> types of licenses. For example, copyleft, permissive, and
>> >> commercial licenses all have very different properties, but you
>> >> seem to be conflating them and assuming that "public domain" is
>> >> the solution to some set of problems that you perceive they all
>> >> share. This suggests to me that you don't know very much about
>> >> software licensing, or for that matter, how software in the
>> >> public domain, works.
>> >
>> >Another bluff. Of course I know they're all different.
>
>> Do 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.

>There's nothing to answer in the above drivel.
>
>> >But 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?

>[snip more boring nonsense]

>> Well, I'm sure as soon as you complete your modern MVS
>> replacement based on a bad clone of DOS running on the
>> mainframe people will just drop everything they've built and
>> flock to using your "backstop" in droves. That sounds super
>> realistic and is very likely to happen.
>
>I didn't say it was or wasn't realistic.

So it's just an exercise in mental masturbation. Okay, then.
Got it.

>You're the one who
>insists that having a public domain OS has no value
>since there are plenty of better copyrighted ones available.

Oh, a public domain OS _may_ have some value. But certainly not
this one.

>You made the claim - you have to show your crystal ball.

In addition to failing to understand technology and law, you
also don't seem to be able to comprehend sarcasm.

>Also, I'm not expecting to "complete" a modern MVS
>replacement. It would likely require a company like
>Oracle to do that.
>
>I just made a start.

Nah, you wrote a little toy and are posturing about it on USENET
like it's 1996.

>> >> under licenses that protect the very rights you
>> >> seem to think are in danger.
>> >
>> >And there we have the Big Lie from the Virus License
>> >Peddlers - that freeware needs a copyright to "protect" it.
>
>> You seem to have problems with reading comprehension. I didn't
>> say that "freeware needs a copyright to 'protect' it." What I
>> said is that the licenses used by projects like Linux, FreeBSD,
>> etc, protect users and programmers from the imaginary problems
>> you seem to think that being in the public domain protects you
>> from.
>
>Ok, no, those licenses don't offer the "protection" that
>a public domain backstop does. They tie people into a
>clown factory.

Nah. That's just your ignorant misinterpretation.

>> >My guess/observation is that you're one of those Virus
>> >License peddlers trying to peddle some copyright
>> >license as saving'protecting the world.
>
>> Nah, 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.

>> >> Kind of
>> >> like the flat-earth people, you probably feel that you "know"
>> >> some truth that other are either incapable of or unwilling to
>> >> recognize, and that that makes you smarter/braver/better than
>> >> those around you.
>> >
>> >No. We both know the truth. You're just trying to hide what
>> >you're up to.
>
>> Nope, I'm pretty sure you're the only one here who "knows" that
>> the early is flat.
>
>Straw man.

So...you do think the earth is flat?

>> >> >I always make time to put down slimy bastards peddling
>> >> >virus licenses and insisting that the computer industry is
>> >> >just fine and doesn't need a backstop.
>> >
>> >> By all means: continue to post along these lines. You don't
>> >> seem to have a particularly strong command of the technical
>> >> (let along legal or ethical) issues involved, but you've got
>> >> strong opinions on the health of the "industry." All your
>> >> posts are doing is demonstrating this very clearly, which is
>> >> useful since it will serve to ward others away from this
>> >> nonsense.
>> >
>> >The same way ginger works to ward off evil spirits?
>> >
>> >Yeah, some people are stupid enough to believe your lies.
>> >
>> >I can't do much about that.
>> >
>> >But I sure as hell can expose your scumbaggery.
>
>> Getting back to your original question, you should probably take
>> some time and figure out how the GDT works before you take that
>> on.
>
>Why 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.

- Dan C.

[Dan Cross]

In article <95975514-e196-470b...@googlegroups.com>,

muta...@gmail.com <muta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 2:44:00 AM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:
>> >Communists are very good at the "to each according to
>> >their need" (and they always "need" a lot), but when it
>> >comes to "from each according to their ability", they all
>> >suddenly have sore backs.
>> >
>> >Now that PDOS exists I can point them to it and say "ok,
>> >you love communism - what can you contribute according
>> >to your ability - documentation? testing?".
>> >
>> >Of course they're not going to contribute anything.
>> >
>> >I just want to show them up for being slimebag commies.
>
>> Have you considered that people may not want to contribute to
>> your project because they don't want to work with you, or find
>> it technically substandard, or aren't interested in spending
>> time on an eighth-baked toy?
>
>It's just an example. They can write their own public
>domain OS, or do something else to benefit the world.
>They don't need a communist government to force
>them to do that.

Except your "example" doesn't follow; it's specious. Your
statement amounted to suggesting that people who don't
contribute to your hobby project should be "called out" because
they're communists, while failing to consider that maybe they
just don't want to work with you because you behave like a
petulent child.

>[snip]

>> >And the commies can improve PDOS for free. Or rather,
>> >be called out for not doing that.
>
>> So you're suggesting that anyone who's not interested in working
>> on your little toy hobby project should be "called out"?
>
>No. Commies should be called out for insisting that they
>need a communist government, because Marx's ideals
>can't be satisfied under a capitalist system.

No, what you said is that, "the commies can ... be called out
for not doing that [improving PDOS]." Well, I'm not a "commie"
but I'm not going to work on your thing, because it's garbage
and you're an asshole.

>So I point out one of Marx's ideals.
>
>And then I point them to PDOS and say "for example,
>improve this, or write a better version".

...but you fail to recognize that maybe no one cares because you
cannot understand that there's no actual (not your imagined)
need to build such a thing.

>> >Both things sound great to me.
>> >
>> >Being extorted by monopolies is not great. Monopolies
>> >naturally arise in capitalism and are a known problem.
>> >Normally the government steps in. But in the case of
>> >IBM and Microsoft that is apparently too difficult.
>> >
>> >So - I made a reasonable attempt to challenge them
>> >myself. Both of those major APIs have a PDOS flavor.
>
>> The delusion is strong with this one.
>
>The denial of PDOS's existence and API isn't going to fly.

