Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Search:  
Back to index page
Thread view  Board view
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
07.11.2022, 00:31
 

nuclear war (Miscellaneous)

Post reply

In a discussion elsewhere (hercules-380), I was told
that in a nuclear war, it is possible that all
industrial cities in the world will be nuked, so that
they don't have a competitive advantage.

And that the only people who will still be able to
manufacture processors will be universities, and
they will only be able to do 8-bit computers, not
16-bit.

So there will be a time delay before new 16-bit
computers become available.

In addition, the 16-bit computers, when available,
may or may not go through the same historical
process, ie segmentation. It can't be ruled out.

So, DOS really may be "ain't dead".

As such, if anyone else has nothing better to do,
let's standardize 16-bit segmentation computing.

It doesn't necessarily need to be 8086.

And it's probably possible for the same source
base to be used for future 32-bit programming.

I have made an opening offer/POC already, but it is
not set in stone.

BFN. Paul.
Rugxulo

Homepage

Usono,
07.11.2022, 09:55

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> And that the only people who will still be able to
> manufacture processors will be universities, and
> they will only be able to do 8-bit computers, not
> 16-bit.
>
> So there will be a time delay before new 16-bit
> computers become available.
>
> In addition, the 16-bit computers, when available,
> may or may not go through the same historical
> process, ie segmentation. It can't be ruled out.
>
> So, DOS really may be "ain't dead".
>
> As such, if anyone else has nothing better to do,
> let's standardize 16-bit segmentation computing.
>
> It doesn't necessarily need to be 8086.
Although I think it's unlikely, I really don't hate 8086 and think there are plenty of good compilers for it.

But it's more likely they would reproduce RISC-V, Motorola 68k, or SH2.
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
09.11.2022, 07:35

@ Rugxulo
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> > And that the only people who will still be able to
> > manufacture processors will be universities, and
> > they will only be able to do 8-bit computers, not
> > 16-bit.
> >
> > So there will be a time delay before new 16-bit
> > computers become available.
> >
> > In addition, the 16-bit computers, when available,
> > may or may not go through the same historical
> > process, ie segmentation. It can't be ruled out.
> >
> > So, DOS really may be "ain't dead".
> >
> > As such, if anyone else has nothing better to do,
> > let's standardize 16-bit segmentation computing.
> >
> > It doesn't necessarily need to be 8086.
>
> Although I think it's unlikely, I really don't hate 8086 and think there
> are plenty of good compilers for it.
>
> But it's more likely they would reproduce RISC-V, Motorola 68k, or
> SH2.
I'm not saying you're wrong.

What I'm saying is that segmentation can't be ruled out.

And it may go via that route for the same reason the 8086 went through that route - to maintain compatibility with an 8-bit CPU that is currently in active use running an OS like CP/M.

In fact, after sorting out the standards for an MSDOS-like OS designed to run on 16:16 (with an eye to 32-bit flat), we should probably standardize on a proposal for 8-bit CPUs, to prepare for the 16:16.

Note that there was a bridge from MSDOS 1.0 to MSDOS 2.0. MSDOS 2.0 introduced a radical new API.

I personally haven't traditionally concerned myself with bridges.

But I do note that when people didn't have proper bridges (68000, OS/2, Itanium), they tended to fail.

As much as people turn their noses up at 8086 segmentation and point to the 68000, that's not what happens in real life.

Note that in real life I predicted that the Amiga was going to replace the PC because it was much better, and I personally made sure my C90-compliant programs ran on both MSDOS and the Amiga (I owned both).

But my personal philosophy, and my personal prediction, turned out to be total flops when it comes to what meatbags do.

Oh, I ran OS/2 2.0 for quite a while too, getting software to run on that. :-)
marcov

07.11.2022, 13:28

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> In a discussion elsewhere (hercules-380), I was told
> that in a nuclear war, it is possible that all
> industrial cities in the world will be nuked, so that
> they don't have a competitive advantage.
> And that the only people who will still be able to
> manufacture processors will be universities, and
> they will only be able to do 8-bit computers, not
> 16-bit.
And universities are not based in cities ? Weird kind of philosophy.

Anyway, I think I would take a bike, and bike to ASML. Agreed, that is more than twice as far (30min instead 20) than to the university, but still.

I also don't understand why you think that Universities strictly limit themselves to pre 1985 technology.

I think overall, the bulk of Dos usage was on 32-bit capable hardware.
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
09.11.2022, 07:43

@ marcov
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> > In a discussion elsewhere (hercules-380), I was told
> > that in a nuclear war, it is possible that all
> > industrial cities in the world will be nuked, so that
> > they don't have a competitive advantage.
>
> > And that the only people who will still be able to
> > manufacture processors will be universities, and
> > they will only be able to do 8-bit computers, not
> > 16-bit.
>
> And universities are not based in cities ? Weird kind of philosophy.
My understanding is that there are universities in cities that don't have an industrial base that is subject to nuking. I'm currently in (rural) Philippines, and according to what I was told in hercules-380, the two Philippines cities subject to nuking are only Manila and Quezon. My provincial capital is Legazpi, and there are definitely universities there, because my in-laws go to universities in this province. Although I don't know if any of those can fabricate chips. Maybe we have to link up with Taiwanese universities - I have no idea.

So according to that theory of nuclear war, no-one is going to spend effort nuking every single city in the Philippines. Just the two that have some industrial capacity.

> Anyway, I think I would take a bike, and bike to ASML. Agreed, that is more
> than twice as far (30min instead 20) than to the university, but still.
>
> I also don't understand why you think that Universities strictly limit
> themselves to pre 1985 technology.

I'm talking about fabricating new chips. I was told (and I can get you the link if you want, and ask for clarification), that they are the only people who can fabricate new CPUs, and they can only do very basic 8-bit CPUs.

I have no idea (and I don't think anyone else knows with any confidence either), how long it will take to get up to 16-bit CPUs.

> I think overall, the bulk of Dos usage was on 32-bit capable hardware.
That could be a long time coming. Or maybe it will be a short time - no-one knows for sure.

My question is - if it is a long time, and 16-bit segmented architecture ends up being a thing, yet again, what do you suggest?

BFN. Paul.
marcov

09.11.2022, 20:18

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> My question is - if it is a long time, and 16-bit segmented architecture
> ends up being a thing, yet again, what do you suggest?
Do what i already do daily now. Keep on programming Microchip dspic33<x> :-) It is a segmented 16-bit Harvard architecture.

Anyway, the whole scenario is so absurd and with so many variables, that an answer to a 16-bit x86 only world would be likewise absurd.

Either some production capacity is saved, or Einstein was right and the WW IV will be fought with sticks and stones.

But suddenly an architecture that is convoluted and not in active production is resurrected again ? Nonsense.

More likely the ability to bring new designs in production is damaged, and they can only keep the production setup they have now. ..... non of which are 16-bit only x86.
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
09.11.2022, 23:25

@ marcov
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> > My question is - if it is a long time, and 16-bit segmented architecture
> > ends up being a thing, yet again, what do you suggest?
>
> Do what i already do daily now. Keep on programming Microchip dspic33<x>
> :-) It is a segmented 16-bit Harvard architecture.
>
> Anyway, the whole scenario is so absurd and with so many variables, that an
> answer to a 16-bit x86 only world would be likewise absurd.
It may not be x86, it may be 16-bit segmented with
a different instruction set.

> Either some production capacity is saved,
I'm specifically talking about the situation where
no production capacity is saved, it was deliberately
wiped out to prevent any country having a competitive
advantage in recovery.

> or Einstein was right and the WW
> IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
I don't know how you can possibly predict the future
with such accuracy that those are the only 2
possibilities.

Regardless, even if your crystal ball is so accurate,
I would then like to answer a hypothetical question.

What is an appropriate standard for a world, unlike
the guaranteed real world with only 2 choices, where
16:16 segmentation becomes a thing again.

> But suddenly an architecture that is convoluted and not in active
> production is resurrected again ? Nonsense.
It won't immediately be resurrected. Like I said, when
only universities (outside industrial cities) have the
ability to fabricate chips, and they are only capable
of fabricating 8-bit CPUs, it is 8-bit that will be
active production.

I don't know how long it will take to reach 16:16.

I just want to be ready for when it does. Even if
that is 5000 years.

I want to have the standards documented and code
written to that standard for people 5000 years from
now. I'll probably try to get my code punched on to
plastic cards to be machine-readable as well as on
commercially-produced CDROM and paper printout, and
a bare minimum guide on some piece of metal or
something like that.

> More likely the ability to bring new designs in production is damaged, and
> they can only keep the production setup they have now. ..... non of which
> are 16-bit only x86.
I'm not making any claim on what is "more likely".

Even if it is "less likely", or even if you can
guarantee it is non-existent, I'm interested in
the scenario where there is 16-bit x86 or even
16-bit some other instruction set (because you
don't know, that's why you need C90).

Or if you like, the same question another way -
what would have been a good standard to have in
the 1980s, to complement C90, to provide people
with more options than just MSDOS and 8086?

And specifically, what needed to exist so that the
Amiga would be a viable replacement for businesses
struggling with a 640k memory limit?

It may not be just language standardization, but
also build mechanisms that needed to exist, or
even culture changes.

But language standardization should be one of those
things, which would have at least made sure that
perfectly valid Amiga code was sitting there, and
just needed to be recompiled for the 68000 and
voila, decent business software.

BFN. Paul.
marcov

10.11.2022, 11:19

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

Well, the only thing I can say is that universities would simply make a linear 24 or 32-bit address space or use some other better addressing scheme to access 16+ quantities (e.g. by having wider addressing registers)

Keep in mind that the 16-bit x86 segment model is mostly due to legacy with CP/M, something that wouldn't matter after WW-III.

p.s. the dspic is a true 16-bit mpu. Most only have 28 or 56k, and those are already the more high ends. Recently a new CK breaks the 64k barrier, but that is a recent requirement. Self hosted compilers are therefore unlikely.
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
10.11.2022, 13:33

@ marcov
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> Well, the only thing I can say is that universities would simply make a
> linear 24 or 32-bit address space or use some other better addressing
> scheme to access 16+ quantities (e.g. by having wider addressing
> registers)
Universities won't be doing anything other than
producing 8-bit CPUs. It will require industry
to be formed to produce 16-bit CPUs.

> Keep in mind that the 16-bit x86 segment model is mostly due to legacy with
> CP/M, something that wouldn't matter after WW-III.

You don't know that. We don't know how long we
will remain on 8-bit CPUs for until industry
gets reestablished. It could be 100 years. If
the only CPUs for the last 100 years were 8-bit,
not necessarily 8080, what OS do you expect to
be run on them if not something like CP/M?

Whatever your answer is, that's the new legacy.

So when 16:16 finally arrives on the scene, people
will likely want to be able to run legacy code,
for the same reason they did up to now.

