Lineo Frees CP/M

rbeattie writes: "The Register is reporting that the code for 'the first generic operating system for microcomputers' is now open source. It's interesting to see the final chapter for the code that could have been what was MS-DOS. The article includes the requisite background of CP/M from Gary Kildall's snubbing of IBM to its transformation into DR-DOS, later being sold to Novell then to Caldera who spun it off with Lineo who finally opened up the source in October." The original story is actually at NewsForge. Update: 11/27 22:13 GMT by T : Note, thanks to reader Greg Head, that DR-DOS source appears available only for money; the original headline implied that DR-DOS source was also now available at no charge.

Comments

no matter what anyone says...

[night_flyer]

I still like DOS

Re:no matter what anyone says...

[Coniine]

I still like DOS too, I just wish it was a protected mode flat memory model OS with multitasking. Oh! that's Linux right?

Try a non-graphical installation of Linux.

Re:no matter what anyone says...

[Anonymous Coward]

Glutton for punishment?

Re:no matter what anyone says...

[Anonymous Coward]

or windows?

Re:no matter what anyone says...

[Iamthefallen]

Nah, there's something charming with an OS that has a help that fits every command there is in it on ~2 screens.

Re:no matter what anyone says...

[Sj0]

I had found several ways to do multitasking dos easily, and at least one of them was pmode.

First: OS/2 warp allowed you to use a text mode shell, which would be multitaskable and pmoded. That was a long time ago... The only one of these other than windows(which is a bitch about it) which will run Quake multitaksing.

Second: TSX411 allowed for multitasking in text mode and in some CGA modes, and it also allowed for VGA modes to run normally, but I haven't heard anything about it since the early 80s.

Third: Fallback Windows 3.1 with command.com set as the shell. Not my favourite solution...

Fourth: Linux with dosemu: I'd really rather not get into why this is a bad idea for day to day use, but it has something to do with never being able to run shell 0 apps and general instability in regular apps.

The reason for all this research is simple: At one time I learned about most of these(early 80s), windows sucked so badly nobody used it (whereas today, MS marketing(Bill Gates considers 1984 an instruction manual, not a novel) has convinced everybody to use it...), and multitasking under DOS was cool and innovative. Secondly, I'm a dos programmer right now (moving to linux with my next project to avoid Windows "He made a nice program -- lets clone it!" XP), and multitasking comes in handy, but the crashability of Windows is bad when I'm trying to make something work..

Re:no matter what anyone says...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or use DesqView. A company that I worked for a long time ago had a support BBS that ran two copies of Wildcat! simultaneously on a 386-16 using DesqView. Why they didn't just use Celerity, PC Board, Oblivion/2 or some other BBS software that supported more than 1 line is beyond me.

Re:no matter what anyone says...

[ncc74656]

You forgot DESQview...with the right hardware, you could multitask under DOS on an XT! I used it with DR DOS 6 back in '91 on a 286-12 with 2 megs of RAM and EMS 4 support on the motherboard to run my BBS and let me do other stuff at the same time. Ran like a champ...never crashed, unlike certain other DOS shells that were somewhat common at the time... (...mumble...mumble...Windows 3.1...mumble...mumble...)

Re:no matter what anyone says...

[Anonymous Coward]

> I still like DOS too, I just wish it was a
> protected mode flat memory model OS with
> multitasking.

DRI did do multitaking - in 1978 with MP/M on 8080/Z80, in 1981 on 8086 with Concurrent-CP/M-86. This grew up to be Concurrent-DOS, DR-Multiuser-DOS and its derivitives. One derivitive is _still_ being developed: Real/32 see www.imsltd.com.

> Oh! that's Linux right?

And for a melding of DRI's multitasking and Linux see www.realng.com.

Ms. Dos dead at age 21

[Anonymous Coward]

I just heard some sad news on CNET radio. Ms. Dos, was found murdered in her home this morning. She was 21 years old. We are still looking for Mr. Dos. If you see him, please contact me immediately.

Re:Ms. Dos dead at age 21

[calags]

Her husband was Dr. DOS (whereabouts unknown) - there is speculation that the murderer entered and left through the broken Windows.

Ms Dos' twin P.C. Dos was unavailable for comment.

Re:Ms. Dos dead at age 21

[Anonymous Coward]

NEWS TICKER: Dr. Dos has been found soaked in blood near the body of his wife. He says a one armed man did it. Microsoft, a criple, was unavailable for comment.

Re:Ms. Dos dead at age 21

[Anonymous Coward]

I just heard some sad news on CNET radio. Ms. Dos, was found murdered in her home this morning. She was 21 years old. We are still looking for Mr. Dos. If you see him, please contact me immediately.

Dr. Dos was naturally suspected in the case, but all evidence seems to point to Gen. Failure, one of Microsoft's strategic military advisors...

Re:Ms. Dos dead at age 21

[kin_korn_karn]

FLASH! Murderer apprehended!
Dr. DOS confesses after being driven mad by laughing penguin!

In his first statement since capture Dr. DOS further said that the Devil made him do it.

Re:Ms. Dos dead at age 21

[Anonymous Coward]

Dr. Dos claimed a one-armed man killed Ms. Dos.

He is currently searching for the real killer, with help from OJ Simpson, on a Florida golf course.

Re:Ms. Dos dead at age 21

[Anonymous Coward]

Sexist pig! Why assume Dr DOS is male (husband)?

Maybe the DOSes were a lesbian couple!

Where we could have been....

[teambpsi]

I used MP/M - a multiuser/multitasking version of MPM on what i think was an Altaire?? in High School back in the mid-80's

To think where the lowly PC would be now...

Its often easy to blame the arrogance of Gary for blowing off IBM -- but to some extent it was one of those golden opportunities

kind of funny...the arrogance of someone who thought they could say no --vs-- the arrogance of someone who thought they could say yes

Who knew?

Re:Where we could have been....

[Yunzil]

Its often easy to blame the arrogance of Gary for blowing off IBM

I don't necessarily think it was arrogance. There are variations on the story floating around about him deciding to go out flying that day, etc; but from what I have read, he probably wouldn't have signed anyway. IBM at the time required people to sign ridiculously stringent Eternal Soul contracts with them, and he probably wouldn't have liked it.

Re:Where we could have been....

[the_2nd_coming]

then how the hell did MS get the Shweet deal with IBM over ownership?....I bet the rights would have stayed with Gary, unless he was being particularly dumb that day.

I wonder, do you think he kicks himself every morning?

Re:Where we could have been....

[hawk]

> I used MP/M - a multiuser/multitasking version of MPM on what i think
> was an Altaire?

There were a couple of those; after all this time, it's hard to keep them straight. I want to say that MP/M used multiple processors in the same box and ran on 8 bits. Then there was CCP/M for the 16 bits machines; I worked on QA for that in '84. It could run multiple ms-dos programs at the time. Then that became CDOS, and was ultimately folded into the regular DR-DOS
hawk

Re:Where we could have been....

[cpeterso]

I wonder, do you think he kicks himself every morning?

not since he died in 1994..

Re:Where we could have been....

[Anonymous Coward]

If he wasn't dead, I would imagine he would.

Re:Where we could have been....

[the_2nd_coming]

you know what I mean......he had 14 years to make his ass raw you know ;-)

Re:Where we could have been....

[Kaiwen]

Its often easy to blame the arrogance of Gary for blowing off IBM

Hindsight and all. But in fact, there was really little to recommend the IBM deal to Digital Research. As has been mentioned, the IBM contract was prohibitively restrictive. DR was already working on a 16-bit version of CP/M and would have had to drop everything to rush out a version for IBM. And IBM's initial foray into the PC market was, in most respects remarkably unremarkable (to borrow a phrase from Douglas Adams), with more impressive offerings already available from a half dozen other system vendors. The PC was in many respects a rush-to-market kludge (hence IBM's desire to do a quick-and-diry deal for an outsourced OS at a time when they generally wrote their own in-house) that impressed almost no one. There was nothing about the original IBM PC that screamed, "I'm the future of computing! Ride my wave!" Why WOULD Kildall invest so many resources on the IBM PC when, e.g., Compaq and Kaypro, not IBM, were widely viewed as the leading edge of personal computing technology?

It's easy enough to point fingers at Kildall's decision. I wonder how many of us would have done it differently.

CP/M stands for...

[rde]

I realise no-one cares, but I'm going to say it anyway.
CP/M stands for Control Program/Monitor. If it was Control Program for Microcomputers, it wouldn't have a slash.

Wow, it's been at least five years since I got to bore someone with that argument.

DOS stability

[Anonymous Coward]

DOS was the last truly stable OS. In all the years I used it, it never crashed once. Although applications hanging was a different matter.

Re:DOS stability

[Anonymous Coward]

ATTN Moderators, the above does not satisfy any criterion for "insightful."

Re:DOS stability

[dillon_rinker]

A stable operating system allows you to keep operating the system when an application crashes. If an application can crash the OS, it ain't stable.

Re:DOS stability

[Anonymous Coward]

according to you: linux is as unstable as win98.

i've yet to have an application bring down win2k or FreeBSD, but I've had a few (usually netscape on sites with bad java) bring down linux boxes in hard, ugly crashes.

Re:DOS stability

[firecode]

Yes, DOS was/is "stable", but only because requirements for the modern OS were much lower than nowadays.

a) if bad behaving applications can cause crash with modern OSes, OS is considered to be unstable.

b) Modern OSes must support lot more different hardware and any combinations of different hardware.

c) Modern OS must do multitasking, multiple, good memory management, handle different priviledge levels, support multiple users

d) Modern OS (kernel+core libs) must support lot of different APIs, executable formats, abstract away direct hardware accesses etc..

