From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net
In article <47f07b93-f48d-4cbf-974f-00372c787186n@googlegroups.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
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