> p.s. the dspic is a true 16-bit mpu. Most only have 28 or 56k, and those
> are already the more high ends. Recently a new CK breaks the 64k barrier,
> but that is a recent requirement. Self hosted compilers are therefore
> unlikely.
SubC runs in small memory model, ie less than 128k.
At least until quite recently when I recompiled in
large memory model after more functionality was
added.

Self-hosted C compilers existed on 64k machines
already, they were just written with multiple
phases instead of self-contained like SubC.

That's my understanding, anyway.

>> Basically, if ISO had got together in the 1980s,

> Well, strictly it was, since it was approved by
> Ansi in 1989, and the ISO certification in 1990
> was a form of rubber stamping for this side of the pond.
Ok, sure. What I meant was if ANSI had gotten their
act together a bit earlier so that C90/C89 was more
like C80 or C83, something like that.

BFN. Paul.
tom

Homepage

Germany (West),
10.11.2022, 14:50

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

your scenario (we have to use 8/16 bit computers) is very unlikely to happen because:

people who have been killed by the nuclear blast no longer need computers.

all other people have one or more computers, both at home and in the office with no need to replace them soon at all; in particular not by obscure 16 bit computers that nobody can program.

they probably can even use the computers of their dead colleagues as computers are probably less susceptible to nuclear blast/fallout than people.

however, it could be problematic to find electricity to run your computer. maybe only compute when the sun shines or the wind blows;-)
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
10.11.2022, 15:13

@ tom
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> your scenario (we have to use 8/16 bit computers) is very unlikely to
> happen because:
>
> people who have been killed by the nuclear blast no longer need computers.
>
> all other people have one or more computers, both at home and in the office
> with no need to replace them soon at all; in particular not by obscure 16
> bit computers that nobody can program.
People buy new computers for a reason. As computers
fail, anyone who wants a new one, will only have
one choice - 8-bit CPU. Or to shoot their neighbor
and take his.

As time goes by, there will be no more neighbors to
shoot.

Anyhow, again, if you're 100% certain that there's
an infinite supply of neighbors to shoot, that's
fine, I'm not saying you're wrong.

But, as a hypothetical, if you are wrong, then can
we have a discussion of the 8 to 16 to 32 migration
path?

> however, it could be problematic to find electricity to run your computer.
> maybe only compute when the sun shines or the wind blows;-)
Yes, in the hercules-380 group I discussed solar power
as well, and based on their recommendation bought some
to try. It's tough to power even just my smartphone.

Luckily my smartphone now runs the beginning of MSDOS,
natively. The main thing I'm missing is sign-off on
the standards.

BFN. Paul.
tom

Homepage

Germany (West),
10.11.2022, 15:55

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> People buy new computers for a reason.
right. like running the most recent game in highest resolution, or running the most recent windows.

I don't see how an 8-bit CPU could ever fulfill such a reason.
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
10.11.2022, 15:27

@ tom
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> in particular not by obscure 16
> bit computers that nobody can program.
What do you mean by this? Why can't people
program 16 bit computers?

Thanks. Paul.
tom

Homepage

Germany (West),
10.11.2022, 15:58

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> > in particular not by obscure 16
> > bit computers that nobody can program.
>
> What do you mean by this? Why can't people
> program 16 bit computers?
I'm aware you missed this, but programmers today (mostly) learn to code in python, Perl, or javascr***. these languages aren't this widespread in 16-bit land.
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
10.11.2022, 16:22

@ tom
 

nuclear war

Post reply

>> People buy new computers for a reason.

> right. like running the most recent game in
> highest resolution, or running the most recent windows.
Or their old computer breaking.

I bought 4 old desktops recently, and all were working,
and running Windows 7.

One of them now no longer powers on, and another
doesn't boot from hard disk anymore, but I can
still boot PDOS from USB stick.

When the next 2 fail, what do you propose I replace
them with when the production lines have become
glass, but universities are still able to produce
some, and/or when industry starts to ramp up again?

Shooting the neighbors is like socialism - eventually
you run out of other people's money.

> I don't see how an 8-bit CPU could ever fulfill such a reason.
I happily used a Commodore 64 for years, and
I wouldn't say that I ever completely mastered it.

Other people managed to get a C compiler working
on it, I never did that, as one example.

> > > in particular not by obscure 16
> > > bit computers that nobody can program.
> >
> > What do you mean by this? Why can't people
> > program 16 bit computers?
>
> I'm aware you missed this, but programmers today (mostly) learn to code in
> python, Perl, or javascr***. these languages aren't this widespread in
> 16-bit land.
And what's preventing them from picking up C,
or the other languages available on the 8086?

Are you suggesting that programmers have
devolved to a point where they can't learn
new languages? Even if some of them have,
it's surely not all of them.

BFN. Paul.
marcov

11.11.2022, 11:09

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> > Well, the only thing I can say is that universities would simply make a
> > linear 24 or 32-bit address space or use some other better addressing
> > scheme to access 16+ quantities (e.g. by having wider addressing
> > registers)
>
> Universities won't be doing anything other than
> producing 8-bit CPUs. It will require industry
> to be formed to produce 16-bit CPUs.
Yeah, because universities do nothing but making 8-bit CPUs yet, and all industry only makes 16-bit+ CPUs (wouldn't be surprised that it is actually the other way around, no universities doing much with 8-bit now, and the industry still making them for washing machines and the like)

As said, the whole argument hangs together from these artificial border conditions that make the whole thing ludicrous. And then on top comes your weird POSIX obsession retrofitted onto Dos like it never was.

Again: total fantasy world.
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
12.11.2022, 07:11

@ marcov
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> > > Well, the only thing I can say is that universities would simply make
> a
> > > linear 24 or 32-bit address space or use some other better addressing
> > > scheme to access 16+ quantities (e.g. by having wider addressing
> > > registers)
> >
> > Universities won't be doing anything other than
> > producing 8-bit CPUs. It will require industry
> > to be formed to produce 16-bit CPUs.
>
> Yeah, because universities do nothing but making 8-bit CPUs yet, and all
> industry only makes 16-bit+ CPUs (wouldn't be surprised that it is actually
> the other way around, no universities doing much with 8-bit now, and the
> industry still making them for washing machines and the like)
I think you misunderstood what I said.

If the nuclear powers deliberately take out the industrial
cities, which they may well do, no-one knows, the only
people CAPABLE of manufacturing new CPUs will be
universities.

But universities (today), don't have a reason (or ability)
to manufacture the latest greatest CPUs. They have
rudimentary capability. They can manage 8-bit CPUs.

So, under the right nuclear war circumstances, the
universities will be the centre of attraction in the
recovering computer industry, as they will be at the
forefront of the field.

It is unclear where and how fast we will progress from
the new world of only-new-8-bit-cpus.

It may or may not transition through a 16:16 segmentation
phase. No-one knows for sure, although some people here
seem to think they or someone they know has an infallible
crystal ball.

I don't subscribe to crystal ball theories and leave my
options open.

BFN. Paul.
tkchia

Homepage

10.11.2022, 00:25

@ marcov
 

nuclear war

Post reply

Hello marcov,

> Do what i already do daily now. Keep on programming Microchip dspic33<x>
> :-) It is a segmented 16-bit Harvard architecture.
> Anyway, the whole scenario is so absurd and with so many variables, that an
> answer to a 16-bit x86 only world would be likewise absurd.
Well, to borrow a phrase from Jamie Zawinski:

(1) you see a programming problem M involving a dsPIC33 chip (or some such),

(2) and you think "I know, I'll write a self-hosted C compiler for the chip that runs on the same chip itself, so that I can solve my original problem M".

(3) Now you have two problems. :-D

Thank you!

---
https://gitlab.com/tkchia · https://codeberg.org/tkchia · 😴 "MOV AX,0D500H+CMOS_REG_D+NMI"
DosWorld

07.11.2022, 13:54
(edited by DosWorld, 07.11.2022, 14:49)

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> And that the only people who will still be able to
> manufacture processors will be universities, and
> they will only be able to do 8-bit computers, not
> 16-bit.
Here is 2 courses:
1. How to invent own simple CPU
2. How to invent (sort of) java for this CPU

https://www.nand2tetris.org/

Also, Soviet Union had pirate copy of 8080, 8086 and 80286 - seems it must be easy for lo-tech.

PS: Personal me, dwed is hidden into github's arctic code valult. So i am successful reproduce/reload 12ga technology and more worry about unavailable 9x21 (for my sub2000) on our civilian market :-D then worry about future cpu.:-D Life is short.

---
Make DOS great again!

Carthago delenda est, Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse.
tkchia

Homepage

07.11.2022, 15:33

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

Hello kerravon,

> As such, if anyone else has nothing better to do,
> let's standardize 16-bit segmentation computing.
> It doesn't necessarily need to be 8086.
> And it's probably possible for the same source
> base to be used for future 32-bit programming.
> I have made an opening offer/POC already, but it is
> not set in stone.
Well, to me the thing is this: If "let's standardize 16-/32-bit computing" is the answer, then what is the question?

I am pretty sure that, in a event of a nuclear war — or for that matter, a large-scale conventional war, or some other large-scale disaster — people who want/need computing power will want it for some concrete, practical purposes. What will these be?

Thank you!

---
https://gitlab.com/tkchia · https://codeberg.org/tkchia · 😴 "MOV AX,0D500H+CMOS_REG_D+NMI"
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
09.11.2022, 07:50

@ tkchia
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> Hello kerravon,
>
> > As such, if anyone else has nothing better to do,
> > let's standardize 16-bit segmentation computing.
> > It doesn't necessarily need to be 8086.
> > And it's probably possible for the same source
> > base to be used for future 32-bit programming.
> > I have made an opening offer/POC already, but it is
> > not set in stone.
>
> Well, to me the thing is this: If "let's standardize 16-/32-bit computing"
> is the answer, then what is the question?
>
> I am pretty sure that, in a event of a nuclear war — or for that matter,
> a large-scale conventional war, or some other large-scale disaster —
> people who want/need computing power will want it for some concrete,
> practical purposes. What will these be?

I asked that exact question, and here is the answer:

https://groups.io/g/hercules-380/message/1098

I have my own answer too - I don't really care what computers are used for. I know that early computers with very little memory were used for designing aircraft, which apparently requires lots of calculations to be done.

Maybe no-one will be interested in aeroplanes this time around - maybe we already have designs - I have no idea - I'm not an aeroplane expert.

I'm pretty sure someone will have some application for computers, no matter how little memory available or how slow the CPU is, or even if it is made of valves.

Of course you will still be able to have cage matches for the surviving computers. But as they fail, and can't be replaced, and the only new computers available for sale are 8-bit ones, you may need to make tough choices. Not everyone is capable of winning a cage match. That's my target market.

But I'm thinking ahead a bit - to 16-bit. I'll go back to 8-bit after I've sorted out 16-bit to my satisfaction.

BFN. Paul.
tkchia

Homepage

09.11.2022, 17:55

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

Hello kerravon,

> > Well, to me the thing is this: If "let's standardize 16-/32-bit
> computing"
> > is the answer, then what is the question?
> > I am pretty sure that, in a event of a nuclear war — or for that
> matter,
> > a large-scale conventional war, or some other large-scale disaster —
> > people who want/need computing power will want it for some concrete,
> > practical purposes. What will these be?