It's _relatively_ easy to code 'dos'-size program to be efficient and (mostly) always working when the requirements aren't very demanding. When the program size / number of features grow the number ways things can go wrong increases dramatically (O(n!) interacting parts (in theory)).

Re:DOS stability

[Peaker]

That's one of the stupidest things I've read today.

DOS is a thin file-access and memory allocation library, with a very small and weak command shell, on top of the BIOS routines. Applications mostly serve as their own OS, or use the BIOS.
The reason DOS "itself" crashes little, is because there is almost none of it!

In fact, applications crashing the entire machine is exactly the reason DOS is completely unstable. It is the responsibility of the OS to ensure system stability.

Re:DOS stability

[Anonymous Coward]

>Applications mostly serve as their own OS, or >use the BIOS.

in that case, Ultima III was the best and most stable OS, and the most fun

Re:DOS stability

[rufusdufus]

You say "It is the responsibility of the OS to ensure system stability", but it wasnt always that so. Many people believe that multi-tasking OSs was a blunder. In particular, when it comes to server operation, a single tasking OS makes a lot more sense...the simplicity keeps the MTF way way down.

Re:DOS stability

[jandrese]

I'm probably being trolled, but...

Assuming you're using the standard conventions, MTF stands for Mean Time to Fail. ("to" sometimes being replaced by "between" and Fail with Failures). In that case I can wholeheartedly agree with your statement, using a single tasking OS in a multiuser environment will decrease your MTF significantly, especially if your users have service level agreements.

Re:DOS stability

[Anonymous Coward]

You're obviously not a programmer.


#include <stdlib.h>

void main() {
while( 1 )
*((long*)rand()) = 0xdeadbeef;
}


Run this on DOS, then run it on Linux or even Windows, and try and tell me how stable DOS is.

Re:DOS stability

[WowTIP]

No no, it was C64 Basic. ;)

Re:DOS stability

[Enahs]

I've had xmms bring FreeBSD to a screeching halt.

I've never had netscape crash a Linux box, but I've had Netscape crash on several occasions, occasionally causing X to hang. If you've got access to a terminal (you do have a way of getting into the machine "remotely", right?) there's no problems.

Re:DOS stability

[Anonymous Coward]

CP/M never crashed for me, and I still have the
a computer which was delivered with CP/M booted
on a 5" floppy.

Greetings

Here's a short History of CP/M

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/5711/histor y.html

DR-DOS can be purchased in a 5-PK or a 10 PK.

[Anonymous Coward]

DR-DOS can be purchased in a 5-PK or a 10 PK.
5-PK cost is $149.75
10-PK cost is $280.00

for DOS?

correction...it was an Altos

[teambpsi]

Altos 580

there it is in all its glory ;)

Re:correction...it was an Altos

[sinster]

Ah, the Altos. My first computer was an Altos 5-5D. Same story as you, pretty much. Got it with CP/M (on 8" floppies). Had a massive 5MB winchester disk. And I still have my 8" Zork I floppy. This old Altos didn't have a built-in monitor or anything: it had 3 serial ports to connect to terminals. I had an Adds Viewpoint and a TVI hooked up to it. I even got on the MP/M beta test.

Wrong, and here's why.

[Anonymous Coward]

Gary named it CP/M in the same manner he named PL/M; Programming Language for Microprocessors. The slash was a take-off on Intel's PL/1.

Re:Wrong, and here's why.

[SoftwareJanitor]

Still wrong... and here's why.

That would be IBM's PL/1. You know, the people who brought you RS/600, OS/2 and AS/400. The slash thing is sort of a theme at IBM. It was also a convention at Digital, which is where Gary probably borrowed it from moreso than IBM. RSTS/11, RSX/11, etc. were all PDP-11 OSes. CP/M was greatly influenced by PDP OS design.

Re:Wrong, and here's why.

[SoftwareJanitor]

Dohh... that should be RS/6000...

DOS OWNS ALL

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally we have some more open source software making its way into the DOS arena. Maybe soon we will see some real multitasking under dos? (and desk/view doesn't count...)

Re:DOS OWNS ALL

[wackysootroom]

The real question here is who cares? There are already Multi-User Multi-Tasking OSes out there and retrofitting an old OS not designed to do these things would be a waste of time and a disaster waiting to happen.

The words CP/M and DOS invoke nice memories to me, but lets keep both of them where they belong - a computer museum.

Re:DOS OWNS ALL

[Anonymous Coward]

Concurrent CP/M 86 was multitasking, anyway. We used to lust after it back in the day... Then the Amiga came out, and we switched to that instead. Served us well for a decade, despite the idiocy of it's parent company...

Good news

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I now expect a version of graphical CP/M sometime soon?

Re:Good news

[AndroidCat]

It's called GEM. (The Atari ST used GEM-68k over TOS.)

Re:Good news

[McDutchie]

Can I now expect a version of graphical CP/M sometime soon?

Actually, a cross-platform graphics library for CP/M has existed for a long time.

catch in the license?

[kingdon]

It looks to be open source although there is one catch - the words "as part of the 'unofficial CP/M web site'". Does that mean that this license does not cover, say, putting CP/M into a product, putting it up on a different web site, or the like? On the face of it, that would seem to be so, but I can't help but wonder whether Lineo is going to open source it the rest of the way at some point - as has been pointed out, CP/M is hardly the focus of their business these days.

Re:catch in the license?

[duber007]

Regarding lineo: this is only a rumour, but....

I met the marketing guy for lineo's canada office last week at the campus pub (and my mom says drinking doesn't pay)....what I got out of the conversation was that any software is being covered under UClinux, and the actual implementation is by lineo - lineo is the corp. covering the integration of the hardware and software......

I was also told that their basic idea is this: for every dollar spent on educating students, they can expect about 10 dollars back in the long run....

Not free

[Anonymous Coward]

DR DOS still costs money, its not open, its not free, this story is bullshit.

http://www.drdos.com/purchase/index.html

Purchase
DR-DOS can be purchased in a 5-PK or a 10 PK.
5-PK cost is $149.75 BUY HERE
10-PK cost is $280.00 BUY HERE

re: Not free

[halivar]

Oh wow. You're right. The whole story is...

Hey look! Oh, silly me!

The article says CP\M is free, not DR-DOS!

Heh... sometimes I just forget to read the articles and these things happen.

PS: The original article says DR-DOS is for purchase (includes source code). CP\M is free as the article states.

Open Source or public domain?

[3Suns]

The article states:

Let this email represent a right to use, distribute, modify, enhance and
otherwise make available in a nonexclusive manner the CP/M technology as
part of the "Unofficial CP/M Web Site" with its maintainers, developers and
community.

I further state that as Chairman and CEO of Lineo, Inc. that I have the
right to do offer such a license.

Lineo and its affiliates, partners and employees make no warranties of any
kind with regards to this technology and its usefulness or lack thereof.

Since Lineo is the previous license holder and here they have effectively released all previous licenses, doesn't this put the CP/M technology in the public domain? I can't see anything that would suggest that any of the Free Software/Open Source licenses should apply, only that the previous ones are gone. Can anyone confirm this?

Re:Open Source or public domain?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. One has to explicitly say, "This work is released to the Public Domain"

Re:Open Source or public domain?

[Anonymous Coward]

As I interpret it, the email declares Lineo's intent to allow the Unofficial CP/M Web Site to go back online as it was before. No more, no less. I am mystified as to why all these people keep running around putting "CP/M" and "Open Source" into the same sentences.

as old as my Big Trac

[Lepruhkawn]

I guess it's cool that it's open source, but I was more excited this weekend when I put batteries in my Big Trac (the predecessor to the Mars Rover) and it accepted and executed the program perfectly. My StarBird still works, too.

Day late and a dollar short

[Tassach]

While it is commendable to open the source to a defunct product rather than keep it in some kind of propriatary graveyard, this release comes too late to make any practical impact. The few niches where a lightweight DOS kernel would still be useful have pretty much been filled by better alternatives.

Considering how far the Windows product line has diverged from it's MS-DOS roots, even the hope of finding code that's useful for interoperability with M$ systems is pretty slim. Sadly, I can see little practial value to this announcement other than academic and historical interest.

Re:Day late and a dollar short

[duffbeer703]

There is plenty of practical value.

Alot of embedded systems, particularly POS systems and some industrial controllers use DOS.

Re:Day late and a dollar short

[bigdavex]

While it is commendable to open the source to a defunct product rather than keep it in some kind of propriatary graveyard, this release comes too late to make any practical impact. The few niches where a lightweight DOS kernel would still be useful have pretty much been filled by better alternatives.

Last time I bought a hard drive, I noticed the configuration diskette used Dr. DOS.

(That's the whole post. Move along.)

Re:Day late and a dollar short

[Anonymous Coward]

Any POS system using CP/M is truly a POS system.

Re:Day late and a dollar short

[mj01nir]

Last time I bought a hard drive, I noticed the configuration diskette used Dr. DOS.

Novell has also continued to use DR-DOS for the NetWare boot partition and installation diskette, at least through NetWare 5.1. NetWare 6 probably uses it too, I just haven't installed it yet.

Re:Day late and a dollar short

[Monte]

The few niches where a lightweight DOS kernel would still be useful have pretty much been filled by better alternatives.

But do those alternatives have the vast array of software available for them that DOS does?

If you've got a 386/20 class processor with a meg of RAM and an 80x25 text display you have a platform that will run a huge library of useful programs.

And I will continue to be crotchety until I get a version of SoundGlobs that'll run under Windows, dammit!

Re:Day late and a dollar short

[Jeffrey Baker]

DOS still has a use, even on powerful desktop systems. Flashing the PC BIOS, or the BIOS of an expansion card, can usually only be done from DOS. If you are a Linux user, you are kind of stuck with your existing BIOS. With a free DOS implementation, you can update your BIOS. I've been nursing a DOS 6 boot diskette for seven years, just so I can flash ROMs. If that disk ever bites it, I'll switch to this open DR-DOS.