Oh, it exists, it's just that no one is going to take it
seriously as any kind of "challenge" to, well, anything.

Because it's not. Because it is a toy.

- Dan C.

[muta...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 4:12:03 AM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:

> >> I'm not "fighting" for anything here. Well, I suppose I'm
> >> "fighting" against delusion and ignoranc,e but that's obviously
> >> a lost cause.
> >
> >Advocating. Whatever.

> I'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.

> >The fundamental fact is that you're a commie slimebag trying
> >to hide that.

> Well, I see that you are mature.

I'd rather be immature than a commie slimebag peddling
the GPL.

> >> >You are fighting to keep critical software copyrighted.
> >
> >> Nah. I just don't like misinformation.
> >
> >Then stop peddling lies about "rights" being "protected"
> >by a copyright.

> Are 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.

> >No. We're both informed. You're just peddling a communist utopia
> >but trying to hide that fact.

> Well, one of us is informed, and it's not you.

Talk is cheap.

> >> >You pretend that there's no significant difference, but
> >> >that's just a bluff, and everyone knows it's a bluff, which
> >> >is why they insist on slapping on a copyright notice.
> >
> >> Oh no, there's a difference. That's obvious. But you don't
> >> seen to understand what the difference is, and moreover, you
> >> seem to have fallen into the trap of assuming that your
> >> "argument" (if one can call it that) is the only correct one.
> >
> >Present an actual counter-argument and I'm all ears.

> Nah, you aren't.

No, you don't have an actual counter-argument.

> >> Nah. It's not at all suitable for serious work.
> >
> >All serious work can be developed, in C, using PDOS.

> 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.

> >> >You can develop software without needing to write in machine code.
> >
> >> What? I can do that without your toy.
> >
> >Only with copyrighted software.

> What 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?

Repeat 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.

You will want to move to a higher level language as
soon as possible.

The S360/67 has a card reader too.

> And 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. But yes, I have bought
Chromebooks and given some thought about replacing
Seabios. It just hasn't been priority.

> >> >That'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 already did. Manage memory, hard disk, provide an API,
> >launch applications.

> So...a program loader is an OS to you?

If it does all of the above, it's more than a program loader.
But if you wish to have a semantic debate where you swap
the definitions of "operating system" and "program loader",
you can do that on your own.

> >> You don't even have memory
> >> protection or a process abstraction.
> >
> >Nor did MSDOS.

> Yeah, let's go back to the state of the art circa 1981. That's
> a great idea!

To find a definition? Sure.

> >Again, 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.

> >> What 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.

> moved 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 the I/O primitives are similar anyway.

But even they should be hidden by the C library. Which
they pretty much are.

> >> >You 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.

> >> >But 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.

> I don't care, I'm certainly not going to use it (because it
> looks like a dumpster fire of bad design and implementation, not
> because I have some moral objection to software in the public
> domain, mind you).
>
> But in mentioning ISC is that you seem incapable of
> understanding that there exist licenses that are not viral.

No, that's more crap you made up. Even Microsoft's license
on Windows isn't viral.

> ISC is not viral.

It's copyrighted though. They don't want to give that up.

> >> >> >But that's the limit of the actual foundation of the
> >> >> >computer industry.
> >> >
> >> >> Nope.
> >> >
> >> >Yep.
> >
> >> Says you, but you've demonstrated you have minimal technical
> >> expertise, and no legal understanding.
> >
> >Talk is cheap.
> >
> >I have an OS.
> >
> >I 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.

> >> If 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.

> In 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.

I 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.

> Further, 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
added by me:

C:\devel\pdos\bios>git log elf.h
commit d8ec66831878a85c20a1678dd48f8b3b2aabfad4
Author: Paul Edwards <muta...@gmail.com>
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.

But 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.

> >> Yes, 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.

But again - more sand if you don't restrain yourself and stick
to 2003 at most.

> I 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.

That's the best I can do without rewriting everything from
scratch myself. (assuming I was using someone else's PD code).

> >[quote some more drivel]

> >> If you think that mainframes are "the only professional
> >> environment" then you are obviously ignorant.
> >
> >No. You've just never seen anything other than a clown factory.

> Yeah, ok.

Yep, a clown amongst clowns.

> >> Moreover, if you really believe that, why are you bothering with
> >> x86 and EFI?
> >
> >So that there is a path to native execution.

> IBM mainframes don't use x86 processors.

Yeah. So you can migrate off if there is a reason to do so.

Or migrate on.

> >> Do you understand what a "mainframe" even is?
> >
> >Um, yes?

> I don't think you do. You seem to think the term is synonymous
> with machines from IBM.

That's where the professionals are.

> >[quote some more drivel]

> >> I know it's just punching down at this point, but I confess I am
> >> morbidly curious. Can you explain _why_ you think that MVS is
> >> the "only professional system" and everything else is a "clown
> >> factory"?
> >
> >They fix bugs. And they don't find a sucker to bill for it.
> >They often fix the bug after a single occurrence. They
> >don't say "I can't reproduce it in dev - can't help you".
> >
> >They don't say "try rebooting". If you need to reboot to
> >solve a problem, they will hold a post-mortem and
> >actually fix the bug.

> Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

That's what clowns do. Laugh at professionals because
they can't tell the difference.

> >[quote some more boring nonsense]

> >> >> You seem to have trouble understanding the differences between
> >> >> types of licenses. For example, copyleft, permissive, and
> >> >> commercial licenses all have very different properties, but you
> >> >> seem to be conflating them and assuming that "public domain" is
> >> >> the solution to some set of problems that you perceive they all
> >> >> share. This suggests to me that you don't know very much about
> >> >> software licensing, or for that matter, how software in the
> >> >> public domain, works.
> >> >
> >> >Another bluff. Of course I know they're all different.
> >
> >> Do 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.