> I have my own answer too - I don't really care what computers are used for.
> I know that early computers with very little memory were used for designing
> aircraft, which apparently requires lots of calculations to be done.
But how do you get from "we might want to do lots of calculations to design aircraft" to "let's standardize 16-/32-bit computing"? How exactly does this "standardization" help anything at all?

Standardization might be useful, methinks, in times of peace when people are eating tofu (to borrow a turn of phrase). In times of war or nuclear disaster, not so much.

Thank you!

---
https://gitlab.com/tkchia · https://codeberg.org/tkchia · 😴 "MOV AX,0D500H+CMOS_REG_D+NMI"
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
09.11.2022, 18:15

@ tkchia
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> Hello kerravon,
>
> > > Well, to me the thing is this: If "let's standardize 16-/32-bit
> > computing"
> > > is the answer, then what is the question?
> > > I am pretty sure that, in a event of a nuclear war — or for that
> > matter,
> > > a large-scale conventional war, or some other large-scale disaster —
> > > people who want/need computing power will want it for some
> concrete,
> > > practical purposes. What will these be?
>
> > I have my own answer too - I don't really care what computers are used
> for.
> > I know that early computers with very little memory were used for
> designing
> > aircraft, which apparently requires lots of calculations to be done.
>
> But how do you get from "we might want to do lots of calculations to design
> aircraft" to "let's standardize 16-/32-bit computing"? How exactly does
> this "standardization" help anything at all?
I like to code to a standard for my own code.

Normally that is C90, and I have gone an awful
long way with just C90.

But at the end of the day, I need to be able
to do a "dir", and that involves, for me,
at least currently, using PosGetDTA, PosFindFirst
and PosFindNext.

And although C90 can hide lots of things from a
programmer, as a C90 library author myself, I
don't get hidden from that, so even though the
need for "dir" doesn't exist in C90, I do need
PosOpenFile.

Maybe I'm the only person in the world who wants
a standard API, but I'd be surprised if that was
the case. Why did people come up with POSIX if
no-one needs a standard OS interface?

I can't use POSIX myself, because that is full of
crap like fork() which is not suitable for a low
end machine like MSDOS ran on.

> Standardization might be useful, methinks, in times of peace when people
> are eating tofu
> (to
> borrow a turn of phrase). In times of war or nuclear disaster, not
> so much.
We're currently at what counts as "peace".

And I'm interested for historical reasons anyway.
We were at nominal "peace" in the 1980s which is
when this should have been done. The ARM CPU was
in fact available in 1985. The computers that
used it should have been running an MSDOS clone
that allowed source mode compatibility due to the
standardized API.

For whatever reason that wasn't done already in
say 1981, in preparation for the possibility of
the ARM, or 68000, but I don't particularly care
why it wasn't already done, I just want to do it
belatedly.

I was programming in C in about 1987, and I coded
to the ANSI C draft, which meant I couldn't do
things like directory traversal.

There were other things I realize I should have
been able to do as well, like use ANSI output
and have the OS have an option to bypass the
BIOS so that it was fast, instead of every
single fullscreen program doing exactly that itself.

And get ANSI keyboard strokes, not just ANSI output.

I'm basically trying to reconcile the problems I
had when starting in 1987.

BFN. Paul.
tkchia

Homepage

09.11.2022, 18:35

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

Hello kerravon,

> > But how do you get from "we might want to do lots of calculations to
> design
> > aircraft" to "let's standardize 16-/32-bit computing"? How exactly does
> > this "standardization" help anything at all?
> I like to code to a standard for my own code.
Then you are not solving any actual problem — you are just describing a problem in terms of your solution.

Sorry, I still fail to see how you get from "we might want to do lots of calculations to design aircraft — in case of a nuclear war" to "let's standardize 16-/32-bit computing".

Thank you!

---
https://gitlab.com/tkchia · https://codeberg.org/tkchia · 😴 "MOV AX,0D500H+CMOS_REG_D+NMI"
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
09.11.2022, 23:10

@ tkchia
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> Hello kerravon,
>
> > > But how do you get from "we might want to do lots of calculations to
> > design
> > > aircraft" to "let's standardize 16-/32-bit computing"? How exactly
> does
> > > this "standardization" help anything at all?
> > I like to code to a standard for my own code.
>
> Then you are not solving any actual problem — you are just describing a
> problem in terms of your solution.
The problem is that POSIX exists for a reason, but
there is no equivalent for small systems, like we
had in the 1980s, and we may have again.

I am still programming for that era.

And that era may return.

> Sorry, I still fail to see how you get from "we might want to do lots of
> calculations to design aircraft — in case of a nuclear war"
It's after nuclear war. I'm surprised you think there
will be no use for computers after nuclear war.

> to "let's
> standardize 16-/32-bit computing".
What's wrong with coding to a standard so that you
can use computers from multiple different vendors?

BFN. Paul.
tkchia

Homepage

10.11.2022, 00:07

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

Hello kerravon,

> The problem is that POSIX exists for a reason, but
> there is no equivalent for small systems, like we
> had in the 1980s, and we may have again.
Have you ever coded before for an Intel 8O8O-based system, or some other system with quite literally less than 64 KiB of RAM? I have.

With all due respect, methinks you know not whereof you speak.

Thank you!

---
https://gitlab.com/tkchia · https://codeberg.org/tkchia · 😴 "MOV AX,0D500H+CMOS_REG_D+NMI"
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
10.11.2022, 01:16

@ tkchia
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> Hello kerravon,
>
> > The problem is that POSIX exists for a reason, but
> > there is no equivalent for small systems, like we
> > had in the 1980s, and we may have again.
>
> Have you ever coded before for an Intel 8O8O-based system, or some other
> system with quite literally less than 64 KiB of RAM? I have.
I started programming in assembly with the
Commodore 64 in 1984. Not a proper assembler -
the equivalent of MSDOS "debug".

> With all due respect, methinks you know not whereof you speak.
Sorry, I have somehow failed to be clear.

Although post-nuclear war it is possible that only
8-bit computers can be manufactured, I'm not asking
about an API for them. That's something I'll think
about later.

What I'm interested in is what to do if/when technology
reaches a 16:16 stage.

And not necessarily a 4-bit segment shift. It could be
a 5-bit segment shift which would give access to 2 MB
memory which is more practical for PDOS/86.

Note that the 80286, while it doesn't give a 5-bit
segment shift, can effectively allow programs to use
2 MB or more memory and not be aware that they are
not running on an 8086.

I should also point out that creating an API for small
(16:16) systems is not technically impossible. I have
already made an opening offer here:

https://sourceforge.net/p/pdos/gitcode/ci/master/tree/src/pos.c

Basically, if ISO had got together in the 1980s, and
had that already written, and realized that that they
should support more than the 8086, such as the 68000,
still with no virtual memory so Unix is not an option,
what would ISO come up with?

Also assuming that ISO had standardized C90 in 1980
instead of waiting for it to become popular.

And ISO could have standardized a replacement for pos.c
in 1980 as well. There was no reason they needed to wait
for an actual OS for the 8086. Or even an actual 8086.
The concept of 16:16 and flat 32 exists independently of
Intel and Motorola.

BFN. Paul.
marcov

10.11.2022, 11:28

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> Basically, if ISO had got together in the 1980s,
Well, strictly it was, since it was approved by Ansi in 1989, and the ISO certification in 1990 was a form of rubber stamping for this side of the pond.
tkchia

Homepage

10.11.2022, 17:51
(edited by tkchia, 10.11.2022, 18:41)

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

Hello kerravon,

> I started programming in assembly with the
> Commodore 64 in 1984. Not a proper assembler -
> the equivalent of MSDOS "debug".
OK — now try to get a self-hosted C compiler working on that.

> > With all due respect, methinks you know not whereof you speak.
 ...
> What I'm interested in is what to do if/when technology
> reaches a 16:16 stage.
Well, yes, if we end up in some universe where your idea might make sense, then ... your idea might actually make sense. Yes, yes, if you put it that way, Mr. Captain Obvious Tautology.

The real question here is why you think there might be a snail's chance that your idea may make any sense. Because, you know, disasters have a way of not going according to our expectations or wishes. And that is partly what makes them disasters.

And nowhere do you explain
- why this "standardization" is so important in a post-nuclear world
- why your proposed standards are any good
- or why existing standards or existing practices somehow fall short.

On a somewhat unrelated tangent:

> And you can add to that the fact that depending
> on how you count, we've already had World War 3
> (2 hot, 1 cold), won in our favor already. And
Well, that certainly looks like a view of history straight out of the "Project for the New American Empire Century". It is easy to wax lyrical about how "we" are on the "winning" side — whatever that means — if "we" do not end up as collateral damage. And there was much needless collateral damage during the Cold War. But I digress.

Thank you!

---
https://gitlab.com/tkchia · https://codeberg.org/tkchia · 😴 "MOV AX,0D500H+CMOS_REG_D+NMI"
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
10.11.2022, 23:45

@ tkchia
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> > I started programming in assembly with the
> > Commodore 64 in 1984. Not a proper assembler -
> > the equivalent of MSDOS "debug".
>
> OK — now try to get a self-hosted C compiler working on that.
Other people did that. But why would I personally
want to do that? I didn't say that that was
something I personally wanted to do. I didn't
even say that I wanted to program in C at all
on an 8-bit machine.

My 16-bit OS only really becomes practical with
about 2 MB of memory, so I need a 16:16 machine
with a 5-bit segment shift, or something similar
to the 80286 will also work, and that is my
interest and priority.

I just want a set of standards to work to for
all that.

> > > With all due respect, methinks you know not whereof you speak.
> ...
> > What I'm interested in is what to do if/when technology
> > reaches a 16:16 stage.
>
> Well, yes, if we end up in some universe where your idea might make sense,
> then ... your idea might actually make sense. Yes, yes, if you put it that
> way, Mr. Captain Obvious Tautology.
>
> The real question here is why you think there might be a snail's
> chance that your idea may make any sense. Because, you know, disasters
> have a way of not going according to our expectations or wishes.
> And that is partly what makes them disasters.

I've already outlined why - if the nuclear war goes
a certain way, new computers will be 8-bit, and when
new computers reach 16-bit, and memory availability
exceeds 64k, segmentation may well be chosen as a
solution. It's happened before.

> And nowhere do you explain
> - why this "standardization" is so important in a post-nuclear world
I'm not particularly claiming that it is "important".
I just want a standard to code to. POSIX doesn't cut it.

> - why your proposed standards are any good
I didn't claim that either.

> - or why existing standards or existing practices somehow fall short.
The only existing standard that I know of is POSIX,
and it falls short because it is not appropriate
for small computers like the 8086 because it
basically requires virtual memory to support crap
like fork(). If they remove fork() from POSIX and
only have posix_spawn(), that may be a step in the
right direction, but I'm not sure it is sufficient.