Re:Day late and a dollar short

[Suicyco]

Making it open source does not mean that it is only now available for use. It was always available via buying a license. You just had to pay for it.

Re:Day late and a dollar short

[nels_tomlinson]

You might want to look into FreeDos, which is an MSDOS compatible, GPL'ed dos which works fairly well. It's beta, but it's there NOW.

Re:Day late and a dollar short

[arnex]

particularly POS systems and some industrial controllers use DOS.

Yeah, I've got a piece of s--- 286 system at home that still runs DOS.

Oh, wait, did you mean Point Of Sale?

Re:Day late and a dollar short

[markmoss]

CP/M isn't DR-DOS and according to the articles only CP/M is open-sourced at this time. However, there are quite a few similarities; everyone copied the ideas in CP/M (D.R. apparently didn't sue unless you also copied the code itself), so the first releases of PC/MS-DOS were at least 75% a CPM work-alike.

Yes, it is good news for embedded system developers. CP/M is a pretty good OS for 8 & 16 bit systems, and being open-sourced makes it easier to adapt it to a system that lacks some of the desktop hardware (e.g., Flash chip instead of disk drive, a few buttons instead of keyboard, undersized display).

Re:Day late and a dollar short

[Anonymous Coward]

You could, uh, maybe, copy that floppy to make a backup...

Re:Day late and a dollar short

[Cro Magnon]

Is any of that "vast array" of software still available?

Re:Day late and a dollar short

[Monte]

Is any of that "vast array" of software still available?

Sure! Go to Google and type in "shareware" :)

Re:Day late and a dollar short

[jandrese]

Yeah, and last time I used the firmware flasher for my IBM drives I noticed that the disk used PC-DOS. What's so amazing about that?

Re:Day late and a dollar short

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, "abandonware" :)

Re:Day late and a dollar short

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be illegal. Please report to the Thought Police for reprogramming.

Re:Day late and a dollar short

[haggar]

Insightful? This post is offtopic. Lineo has opensourced CP/M, not DOS!

2001-11-26 14:57:22 CP/M Released Open Source (art

[robvasquez]

2001-11-26 14:57:22 CP/M Released Open Source (articles,news) (rejected)

Hey, I sent in yesterday. And I'm sure I wasn't the only one

I GUESS NOBODY LISTENS TO ME

Still have two CP/M systems.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure wish I could find a good home for them.

One huge, back-breaking box with two 8" floppies of 1.x MB each.

One with two 5" floppies, each of which holds almost 50 KB, IIRC! Single-sided, single-density.

(Not DR-DOS)

[M-G]

Neither the stories, nor the CP/M site referenced in them state anything about DR-DOS being freed...

Novell DOS 7

[bpowell423]

The Newsforge article states that Novell dropped plans for DOS, which is funny, 'cause I have a copy of Novell DOS 7. Features above MS-DOS 6.22 included built-in Novell Netware support (I tried it once... plug in an NE2000 compatible NIC, turn on one setting in the configuration tool, reboot, log in) and multitasking including multiple consoles (not just task-switching). My memory is failing to come up with anything else. I tried the networking part and it worked great. IIRC, the multitasking stuff could even multi-task Win3.1. Not that my 40-Mhz 386 back then could do that very well. Just for the record, I used DR-DOS 6 before Novell DOS 7. DR-DOS 6 was also light-years ahead of MS-DOS 6. (Novell bought DR-DOS, I think.)

Re:Novell DOS 7

[IntlHarvester]

The lineage is like this:

DR-DOS was essentially an upgraded version of CP/M-86 that was made to be (sorta) MS-DOS compatible.

It was sold as a retail product (before MS/IBM DOS was) with the primary benefit being peer-to-peer networking in the box. It was significantly cheaper than "LANtastic" or the MS/IBM solution.

Novell went insane and among other things, ended up buying DR (for a lot of money, about a year before Win95 was released. MS's OEM relationships were widely understood at the time, too.). They renamed the product Novell DOS. Again the primary sell was peer-to-peer, but it also had Novell compatibility without an additional client install. NetWare also require(d|s) DOS to boot, so the product was somewhat useful to Novell.

Novell spun off Caldera, as both a Linux business and as a vehicle to sue Microsoft over DOS marketing issues. Caldera renamed the product back to DR-DOS.

Caldera (after winning a chunk of change from MS) spun off Lineo so they could buy SCO and go and focus on whatever SCO does.

Re:Novell DOS 7

[IntlHarvester]

By the way -- if anyone wants to get up-close-and-personal with CP/M -- Buy this Osborne 1.

(It might be spam, but it's on-topic spam!)

Re:Novell DOS 7

[isdnip]

I disagree with the characterization of DR-DOS as an upgraded CP/M-86. It was a virtually complete clone of MS-DOS. It hit the market, as I recall, during the late-'80s boom of MS-DOS 3.x. DR-DOS 3.31 was the first release I was familiar with, being a work-alike of MS-DOS 3.3. But it wasn't a clone. Unlike MS-DOS 3.x, DR-DOS code was re-entrant, so it could be run from ROM. This gave it a niche in embedded systems.

DR-DOS 5 added a bunch of features, and DR-DOS 6 had more. I bought DR-DOS 6 around 1990, when I bought a 286. It included disk compression (SuperStor, I think) before DOS did; that helped a lot with my 20 MB drive! It had a lousy graphical shell that I never used. DR's GEM was no gem either; I was using an Atari ST with DR's buggy GEM-based TOS for several years before moving to the Inteloid Dark Side.

Novell had bought DR by the time V7 came out, hence the name Novell DOS. Caldera had the good sense to go back to the DR-DOS name.

Mickeysoft buggered Windows 3 to detect DR-DOS and fail for no good reason. This sort of stuff led to a big legal victory for Caldera a couple of years ago, when Caldera was the holder of the DR heritage.

Re:Novell DOS 7

[Ben Hutchings]

DR-DOS is a clone of MS-DOS, and MS-DOS is a knock-off of CP/M.

Why bother now?

[2Bits]

I'm not too sure about the reasons of opening up the source now, do they think they can get anything back, or generate a flood of "renewed interest" in it?

Besides a bit of values from a computer historical perspective, what else? Ok, maybe some embedded device still use the code, but I don't see any new project is going to go into that direction, when you have Linux and *BSD.

Re:Why bother now?

[WWWWolf]

I'm not too sure about the reasons of opening up the source now, do they think they can get anything back, or generate a flood of "renewed interest" in it?

Legacy applications.

You know, I'm always thrilled to hear that there's free DOS versions floating around - mostly because a) I have a bunch of really cool DOS games and b) Microsoft did the right thing and tossed DOS aboard, but regrettably this means I can't upgrade to WinXP until I find other way to get to DOS to play games.

Currently I regrettably need to use Win98 to do actual work, and as you know, upgrade to WinXP might do wonders because that OS isn't that good for actual work... (I wish Linux video capture and editing gets a lot easier soon, at the moment it's still pretty painful... Can't apt-get install task-complete-video-editing-environment =)

Also, these OSes serve as an examples of how to make operating systems - or, in case of DOS, how not to make an OS =)

looks slashdotted

[small_dick]

i followed cp/m well into th "ZCPR" era, the elephant's graveyard, Z-nodes, etc.

although the site is /.'ed, I hope the CP/M 68K source is there, too.

I have an old Motorola 68K based Compupro box laying around, but I think the disks are bad.

CP/M

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget... CP/M is not dying...

ZCPR

[Robert Frazier]

Even better than CP/M was ZCPR, a drop in replacement with wheels and bells (e.g., modules), which, I believe, was more or less open source. I used this until I moved to linux. It was lean and mean on my Kaypro machine.

Re:ZCPR

[Kaiwen]

Even better than CP/M was ZCPR, a drop in replacement

True, ZCPR was "open source" (most CP/M stuff was), but it was a replacement for the command processor only (ZCPR = Z80 Command Processor Replacement); it ran on top of CP/M.

In addition to a plethora of CP/M command processor replacements, there are several complete CP/M drop-in replacements available, from TurboDOS to Simeon Cran's ZPM replacement for CP/M3, to the wildly successful and technically advanced NZ-COM Z-System which, when paired with with ZS-DOS, was a complete ZCPR 3.4-based CP/M 2.2 drop-in replacement OS. Z-System and ZS-DOS have both recently been released under the GPL.

Perhaps now that it's open source..

[Muzzarelli]

.... Bill will be able to find and remove those pesky copyright hotkeys from DOS?

Put it in Debian!

[DdJ]

Now someone has to wrap up the newly-open-source CP/M stuff, combine it with a Z80/8080 emulator, and make a Debian package that runs CP/M software!

Re:Put it in Debian!

[McDutchie]

Now someone has to wrap up the newly-open-source CP/M stuff, combine it with a Z80/8080 emulator, and make a Debian package that runs CP/M software!

You mean something like this?

Rubbish

[Pussy Is Money]

Rubbish, the M in CP/M means Microcomputers. As opposed to, say, a control program for minicomputers or mainframes.

Admittedly this link supports your alternative expansion, but as just that. Alternative.

It was good in the day

[gandalf_grey]

Mod me down if you want. BUT. DOS WAS the last stable OS. Helluva lot better than windows... and let's face it, linux/unix simply was not there. If you knew what you were doing, you could make it dance. It didn't care about the novice user... you just used it, and it did what it was told.

Re:It was good in the day

[Pussy Is Money]

Funny, nothing you say makes any sense whatsoever. Perhaps you should team up with Steve Gibson and not make sense together.

