Comment on Microsoft open sources MS-DOS 4.0
MudMan@fedia.io 2 months agoWell, the two relevant questions there are: A) is it?, and B) so what?
It's not like you're not allowed to provide paid support for a piece of open source software.
At this point I'm not sure what portion of the difference between 4 and 6.22 is relevant or unknown. That's a pretty well explored platform. I guess this way FreeDOS stays relevant a bit longer? Maybe? It's not like it isn't trivial to pull a copy of 6.22. It was trivial when it was new.
Hotzilla@sopuli.xyz 2 months ago
If 6.22 is used in military/banking/insurance/emergy systems deep in the critical infrastructure, you don’t want attackers finding weakness in OS that is not patchable.
MudMan@fedia.io 2 months ago
Making it open source seems to me like the solution to that problem, not the cause. If there is a vulnerability in DOS 6.22 people probably know about it by now. If you're using it for something critical you probably would have an easier time patching it with full access.