I would be interested in your opinion if you think
that is all that is required.

Existing practices I'm not actually aware of. I
never wrote DOS-specific software, I followed the
C90 standard, and still do. I do know that people
directly wrote to 0xb8000 and I also know that
Microsoft only supported the ANSI terminal in
Windows very recently, and I know for MSDOS they
only ever supported ANSI output, not keyboard
input.

So I know that standard wasn't being followed. I
follow it myself though, for fullscreen
applications that I support on PDOS/386 (and
recent Windows).

> On a somewhat unrelated tangent:
>
> > And you can add to that the fact that depending
> > on how you count, we've already had World War 3
> > (2 hot, 1 cold), won in our favor already. And
>
> Well, that certainly looks like a view of history straight out of the
> "Project
> for the New American Empire Century". It is easy to wax
> lyrical about how "we" are on the "winning" side — whatever that means
Yeah, some people like to pretend there was no winner
of the Cold War. If the Soviets had actually managed
to enslave the entire Europe, and you happened to be
living in Western Europe when they kicked down your
door, maybe you would understand the reality of what
it's like to lose the Cold War.

> — if "we" do not end up as collateral damage. And there was much
> needless collateral damage during the Cold War. But I digress.
Take it up with Mr Marx.

>> I should also point out that creating an API for small
>> (16:16) systems is not technically impossible. I have
>> already made an opening offer here:
>> https://sourceforge.net/p/pdos/gitcode/ci/master/tree/src/pos.c

> Well... what is the niche your proposed "standard" is supposed to fill?
People coding int86(...) which looks bad and
doesn't work when upgrading to 32-bit and
64-bit and different processors like the
68000 that would otherwise be capable of
running your application.

> There is definitely already some sort of de facto common API that was
> implemented across the major compilers targeting MS-DOS — including Open
> Watcom, Microsoft C, and later versions of Borland C++.
> (Edit: and Digital Mars.)
> So what exactly does your new proposed standard offer?
Perhaps nothing. Is there any reason why OS/2 2.0
didn't use that same API? And 64-bit Windows? Or
rather - could it?

If there's nothing wrong with it, and the only issue
is that ISO isn't interested in publishing a formal
standard, so it needs to remain a "de facto common
API", so be it, I'll probably switch to that, and
write it in terms of Pos* calls. And perhaps write
another version that turns them into Windows calls,
and another version that turns them into OS/2 calls,
and another version that turns them into POSIX
calls.

Or it could be done the other way around - take the
Windows API and implement it for MSDOS, since
Windows doesn't use fork().

Or it could be none of the above. That's my question.

BFN. Paul.
Rugxulo

Homepage

Usono,
11.11.2022, 09:18

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> My 16-bit OS only really becomes practical with
> about 2 MB of memory, so I need a 16:16 machine
> with a 5-bit segment shift, or something similar
> to the 80286 will also work, and that is my
> interest and priority.
There were 186 clones with 24-bit addressing. The 186 was still being made at least until 2007. (I believe OpenWatcom contributor Wilton Helm had much experience with embedded 186.)

https://www.cpushack.com/2013/01/12/the-intel-80186-gets-turbocharged-vautomation-turbo186/

There was also the Bandai Wonderswan (NEC V30) circa 1999:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WonderSwan

> Is there any reason why OS/2 2.0 didn't use that same API?
> And 64-bit Windows? Or rather - could it?
Microsoft wanted to "control the standard", so to speak, but IBM fired them. They don't want to license *nix from AT&T for Xenix, for instance. They want to do their own thing.

http://gunkies.org/wiki/Gordon_Letwin_OS/2_usenet_post (circa 1995)

> Or it could be done the other way around - take the
> Windows API and implement it for MSDOS, since
> Windows doesn't use fork().
There are lots of software patents and lawyers. While many agree that APIs can't be copyrighted, it's still a minefield. Just because they "got away" with it in the old days (e.g. PC-DOS vs. CP/M, Compaq vs. IBM BIOS) doesn't mean they wouldn't still clamp down in a heartbeat if they could.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc.

(I don't really want to mention that, but for completeness, it's worth noting ... barely.)
marcov

11.11.2022, 13:12

@ Rugxulo
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> There are lots of software patents and lawyers. While many agree that APIs
> can't be copyrighted, it's still a minefield. Just because they "got away"
> with it in the old days (e.g. PC-DOS vs. CP/M, Compaq vs. IBM BIOS) doesn't
> mean they wouldn't still clamp down in a heartbeat if they could.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc.
>
> (I don't really want to mention that, but for completeness, it's worth
> noting ... barely.)
wdosx? Wine ?
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
12.11.2022, 08:48

@ Rugxulo
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> > My 16-bit OS only really becomes practical with
> > about 2 MB of memory, so I need a 16:16 machine
> > with a 5-bit segment shift, or something similar
> > to the 80286 will also work, and that is my
> > interest and priority.
>
> There were 186 clones with 24-bit addressing. The 186 was still being made
> at least until 2007. (I believe OpenWatcom contributor Wilton Helm had much
> experience with embedded 186.)
>
> https://www.cpushack.com/2013/01/12/the-intel-80186-gets-turbocharged-vautomation-turbo186/
FANTASTIC!!! Real hardware that does exactly what I want.

I will work this into my repertoire. I wasn't able
to find the actual instruction data sheet for it
though, but I may have enough anyway. And it's
the concept that's important anyway.


https://openwatcom.users.c-cpp.narkive.com/wBo3RarK/186-24-bit-addressing

The only processor I know of that uses 186 24 bit addressing is the Dstni
series, so I'm guessing that is what you are using. Yes, there is support
for it. I implemented it a few years ago. It was broken in 1.8, but I have
been told it has been fixed, although I haven't had a chance to test it (I
use an older version of the linker and have been overloaded with production
code).

OP HSHIFT=8 sets it up. Note that you can also set the __HShift assembly
variable to 8 which will make the huge memory model RTL code generate proper
addressing.


> There was also the Bandai Wonderswan (NEC V30) circa 1999:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WonderSwan
As far as I can tell, the NEC V30 only does 20-bit
addressing, so I don't know the relevance.

> > Is there any reason why OS/2 2.0 didn't use that same API?
> > And 64-bit Windows? Or rather - could it?
>
> Microsoft wanted to "control the standard", so to speak, but IBM fired
> them. They don't want to license *nix from AT&T for Xenix, for instance.
> They want to do their own thing.
>
> http://gunkies.org/wiki/Gordon_Letwin_OS/2_usenet_post (circa 1995)
>
> > Or it could be done the other way around - take the
> > Windows API and implement it for MSDOS, since
> > Windows doesn't use fork().
>
> There are lots of software patents and lawyers. While many agree that APIs
> can't be copyrighted, it's still a minefield. Just because they "got away"
> with it in the old days (e.g. PC-DOS vs. CP/M, Compaq vs. IBM BIOS) doesn't
> mean they wouldn't still clamp down in a heartbeat if they could.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc.
>
> (I don't really want to mention that, but for completeness, it's worth
> noting ... barely.)
Well, if that's the issue, then maybe that's what
I can offer - my API is explicitly public domain.

If that's the only public domain API to choose
from, then are you happy with it (for small
systems) or do you want some changes?

Thanks. Paul.
tkchia

Homepage

12.11.2022, 08:20

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

Hello kerravon,

> Yeah, some people like to pretend there was no winner
> of the Cold War. If the Soviets had actually managed
> to enslave the entire Europe, and you happened to be
> living in Western Europe when they kicked down your
> door, maybe you would understand the reality of what
> it's like to lose the Cold War.
I am pretty sure that people can still kick down doors with impunity in some parts of the world.

Which raises the question, or rather, several questions:
- So "we" supposedly "won" the Cold "War" — and this is, supposedly, a mightily good thing, because Karl Marx.
- So what precisely is this "war" about again? I thought it is about "they kick[ing] down your door", but this is still happening.
- At what point did "we" decide, the "war" was "won", and "mission accomplished"?
- And who exactly is this "we" anyway?

Since you are apparently very fond of asking for standards and definitions, perhaps you can try to provide some.

> > And nowhere do you explain
> > - why this "standardization" is so important in a post-nuclear world
> I'm not particularly claiming that it is "important".
> I just want a standard to code to. POSIX doesn't cut it.
Well, to put it simply: that is your problem, not the world's problem.

Thank you!

---
https://gitlab.com/tkchia · https://codeberg.org/tkchia · 😴 "MOV AX,0D500H+CMOS_REG_D+NMI"
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
12.11.2022, 08:43

@ tkchia
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> Hello kerravon,
>
> > Yeah, some people like to pretend there was no winner
> > of the Cold War. If the Soviets had actually managed
> > to enslave the entire Europe, and you happened to be
> > living in Western Europe when they kicked down your
> > door, maybe you would understand the reality of what
> > it's like to lose the Cold War.
>
> I am pretty sure that people can still kick down doors with impunity in
> some parts of the world.
Yes, but not in Western Europe, because we didn't
lose the Cold War, no matter how much you may like
to pretend that war is very vague with no winners
or losers to try to convince people that freedom
has no value and we shouldn't try to win wars and
be grateful to America (note that I'm not American).

> Which raises the question, or rather, several questions:
> - So "we" supposedly "won" the Cold "War" — and this is, supposedly, a
> mightily good thing, because Karl Marx.
Not supposedly. It really is.

"we" is the free world. There really is such a thing
as freedom, and it's not the communist definition
which was "living under a communist dictator".

> - So what precisely is this "war" about again? I thought it is about "they
> kick[ing] down your door", but this is still happening.
Not in Western Europe because of communism. If you
are unlucky enough to be a North Korean you can
have your door kicked down, and get raped at one
of Kim's parties if he chooses to do so too.

> - At what point did "we" decide, the "war" was "won", and "mission
> accomplished"?
When there was no longer a major player peddling
communism - in 1991.

It's not completely won while ever there is even
on single person saying that living under
communist dictatorship is no big deal.

> - And who exactly is this "we" anyway?
>
> Since you are apparently very fond of asking for standards and definitions,
> perhaps you can try to provide some.
The proper definition of "freedom" is "living under
a rational, humanist, non-subjugating government".

Other people define it as "not being a British
colony" (e.g. when white male land-owners were
allowed to vote in the US) or "not being a colony
of anyone" (e.g. most African dictatorships), or
"living under a communist dictator" (all communist
countries).

I suggest we standardize on my definition.

> > > And nowhere do you explain
> > > - why this "standardization" is so important in a post-nuclear world
> > I'm not particularly claiming that it is "important".
> > I just want a standard to code to. POSIX doesn't cut it.
>
> Well, to put it simply: that is your problem, not the world's
> problem.
I didn't claim it was the world's problem.

I asked for assistance in standardizing an API
suitable for small computers.

If I am the only person who actually wants that,
so be it. You have no way of proving that though,
now or in the future.