Re:It was good in the day

[savaget]

I have to agree that DOS was relatively stable compared to Windows. I ran AutoCad (versions 10 thru 13) under DOS and crashes came only every few months. As soon as I began running AutoCad under Windows, crashes and lost data became almost a dayly occurence.

I ran OS/2 for a while at home and it was as stable if not more that DOS

Re:It was good in the day

[ViXX0r]

How can you refer to (MS-)DOS as "the last stable OS", and then make an exception for Linux/Unix citing that they weren't available. If you consider linux a stable OS (which I do), then it is the last stable OS.

IIRC UNIX in one form or another was definately around during the time of DOS.

Re:It was good in the day

[killmenow]

DOS WAS the last stable OS

No. DOS was never stable.

C:\&gtTSR1.COM
C:\&gtTSR2.COM
C:\&gtTSR1.COM /unload
---crash---

Handled properly (with certain 3rd party tools like mark/rel, 4DOS, norton utilities, etc.), DOS could be almost enjoyable, but then the same can be said for Windows (gasp!)...

Oh, and DR-DOS was always better than MS-DOS, even with the Win 3.1 warnings of incomatibility...

Re:It was good in the day

[archen]

think if you stripped *BSD down and let it run with the limitations of DOS, you'd find it just as stable, and probably still more useful.

Re:It was good in the day

[Anonymous Coward]

5 ONERR GOTO 10
10 GOTO 10

Is that the last stable application?

Re:It was good in the day

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, this dicussion brings back lots of memories. DOS w/4DOS, ZANSI, 128Key, Norton Utilities, various other utils (like mark/release, SoftICE) rocked. I used to have a set of diskettes that I would use as sort of my "custom" DOS installation. Was a lot better than a generic install.

Old news?

[GiMP]

CP/M was already released into the Public Domain by caldera ages ago. I was seriously considering porting CP/M to the gameboy, infact.

CP/M was written in z80 asm and rewritten in C. The z80 port would be transferable to the Gameboy, as it uses a cut-down z80 processor.

I hardly consider this new news.

Re:Old news?

[owlmeat]

CP/M was not written in Z80 asm. CP/M predates the Z80 processor by a few years. My understanding is that the majority of it was written in PL/M with some assembly.

Re:Old news?

[GiMP]

Then what is this CP/M that I had z80 assembler source to ? :)

I'll see if I can dig it up somewhere, doubt it however.. I haven't done any gameboy programming in a long time.

Re:Old news?

[Monte]

Then what is this CP/M that I had z80 assembler source to ? :)

A newer version, obviously. CP/M was originally written for the 8080, such as the IMSAI or the Altair - before Zilog introduced the Z80.

Re:Old news?

[hawk]

> Then what is this CP/M that I had z80 assembler source to ? :)

If' it's actually CP/M, it's 8080 code--the Z80 was backwards compatible. It's also possible that the customization for the particular machine was in Z80. Additionally, there was a clone (ZP/M ?) that was for Z80 only. But if it's actual CP/M source, it can't be Z80, as that would not run on the 8080 machines.

hawk

Re:Old news?

[Kymermosst]

Well, I have extensive CP/M experience. CP/M 2.2 itself was written entirely in 8080 assembler, as was previous versions. Some of the utilities were in PL/M.

The Z80 is backwards compatible with the 8080, and way better.

There were also rewrites that used some of the Z80's enhanced instructions.

I had a Z80 card for my Apple II... there never was CP/M 3.0 available for it that I know of. I think it'd be interesting to try bringing it up.

Re:Old news?

[owlmeat]

I've seen source to CP/M 1.1 and it was in PL/M.

Do a Google search on CP/M PL/M and you'll find that the references will bear me out.

Re:Old news?

[Anonymous Coward]

> CP/M was written in z80 asm and rewritten in C.

No. The CP/M-80 BDOS was originally written in PL/M for the 8080. Most BIOSes were written (by the hardware manufacturers) in 8080 assembler with a few in Z80.

No DRI CP/M-80 code was in Z80 asm, it was all 8080 so that it could run on any 8080, 8085 or Z80.

No DRI CP/M-80 code was in C. Others may have added Small C or BDS-C utilities.

the new world order?

[trb]

... the first generic operating system for microcomputers' is now open source.

And in the dark winter of the great white north of Finland, a hacker's mind is stirring. Will this signal the birth of a wave of open source CP/Mania? God, I hope not.

Re:the new world order?

[Kymermosst]

I thought you were talking about the Fimbulwinter that precedes Ragnarok.

Anyway, wait until someone ports some GNU utils to CP/M, makes a distro like "Green Beret CP/M" and RMS gets up and says... "Damnit, that's supposed to be 'GNU/CP/M.'"

Re:the new world order?

[HungryHorace]

A couple of years or so ago, I wrote clones of some of the CP/M utilities (DATE, DIR, SHOW). The project was of course called ZINC (since ZINC Is Not CP/M).

Actual MS-DOS source

[Anonymous Coward]

believe it or not, the actual MS inhouse source for MS-DOS 6.2 is floating around on a WarezSiteNearYou(tm). No idea how it got out, but it's out. It's interesting mainly for its comments and revision logs, and all the unfixed bugs they released it with (about 266, if grep ain't lying to me - they flag it with the string BUGBUG - and those are only the ones they know about!).

It's a 19mb (approx) tarball which blows up to 70mb. I got it as dos-6.0-src.tar.gz. About half of that bloat is the code for QBASIC and associated bits n bobs (edit, help) which are made with "COW" - Character Oriented Windows - hey, they tried for cool acronyms.

I've tried posting some of it here for the last 10 mins, but I can't beat the "Lameness filter - please use fewer 'junk' characters". If anyone wants to tell me how to get around it....

Meanwhile I'll leave you with a revision note from around 1983 or so:

REV 1.50
Some code for new 2.0 DOS, sort of HACKey. Not enough time to
do it right.

Re:Actual MS-DOS source

[uncl_bob]

This is very interesting! Hmm... did you find it on Hotline or any other public warez-places?

Re:Actual MS-DOS source

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe you shouldn't try posting a gzipped tar file as a comment :)

Seriously, if you want to get past the lameness filter, you need to include an ascii picture depicting acts illegal in most states.

Re:Actual MS-DOS source

[Anonymous Coward]

a russian ftp. here's the tree

+---45
| +---beef
| | +---cw
| | | +---inc
| | | +---kernel
| | | +---lib
| | | +---tools
| | | \---user
| | \---drv
| | +---csd
| | | +---inc
| | | \---src
| | +---inc
| | +---kbd
| | | +---inc
| | | \---src
| | \---syd
| | +---inc
| | \---src
| +---cow
| +---doc
| +---qb
| | +---hd
| | +---ir
| | \---tl
| +---qb5
| | +---hd
| | +---hdcw
| | | \---cw
| | +---ir
| | +---qb
| | +---qbas
| | | \---cow
| | +---tl
| | \---uq
| | \---des
| +---qbdut
| | +---qbasener
| | +---qbaskey
| | \---strings
| | \---des
| +---qbfrn
| | +---qbasener
| | +---qbaskey
| | \---strings
| | \---des
| +---qbger
| | +---qbasener
| | +---qbaskey
| | \---strings
| | \---des
| +---qbitn
| | +---qbasener
| | +---qbasex
| | +---qbaskey
| | \---strings
| | \---des
| +---qbkit
| | +---bld
| | +---build
| | \---files
| +---qbpor
| | +---qbasener
| | +---qbaskey
| | \---strings
| | \---des
| +---qbspa
| | +---qbasener
| | +---qbaskey
| | \---strings
| | \---des
| +---qbswe
| | +---qbasener
| | +---qbasex
| | +---qbaskey
| | \---strings
| | \---des
| +---qbusa
| | +---qbasener
| | +---qbaskey
| | \---strings
| | \---des
| +---runtime
| | +---crt
| | +---herc
| | +---inc
| | +---qbasic
| | +---rt
| | \---tl
| | \---lib3
| \---tl
| +---bin
| +---binb
| +---inc
| | \---sys
| \---lib
+---access
| \---dvorak
+---baseimag
| +---12
| \---144
+---binaries
+---bios
| +---power21
| \---setcds
+---boot
+---c6ers
| +---appcomp
| | +---doc
| | +---jjj1
| | +---lzss
| | +---nc_xor1
| | +---test
| | +---tools
| | \---zk1
| +---choice
| +---interlnk
| | +---driver
| | +---fxlib
| | \---paragon
| | +---include
| | \---lib
| +---msd200a
| +---newcmds
| | \---toolib
| | +---doc
| | | \---headers
| | +---h
| | \---src
| +---smartmon
| +---tools6
| | +---bin
| | +---include
| | | \---sys
| | \---lib
| \---toolsvr
| +---inc
| \---lib
+---cmd
| +---adddrv
| +---append
| +---assign
| +---attrib
| +---backup
| +---chkdsk
| +---command
| | +---minicmd
| | \---romstub
| +---comp
| +---cps
| | +---mirror
| | +---rebuild
| | \---utils
| +---debug
| +---diskcomp
| +---diskcopy
| +---doskey
| +---edlin
| +---exe2bin
| +---expand
| +---fastopen
| +---fc
| +---fdisk
| +---find
| +---format
| +---graftabl
| +---graphics
| +---help
| +---join
| +---keyb
| | \---keyb2
| +---label
| +---loadfix
| +---mem
| +---mode
| +---more
| +---nlsfunc
| +---print
| +---printfix
| +---qbasic
| +---recover
| +---redir
| +---replace
| +---restore
| +---setver
| +---share
| +---sort
| +---subst
| +---sys
| +---tree
| +---wina20
| \---xcopy
+---compress
+---dev
| +---ansi
| +---country
| | \---cntry2
| +---display
| | +---ega
| | +---ega2
| | \---lcd
| +---driver
| +---ega
| +---emm386
| | \---lhvxd
| +---himem
| +---iceland
| +---keyboard
| | \---kbd2
| +---kkcfunc
| +---monoumb
| +---mouse
| +---power
| +---printer
| | +---4201
| | +---4208
| | \---5202
| +---ramdrive
| +---romdrive
| +---setmedia
| \---smartdrv
| +---doubleb
| +---messages
| | \---usa
| \---sdvxd
+---dos
+---dosshell
| +---grbs
| +---hlps
| +---inc
| +---iniparse
| +---inis
| +---lib
| +---loader
| +---patch
| +---shell
| +---swapper
| \---vids
+---h
+---images
| +---12
| \---144
+---inc
\---install
+---backup
+---basedata
| +---12
| +---144
| \---common
+---cleanup
+---common
+---dos2
| +---bmp
| | +---8514
| | +---ega
| | \---vga
| \---lib
| +---common
| \---compress
+---dosdata
| +---12
| +---144
| +---360
| +---720
| +---common
| +---compiler
| \---doc
+---include
+---lib
| +---bios
| +---copy
| +---disk
| +---file
| +---hardware
| +---hdisk
| +---pluscard
| +---prompts
| +---strlib
| \---window
\---oem

Re:Actual MS-DOS source

[Anonymous Coward]

So where can we find it? Google didn't turn up anything interesting...