> >There's nothing to answer in the above drivel.
> >
> >> >But 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.

> >[quote more boring nonsense]

(by the way - it is also laughable that you call me immature)

> >> Well, I'm sure as soon as you complete your modern MVS
> >> replacement based on a bad clone of DOS running on the
> >> mainframe people will just drop everything they've built and
> >> flock to using your "backstop" in droves. That sounds super
> >> realistic and is very likely to happen.
> >
> >I didn't say it was or wasn't realistic.

> So it's just an exercise in mental masturbation. Okay, then.
> Got it.

More bullshit you made up.

> >You're the one who
> >insists that having a public domain OS has no value
> >since there are plenty of better copyrighted ones available.

> Oh, a public domain OS _may_ have some value. But certainly not
> this one.

More unsubstatiated bullshit.

No value to anyone at all in the world?

You did a survey?

> >You made the claim - you have to show your crystal ball.

> In addition to failing to understand technology and law, you
> also don't seem to be able to comprehend sarcasm.

You fail to acknowledge that you are spewing bullshit.

> >Also, I'm not expecting to "complete" a modern MVS
> >replacement. It would likely require a company like
> >Oracle to do that.
> >
> >I just made a start.

> 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.

> >> >> under licenses that protect the very rights you
> >> >> seem to think are in danger.
> >> >
> >> >And there we have the Big Lie from the Virus License
> >> >Peddlers - that freeware needs a copyright to "protect" it.
> >
> >> You seem to have problems with reading comprehension. I didn't
> >> say that "freeware needs a copyright to 'protect' it." What I
> >> said is that the licenses used by projects like Linux, FreeBSD,
> >> etc, protect users and programmers from the imaginary problems
> >> you seem to think that being in the public domain protects you
> >> from.
> >
> >Ok, no, those licenses don't offer the "protection" that
> >a public domain backstop does. They tie people into a
> >clown factory.

> Nah. That's just your ignorant misinterpretation.

Nah. That's just you being your usual clown self.

> >> >My guess/observation is that you're one of those Virus
> >> >License peddlers trying to peddle some copyright
> >> >license as saving'protecting the world.
> >
> >> Nah, 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.

> >> >> Kind of
> >> >> like the flat-earth people, you probably feel that you "know"
> >> >> some truth that other are either incapable of or unwilling to
> >> >> recognize, and that that makes you smarter/braver/better than
> >> >> those around you.
> >> >
> >> >No. We both know the truth. You're just trying to hide what
> >> >you're up to.
> >
> >> Nope, I'm pretty sure you're the only one here who "knows" that
> >> the early is flat.
> >
> >Straw man.

> So...you do think the earth is flat?

So ... you're still a moron?

> >> >> >I always make time to put down slimy bastards peddling
> >> >> >virus licenses and insisting that the computer industry is
> >> >> >just fine and doesn't need a backstop.
> >> >
> >> >> By all means: continue to post along these lines. You don't
> >> >> seem to have a particularly strong command of the technical
> >> >> (let along legal or ethical) issues involved, but you've got
> >> >> strong opinions on the health of the "industry." All your
> >> >> posts are doing is demonstrating this very clearly, which is
> >> >> useful since it will serve to ward others away from this
> >> >> nonsense.
> >> >
> >> >The same way ginger works to ward off evil spirits?
> >> >
> >> >Yeah, some people are stupid enough to believe your lies.
> >> >
> >> >I can't do much about that.
> >> >
> >> >But I sure as hell can expose your scumbaggery.
> >
> >> Getting back to your original question, you should probably take
> >> some time and figure out how the GDT works before you take that
> >> on.
> >
> >Why 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.

It's true that I've never written code to switch from PM32 to LM64.
Only RM16 to PM32.

BFN. Paul.

[muta...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 4:19:28 AM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:

> >> >Communists are very good at the "to each according to
> >> >their need" (and they always "need" a lot), but when it
> >> >comes to "from each according to their ability", they all
> >> >suddenly have sore backs.
> >> >
> >> >Now that PDOS exists I can point them to it and say "ok,
> >> >you love communism - what can you contribute according
> >> >to your ability - documentation? testing?".
> >> >
> >> >Of course they're not going to contribute anything.
> >> >
> >> >I just want to show them up for being slimebag commies.
> >
> >> Have you considered that people may not want to contribute to
> >> your project because they don't want to work with you, or find
> >> it technically substandard, or aren't interested in spending
> >> time on an eighth-baked toy?
> >
> >It's just an example. They can write their own public
> >domain OS, or do something else to benefit the world.
> >They don't need a communist government to force
> >them to do that.

> Except your "example" doesn't follow; it's specious. Your
> statement amounted to suggesting that people who don't
> contribute to your hobby project should be "called out" because
> they're communists, while failing to consider that maybe they
> just don't want to work with you because you behave like a
> petulent child.

I made no such statement. That's just bullshit you made up.

> >> >And the commies can improve PDOS for free. Or rather,
> >> >be called out for not doing that.
> >
> >> So you're suggesting that anyone who's not interested in working
> >> on your little toy hobby project should be "called out"?
> >
> >No. Commies should be called out for insisting that they
> >need a communist government, because Marx's ideals
> >can't be satisfied under a capitalist system.

> No, what you said is that, "the commies can ... be called out
> for not doing that [improving PDOS]."

You misunderstood. When commies complain about
Microsoft etc and we need a communist government,
I will challenge them to show me what is preventing
them from following Marx within the capitalist system.

PDOS is something I can point them to AS AN EXAMPLE.

If they counter "oh - i never realized i could contribute
according to my ability - and i have the ability to cure
cancer - i'll develop it over the next 30 years for free",
that's perfectly fine. And another demonstration of
living up to Marx's fantasy world without needing to
impose communism on everyone.