If you personally don't want to help, so be it too.

BFN. Paul.
tkchia

Homepage

12.11.2022, 08:56
(edited by tkchia, 12.11.2022, 09:16)

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

Hello kerravon,

> > I am pretty sure that people can still kick down doors with impunity in
> > some parts of the world.
> Yes, but not in Western Europe, because we didn't
> lose the Cold War, no matter how much you may like
> to pretend that war is very vague with no winners
> or losers to try to convince people that freedom
> has no value and we shouldn't try to win wars and
> be grateful to America (note that I'm not American).
OK:

- So you are saying "we" is limited to Western Europe. And perhaps parts of Oceania. Never mind the impact, good or bad, that this "winning" of "ours" has on the rest of the world. The important thing is that "we" "won", whatever that means. Never mind anyone who is not "we".

- Also, I am sure people still kick down doors with impunity even in America. Actually I have heard that people can shoot people dead — without having to kick down doors — and do so with impunity. In America. Or maybe those cases do not count because we cannot blame them on Karl Marx?

So again, what is it this Cold "War" is about, that "we" supposedly "won"?

> > > I just want a standard to code to. POSIX doesn't cut it.
> > Well, to put it simply: that is your problem, not the world's
> > problem.
> I didn't claim it was the world's problem.
> I asked for assistance in standardizing an API
> suitable for small computers.
The very idea of creating a "standard" is to offer something to the world. If your only motivation for proposing a standard is because "I" (i.e. you) want it, then you are doing it wrong.

Thank you!

---
https://gitlab.com/tkchia · https://codeberg.org/tkchia · 😴 "MOV AX,0D500H+CMOS_REG_D+NMI"
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
12.11.2022, 09:16

@ tkchia
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> Hello kerravon,
>
> > > I am pretty sure that people can still kick down doors with impunity
> in
> > > some parts of the world.
> > Yes, but not in Western Europe, because we didn't
> > lose the Cold War, no matter how much you may like
> > to pretend that war is very vague with no winners
> > or losers to try to convince people that freedom
> > has no value and we shouldn't try to win wars and
> > be grateful to America (note that I'm not American).
>
> OK:
>
> - So you are saying "we" is limited to Western Europe.
Nope, there's free people everywhere, like South Korea
and Taiwan.

> And perhaps parts
> of Oceania. Never mind the impact, good or bad, that this "winning" of
> "ours" has on the rest of the world. The important thing is that "we"
> "won", whatever that means.
It has a meaning, even if you like to pretend
it doesn't.

> Never mind anyone who is not "we".
They are also helped by not having communist
dictators harming humanity.

> - Also, I am sure people still kick down doors with impunity even in
> America. Actually I have heard that people can shoot people dead —
> without having to kick down doors — and do so with impunity. In America.
> Or maybe those cases do not count because we cannot blame them on Karl
> Marx?
Are you talking about people doing things illegally
or legally?

Of course crime exists everywhere in the world. When
you have a dictator, it's the government doing the
crime. You can't report their crimes to the police.

If Uday Hussein abducted you off an Iraqi street and
raped you, that's your bad luck. The police are on his
side. You were raped by your own government instead of
being protected by it. And men had their tongues cut
out, with genuine impunity. I can show you video of
Iraqi men having their tongues cut out if you'd like
to continue to insist that there is no concept of
freedom.

If you have evidence of an American breaking American
law, please report him or her to the American police
and the free American media and let him or her face
American justice.

Note that courts don't always give you the ruling you
hoped for, but it's the best we know how to actually
do.

Communist dictatorships are not the best we know how
to do.

> So again, what is it this Cold "War" about that "we" supposedly "won"?
Freedom from communist state-slavery.

> > > > I just want a standard to code to. POSIX doesn't cut it.
> > > Well, to put it simply: that is your problem, not the world's
> > > problem.
> > I didn't claim it was the world's problem.
> > I asked for assistance in standardizing an API
> > suitable for small computers.
>
> The very idea of creating a "standard" is to offer something to the
> world. If your only motivation for proposing a standard is because "I"
> (i.e. you) want it, then you are doing it wrong.
You haven't established that the world is not
being offered anything. You just stated it.

I certainly want it. I don't know who wants it
currently or who will want it in the future.

Most people right now are probably not interested
in standardizing the OS API for small systems.

They may be in the future after a nuclear war when
small systems become relevant again.

And having a standard API will help, in my opinion,
based on what happened in the past.

I may have it wrong though - do you think small
systems (in the past, and in the *possible* future)
would or would not have benefitted from a
standard API?

BFN. Paul.
tkchia

Homepage

12.11.2022, 09:39

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

Hello kerravon,

> > And perhaps parts
> > of Oceania. Never mind the impact, good or bad, that this "winning" of
> > "ours" has on the rest of the world. The important thing is that "we"
> > "won", whatever that means.
> It has a meaning, even if you like to pretend
> it doesn't.
Well, OK: this "victory" of "ours" in the "Cold War" is all sunshine and roses, we just need to furiously turn a blind eye to all those parts that are not sunshine and roses. Truly a glorious victory.

(By the way, in my part of the world we just call it "the dissolution of the Soviet Union".)

> > The very idea of creating a "standard" is to offer something to the
> > world. If your only motivation for proposing a standard is because
> "I"
> > (i.e. you) want it, then you are doing it wrong.
> You haven't established that the world is not
> being offered anything. You just stated it.
Well, you are the one proposing a "standard", and there is this thing in the world called the "burden of proof". To wit: the burden is on you to demonstrate that your proposed standard is actually useful to the world. The onus is not on the rest of us to prove to you why we do not need your "standard".

If I try to sell you stuff, is it your responsibility to "establish" to me why you do not need to buy my stuff? Of course not; the very idea is absurd.

Thank you!

---
https://gitlab.com/tkchia · https://codeberg.org/tkchia · 😴 "MOV AX,0D500H+CMOS_REG_D+NMI"
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
12.11.2022, 09:59

@ tkchia
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> Well, OK: this "victory" of "ours" in the "Cold War" is all sunshine and
> roses, we just need to furiously turn a blind eye to all those parts that
> are not sunshine and roses. Truly a glorious victory.
We're not turning a blind eye. We're doing our
best to free the rest of the world too.

It's very difficult. There aren't a lot of tools
available.

> > > The very idea of creating a "standard" is to offer something to the
> > > world. If your only motivation for proposing a standard is
> because
> > "I"
> > > (i.e. you) want it, then you are doing it wrong.
> > You haven't established that the world is not
> > being offered anything. You just stated it.
>
> Well, you are the one proposing a "standard", and there is this thing in
> the world called the "burden of proof". To wit: the burden is on you to
> demonstrate that your proposed standard is actually useful to the
> world. The onus is not on the rest of us to prove to you why we do not
> need your "standard".
Wrong. I'm not claiming that a standard is or
isn't useful to anyone besides me. I have no
idea. I just know that at a minimum one person
wants it. Absolute bare minimum.

You are the one making the claim that no-one else
in the entire world now or in the future will ever
have a use for a standardized API for small
computer systems. So the burden of proof is on you.

Good luck proving a negative. You'll be the first
person in history.

> If I try to sell you stuff, is it your responsibility to "establish" to me
> why you do not need to buy my stuff? Of course not; the very idea is
> absurd.
Sorry, you're the one making wild claims, not me.

Burden is on you.

BFN. Paul.
tkchia

Homepage

12.11.2022, 10:20

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

Hello kerravon,

> > Well, OK: this "victory" of "ours" in the "Cold War" is all sunshine and
> > roses, we just need to furiously turn a blind eye to all those parts
> that
> > are not sunshine and roses. Truly a glorious victory.
> We're not turning a blind eye. We're doing our
> best to free the rest of the world too.
Sorry, you just do not get it.

> > Well, you are the one proposing a "standard", and there is this thing in
> > the world called the "burden of proof". To wit: the burden is on you to
> > demonstrate that your proposed standard is actually useful to the
> > world. The onus is not on the rest of us to prove to you why we do
> not
> > need your "standard".
 ...
> You are the one making the claim that no-one else
> in the entire world now or in the future will ever
> have a use for a standardized API for small
> computer systems. So the burden of proof is on you.
Maybe the world will need a standard, but I am pretty sure that we do not need your proposed standard, since it does not do anything that is not already covered by other more established standards and practices.

Hope that clears things up.

Thank you!

---
https://gitlab.com/tkchia · https://codeberg.org/tkchia · 😴 "MOV AX,0D500H+CMOS_REG_D+NMI"
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
12.11.2022, 10:29

@ tkchia
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> Hello kerravon,
>
> > > Well, OK: this "victory" of "ours" in the "Cold War" is all sunshine
> and
> > > roses, we just need to furiously turn a blind eye to all those parts
> > that
> > > are not sunshine and roses. Truly a glorious victory.
> > We're not turning a blind eye. We're doing our
> > best to free the rest of the world too.
>
> Sorry, you just do not get it.
No, you don't get the difficulty in bringing
freedom to humanity.

> > You are the one making the claim that no-one else
> > in the entire world now or in the future will ever
> > have a use for a standardized API for small
> > computer systems. So the burden of proof is on you.
>
> Maybe the world will need a standard, but I am pretty sure that we
> do not need your proposed standard,
My proposal was just an example. I have no
particular desire to have that exact
standard adopted. I do have a particular
desire to make sure it isn't Posix unless
they remove fork() from it, just for starters.

> since it does not do anything
> that is not already covered by other more established standards and
> practices.
>
> Hope that clears things up.
Can you be specific please? What is the
existing standard/practice that you see
for small computer systems, and would you
have recommended that standard/practice
be used on the Amiga so that Commodore
didn't go bankrupt?

Commodore instead created another API.

BFN. Paul.
glennmcc

Homepage E-mail

North Jackson, Ohio (USA),
13.11.2022, 18:24

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

>
> No, you don't get the difficulty in bringing
> freedom to humanity.
>

No-one living in any society is truly free.
Everyone/everywhere is living under the control of their particular government.

Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose. :(

---
--
http://glennmcc.org/
DosWorld

16.11.2022, 00:03

@ glennmcc
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose. :(
But you don't have anything. Just a family and dust.

---
Make DOS great again!

Carthago delenda est, Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse.
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
16.11.2022, 03:24

@ glennmcc
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> > No, you don't get the difficulty in bringing
> > freedom to humanity.
> >
>
> No-one living in any society is truly free.
I'm not sure what your definition of "truly free" is.

In most of our democracies, we have implemented a
definition of "freedom". The only thing left is
quibbling. E.g. do I have a "right" to take heroin?

> Everyone/everywhere is living under the control of their particular
> government.
Every law that the government is enforcing can be
overturned via a non-violent process. If you can't
get the laws you want, it's because you can't
convince 50.00001% of the population that you can
do a better job than those currently doing the job.

> Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose. :(
No it isn't. If you had ever had your tongue cut out
by your own government, or been raped by your own
government, you would understand that freedom has a
meaning and value.