Re:Actual MS-DOS source

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, MS-DOS source code is available many places. However, it is not MS-DOS 6.2[2], and it is not the full source tree.

use in an embedded system

[aisaksen]

Would this have any use in an embedded system? It would probably be easier to boot/manage than Linux since CP/M was designed and used back when computers had severe limits on processor speed, memory size, and storage.

Re:use in an embedded system

[Anonymous Coward]

Symbol uses Dr. Dos for their Handheld scanners so CP/M can't be far off.

Re:use in an embedded system

[McDutchie]

Would this have any use in an embedded system?
[...]

Interestingly, Zilog just released a new eZ80 microprocessor specifically designed to be embedded in Internet-connected devices. Apparently it is code-compatible with the Z80, so porting CP/M should be a breeze.

A quote from the site: "The eZ80 executes Z80 code four times faster than traditional Z80s at the same clock speed, and can operate at speeds up to 50 MHz. Unlike most 8-bit microprocessors, which can only address 64 KB, the eZ80 can address 16 MB without a Memory Management Unit."

Might also be interesting for hobbyists wishing to build a super-CP/M machine, or maybe revive the MSX, that other CP/M derivative of Microsoft, a Z80-based home computer standard which never really made it to the US but became quite popular in Japan and Europe... but that is a whole 'nother story of its own.

Re:use in an embedded system

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I doubt it very much. The thing is embedded systems run on various CPUs.

If you have got a Mobile, or Handy in US speak, then you probably run software from my former company, written not in assembler but C.

For requirements on a lower level of sophistication there have been systems out there for many years by now. In short, why bother, although no doubt it is of some historical value.

Re:use in an embedded system

[Ian Pointer]

"The eZ80 executes Z80 code four times faster than traditional Z80s at the same clock speed, and can operate at speeds up to 50 MHz"

Forget CP/M, this means we can have a 50MHz Spectrum 8-).

The Freshest Evil

[hal200]

(Enter smarmy marketroid. Linus Torvalds typing at his PC in the background.)

Here at Evil Inc., we're always on the lookout for the freshest evil money can buy. To that end, we've replaced Linus's 2.5 Kernel Tree with CP/M...Let's see if he notices! ;)

(Focus on Linus at his PC)

"What the?!? What happened to the VM?!? Wait a minute! This isn't my OS! DAMN YOU GREG KILDALL!!!!!"

(Cut back to marketroid. Background switches between images of Linux developers screaming after installing 2.5.1-evil-herring)

Don't you just love the smell of steaming hot Evil in the morning? I know I do! Mmmm! Mm! Refreshing!

This message has been brought to you by the fine folks at Evil Incorporated.

Re:CP/M stands for... (let's start a flame war)

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course this argument could be easily
countered by noting that PL/M (another DRI product) stands for: Programming Language for Microcomputers.

No

[jorbettis]

I realise no-one cares, but I'm going to say it anyway. CP/M stands for Control Program/Monitor. If it was Control Program for Microcomputers, it wouldn't have a slash.

The article refrenced the comp.os.cpm FAQ, which has this to say on the subject:

Q3: Does CP/M stand for anything?

There are at least three popular answers - Control Program for Microcomputers, Control Program for Microprocessors, and Control Program/Monitor. The issue is clouded by authors of popular CP/M books giving different answers. According to Gary Kildall (the author of CP/M), in response to a direct question on the PBS show "The Computer Chronicles" following Computer Bowl I, the answer is: Control Program for Microcomputers. This is also consistent with DRI documentation. See, for example, p. 4 of the DRI TEX manual.

I agree that your argument makes sense, but the authoritive souces say "Control Program for Microcomputers

Re:No

[sg_oneill]

Christ I remember having a screaming match in front of a first year lecture MANY moons ago with a lecturer who insisted it was "Control Program for Minicomputers". I was certain it was "Central Program for Microprocessors"

Heh... We where both wrong. Now I know what that bearded guy in the front row was grinnin 'bout.

Re:Erk erk

[Anonymous Coward]

Lickity, lick lick.

Coolness!

[MsWillow]

/me blows the dust off the old Zorba "portable", hauls out those ancient 5.25" floppies, and tries to remember how to run DDT and the assembler. :)

Gads, it's been too long! I grew up with CPM, and then MPM, ZCPR, Fidonet, MODEM7, all those oldies :) I even bought a used 10 meg HD from Randy, who said it had been used in his and Ward's BBS (one of many HDs they used over the years).

It's great to see that the source is now available (well, once the site recovers from the /. effect).

You k-whores are slacking

[ocelotbob]

All these posts and not one link to the actual site! You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

Anyway, the site looks very cool. Lots of interesting proggies, including full source to a shitload of programs.

I love the old school programs and programmers. Its simply amazing the stuff that they were doing with a 2 Mhz processor and 64k of RAM. I may even go ebaying to find a real system to run some of this stuff on, instead of simply emulating it.

Re:I'm sorry but I can't

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you imagine trying to clean the shit stains out of the System Operator's underwear after he heard you utter such nonsense?

Gay

[Anonymous Coward]

Not Funny - Crawl back in that ass, hear?

Hooray!

[x136]

Hooray! The Kaypro 10 will rise again! (And you road warriors can pull that Osborne 1 out of the closet.)

Re:Hooray!

[sinster]

God, I loved the Kaypro 10. My first professional programming gig was writing a BBS on the Kaypro 10, in assembly, with a Hayes Smartmodem (an actual Hayes Smartmodem, not a clone). That was a fun job. *sigh* Memories.

Re:Hooray!

[jmischel]

The Kaypro 10, if I remember correctly, was a 10 MHz 80286. An IBM AT clone. This was my first foray into PC-compatibles. Before the AT came out, my 8 MHz Z-80 running TurboDOS blew away any of the PClones.

I think you meant the Kaypro II--a blue steel box with a handle and fold-up keyboard. This box came out about 6 months after the Osborne I.

I still have my Osborne I, which I purchased for $1795 back in December of 1981. I pulled it out of the closet the other day just to marvel at how far we've come in 20 years. My little Kyocera phone/PDA (20 MHz, 8 MB) is five times as fast and has 128 times the memory. In fact, the Kyocera has enough RAM to hold the contents of 80 Osborne I diskettes.

wtf

[Anonymous Coward]

8=========D ~~~~~ D:

I like john katz

cough sputter

It's Evil!!!

[Leif_Bloomquist]

From the article:

In an interesting sidenote to CP/M development, and as noted in "The History of MSDOS" written by Leven Antov

Didn't he also write the Satanic Bible?

I detect a theme here....

Re:It's Evil!!!

[nytes]

I think the author of the Satanic Bible was named Anton LeVey (sp?).

Free Dos

[Anonymous Coward]

This could be a really good thing for the free dos project depending on the licenses.

I just got to wonder.......

[the_2nd_coming]

Where would the world be today if IBM had made a deal for CP/M?
I almost die laughing when someone tells me that MS had revolutionised computing and did it all on there own....then I ell them that if IBM had picked CP/M rather than MS-DOS, then no one would care who Bill Gates is today....infact, I bet MS would either be defunct or be an ISV making software for a 32 bit CP/M derivitive with a GUI..........hey!! that would be a cool project..put a GUI on CP/M!!!

anyway, I don't think Digital woul be in the place that MS is currently since Digital had there hands in a lot of diffrent hardware. so actualy, if MS-DOS was not shiped on PCs in the 80's perhaps the "they" would have been right, perhaps we would all be using Unix today!

Re:I just got to wonder.......

[foonf]

Something also to consider:

If Microsoft had not gotten ahold of 86-DOS when IBM came around looking for an OS, might they have licensed XENIX (or a cut-down derivative thereof) to IBM? It certainly ran on 16-bit x86 architecture machines and Microsoft had it prior to 1981.

Moreover, if that had happened, widespread acceptance of 32-bit Unix workstations (based on, say, the 68k) might have occured in the 1980s, because everyone would be by then using Unix anyway on their PCs.

Re:I just got to wonder.......

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot GEM, CP/M's GUI. It is availbile under the GPL.

Re:I just got to wonder.......

[IntlHarvester]

Microsoft's plan at the time was in fact to migrate the userbase from DOS to Xenix (apparently DOS 2 supported Unix-like / path seperators and -switches).

MS's primary customer (IBM) had other plans however, and Xenix was dropped as the next gen PC OS in favor of OS/2.

Re:I just got to wonder.......