> Well, I'm not a "commie"
> but I'm not going to work on your thing, because it's garbage
> and you're an asshole.

If you're not a commie, then I won't call you out for
failing to contribute anything to anything.

I'll just call you out for peddling virus licenses as just
as good as public domain.

Are you sure you're not a slimebag commie and just
pretending not to be?

> >So I point out one of Marx's ideals.
> >
> >And then I point them to PDOS and say "for example,
> >improve this, or write a better version".

> ...but you fail to recognize that maybe no one cares because you

No-one? Another world survey you pulled out of your ass?

> cannot understand that there's no actual (not your imagined)
> need to build such a thing.

That's your claim, as if you are omniscient.

> >> >Both things sound great to me.
> >> >
> >> >Being extorted by monopolies is not great. Monopolies
> >> >naturally arise in capitalism and are a known problem.
> >> >Normally the government steps in. But in the case of
> >> >IBM and Microsoft that is apparently too difficult.
> >> >
> >> >So - I made a reasonable attempt to challenge them
> >> >myself. Both of those major APIs have a PDOS flavor.
> >
> >> The delusion is strong with this one.
> >
> >The denial of PDOS's existence and API isn't going to fly.

> Oh, it exists, it's just that no one is going to take it

Yet another world poll pulled out of your ass?

BTW, Linas made a similar claim about Linux. That it
would never be as good as SCO.

He didn't know he was wrong at the time, but he was wrong.

You may or may not be wrong right now. I have no idea.
You're the one claiming to have an infallible crystal ball.

> seriously as any kind of "challenge" to, well, anything.
>
> Because it's not. Because it is a toy.

Again - what you are calling a "toy" is all the public actually
owns.

And that "toy" still allows you to develop a replacement
OS more to your liking in a high level language.

If that's a "toy" to you - fine, I don't really care what a
slimebag pseudo-commie like you thinks. Other than
I want to make sure your bullshit is countered in the
free marketplace of ideas.

BFN. Paul.

[T. Ment]

On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 20:19:26 -0000 (UTC), Dan Cross wrote:

>>The denial of PDOS's existence and API isn't going to fly.
>
>Oh, it exists, it's just that no one is going to take it
>seriously as any kind of "challenge" to, well, anything.
>
>Because it's not. Because it is a toy.

I thought *plonk* meant bye.

[Dan Cross]

In article <47f07b93-f48d-4cbf...@googlegroups.com>,

muta...@gmail.com <muta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 4:12:03 AM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:
>
>> >> I'm not "fighting" for anything here. Well, I suppose I'm
>> >> "fighting" against delusion and ignoranc,e but that's obviously
>> >> a lost cause.
>> >
>> >Advocating. Whatever.
>
>> I'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.

>> >The fundamental fact is that you're a commie slimebag trying
>> >to hide that.
>
>> Well, I see that you are mature.
>
>I'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."

>> Are 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."

>[snip 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.

>> What 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?

>Repeat 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.

>You will want to move to a higher level language as
>soon as possible.
>
>The S360/67 has a card reader too.

Are you high?

>> And 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.

>But 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?

>> >> >That'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?

>> Yeah, 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.

>> >Again, 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?

>> >> What 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.

>> moved 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. Clearly the conensus expert opinion.

>But the I/O primitives are similar anyway.

Nah, they really aren't.

>But 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."

>> >> >You 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.

>> >> >But 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. That license was specifically designed
to prevent the things you seem to be so concerned about. That
doesn't mean I'm _advocating_ for it. In fact, I don't much
care for it, but that's just me.

>> >I 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.

>> >> If 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.

>> In 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.

>I 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.

So you admit copying from the standard without attribution, as
well.

>But 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.

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 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.

At best you're a shoddy maintainer; at worst a liar and a thief.

>> >> Yes, 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?

>But again - more sand if you don't restrain yourself and stick
>to 2003 at most.

More delusion.

>> I 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.

Perhaps consider that people who are both smarter and better
informed than you have done this _because_ it's safer for all
parties involved.

>That'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.

>[snip 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.

>[snip more weird claims about being "professional"]

>> >> Do 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."

>> >There's nothing to answer in the above drivel.
>> >
>> >> >But 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?

>[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.

>> >> Nah, 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.

>> >Why 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
and make claims about writing a compiler or something, but it's
honestly hard to see through your nonsense.

>It'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.

- Dan C.

[Dan Cross]

In article <7b9aa448-d583-4d1c...@googlegroups.com>,

It's quoted right there.

>> >> >And the commies can improve PDOS for free. Or rather,
>> >> >be called out for not doing that.
>> >
>> >> So you're suggesting that anyone who's not interested in working
>> >> on your little toy hobby project should be "called out"?
>> >
>> >No. Commies should be called out for insisting that they
>> >need a communist government, because Marx's ideals
>> >can't be satisfied under a capitalist system.
>
>> No, what you said is that, "the commies can ... be called out
>> for not doing that [improving PDOS]."
>
>You misunderstood. When commies complain about
>Microsoft etc and we need a communist government,
>I will challenge them to show me what is preventing
>them from following Marx within the capitalist system.
>
>PDOS is something I can point them to AS AN EXAMPLE.

And they might turn around and say, "and work with that
whackjob? No thanks."

>If they counter "oh - i never realized i could contribute
>according to my ability - and i have the ability to cure
>cancer - i'll develop it over the next 30 years for free",
>that's perfectly fine. And another demonstration of
>living up to Marx's fantasy world without needing to
>impose communism on everyone.

You seem overly fixated on communism. It's honestly kind of
weird.

>[snip random drivel]

>BTW, Linas made a similar claim about Linux. That it
>would never be as good as SCO.

Linus said that about GNU, not SCO.

>> seriously as any kind of "challenge" to, well, anything.
>>
>> Because it's not. Because it is a toy.
>
>Again - what you are calling a "toy" is all the public actually
>owns.