But you've had your human rights protected to the nth
degree since the day you were born so have lost the
concept of what it means to be a (state) slave.

BFN. Paul.
marcov

13.11.2022, 12:02

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> Wrong. I'm not claiming that a standard is or
> isn't useful to anyone besides me. I have no
> idea. I just know that at a minimum one person
> wants it. Absolute bare minimum.
That's not a standard. That is an implementation.
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
16.11.2022, 03:19

@ marcov
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> > Wrong. I'm not claiming that a standard is or
> > isn't useful to anyone besides me. I have no
> > idea. I just know that at a minimum one person
> > wants it. Absolute bare minimum.
>
> That's not a standard. That is an implementation.
Individual companies normally have coding standards.
They may not be "internationally recognized" (whoever
that is), but they're still standards.

If I write all my code to a particular standard, even
as far as the number of spaces for indentation, that's
still a standard, even if I'm the only user of that
standard.

Regardless, if you want to call it an implementation,
I don't wish to engage in a semantic debate.

What "implementation" do you suggest for small
computers to follow, to allow portability at the
C90 source code level, above and beyond what C90
itself supports? POSIX doesn't cut it. It relies
on the existence of virtual memory.

Thanks. Paul.
marcov

16.11.2022, 21:52

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> What "implementation" do you suggest for small
> computers to follow, to allow portability at the
> C90 source code level, above and beyond what C90
> itself supports? POSIX doesn't cut it. It relies
> on the existence of virtual memory.
Which should give you an insight to the futility of it. There is simply not enough in common, and the separation between OS and application is vague.

But I would investigate e.g. FreeRTOS standards. It seems to be the most used somewhat portable OS for small systems.
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
16.11.2022, 23:54

@ marcov
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> > What "implementation" do you suggest for small
> > computers to follow, to allow portability at the
> > C90 source code level, above and beyond what C90
> > itself supports? POSIX doesn't cut it. It relies
> > on the existence of virtual memory.
>
> Which should give you an insight to the futility of it. There is simply not
> enough in common, and the separation between OS and application is vague.
Could you elaborate on both of these things please?

There is not enough in common between the different
small OSes, right, e.g. MSDOS and AmigaOS? So it's
not the API that needs standardization first, the
root problem is that people keep writing new OSes
(like AmigaOS) in a way that prohibits having a
standard API?

Was it a mistake for AmigaOS to do that instead of
copying MSDOS?

Is it technically possible to copy MSDOS, with the
only change being to switch processor (to 68000)?

Or would doing so prohibit enhancements?

Was the purpose of a new OS design so that if it
did become popular, Commodore could lock people
in somehow?

It seems that Microsoft is doing something like that.
Instead of making sure that their code works on an
80386 up, or the first x64, they deliberately look
for a new processor feature and make it mandatory.
Which forces people to buy new computers. And the
new computers require a new Windows license which
is how Microsoft then makes money.

IBM are doing something different. They refuse to
sell z/OS on any non-IBM hardware. Cute.

So the second thing - the separation between
application and OS - do you mean the application
is free to directly manipulate the hardware?

Someone made a comment that C gives you the rope
to hang yourself. If that's the issue, I'm not
worried about that. I just want the system to be
logically correct for logically correct programs.
If wild pointers cause everything to crash and
burn, so be it. That's a separate issue to deal
with at a later date. First I just want simple
things to work.

> But I would investigate e.g. FreeRTOS standards. It seems to be the most
> used somewhat portable OS for small systems.
Thanks for that reference!

I found this:

https://www.freertos.org/FreeRTOS-Plus/FreeRTOS_Plus_IO/FreeRTOS_open.html

Their concept is to return an abstract type instead
of an integer handle. I'm not sure whether that is
a good idea or not. Windows does that too. But POSIX
does not.

In addition, it takes two parameters, using data types
from C99. I'm after C90. And those data types preclude
implementation on a 36-bit machine. They should have
used int_least32_t instead of int_32_t, if they wanted
to use the C99 data types.

So, I don't like the look of this API. And I note that
this is a copyrighted product. If they at least made
the API explicitly public domain that would be a good
start.

But they did the exact opposite, explicit copyright
of even a header file:

https://github.com/maniacbug/FreeRTOS/blob/master/FreeRTOS.h

So, your thoughts?

Thanks. Paul.
tkchia

Homepage

17.11.2022, 00:52

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

Hello kerravon,

> Was the purpose of a new OS design so that if it
> did become popular, Commodore could lock people
> in somehow?
> It seems that Microsoft is doing something like that.
> Instead of making sure that their code works on an
> 80386 up, or the first x64, they deliberately look
> for a new processor feature and make it mandatory.
> Which forces people to buy new computers. And the
> new computers require a new Windows license which
> is how Microsoft then makes money.
Huh? Not everything is a deliberate conspiracy to squeeze more money from customers. After all, you yourself created a new C-level API that is incompatible with everything that came before. And you should know that you are not engaged in a conspiracy to squeeze money.

Thank you!

---
https://gitlab.com/tkchia · https://codeberg.org/tkchia · 😴 "MOV AX,0D500H+CMOS_REG_D+NMI"
glennmcc

Homepage E-mail

North Jackson, Ohio (USA),
17.11.2022, 18:42

@ tkchia
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> > Which forces people to buy new computers. And the
> > new computers require a new Windows license which
> > is how Microsoft then makes money.
>
> Huh? Not everything is a deliberate conspiracy to squeeze more money from
> customers. After all, you yourself created a new C-level API that is
> incompatible with everything that came before. And you should know that
> you are not engaged in a conspiracy to squeeze money.
>

We don't know that for sure.

For all we know, kerravon might be the CEO of a huge consortium
engaging in the conspiracy of squeezing money from the survivors
of the (apparently in his opinion), impending nuclear war. :-D

---
--
http://glennmcc.org/
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
17.11.2022, 23:45

@ glennmcc
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> > > Which forces people to buy new computers. And the
> > > new computers require a new Windows license which
> > > is how Microsoft then makes money.
> >
> > Huh? Not everything is a deliberate conspiracy to squeeze more money
> from
> > customers. After all, you yourself created a new C-level API that is
> > incompatible with everything that came before. And you should know that
> > you are not engaged in a conspiracy to squeeze money.
> >
>
> We don't know that for sure.
>
> For all we know, kerravon might be the CEO of a huge consortium
> engaging in the conspiracy of squeezing money from the survivors
> of the (apparently in his opinion), impending nuclear war. :-D
I'm curious what you think I would actually do
with a huge amount of money.

But a Ferrari? There's nowhere I actually want to go.
I've seen trees before. I've seen mountains. I've
seen people. I've seen cars. I've seen cows. Boring.

Pay someone to teach me how DOS memory models work?
Would that be better than reading Wikipedia (online
or offline)? Also I would have difficulty finding the
right people to hire.

BFN. Paul.
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
17.11.2022, 23:51

@ tkchia
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> Hello kerravon,
>
> > Was the purpose of a new OS design so that if it
> > did become popular, Commodore could lock people
> > in somehow?
> > It seems that Microsoft is doing something like that.
> > Instead of making sure that their code works on an
> > 80386 up, or the first x64, they deliberately look
> > for a new processor feature and make it mandatory.
> > Which forces people to buy new computers. And the
> > new computers require a new Windows license which
> > is how Microsoft then makes money.
>
> Huh? Not everything is a deliberate conspiracy to squeeze more money from
> customers. After all, you yourself created a new C-level API that is
> incompatible with everything that came before. And you should know that
> you are not engaged in a conspiracy to squeeze money.
At the moment I am not claiming that what I did
was the right thing to do. I wasn't actually
aware of what came before besides people calling
int86x and POSIX, neither of which I liked. And
I have a "bias for action" as someone described
it, so just started reproducing MSDOS in C to
see what I ended up with. I wasn't claiming to
be an OS expert either - quite the opposite.
Since then I have a new design though, different
from MSDOS. That's what PDOS-generic is. But that
came at the end of a process, not the beginning.

I'm not claiming Commodore were right or wrong
with their new API either. I'm asking that question.

BFN. Paul.
tom

Homepage

Germany (West),
17.11.2022, 11:10

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> There is not enough in common between the different
> small OSes, right, e.g. MSDOS and AmigaOS? So it's
> not the API that needs standardization first, the
> root problem is that people keep writing new OSes
> (like AmigaOS) in a way that prohibits having a
> standard API?
>
> Was it a mistake for AmigaOS to do that instead of
> copying MSDOS?
there was little worth copying from MSDOS.

as far as I remember, AmigaOS was HUGE, compared to MSDOS.

it did MultiMedia, preemptive multitasking, Graphics, and probably more.
even a mouse was part of AmigaOS.

now explain to us how your new "standard" is dealing with multitasking, multimedia, graphics, or even a mouse.
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
17.11.2022, 23:55

@ tom
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> > There is not enough in common between the different
> > small OSes, right, e.g. MSDOS and AmigaOS? So it's
> > not the API that needs standardization first, the
> > root problem is that people keep writing new OSes
> > (like AmigaOS) in a way that prohibits having a
> > standard API?
> >
> > Was it a mistake for AmigaOS to do that instead of
> > copying MSDOS?
>
> there was little worth copying from MSDOS.
MSDOS was capable of running business applications
for many years.

It was valuable enough that people went to the
effort of running an 8086 emulator on the Amiga
so that they could run MSDOS software.

I'm simply wanting to replace that emulator with
native 68000. Without changing one line of code.

Was that possible? At least if C programmers had
"done the right thing" and maybe if MSDOS had
"done the right thing" too.

> as far as I remember, AmigaOS was HUGE, compared to MSDOS.
>
> it did MultiMedia, preemptive multitasking, Graphics, and probably more.
> even a mouse was part of AmigaOS.
>
> now explain to us how your new "standard" is dealing with multitasking,
> multimedia, graphics, or even a mouse.
I don't need my new standard to cover any of that.
I don't care what the Amiga added.

I just want to cover MSDOS.

BFN. Paul.
tkchia

Homepage

10.11.2022, 18:06
(edited by tkchia, 10.11.2022, 18:41)

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

Hello kerravon,

> I should also point out that creating an API for small
> (16:16) systems is not technically impossible. I have
> already made an opening offer here:
> https://sourceforge.net/p/pdos/gitcode/ci/master/tree/src/pos.c
Well... what is the niche your proposed "standard" is supposed to fill?

There is definitely already some sort of de facto common API that was implemented across the major compilers targeting MS-DOS — including Open Watcom, Microsoft C, and later versions of Borland C++.

(Edit: and Digital Mars.)

So what exactly does your new proposed standard offer?

Thank you!