[the_2nd_coming]

god, to think, we were so close to using Unix and because IBM squashed it we were stuck with Windows :-p

Re:I just got to wonder.......

[Howie]

hey!! that would be a cool project..put a GUI on CP/M!!!

Do the whole thing with DR products - I believe GEM was open-sourced some time ago. I wouldn't be surprised if GEM was already ported to at least CP/M-86 and CP/M-68k...

Re:I just got to wonder.......

[Anonymous Coward]

GEM was ported to CP/M-68k years ago... It ran on the Atari ST.

Re:I just got to wonder.......

[Howie]

The ST didn't (generally) run CP/M-68k though. The GEM in ROM ran over TOS.

So (as my chemistry exam questions used to say): A is true and B is true but A does not imply B.

Or was TOS based on CP/M? I know the file-access TRAP #1 stuff in TOS/GEMDOS used the same function numbers as Int 21h in DOS for a lot of things (findfirst, findnext, open,close, read,write, etc), and that DOS in turn used some of those from CP/M - is that an incorrect lineage? Did TOS descend directly from CP/M?

MS-DOS strings end with a '$'?

[Philbert Desenex]

In Robert X Cringely's book "Accidental Empires", there's a section where Cringely has Gary Kildall ranting about how MSFT ripped off CP/M - the quote is something about how MS-DOS uses '$' to mark the end of a string, and at MSFT, not even Bill Gates knows why. Can someone paw through the DR-DOS code and find out why?

Re:MS-DOS strings end with a '$'?

[Anonymous Coward]

In basic, you "type" a variable by adding magic chars at the end of it:

MyStr$

is a string variable. At the time, at least on the Apple II and Commodore-Basic there are Strings and not-strings (numerics). String variable names end with "$", and numerics don't.

I think PC-Basic/GW-Basic added some other magic chars for ints and floats.

All are still supported in VB/VBA (but not VB.Net)...

Re:MS-DOS strings end with a '$'?

[halivar]

I believe he's talking about DOS assembly strings.

The interrupt function to display strings to the console did not use ASCIIz string like us C coders are used to; it used $ terminated strings instead.

MS-DOS may have emulated DR-DOS's assembly string handling to increase cross-compatibility with DR-DOS executables.

Re:MS-DOS strings end with a '$'?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the Ralf Brown MS-DOS interrupt guide:
INT 21 - DOS 1+ - WRITE STRING TO STANDARD OUTPUT
AH = 09h
DS:DX -> '$'-terminated string
Return: AL = 24h (the '$' terminating the string, despite official docs which
state that nothing is returned) (at least DOS 2.1-7.0 and
NWDOS)
Notes: ^C/^Break are checked, and INT 23 is called if either pressed
standard output is always the screen under DOS 1.x, but may be
redirected under DOS 2+
under the FlashTek X-32 DOS extender, the pointer is in DS:EDX
SeeAlso: AH=02h,AH=06h"OUTPUT"

Re:MS-DOS strings end with a '$'?

[Monte]

In basic, you "type" a variable by adding magic chars at the end of it:

He's not talking about BASIC string variables, he's talking about OS system messages - they used dollar signs to mark the termination of the string, thusly:

Abort, Retry, Ignore?$

No, I have no idea why. I guess we'd need a ouija board to find out.

Re:MS-DOS strings end with a '$'?

[simm_s]

It is well known that Gates added CP/M compatiablity in MS-DOS to gain instant market share. Wordstar and other popular CP/M applications could easily be ported to MS-DOS.

If I am not mistaken Wordstar was converted by changing one line in assembly maybe the int 20h->int 21h call.

Brillant move on MSFT's part.

Final chapter???

[Anonymous Coward]

The hell you say, I'm going to start submitting patches.

Re:Uh Hello???

[Monte]

We've got another little OS that kicks the shit out of DR-DOS and CP/M... It's called Linux.

Y'all let us know when you've got it ported to a 64k 8088, mmmkay?

New life for C128

[SomeoneGotMyNick]

Does this mean I can FINALLY upgrade the CP/M for my Commodore 128?

Lately, the Z-80 CPU in there only gets to boot the machine and never does any other computing.

-----

Re:New life for C128

[mvdwege]

I know you tried to be funny, but you are actually wrong. The Z80 in the C128 doesn't boot the machine. The C128 is actually a dual-processor machine: its main processor is a 6510 (a 6502 with a built-in I/O port). The Z80 must be specifically switched on, and when it is, it starts executing the CP/M BIOS and boots CP/M from a floppy.

Mart (who hacked on one of those things)

Re:New life for C128

[Zagadka]

Actually, the 128 had an 8502. The Commodore 64 had a 6510. The 8502 was basically a 6510 with an MMU, I believe.

And I do remember reading something about the Z80 being used in the start-up process of the 128, in addition to being used for CP/M. So I think the original poster was correct -- if he isn't running CP/M then his Z80 only does one thing, which is to help boot up the machine.

Re:New life for C128

[mvdwege]

No, the MMU was a seperate chip. You are right though, the processor and the special chips (VIC and SID) in the C128 were all 85xx numbers. The difference was in the voltages being used to drive them I believe.

And I am quite sure that the Z80 wasn't turned on until you put in a CP/M boot disk. The regular way the C128 booted was by starting the kernal startup routine over jump vector 0xFFFE (IIRC that is the standard reset vector for a 65xx derivative. I could be mixing it up with the NMI though). The C128 kernal was no different from the original PET kernal as used from the PET series onwards, except for a few extra functions, such as PRIMM, and of course it could handle burst speeds on the serial IEEE bus it used for its disk drives.

I really liked those Commodore machines. They had a nice clean design, and were easy to hack around with. Taught me a lot of basic computer knowledge that did.

Mart

How can I contact you if you're an Anonymous Cowar

[Anonymous Coward]

d (stupid subject line length limit)? Of course, I'm one too, but I never asked anybody to contact me...

Caldera's genius in buying DR Dos

[John Harrison]

Caldera had to have one of the more innovative methods of funding their company that I've heard of.

They bought the rights to DR Dos and then sued Microsoft for having using dirty tactics to limit the success of DR Dos back in the late 80s and early 90s. This was after DR Dos itself had been irrelevant for several years.

Caldera won something like $250,000,000 (I am too lazy to look up the exact figure) and besides a bunch of lawyers that got rich, Caldera got funding for their company.

So I guess that since Caldera purchased DR Dos simply in order to sue Microsoft, there is no reason to not open it now.

Re:Caldera's genius in buying DR Dos

[Raven667]

That's not entirely true. Caldera did purchase the assets of Digital Research from Novell, and begain a lawsuit against Microsoft, and settled for ~$250M. They must have needed the money badly because they settled, even though their case seemed very strong and an eventual win almost guaranteed. During this time Lineo (nee Caldera) did sell embedded solutions based on the DR-DOS code base. They also purchased the Arachne web browser for DOS, ported it to their Linux offering and sold it as DR-WebSpider. At the time they sold both DR-DOS and Linux based embedded packages, targeting the Kiosk market. They also made the source to DR-DOS (Caldera OpenDOS) available for the first release or two but closed it back up due to lack of interest, the difficulty of getting the build environment setup and business reasons.

DR-DOS lives on as the bootstrap for Novell Netware and I'm sure that there were a few other clients for embedded DOS (IIRC Kavouras used it, I can't remember others). DR-DOS, AFAIK, is still available for download and personal use, and Caldera has packaged it for use with DOSEmu. So while they did use DR-DOS for the lawsuit money (A perfectly valid and appropriate lawsuit if there ever was one) they also based the beginnings of their embedded offerings on it. Lineo is one of the better embedded companies right now, gunning for Wind River's marketshare, they are not going away.

Further DR-DOS history links

• http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~kkoster/micro soft/caldera.html
• http://www2.gol.com/users/joewein/dri.html

Your sig

[Anonymous Coward]

Please tell me the horrendous spelling your .sig is part of the joke, and not genuine.

running cpm

[frankmu]

sigh. i remember running cpm because i needed to use a decent wordprocessor (Wordstar)for college. i picked up a cpm card from an obscure computer company in belluvue, wa (microsoft). it ran on my apple II. talk about convergence.

Re:running cpm

[Anonymous Coward]

What goes around comes around, they say... I also remember trying to get a decent terminal emulator for my DOS machine so I could access a real Unix machine way back when... maybe that's some sort of indicator as well? :-)

Re:running cpm

[Kymermosst]

The Z-80 softcard was one of THE coolest products for an Apple II. I have one, even the original documentation and diskettes.

Re:running cpm

[Anonymous Coward]

It was also one of Microsoft's first hardware products.

Re:running cpm

[Anonymous Coward]

it was also why IBM asked MS for an OS - they thought MS had written CP/M since they manufactured a z80 card.

Huh?

[Free Bird]

Actually I already had the sources of some of Gary's earliest CP/M versions. Allegedly they weren't much of an OS yet, but it was definitely source code (in PL/M, and it didn't look like an OS at all - it looked more like a stupid game from a 13 year-old 31337 h4x0r). But it's definitely nice to see the DR-DOS sources, for comparison with MS-DOS;)

One must notice, however, that it's hardly possible to write, for instance, a fdisk that's worse than the one for MS-DOS, source-wise...

Ideal for old games ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a bunch of old msdos games (Themepark, Command and Conquer stuff like that). The freedos operating system has no emm386 (as far as i know), and dr-dos appears to have it. So yippee and thanks Lineo, i can finally use a opensource os to run my old games on :)

(I'm getting a pile of old games, so this comes in handy. Plus i don't think my old msdos installation floppies still work.)

Time to start a Kernel Cousin CP/M?

[halivar]

First up: elf loading!

jk

(Unless you really think it's a good idea.)

(Then not jk.)