Collective ownership: what a communist idea.

>And that "toy" still allows you to develop a replacement
>OS more to your liking in a high level language.

So does Linux. Or FreeBSD. Or, for that matter, Windows.

>If that's a "toy" to you - fine, I don't really care what a
>slimebag pseudo-commie like you thinks. Other than
>I want to make sure your bullshit is countered in the
>free marketplace of ideas.

I think I've sufficiently demonstrated that you're wrong on the
merits that I can bow out now. Have fun!

- Dan C.

[muta...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 6:19:51 AM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:

> >> I'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.

> >I'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.

> >> Are 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.

> >[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.

> >> What 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.

> >Repeat 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?

> >You 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.

> >> And 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.

> >But 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.

> >> >> >That'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?

> >> Yeah, 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.

> >> >Again, 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.

> >> >> What 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.

> >> moved 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".

> >But the I/O primitives are similar anyway.

> Nah, they really aren't.

Yeah, they really are.

The MSDOS source code even mentions Xenix.

> >But 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.

> >> >> >You 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.

> >> >> >But 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.

> >> >I 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?

> >> >> If 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.

> >> In 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.

> >I 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.

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.

> >But 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.

> >> >> Yes, 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.

> >But again - more sand if you don't restrain yourself and stick
> >to 2003 at most.

> More delusion.

More absence of counter-argument.

> >> I 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.

> >That'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.

> >[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.

> >[snip more weird claims about being "professional"]
> >> >> Do 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.

> >> >There's nothing to answer in the above drivel.
> >> >
> >> >> >But 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?

> >[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.

> >> >> Nah, 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.

> >> >Why 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.

> >It'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.

[muta...@gmail.com]

Again - you misunderstood the above.

If they were following Marx and working 2 jobs and giving
away one of those wages to help orphans, ok, fair enough.

But they will likely have an excuse for that.

But they clearly have time to spew bullshit about how great
communism is on the internet.

So I will put PDOS in front of them - which can all be done
from the keyboard, and ask them for their excuse for that.

I mentioned documentation and testing for a reason.

They can't claim that they don't have programming skills,
so shucks, another avenue to contributing something
shut down.

But their "needs" are still going strong.

> >> >> >And the commies can improve PDOS for free. Or rather,
> >> >> >be called out for not doing that.
> >> >
> >> >> So you're suggesting that anyone who's not interested in working
> >> >> on your little toy hobby project should be "called out"?
> >> >
> >> >No. Commies should be called out for insisting that they
> >> >need a communist government, because Marx's ideals
> >> >can't be satisfied under a capitalist system.
> >
> >> No, what you said is that, "the commies can ... be called out
> >> for not doing that [improving PDOS]."
> >
> >You misunderstood. When commies complain about
> >Microsoft etc and we need a communist government,
> >I will challenge them to show me what is preventing
> >them from following Marx within the capitalist system.
> >
> >PDOS is something I can point them to AS AN EXAMPLE.

> And they might turn around and say, "and work with that
> whackjob? No thanks."

Sure. So create a non-whackjob OS.

> >If they counter "oh - i never realized i could contribute
> >according to my ability - and i have the ability to cure
> >cancer - i'll develop it over the next 30 years for free",
> >that's perfectly fine. And another demonstration of
> >living up to Marx's fantasy world without needing to
> >impose communism on everyone.

> You seem overly fixated on communism. It's honestly kind of
> weird.

It's a pretty sick ideology, and it hasn't been completely defeated,
as the (minority) decent Venezuelans found out.

> >[quote random drivel]

> >BTW, Linas made a similar claim about Linux. That it
> >would never be as good as SCO.

> Linus said that about GNU, not SCO.

That's what I said. But it wasn't GNU, it was Linux.

> >> seriously as any kind of "challenge" to, well, anything.
> >>
> >> Because it's not. Because it is a toy.
> >
> >Again - what you are calling a "toy" is all the public actually
> >owns.

> Collective ownership: what a communist idea.

Exactly. Exactly what the commies claim to want.

Ok sunshine - time to put up or shut up.

> >And that "toy" still allows you to develop a replacement
> >OS more to your liking in a high level language.

> So does Linux. Or FreeBSD. Or, for that matter, Windows.

Yes, and they are all copyrighted.

> >If that's a "toy" to you - fine, I don't really care what a
> >slimebag pseudo-commie like you thinks. Other than
> >I want to make sure your bullshit is countered in the
> >free marketplace of ideas.

> I think I've sufficiently demonstrated that you're wrong on the
> merits that I can bow out now. Have fun!

No, you've only demonstrated that you are a jackass.

I "sensed" that a little bit earlier.

BFN. Paul.

[T. Ment]

On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 16:21:15 -0700 (PDT), muta...@gmail.com wrote:

> you are a jackass

if (computer_geek == jerk)
abort ();

[muta...@gmail.com]

I think I remember you made a comment saying that
you didn't like the fact that PDOS/86 managed memory
inefficiently (which is what I told you).

That problem has been solved by switching to huge
memory model.

However, even though it is now efficient, it doesn't
buy much, because there isn't much memory
available in the lower 640k to manage after PDOS
has been loaded.

And no, I'm not willing to change it to be like MSDOS etc.

I just wanted to make sure you "got the memo". :-)

BFN. Paul.

[T. Ment]

On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 16:47:56 -0700 (PDT), muta...@gmail.com wrote:

> I think I remember you made a comment saying that
> you didn't like the fact that PDOS/86 managed memory
> inefficiently (which is what I told you).

It's been a while, I don't remember.

IDK what the fuss is about. Everyone can have personal preference in the
pursuit of happiness.

Who knows about success. It's more a matter of being in the right place
at the right time, than skill. Like winning the lottery. One person gets
lucky, most don't.