---
https://gitlab.com/tkchia · https://codeberg.org/tkchia · 😴 "MOV AX,0D500H+CMOS_REG_D+NMI"
glennmcc

Homepage E-mail

North Jackson, Ohio (USA),
07.11.2022, 20:47

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> In a discussion elsewhere (hercules-380), I was told
> that in a nuclear war, it is possible that all
> industrial cities in the world will be nuked, so that
> they don't have a competitive advantage.
>

FYI,
after a nuclear war, computers of any CPU and OS will be 100% useless
because the entirety of humanity will be thrust back into the stone-age.
______________________________________________________________________________

Professor Albert Einstein was asked by friends at a recent dinner party what
new weapons might be employed in World War III. Appalled at the implications,
he shook his head.

After several minutes of meditation, he said. "I don't know what weapons might
be used in World War III. But there isn't any doubt what weapons will be used
in World War IV."

"And what are those?" a guest asked.

"Stone spears," said Einstein.
______________________________________________________________________________

---
--
http://glennmcc.org/
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
09.11.2022, 07:58

@ glennmcc
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> > In a discussion elsewhere (hercules-380), I was told
> > that in a nuclear war, it is possible that all
> > industrial cities in the world will be nuked, so that
> > they don't have a competitive advantage.
> >
>
> FYI,
> after a nuclear war, computers of any CPU and OS will be 100% useless
> because the entirety of humanity will be thrust back into the stone-age.
I don't think that is correct.

There will still be surviving computers after a nuclear war, and it won't be the stone age, it will be an interesting environment.

We already know computers are possible, and a lot of concepts are already known. We just need to rebuild the manufacturing bases, without any large cities of any industrial value.

Or let me put it another way.

Yes, it is possible that nukes somehow take out all the people who know anything about computers, and we are literally back at the stone age. I don't want to say you are wrong.

But - IF - there are still surviving computer programmers, and maybe other people with technical know-how, e.g. university professors in (random city not nuked), THEN what can we do?

Or yet another way - what needs to survive a nuclear war in order to get the recovery process started? If all I need to do is print out a few pages on Wikipedia before the internet disappears, maybe I should do that while it still exists.

Or at you 100% sure that there is 0% chance of anything at all surviving except stone spears?

As a computer programmer, I've learnt to not even be sure that if (1 != 0) always returns true.

And ironically, that really happened to me, during PDOS development, because interrupts were happening and I wasn't preserving the flags properly in the interrupt, and expressions like that semi-randomly returned the incorrect results. :-)
glennmcc

Homepage E-mail

North Jackson, Ohio (USA),
09.11.2022, 16:06
(edited by glennmcc, 09.11.2022, 16:25)

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> > FYI,
> > after a nuclear war, computers of any CPU and OS will be 100% useless
> > because the entirety of humanity will be thrust back into the stone-age.
>
> I don't think that is correct.
>
> There will still be surviving computers after a nuclear war, and it won't
> be the stone age, it will be an interesting environment.
>

Personally, I'll take Einstein's word for it.



But, be that as it may,
we might as-well debate back-n-forth as to what would happen
after a blackhole has swallowed up our sun.

Therefore... http://glennmcc.org/download/never_mind.web

;-)

---
--
http://glennmcc.org/
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
09.11.2022, 17:58

@ glennmcc
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> > > FYI,
> > > after a nuclear war, computers of any CPU and OS will be 100% useless
> > > because the entirety of humanity will be thrust back into the
> stone-age.
> >
> > I don't think that is correct.
> >
> > There will still be surviving computers after a nuclear war, and it
> won't
> > be the stone age, it will be an interesting environment.
> >
>
> Personally, I'll take Einstein's word for it.
Appeal to authority doesn't wash with me, and
Einstein didn't get everything right anyway.

And post-nuclear war, when someone shoots you
in the head with a perfectly working gun because
there weren't enough nukes to take out every
single gun in the planet, just remember that
some guy on "Dos Ain't Dead" said "told you so".

And you can add to that the fact that depending
on how you count, we've already had World War 3
(2 hot, 1 cold), won in our favor already. And
I count the "War on Terror" as World War 4 too.
Yet another ideological war (the same as 3).
But to actually beat "terror" requires a
comprehensive war covering a ridiculous number
of ideologies and even ideas, and at an
individual level, not just a leadership level.

We've been fighting WW4 since before 9/11, but
9/11 forced the issue.

It is still unknown whether anyone will use
nukes during the ongoing WW4 conflict.

I believe there was a similar anomaly in WW1 -
there were new dreadnought ships available but
neither side was willing to deploy them to find
out if theirs were inferior.

BFN. Paul.
glennmcc

Homepage E-mail

North Jackson, Ohio (USA),
10.11.2022, 16:55

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> > > > FYI,
> > > > after a nuclear war, computers of any CPU and OS will be 100%
> useless
> > > > because the entirety of humanity will be thrust back into the
> > stone-age.
> > >
> > > I don't think that is correct.
> > >
> > > There will still be surviving computers after a nuclear war, and it
> > won't
> > > be the stone age, it will be an interesting environment.
> > >
> >
> > Personally, I'll take Einstein's word for it.
>
> Appeal to authority doesn't wash with me, and
> Einstein didn't get everything right anyway.
>

I have one last question for you on this totally ridiculous and totally absurd subject.

Since you seem to feel that you are a better "authority" than was Einstein...

What is your assessment as to the capabilities of computers and OSs
available to us after a blackhole has swallowed-up our sun ?

Will we have 16bit machines booted to DOS ?

Of will we then need to resort to using machines like this one ?
https://images.computerhistory.org/revonline/images/102646242-05-01.jpg?w=600

Of perhaps _this_ will be our only available computer ? :-D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abacus#/media/File:RomanAbacusRecon.jpg

---
--
http://glennmcc.org/
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
10.11.2022, 17:18

@ glennmcc
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> > > > > FYI,
> > > > > after a nuclear war, computers of any CPU and OS will be 100%
> > useless
> > > > > because the entirety of humanity will be thrust back into the
> > > stone-age.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think that is correct.
> > > >
> > > > There will still be surviving computers after a nuclear war, and it
> > > won't
> > > > be the stone age, it will be an interesting environment.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Personally, I'll take Einstein's word for it.
> >
> > Appeal to authority doesn't wash with me, and
> > Einstein didn't get everything right anyway.
>
> I have one last question for you on this totally ridiculous and totally
> absurd subject.
>
> Since you seem to feel that you are a better "authority" than was
> Einstein...
I didn't make such a claim.

> What is your assessment as to the capabilities of computers and OSs
> available to us after a blackhole has swallowed-up our sun ?
I don't have an opinion on that.

> Will we have 16bit machines booted to DOS ?
I have no idea about that, but while ever the
possibility exists that someone may wish to
manufacture 16-bit computers that boot to DOS,
I would like to have standards for such
computers organized now.

BFN. Paul.
glennmcc

Homepage E-mail

North Jackson, Ohio (USA),
10.11.2022, 20:58

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> > Will we have 16bit machines booted to DOS ?
>
> I have no idea about that, but while ever the
> possibility exists that someone may wish to
> manufacture 16-bit computers that boot to DOS,
> I would like to have standards for such
> computers organized now.
>

List of items on the minds of the survivors of a nuclear war.

1) where do I find food, water & shelter.
2) how to protect myself from those trying to kill me
to take my food, water & shelter.
...
...
...
1,000,000) what type of computer & OS will my great, great grand kids
have access to in the distant future once the electric grid
and internet have been rebuilt.

LOL :-D

---
--
http://glennmcc.org/
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
10.11.2022, 23:23

@ glennmcc
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> > > Will we have 16bit machines booted to DOS ?
> >
> > I have no idea about that, but while ever the
> > possibility exists that someone may wish to
> > manufacture 16-bit computers that boot to DOS,
> > I would like to have standards for such
> > computers organized now.
> >
>
> List of items on the minds of the survivors of a nuclear war.
>
> 1) where do I find food, water & shelter.
> 2) how to protect myself from those trying to kill me
> to take my food, water & shelter.
> ...
> ...
> ...
> 1,000,000) what type of computer & OS will my great, great grand kids
> have access to in the distant future once the electric grid
> and internet have been rebuilt.
That list is the same even without nuclear war.

I just happen to be one of the people who is interested
in something similar to what is on the bottom of most
people's lists.

BFN. Paul.
tkchia

Homepage

12.11.2022, 10:10

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

Hello kerravon,

By the way:

> (2 hot, 1 cold), won in our favor already. And
> I count the "War on Terror" as World War 4 too.
> Yet another ideological war (the same as 3).
> But to actually beat "terror" requires a
> comprehensive war covering a ridiculous number
> of ideologies and even ideas, and at an
> individual level, not just a leadership level.
I find this "War on Terror" terminology even worse and more vague than the whole "Cold War" thing. At least the Cold War had a definite end point — the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

What does it even mean to "win" a "War on Terror"? I can understand waging specific wars on specific groups, such as Al-Qaeda, or the Islamic State, or the Taliban. But how does one stamp out all possible "terrorist" activity in the past, present, and even future? At which point can one truly declare, "mission accomplished"?

Nobody speaks of a "War on First-Degree Murder" or a "War on Drunk Driving Accidents", in the same vein as one speaks (or spoke) of a "War on Terror". Why?

Really... think about these things.

Thank you!

---
https://gitlab.com/tkchia · https://codeberg.org/tkchia · 😴 "MOV AX,0D500H+CMOS_REG_D+NMI"
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
12.11.2022, 10:25

@ tkchia
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> I find this "War on Terror" terminology even worse and more vague than the
> whole "Cold War" thing.
Correct. It is totally wide, and ultimately requires
the root source of conflict (all conflict) to be
determined, since terrorism can be done by individuals,
not just states.

> At least the Cold War had a definite end point
> — the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Sort of. There were really 2 ideologies we were
up against - communism and Russian nationalism.

The first of those hasn't truly been defeated
even in the free world. The second is causing
people to die as we speak.

> What does it even mean to "win" a "War on Terror"? I can understand waging
> specific wars on specific groups, such as Al-Qaeda, or the Islamic State,
> or the Taliban. But how does one stamp out all possible "terrorist"
> activity in the past, present, and even future? At which point can one
> truly declare, "mission accomplished"?
Never. There is a saying "the price of freedom
is eternal vigilence". You need to constantly
scan the horizon.

> Nobody speaks of a "War on First-Degree Murder" or a "War on Drunk Driving
> Accidents", in the same vein as one speaks (or spoke) of a "War on Terror".
> Why?
You can if you want.

> Really... think about these things.
I've been thinking about them since circa 1981 when
I tuned in to Radio Moscow to find out why they
were anti-freedom and wrote to them for an
explanation and got a whole lot of propaganda in
reply instead of the expected "good point - we'll
hold democratic elections in all the dictatorships
under our thumb, including our own, within the next
6 months - we were real dumbasses for not being
able to figure that out for ourselves".

I've pursued finding the root cause of conflict and
the fundamentals of programming the entire time,
non-stop. Once I went for 7 days without sleep.
That was a programming breakthrough.

I have published all my findings already.