Thoughts upon the parsing of the code

[jabber01]

[code]
10 RUN DOS
.
.
[code]

Hmmm, so Microsoft swiped this, and evolved it, and now all MS OSes are based on it? Interesting...

[more code]
.
.
10000 X = Random(256)
.
.
[mode code]

I wonder if any of this ancient legacy stuff is still around in the new versions of Windows..

[even more code]
.
.
20000 IF( X = 128)
20001 GOTO 50000
20002 ELSE
20003 GOTO 10000
[even more code]

What an odd piece of code.. I wonder what it does.

[end of code]
.
.
49999 END DOS
50000 CRASH DOS
[end of code]

FreeDOS, and some random thoughts

[cr@ckwhore]

FreeDOS has been an interesting and successful project. Its kernel based. Now that DR-DOS is open, it'll be interesting to see what kind of projects and distros become of DR-DOS. DR-DOS is closer to *real* MS-DOS than FreeDOS. Does this mean that perhaps FreeDOS will be pushed aside for preference of DR-DOS, in such arenas as DOSEMU support of legacy applications? Just some points to think about. I'm sure FreeDOS isn't going away anwyay, because it rocks as much as DR-DOS, as much as DOS can rock.

Cool stuff.

Re:Uh Hello???

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't possibly be using such an underpowered chip. Does Intel still produce them?

Finally!

[ryanr]

Now I no longer have to pay the CP/M tax, and I can continue writing software for a FREE operating system.

Where acutally IS the the source??

[Lispy]

It is nice to read that it is freely available now (its been about time).
But i havent seen any hints where I can actually find the code. Any known links??

Lispy

Re:Where acutally IS the the source??

[cr@ckwhore]

The CPM source can be downloaded from http://www.cpm.z80.de

CLARIFICATON, DR-DOS is not OPEN, however the source is for sale if you'd like to purchase it.

Re:Uh Hello???

[Sj0]

We've got another little OS that kicks the shit out of DR-DOS and CP/M... It's called Linux.

I'd agree with you if Linux was half as easy as DOS (1. Plug in driver install disk 2.type a:Install 3. follow onscreen instructions) or if you could run linux on my old TRS-80, 8088, 286, coco3(TRS-80 Color Computer 3), or run half the number of applications available DOS under Linux, or if the bootup time for Linux or Windows was even twice what it was for DOS. DOS is even rock solid stable, especially when we are talking about protected mode apps. The apps may crash, but pmode apps will rarely take the system down, and a lot of regular apps had less to worry about, so they are inherently less buggy. If they did crash, nobody comes close to the swift bootups under DOS, so it doesn't matter as much as when an operating system which takes 5 minutes (or even 30 seconds) to boot up.

DOS has stayed fairly recent because of these things(or in spite of them), and there is even several web browsers (my favourite web browser for DOS is Arachne) for it, in spite of the obstacles faced when coding TCP/IP applications for DOS.

I find the best part though, is that DOS is a de facto cross platform standard. Many Operating Systems can run dos applications either natively or thorugh an emulator or VDM.

Now I'm going to stop fanboy-ing DOS, and get back into the real world. :)

Re:Uh Hello???

[Cro Magnon]

I've heard rumors of people who are still using 286's. If true, there may be some poor unfortunate soul using an 8088.

Feeding the Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't resist. Tell me, fine sir. How do you REALLY feel about Lineo's release of the CP/M source code?

I am sure your particular insights will be deep, thoughtful and have a profound impact upon the daily lives of each and every Slashdot reader who has the courage bring themselves to face the daring, and ineffible truths which you shall so eloquently present to us.

By all means, MacDuff! Write on!

Freedos is more than small enough

[ColGraff]

The storage space and memory requirements are low enough that I really can't imagine an x86 or x86-clone based machine that would be unable to run freedos, but would still run CP/M. Remember, DOS was also designed to deal with severe memory constraints. Finally, I'd point out that there already are DOS embedded systems - CP/M users would have to reinvent the wheel ad infinitum.

DRDOS isn't open- read the newsforge article

[ColGraff]

You have to pay for the source, so I'd guess the answer to all of your questions is "NO!"

Re:DRDOS isn't open- read the newsforge article

[cr@ckwhore]

Yeah, I realized this after I dug deep into lineo looking for the source! I really want it badly, and I'm tempted to ask how much $$.

Re:Uh Hello???

[Monte]

I've heard rumors of people who are still using 286's. If true, there may be some poor unfortunate soul using an 8088.

I'm not thinking of desktops here (gawd forbid), but something you can carry around in your pocket. A PDA that could run (or emulate) DOS would kick some, IMHO. Lots of old utilities and games and apps you can run, and be perfectly productive in. Now if I can just get some wireless 'net feed hooked into a modem simulator, I could run - OPUS BBS! Yeah! Call my PDA and upload some software! :)

Short shameful confession: My current PDA, an HP Jornada 720, is running a DOS emulator and old DOS apps. So there.

Gary Kildall didn't snub IBM

[Dallas Truax]

This is a common fiction. Kildall actually had a deal with IBM, they simply went with MS because it was cheaper. When confronted with the fact that MS-DOS was possibly stolen, IBM offered Kildall a huge sum (at the time) of money, and Kildall accepted the appology, and the cash. This info from a highly reliable source, who attended Kildall's funeral.

I guess it makes it easier to swallow if we believe that Kildall missed the boat, rather than sold the farm.

Oh goodie!!!

[Kymermosst]

Now I can port CP/M-68K to my TI-89!

Or, perhaps I can ressurect the Z-80 softcard in my old Apple II if I can find the box it's in. (The softcard was one of M$'s truly innovative products... made before they were a monopoly.)

Hmmmm...

Re:Uh Hello???

[TigerPlish]

uh, didn't the trash-80 mod 16 run xenix?

hm...it did. wonder if linux could be clobbered to fit into that 10mb drum (optional) or 2 360k 8" floppies (std.)

;o)

Re:Uh Hello???

[Anthony]

I find the best part though, is that DOS is a de facto cross platform standard. Many Operating Systems can run dos applications either natively or thorugh an emulator or VDM. Running an emulator is stretching the the "cross platform" story too far. If you dont have an 8088/8086 or it's descendants, forget it.

Re:Uh Hello???

[Anonymous Coward]

ELKS.

not public domain...

[Anonymous Coward]

...unless they relinquish all copyrights.
they're giving you rights to do almost anything; not the same thing.

Cool! Now I can port it to...

[Anonymous Coward]

my Timex Sinclair 1000!

M$FT and CP/M

[Anonymous Coward]

Before it came up with DOS, Microsoft sold a piece of hardware for the Apple ][ called the Microsoft SoftCard, which had a Z-80 processor and ran CP/M 80 (or the CP/M clone ZCPR--which was "open" long ago.)

Users plugged this card into an Apple ][ slot and booted into CP/M from a floppy disk. It was (is?) useful for running WordStar and dBase II, which were not ported to Apple's disk operating system, but you could not run both at once.

The next step ought to be for the Regents of the University of California to open up the UCSD Pascal operating system source used in Apple Pascal. The source has value for students even if it has been superseded by other operating systems now.
Then all three of the original 8088 operating systems for the IBM PC would be open--FreeDOS, UCSD Pascal, and CP/M 86.

And your answer is:

[Kymermosst]

I don't even need to look this one up... I still remember it. It's because CP/M BIOS call #9 which writes a string to a device, requires '$' terminated strings. In C, by contrast, the standard library wants '\0' terminated strings.

The answer lies in that MS-DOS has a set of INT 20h (or is it 21h?) function calls, the first several are damn near identical to CP/M, including #9, which, for some reason, wants '$' as the end-of-string terminator.

That is why.

Easy, yet wrong answer.

[Philbert Desenex]

which, for some reason, wants '$' as the end-of-string terminator

Right. The point of Gary Kildall's griping was that Kildall knew the reason, and Bill Gates didn't. This, to Kildall, proved that MS-DOS had a shady heritage, possibly involving re-assembling (to 8086 object code) a disassembled CP/M (8080 object code).

There may have been some merit in Kildall's claims, given that he sued MSFT, and settled out-of-court.

DOSEMU

[LazyDawg]

What would it take to make a 32 bit DR-DOS distribution which could be stuck in a dos emulator like DOSEMU? If we could set that up, then who needs to dual-boot into Windows? Just run Windows on top of Linux whenever you want to use whatever applications.

Of course, we'd need to set up an emulation layer that Windows 95 sits on top of.

Re:DOSEMU

[Anonymous Coward]

> What would it take to make a 32 bit DR-DOS
> distribution which could be stuck in a dos
> emulator like DOSEMU?

There is a 32bit DR-Multiuser-DOS distribution called Real/32 see www.imsltd.com.

> If we could set that up, then who needs to
> dual-boot into Windows?

Real/32 can run Win 3.11 as one, or more, of its tasks and has done so for several years. Not Win95 though.

> Just run Windows on top of Linux whenever you
> want to use whatever applications.

Use Win4Lin to run Windows 95/98 as a Linux task. See www.realng.com to run DR-Multiuser-DOS programs (DOS and CP/M-86) on Linux.

compilers

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked at DRI for a while, and was cautioned not to tell anyone that they were using this particular PL/M compiler, but I can't see that it really matters at this point if I blab about it. I don't remember what the legal problem was -- whether they didn't have the compiler legally, or had it legally, but weren't paying for the right kind of license...? The copyright line on the now-copylefted source code says (c) 1977 Intel.