[Dan Cross]

In article <365d3f22-e451-492d...@googlegroups.com>,
muta...@gmail.com <muta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>[snip]

>If they were following Marx and working 2 jobs and giving
>away one of those wages to help orphans, ok, fair enough.
>
>But they will likely have an excuse for that.
>
>But they clearly have time to spew bullshit about how great
>communism is on the internet.
>
>So I will put PDOS in front of them - which can all be done
>from the keyboard, and ask them for their excuse for that.
>
>I mentioned documentation and testing for a reason.
>
>They can't claim that they don't have programming skills,
>so shucks, another avenue to contributing something
>shut down.

I imagine their excuses might be along the lines of, "you seem
excessively combative and difficult to work with, and the
technical foundations of this are poor. I see no reason to
donate free labor to such a lost cause."

>> And they might turn around and say, "and work with that
>> whackjob? No thanks."
>
>Sure. So create a non-whackjob OS.

There already plenty to choose from. I've contributed to many,
and written several of my own kernels. Sadly for you,
apparently, they're all copyright (though mostly available under
permissive open source licenses).

>[snip]

>> >BTW, Linas made a similar claim about Linux. That it
>> >would never be as good as SCO.
>
>> Linus said that about GNU, not SCO.
>
>That's what I said. But it wasn't GNU, it was Linux.

No. You said,

"BTW, Linas made a similar claim about Linux. That it
would never be as good as SCO."

Well, I don't know who "Linas" is, but Linus said:

"I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big
and professional like gnu)"

That is, he was comparing Linux to GNU, not SCO.

(https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~awb/linux.history.html)

>> >> seriously as any kind of "challenge" to, well, anything.
>> >>
>> >> Because it's not. Because it is a toy.
>> >
>> >Again - what you are calling a "toy" is all the public actually
>> >owns.
>
>> Collective ownership: what a communist idea.
>
>Exactly. Exactly what the commies claim to want.

I guess you're a commie then, eh?

>Ok sunshine - time to put up or shut up.

...with what?

>> >And that "toy" still allows you to develop a replacement
>> >OS more to your liking in a high level language.
>
>> So does Linux. Or FreeBSD. Or, for that matter, Windows.
>
>Yes, and they are all copyrighted.

So what? You don't seem to be able to grasp that one can use
any of those systems as a development platform to write a
program that is then placed into the public domain. Your little
toy is completely superfluous.

>> >If that's a "toy" to you - fine, I don't really care what a
>> >slimebag pseudo-commie like you thinks. Other than
>> >I want to make sure your bullshit is countered in the
>> >free marketplace of ideas.
>
>> I think I've sufficiently demonstrated that you're wrong on the
>> merits that I can bow out now. Have fun!
>
>No, you've only demonstrated that you are a jackass.

QED, I'm afraid.

>I "sensed" that a little bit earlier.

Sure you did.

- Dan C.

[muta...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 8:04:07 AM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:

> >I mentioned documentation and testing for a reason.
> >
> >They can't claim that they don't have programming skills,
> >so shucks, another avenue to contributing something
> >shut down.

> I imagine their excuses might be along the lines of, "you seem
> excessively combative and difficult to work with, and the
> technical foundations of this are poor. I see no reason to
> donate free labor to such a lost cause."

Sure. So what can they contribute according to their needs
to usher in Marx's utopia instead then?

Clean up some of the rubbish left behind after environmental
protests?

> >> And they might turn around and say, "and work with that
> >> whackjob? No thanks."
> >
> >Sure. So create a non-whackjob OS.

> There already plenty to choose from. I've contributed to many,
> and written several of my own kernels. Sadly for you,
> apparently, they're all copyright (though mostly available under
> permissive open source licenses).

As you noted - those aren't collective ownership as the commies
claim they want.

Very few people - commies or non-commies, are truly willing
to follow Marx's line that is meant to usher in Utopia.

I don't care if non-commies don't contribute anything at all.
They're not being hypocrites.

What I care about is commies claiming they want Marx's
Utopia, but when it comes to the bit where they need to
actually do some work, they seem to all claim to have no
ability other than making up excuses.

> >[snip]
> >> >BTW, Linas made a similar claim about Linux. That it
> >> >would never be as good as SCO.
> >
> >> Linus said that about GNU, not SCO.
> >
> >That's what I said. But it wasn't GNU, it was Linux.

> No. You said,
> "BTW, Linas made a similar claim about Linux. That it
> would never be as good as SCO."

> Well, I don't know who "Linas" is, but Linus said:
>
> "I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big
> and professional like gnu)"
>
> That is, he was comparing Linux to GNU, not SCO.
>
> (https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~awb/linux.history.html)

Ok, sorry. I stand corrected. I don't know where I remembered
SCO from.

> >> >> seriously as any kind of "challenge" to, well, anything.
> >> >>
> >> >> Because it's not. Because it is a toy.
> >> >
> >> >Again - what you are calling a "toy" is all the public actually
> >> >owns.
> >
> >> Collective ownership: what a communist idea.
> >
> >Exactly. Exactly what the commies claim to want.

> I guess you're a commie then, eh?

Nope. I'm a capitalist demonstrating to commies that if you
really believe in Marx's ideals, you don't need a communist
government.

Basically the best communist is a capitalist.

> >Ok sunshine - time to put up or shut up.

> ...with what?

Put up some actual work for the common good.

> >> >And that "toy" still allows you to develop a replacement
> >> >OS more to your liking in a high level language.
> >
> >> So does Linux. Or FreeBSD. Or, for that matter, Windows.
> >
> >Yes, and they are all copyrighted.

> So what? You don't seem to be able to grasp that one can use

Of course I know that. It's you that can't grasp basic English.
I've already explained multiple times.

> any of those systems as a development platform to write a
> program that is then placed into the public domain. Your little
> toy is completely superfluous.

Wrong way around.

You can use a public domain OS to create a copyrighted OS.

