Mail Archives: opendos/1997/08/25/01:00:07
wfp wrote:
>
> At 10:03 97-08-24 -0600, Erik Ratcliffe wrote:
> >On Thu, Aug 21, 1997 at 01:29:27PM -0400, wfp wrote:
> >> >+++ We have no current plans to release more source code. OpenDOS is the
> >> only commercial DOS with kernel source code openly available. If we were to
> >> stop selling it or developing it then this could happen...
> >>
> >> Sure would have been nice if you folks had been more upfront about this
> >> months ago, instead of stringing us along all this time.
> >>
> >> Or is this a recent change in policy, and if so, why??
> >
> >As I said to Kenneth, the complete source code to the operating system HAS
> >been released. You're getting applications and utilities totally confused
> >with operating systems. The operating system does not include editors,
> >graphic shells, NetWars, etc. It contains... well, and operating system.
> >
>
> This is simply not true. The original announcements clearly indicated that
> the utilities and drivers code would indeed be released, not just the
> kernel.
As one who's been on the opendos mailing list since its pre-delorie
days, I can offer my recollections to substantiate what Bill is claiming
here.
Caldera did indeed announced that the full source of what used to be
Novell DOS would be released to the internet. Although no details were
given at the time, most people would assume (based on their Linux
experience) that this means that sometime during 1997, OpenDOS, as
Caldera renamed the Novell product, will be a user "make-able" operating
system for the 8086/80286, just like Linux is a user make-able operating
system for the 80386 and above.
When Gene Bickel announced the source release for the three OpenDOS
kernel files back in January, it is clearly indicated that the source
files of the OpenDOS operating system will be released in a
"per-package" basis, IBMBIO.SYS, IBMDOS.SYS, and COMMAND.COM being the
first "package". The implication is extremely clear that more
"packages" will follow.
> Certainly a great deal of discussion on the mailing lists has gone
> on which has assumed that this code would be released as well. No one from
> Caldera has ever contradicted that, officially or unofficially, until this
> very moment.
I can also substantiate this claim.
> Furthermore, it is completely disingenuous of you to claim that the
> utilities aren't part of the OS. I would grant that SOME of the programs
> included in the binary distribution MIGHT under some circumstances be
> considered not vital parts of the OS, but most of them clearly are.
There are seceral ways to define an operating system. Since we are
talking about an operating system "product" that claims to be a
replacement of the MS-DOS oeprating system, why don't we use the MS-DOS
"product" as a reference and say, any DOS compatible operating system
product consists of "that which enables Joe Smith to run WordPerfect for
DOS (or any other DOS application) without having to buy a copy of
MS-DOS"?
In other words, an MS-DOS compatible operating system must roughly
approximate the three floppies you get when you spend your $149 for an
MS-DOS box.
The Caldera binary release of OpenDOS in January of 1997 would match
this definition quite micely.
[On the other hand, you could also define operating systems in such a
way that even COMMAND.COM is not part of the operating system, in which
case we should all be eternally grateful that Caldera even released the
source for COMMAND.COM :) ]
> >WordPerfect runs on DOS, but that doesn't make it part of DOS. It's just an
> >application. There's where the difference lies. OpenDOS the operating
> >system is available in source code form. That's what was promised, that's
> >what we delivered.
>
> This is a spurious argument (see above). If Caldera has changed its policy,
> and if your earlier words can be taken at face value, it has, then you
> should bloody well admit it, and at the very least apologize for stringing
> us along all these months!
If indeed Caldera will not release any further OpenDOS sources, then I
agree with Bill, and yes, an apology from Caldera for "stringing people
along" is in order.
> I now have a very bad taste in my mouth where Caldera is concerned. And,
> believe me, I will let people know this.
To be fair, their Linux products are good products.
> I suppose I'm easily conned by organizations that appear to be "different"
> from the run-of-the-mill American corporations like Microsoft. Obviously,
> as soon as you guys got a few bucks in your pockets you changed your tune.
> Well, I'm really sick and tired of the bullshit, and I suspect, and
> sincerely hope, I won't be such an easy mark next time.
Although I would never complain about anything I get for free, Caldera
need to be reminded that OpenDOS without a fully make-able source will
be treated by the internet community as something just like MS-DOS.
And from my experience the binary OpenDOS product would not compare
favorably against MS-DOS.
--
Weiqi Gao
weiqigao AT a DOT crl DOT com
- Raw text -