It's too bad that the only compiler that seems to be in this archive is the crufty PL/M compiler, which is written in all-caps, sparsely commented FORTRAN spaghetti code. DRI sold some really nice compilers, including a PL/I compiler that was written in PL/M. It would be really neat to see if the source code to that could be released as open source. It was apparently a pretty amazing feat of engineering. Even though they only did a certain subset of PL/I, it was still a huge language to be implementing on a machine with an 8-bit address space! The legend was that after the original author (Kildall?) got the bare bones of the compiler working, they hired a programmer to finish it up who was very talented but had an issue with alcohol. He would come in in the morning and start writing this incredibly complicated -- and 100% correct -- stuff, like self-modifying subroutines written in assembly language for speed. But he would have a six-pack of beer on his desk, and as he plowed through it, the code would get stranger, more sparsely commented, and harder to understand and maintain. Still bug-free, however! Supposedly you could look at a screenful of his code and tell instantly what time of day it was written.

It could be really cool to have the source to a real-world, production-quality compiler that wasn't written the way code is written today -- sloppy and bloated. And even though they loaded the various passes in one at a time as overlays, the whole thing can't really be that big, so it would be something that a mere human might be able to learn something by studying.

DRI's C compiler is another story. I never did much with it except as a user, but it was reputed to be pretty crummy. It was written by someone who later was hired by DRI, and he brought it to DRI with him.

too much RAM for back then

[lseltzer]

Lots of PCs were sold with 64K in them and had to run something. I'm sure you couldn't even boot Xenix without more than that, and you'd end up swapping floppies constantly.

Re:too much RAM for back then

[Anonymous Coward]

I had an Altos 586 box (called that because it had an 8086 processor and supported five users simultaneously on serial port-connected dumb terminals) that ran Microsoft Xenix. In 512K of RAM, which was a whopping lot when the machine was new.

Microsoft was a Unix (Xenix) company a long time ago. They got out because Gates grew tired with paying a royaty to AT&T for every copy of Xenix sold.

DesqView Was Good Stuff; There Were Others

[reallocate]

DesqView was really good software that delivered what it promised. I once worked in an office that stood up a little Novell LAN with about 15 workstations all running DesqView. We were in the editing business, and cranked out tens of thousands of words every day, using XyWrite -- another really good piece of DOS software -- as our editing tool. It worked, it was fast, and it was stable.

DOS was DOS, and it was limited by IBM's original PC design, but spme really good coders wrote a number of really good programs that ran on it. Anyone besides me still fell pangs of withdrawl because you can't use Magellan?

No, I was correct...

[Kymermosst]

I was attempting to be sarcastic with the "for some reason"

You can bet Gary had a valid claim, and EVERYONE who ever programmed in both CP/M and MS-DOS (as I did) knew it.

But, the main point of my answer was to the "why does the $ mean anything" implication of the original poster.

DRDOS already has a gui ...

[os2fan]

I thought DR-DOS already had a gui: ViewMax or something. I know I ran it, but I did not find it very useful.

Back in the days when DR-DOS was stomping around, it was fairly customary to provide a character-mode menu. The idea was to get rid of as much OS as possible, to give games the space to run. The funny thing was that the DOS menu that came with my computer was more capable than the Windows Program Manager on the then just released Win31.

People who wanted more capable menus usually went out and bought third-party stuff, which was more capable than either DOSSHELL or VIEWMAX.

But I found that the DR-DOS gui mode stuff nastier than character mode stuff, especially when it's run in a window.

File Management in DOS on the other hand spawned a lot of third party stuff that is still copied to this day: eg XTree, Norton Commander.

Re:DRDOS already has a gui ...

[Howie]

From a quick bit of research, I believe you are right, and ViewMax is based on GEM 3. However DRDOS != CP/M, and since CP/M dates back to 1976 or so and ran on 8080 systems initially, it definitely doesn't have a GUI :)

CP/M and UNIX

[Anonymous Coward]

This brings to my mind two contemporaneous memories. The first was working in the microcomputer lab at the business school at Texas Tech university in 1984 -- where they had about thirty DEC Rainbows running CP/M. And, that same semester, the computer center had just received a a box from AT&T running UNIX. I was allowed to piddle around on it for a few minutes. I remember being fascinated but baffled. Back in my dorm room, I had a Commodore VIC-20, with which I used a 300 baud modem to dial into Dow Jones News Retrieval.

Long time ago.

Confusion

[Cheetah86]

I'm confused

When CP/M enthusiast Tim Olmstead died from cancer on September 11 this year,

Did he die from cancer, or was he in the WTC centers on 9/11. (Or was it just a coincedence that he died on the same day as that tragic event)

Re:Confusion

[mph]

There are about 6,000,000,000 people living on the earth. If they live about 75 years, the average daily death rate is about 220,000 per day. While the attacks were horrible, the "everyday" causes of death still dominated. Even among US citizens, non-terrorism deaths would be a few times larger than the terrorist fatalities.

So, if the article says he died of cancer, why on earth would you ask whether he died of cancer or the attacks?

Re:Confusion

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Tim just happened to die that same day -- no connection to the WTC. He had been ill for a while.

DR never had much business sense

[John Jorsett]

I used to work for the U.S. Navy, and we once negotiated with DR for rights to embed a custom version of CP/M in one of our systems. After months of painful haggling, we finally gave up when they wanted many many thousands of dollars (I dimly recollect in the neighborhood of $100K) for the source code, and just wrote what we needed for a fraction of what they were asking. They could have had a significant amount of money plus per-platform license fees, but instead chose to piss us off. Idiots.

Gates did?

[fm6]

It is well known that Gates added CP/M compatiablity in MS-DOS

Added? It was never any secret that MS-DOS (or QDOS, as it was known, before MS bought it from Tim Patterson) was a CP/M clone. Patterson simply used a CP/M manual as his design template. Problem is, Patterson had no understanding of the concepts behind the API. Which is why MS-DOS never really had good support for device management or multitasking.

Dr-Dos pricing

[josh drvsh]

$30.00 USD per individual copy
5 pack $149.75 USD
10 pack $280.00 USD

Snafu?

[WowTIP]

From article:

...Accounts differ about what happened to situation normal, all fucked up that deal...

Can somebody please explain?

DR-DOS _was_ free, once

[Taco Cowboy]

And I did downloaded source code for DR-DOS under the ABSOLUTELY NO-STRING ATTACHED condition.

Now... my question is - can I distribute the source to others?

Re:DR-DOS _was_ free, once

[Kaiwen]

I did downloaded source code for DR-DOS under the ABSOLUTELY NO-STRING ATTACHED condition

I'm looking at the source code right now. The license that comes with my copy reads as follows:

PART IV -- TERMS APPLICABLE TO SOURCE CODE GRANT

GRANT. Caldera grants you a non-exclusive license to use the Software in source code form free of charge for personal, non-commercial use. The Software in source code form may also be used for commercial development purposes, provided a license is obtained from Caldera before any products or derivative works are shipped for commercial gain that utilize the Software , its components or derivative works.

You're also granted the right to produce derivate works, and to redestribute either the original source, or the source of your derivative product, provided they're for non-commercial use, and provided all modifications are "provided back to Caldera". Commercial use of the source code requires the purchase of a separate license.

Doesn't look much like a "no-strings-attached" license to me.

BTW, the source code was for the DR-DOS kernel only (and only version 7.02, at that). Source to the utilities was not included.

Yeah, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your lecturer was closer to the truth. :)

Concurrent PC DOS

[Tony-A]

To add another point to the lineage.
From Concurrent PC DOS manual dated September 1984

Concurrent release 3.2 is a multitasking operating system that allows you to run both PC DOS and CP/M-86 applications simultaneously. Concurrent supports major popular applications--such as Lotus 1-2-3, dBASEII, WordStar, and MultiPlan Worksheet--and lets you run up to four interactive applications at once.

... supports up to four floppy-disk drives and two hard-disk drives (CP/M or PC DOS formatted). ... can make full use of up to 640 kilobytes of memory

hmmmm...

[_ph1ux_]

forgive me if thsi has already been stated - but:

so if cp/m is open source - and *ALL* of MSFTs nifty little products are based on it, then would it make WINDOWS OPEN SOURCE?!!!

(I know it wouldnt - but the irony that the software that the MS empire is built upon is now open source just makes me smile....)

CP/M

[Anonymous Coward]

Wooooo hoooooo! now I can finally use all those Z-80's that I have in the attic again! Now if I could just find my Sybex Z-80 Recipies book...

Or

I could actually use the CP/M card in my Apple ][

Oh man, the possibilities are endless...

*woooff* *wakes up from late 1970's acid flashback*

Ummm, don't we have another Open source OS that's much more powerful now?

That's sad he died of cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

On Sept. 11, even.

Re:Uh Hello???

[frankmu]

my father-in-law created a db for his small business using the old heathkit z-80. although he has a pentium III, he has found an emulator so he can continue to use his original db. i think it ran cpm too... we have interesting family get togethers.

been there, looked at it

[Anonymous Coward]

"although the site is /.'ed, I hope the CP/M 68K source is there, too."

Indeed it is, as is the manuals for CP/M 68K user, developer, etc.

Taste and enjoy!!!

Re:Uh Hello???

[jerkface]

SCO Xenix 286, maybe. Linux and *bsd are out of the question.

Z80 Boot Up (OT)

[SomeoneGotMyNick]

Jim Brain (we all know who he is, right?) had once published a Commodore Trivia question pool. In this archived segment of trivia questions, Read question 216 and 217 for stated fact.

Re:Z80 Boot Up (OT)

[mvdwege]

Ok, that refreshed my memory indeed. The Z80 starts, the boot rom checks for a CP/M boot floppy, and if it doesn't find it, it returns control to the 8502, which proceeds by running through the kernal initialisation/reset routine.

Mart (don't tell me I still got it wrong?)

Facts, and your lack of them

[Anonymous Coward]

and let's face it, linux/unix simply was not there.

Really?

Tell that to my Z80 based ALTOS multi-user box that could run either multi-user CP/M or System III Unix.