If there is some restriction on using someone else's
copyrighted product. E.g. Kim might say "Marx says
that all property is theft - we don't want to use an OS
that is stolen capitalist property" or whatever commies
may come up with.

Or some other desire for clean room development.

And yes, I know that being a mere user of Windows
doesn't prevent a new development fro being clean
room, but maybe Fujitsu wants to be extra sure that
they are not using Windows to compete with Windows
in case Microsoft ever sues.

I don't know every possible use scenario. What I know
is that almost everyone is very determined to prevent
OSes entering the public domain.

Jackasses like you say they are "permissive" while
being very coy about why they are holding back
actually genuinely making it permissive (ie
unrestricted use as public domain allows).

Closet commies it seems from discussions I have had.

BFN. Paul.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

If so it didn't last long! Is this the right room for an argument?

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[muta...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 2:08:19 PM UTC+8, muta...@gmail.com wrote:

> > any of those systems as a development platform to write a
> > program that is then placed into the public domain. Your little
> > toy is completely superfluous.

> Wrong way around.
>
> You can use a public domain OS to create a copyrighted OS.
>
> If there is some restriction on using someone else's
> copyrighted product. E.g. Kim might say "Marx says
> that all property is theft - we don't want to use an OS
> that is stolen capitalist property" or whatever commies
> may come up with.
>
> Or some other desire for clean room development.

In the case of the Australian High Court, they completely
fabricated that there was an "implied" right to freedom
of speech in the Constitution, to strike down legislation
that they personally didn't like, and it was so much easier
than going to the effort of creating a Bill of Rights, or
updating the real constitution instead of their imaginary one.

So they may say that Microsoft has an implied right that you
can't develop a rival to Windows using Windows.

They may even say the same about Linux.

PDOS would be the hardest thing for them to say that about.

Not sure what the would even mean. The public has an implied
right that you can't write a commercial OS?

That would have to be applied to Shakespeare's work too - and
defeats the whole purpose and concept of public domain.

Again - courts can make anything at all up, so who knows what
they will do, but again, public domain is the best protection
from arbitrary "justice" by courts.

Of course, even with public domain, the court could say that
the sequence Fujitsu (e.g.) used to develop Fujitsu/x86 using
PDOS/386 was preceded by a Windows to PDOS/386
transition, so Fujitsu aren't allowed to sell their OS in
(some arbitrary jurisdiction).

But if a court were to go to that extreme, Windows isn't the
first OS to be invented, and the courts can ping Microsoft
for being in a chain of OSes from the 1950s or whatever.

But a court may draw the line at 1 transition or 2 transitions.

So there would be some benefit in perhaps punching some
newly-written machine code onto punched cards, to boot up
a z/Arch machine, which would be used to create some x86
machine code on paper tape and then onto floppy and then
onto hard disk. Or some such sequence.

I'm not sure card readers are still available, so maybe some
other medium that humans can manipulate without the
need for an existing OS.

This would still require courts to not claim that either the
mainframe controller software or microcode or the PC BIOS
are rival OSes, so are allowed to be used.

That may not be perfect, but it's another level of distance.

Not sure if an alternate computer instead of a PC, hand-made,
maybe even with a FPGA could be used to create even more
distance.

I can abandon ELF that at least one person is claiming is
copyrighted to the extent that even the names of standard
fields can't be used.

I prefer a.out, but it may have the same issue. Certainly
macro names like N_TEXT are from presumably-copyrighted
documentation.

I could possibly keep the a.out format but just invent new
names for anything I need. I already know the format of
a.out, since it's simple, so I just need to name each field
instead of using the names everyone else uses.

Depends how many asshole judges there are, worldwide.

But if I were to start that process, I would need to first
ensure there was a way of entering machine code
on some device without the aid of an OS. All my current
devices have OSes.

I could potentially wipe a hard disk and have an EFI
shell. Any OS I write (ie a rewrite of PDOS-generic)
wouldn't be a rival to EFI. Although even then, you
never know. And I'm not sure an EFI shell provides
the facilities required to slowly construct some
machine code. By doing echo and using Alt-numpad
to enter arbitrary data.

What about an original PC with ROM BASIC and
without installing PCDOS? I believe the PS/2 still
had ROM BASIC, so I don't need an original PC.

Presumably the Commodore 64 which also comes
with BASIC in ROM can't be used, because it also
has an OS, so not the equivalent of a real IBM PC.

BFN. Paul.

[muta...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 6:23:38 PM UTC+8, muta...@gmail.com wrote:

> What about an original PC with ROM BASIC and
> without installing PCDOS? I believe the PS/2 still
> had ROM BASIC, so I don't need an original PC.

How about a replacement or enhancement to either
Seabios or Tianocore that simply allows bytes on a
USB stick to be zapped?

What would be "fair game" here?

But even that would be developed on Windows or Linux,
and if I'm going to do that, how about creating an EFI
app (not OS) that runs under Tianocore, and is called
bootx64.efi, and allows hex editing of disks and copying
from disk to disk?

But if I do that, I may as well make a C compiler as an EFI app.

And the pseudo-BIOS that I provide for x64 can run multiple
such apps.

What is the logical line that should be drawn?

BFN. Paul.

[muta...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 7:27:24 PM UTC+8, muta...@gmail.com wrote:

> But if I do that, I may as well make a C compiler as an EFI app.
>
> And the pseudo-BIOS that I provide for x64 can run multiple
> such apps.

That would in fact mimic the way GNU/Linux was built.

The tools were written first.

OS vendors don't really have a say in tools - tools are not
rivals.

And then you can run those tools under what?

EFI would be one choice.

But the Amiga 1000 read a kickstart floppy. That kickstart
floppy could be a single app that perhaps allows editing
and compiling by driving the hardware.

It could perhaps use in-memory files to avoid needing an
OS to manage files.

Or do what Sqlite does and produce a single file to be
compiled.

The end goal would be to crank out a pdos.exe for
bootx64.efi (pseudo-bios) to run.

Where the pseudo bios is not considered to be an OS
because it doesn't provide an API for apps to use, it
only provides a way to read disks, for use by an OS.

So developing the pseudo-BIOS on Windows is fair.

Just not pdos.exe.

The shell (pcomm.exe) might be considered part of the OS too.

There is probably no tangible difference between the Amiga
and EFI if I only write disk blocks, not files.

Basically it is odd that EFI allowed reading/writing files at all.

BFN. Paul.

[muta...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 6:19:51 AM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:

> Well, look at `elf.h` in your source tree for starters. Then
> compare, say, the structure definitions therein against the
> System V ABI document.

I was thinking of creating a clean room version of elf.h
since you seem to be implying this trivial amount of
code, in a relatively massive code base, is allegedly
copied from a copyrighted work.

I took a close look at the history. It's so long ago (for
me), that I've forgotten the details, but a lot of the
details are in either email or newsgroup posts.

Let's start with one of my involvements in ELF.

Here is my modification to elf.h:

C:\devel\pdos\bios>git show d8ec66831878a85c20a1678dd48f8b3b2aabfad4

commit d8ec66831878a85c20a1678dd48f8b3b2aabfad4
Author: Paul Edwards <muta...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue Apr 20 01:33:42 2021 +1000

add Elf32_Rela

diff --git a/bios/elf.h b/bios/elf.h
index 60322201..70e0b505 100644
--- a/bios/elf.h
+++ b/bios/elf.h
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
typedef unsigned long Elf32_Addr;
typedef unsigned long Elf32_Off;
typedef unsigned long Elf32_Word;
-typedef signed long Elf32_SWord;
+typedef signed long Elf32_Sword;
typedef unsigned short Elf32_Half; /* 2 bytes. */

#define EI_NIDENT 16 /* Size of e_ident on all systems. */
@@ -132,6 +132,12 @@ typedef struct {
Elf32_Word r_info; /* Top byte is symbol index, bottom is rel. type. */
} Elf32_Rel;

+typedef struct {
+ Elf32_Addr r_offset;
+ Elf32_Word r_info; /* Top byte is symbol index, bottom is rel. type. */
+ Elf32_Sword r_addend;
+} Elf32_Rela;
+
#define ELF32_R_SYM(r_info) ((r_info) >> 8)
#define ELF32_R_TYPE(r_info) ((r_info) & 0xff)


First you can see that I had to change sword to Sword.

That was apparently the standard name.

Alica clearly didn't cut and paste from working code - she must
have typed it in, but the structure that needed it didn't even exist,
so it was only when I went to use it that I found the issue.

I can see from this newsgroup post at the time:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.os.development/c/mpdS-HpiMLg

that I had been looking at other public domain ELF code.

I can see that that code uses the standard names too:

Elf32_Rel reloc32;

ie the same as Alica, and apparently I used (with Rela):

C:\devel\pdos\bios>grep Elf32_Rel elf.h
elf.h: } Elf32_Rel;
elf.h: } Elf32_Rela;

I am not totally sure why I was doing ELF relocation at all.
It was apparently for PDOS-generic work, but I normally
use a.out not ELF for that.

I can see here:

C:\devel\pdos\bios>type compelf.bat
wcl386 -q -s -3s -zl -fpi87 -c -I. genstart.c osworld.c osfunc.c
wlink File genstart.obj,osworld.obj,osfunc.obj Name osworld.exe Form elf Option quiet,start=__crt0

that I was using Open Watcom (on Windows) to produce an ELF executable.

I didn't have a Unix system at the time, but I was in the
osdev discord at the time I think, and I definitely remember
someone asking for a Unix version to try. But I don't know
when that was, and again - there is no reason why they
would have needed an ELF relocatable instead of an a.out
relocatable to do that.

I suspect it hadn't clicked at the time that I didn't need
a relocatable ELF.

Or it might have been very early testing (which is why the
bat file was in the bios directory, not generic directory),
where I just wanted to prove that ELF was capable of
being relocated. I certainly remember proving that on MVS too,
with MVS load modules. I mean - loaded with my loader
(exeload) rather than MVS 3.8J.

It is also possible that I didn't have a.out relocation working
at the time - I'd have to check that to see the date that I
patched binutils.

Regardless, I added a structure and fixed a typedef in elf.h.

I may have copied the definition from that jwasm public
domain code, or I may have gotten the documentation
from a google search.

I certainly wouldn't have copied and pasted from some
copyrighted code or documentation from a google
search, but I probably would have found the standard
names from that.

So when you say "look at xyz copyrighted document and
compare", first of all, I'm not going to look at the copyrighted
document that you think is definitive, because then it will
be harder to convince a judge that this is original work.

So - you tell me.

I don't want to fly by on "fair use".

I want genuine original work.

You are suggesting that Alica's code is not original and/or
my Rela and sword fix is not original. And/or the jwasm code
is not original.

If there is someone like you out there, then I may encounter
a judge like you too. And I would like to protect against that.

So you tell me, judge - how do I create a clean room elf.h
that passes your certification?

I have all the standard names in exeload.c, so I can
recreate those from that.

Getting the order and types will be a bit more difficult, as
I would need to look at an ELF file that uses those
structures.

But there's no need to do that.

You can just independently tell me what the ELF format is.

This isn't a trade secret that I have signed a non-disclosure
agreement to.

It's a public format.

So you can tell me that the sword in the Rela structure is
speced to be 32 bits, and I'll ask whether that is signed or
unsigned, and then define a "long".

What do I need to do so that that trivial amount of code is
created cleanly in your opinion?

Time to use concrete instead of sand.

To reduce the likelihood of success of the alleged original
copyright holder of being able to sue me.

Or are you saying that a clean room version is impossible?

BFN. Paul.