Here's one from a Russian that actually did the
above, sort of. Note that I have been talking to
him, often multiple times per day, for 11 years
or something, trying to sort out the damned Russians.

https://sabodog.livejournal.com/2291.html

BFN. Paul.
tkchia

Homepage

12.11.2022, 11:13

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

Hello kerravon,

> > I find this "War on Terror" terminology even worse and more vague than
> the
> > whole "Cold War" thing.
 ...
> Sort of. There were really 2 ideologies we were
> up against - communism and Russian nationalism.
> The first of those hasn't truly been defeated
> even in the free world. The second is causing
> people to die as we speak.
So you think that the freedom to disagree with your "ideology" is something that, "even in the free world", must be "defeated" in a "war". I thought democracy is supposed to be, at least in part, about the freedom to disagree?

Thank you!

---
https://gitlab.com/tkchia · https://codeberg.org/tkchia · 😴 "MOV AX,0D500H+CMOS_REG_D+NMI"
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
12.11.2022, 11:30

@ tkchia
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> Hello kerravon,
>
> > > I find this "War on Terror" terminology even worse and more vague than
> > the
> > > whole "Cold War" thing.
> ...
> > Sort of. There were really 2 ideologies we were
> > up against - communism and Russian nationalism.
> > The first of those hasn't truly been defeated
> > even in the free world. The second is causing
> > people to die as we speak.
>
> So you think that the freedom to disagree with your "ideology" is something
> that, "even in the free world", must be "defeated" in a "war".
Hell no. We need Devil's Advocates at the very minimum.

From time to time I tell people I'm a "true communist"
too, as evidenced by all my public domain software.

I'm demonstrating the "from each according to their
ability", without the need for a communist dictator.

Most communists I have met are very good at the
"to each according to their needs (and they "need"
a lot)" but not so good when I start asking what
they can do that is within their ability.

> I thought
> democracy is supposed to be, at least in part, about the freedom to
> disagree?
Absolutely! I even disagree with myself. I am
constantly challenging everything in my brain.

Previously I was under the impression that there
was no apparent standard for small systems, but
currently I am saying "apparently there is - what
is it? Can you figure out what it is from first
principles? Why didn't the Amiga use it? Was it
because of copyright issues?".

BFN. Paul.
tkchia

Homepage

16.11.2022, 16:23

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

Hello kerravon,

> Previously I was under the impression that there
> was no apparent standard for small systems, but
> currently I am saying "apparently there is - what
> is it? Can you figure out what it is from first
> principles? Why didn't the Amiga use it? Was it
> because of copyright issues?".
wut? "Figure out" an API for an existing system "from first principles"? How? And why?

Thank you!

---
https://gitlab.com/tkchia · https://codeberg.org/tkchia · 😴 "MOV AX,0D500H+CMOS_REG_D+NMI"
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
16.11.2022, 17:26

@ tkchia
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> Hello kerravon,
>
> > Previously I was under the impression that there
> > was no apparent standard for small systems, but
> > currently I am saying "apparently there is - what
> > is it? Can you figure out what it is from first
> > principles? Why didn't the Amiga use it? Was it
> > because of copyright issues?".
>
> wut? "Figure out" an API for an existing system "from first principles"?
> How? And why?
To understand and find out anything I am missing.

E.g. it was only recently that I found out that
people normally develop new systems using an
emulator on an existing system, but DOS was instead
developed with the aid of a "monitor". Apparently
use of a monitor is a lost art, but I was previously
unaware that the art even existed.

And only about 24 hours ago (part of the delay here)
I realized I didn't know (and still don't know) how
it is technically possible for compilers to support
the small memory model, given that a buffer can
reside on either the stack or in the data segment.

BTW, I can't remember if I mentioned it, but there
is now a public domain 8086 assembler:

https://github.com/robertapengelly/as86

and it assembles most of my hand-written code.

So I'm getting closer and closer to not just having
a public domain OS, but also the entire toolchain
to maintain and build all the applicable source code.

Oh - I also got PDPCLIB to support memory models
other than large - specifically tiny and compact.

medium and small seem to be technically impossible
as per above, but somehow the problem was solved
even though it is nominally impossible.

BFN. Paul.
tkchia

Homepage

16.11.2022, 18:16
(edited by tkchia, 16.11.2022, 23:05)

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

Hello kerravon,

> > wut? "Figure out" an API for an existing system "from first principles"?
> > How? And why?
> To understand and find out anything I am missing.
> E.g. it was only recently that I found out that
> people normally develop new systems using an
> emulator on an existing system, but DOS was instead
> developed with the aid of a "monitor". Apparently
> use of a monitor is a lost art, but I was previously
> unaware that the art even existed.
Yes, indeed, it is a good idea to find out about prior art(s). Please continue to do that.

(In contrast, it is usually not a good idea to deduce facts about the real world from "Pure Thought" or "Pure Wisdom". That way madness lies.)

> And only about 24 hours ago (part of the delay here)
> I realized I didn't know (and still don't know) how
> it is technically possible for compilers to support
> the small memory model, given that a buffer can
> reside on either the stack or in the data segment.
"Small model" in x86-16 coding simply means that there are two program segments, one for code, and one for data — and stack! So within the program you have cs ≠ ds = ss: the stack segment is the same as the data segment.

If you run a debugger on a small model program compiled by Turbo C++ or Open Watcom or some other 16-bit compiler, you will find that ds = ss by the time you reach main (). So there you go.

This is straightforward for the compiler to implement in most cases.

(*** begin long aside ***)

However, a problem arises when compiling an interrupt handler routine (via a compiler-specific interrupt or _interrupt keyword). The interrupt handler might be called in the middle of some BIOS or DOS routine which sets ss to point outside the program: then you have ss ≠ program's data segment (let us call it .data).

The interrupt handler can easily set ds := .data, but temporarily moving the stack pointer ss:sp into the program data segment is not easy, and not always possible.

It turns out that Turbo C++ (version 2, at least) kind of glosses over this issue. It assumes ss = ds = .data, without setting ss (!). But it will normally access automatic stack variables via (ss:)bp and static storage variables via other registers or addressing modes, i.e. via ds. This happens to work most of the time if you do not happen to mix stack addresses and static storage addresses. But it may fail.

Open Watcom in contrast explicitly handles this case, and will compile the interrupt handler in a special mode which takes into account that we might have ss ≠ ds := .data.

Bart Oldeman, myself, and a few other folks, had a discussion about this case (among other matters) back in 2018, when I was trying to add far function support to Andrew Jenner's gcc-ia16 toolchain: https://github.com/tkchia/gcc-ia16/issues/19#issuecomment-367183866 .

(*** end long aside ***)

Thank you!

---
https://gitlab.com/tkchia · https://codeberg.org/tkchia · 😴 "MOV AX,0D500H+CMOS_REG_D+NMI"
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
17.11.2022, 23:40

@ tkchia
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> > And only about 24 hours ago (part of the delay here)
> > I realized I didn't know (and still don't know) how
> > it is technically possible for compilers to support
> > the small memory model, given that a buffer can
> > reside on either the stack or in the data segment.
>
> "Small model" in x86-16 coding simply means that there are two program
> segments, one for code, and one for data — and stack! So within the
> program you have cs ? ds =
> ss: the stack segment is the same as the data segment.
Thanks for clearing up that mystery!!!

Does this look correct to you?

https://sourceforge.net/p/pdos/gitcode/ci/master/tree/pdpclib/dosstart.asm#l72

; In tiny, small and medium memory models, you need to set
; ss to ds (MSDOS will have set them to different values
; when it loaded the executable).

if @DataSize
else
mov bx,ss
mov ax,ds
sub bx,ax
mov cl,4
shl bx,cl

endif

...

; It appears that in the tiny memory model, you are still required
; to set ds to the same as cs yourself, presumably because ds is
; pointing to the PSP while cs is probably pointing to the beginning
; of the executable. DGROUP may also get the correct value, presumably
; zero. es is set to ds a bit later. And you need to set ss to that
; value too

if @Model eq 1
push cs
pop ds
push cs
pop ax
mov bp, sp
sub bp, bx
mov ss, ax
mov sp, bp
; And that null PSP thing needs to be redone
mov ax, 0
push ax
else
mov ds,dx

; small and medium memory models have ds and ss the same so that
; near pointers can refer to either stack or data and still work
if @DataSize
else
mov bp, sp
sub bp, bx
mov ss, dx
mov sp, bp
; And that null PSP thing needs to be redone
mov ax, 0
push ax
endif

endif
tkchia

Homepage

18.11.2022, 00:38
(edited by tkchia, 18.11.2022, 00:56)

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

Hello kerravon,

> Thanks for clearing up that mystery!!!
> Does this look correct to you?
> https://sourceforge.net/p/pdos/gitcode/ci/master/tree/pdpclib/dosstart.asm#l72
The best way to test your code is probably not to ask Internet randos. :-) Get an actual 16-bit C compiler, then test your code against an actual C compiler. This is how stuff is done.

(However, if your code is not working — for some reason — and you have trouble figuring out why it is not working, or if you have trouble figuring out how to test it in the first place, then maybe we can help there.)

If you want your startup code to work with Turbo C++ (e.g.) what you can try to do is to replace the startup module (probably c0t.obj, c0h.obj, etc.) on the linker command line with your own. Or if you are thinking of linking up with code from a different C compiler, then try replacing the startup module from that, etc.

I do not suppose you have actually found a public domain (N.B.) C compiler for x86-16 that actually knows about the various memory models? If there is such a thing I am sure the community here (me included) would be super-interested to know.

> > > Was the purpose of a new OS design so that if it
> > > did become popular, Commodore could lock people
> > > in somehow?
> > Huh? Not everything is a deliberate conspiracy to squeeze more money from
> > customers. After all, you yourself created a new C-level API that is
> At the moment I am not claiming that what I did
> was the right thing to do. I wasn't actually
> aware of what came before besides people calling
> int86x and POSIX, neither of which I liked. And
My original point was that not everything that corporations do should be attributed to nefarious intent. If you can easily end up doing the same things without nefarious intent, then why not other people?

At the end of the day, programming is a very crass, pragmatic endeavour. No amount of verbiage can change that, and maybe that is just as it should be. When your code is deployed, it either works, or it does not. So you try your best to ensure that your code works on whatever machines it is meant to run on.

So I will not be surprised if a lot of design decisions, such as recent versions of Windows requiring x86-64's with certain CPU features, turn out to be due to practical considerations.

Thank you!

---
https://gitlab.com/tkchia · https://codeberg.org/tkchia · 😴 "MOV AX,0D500H+CMOS_REG_D+NMI"
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
18.11.2022, 01:33

@ tkchia
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> The best way to test your code is probably not to ask Internet randos. :-)
> Get an actual 16-bit C compiler, then test your code against an actual C
> compiler. This is how stuff is done.
I already did that. I built it using Watcom C in
various memory models, and ran the resultant
executable on PDOS/86.

Even though it works, it may randomly corrupt
something in the future and that's why I was
hoping for someone to desk-check it.

> I do not suppose you have actually found a public domain (N.B.) C compiler
> for x86-16 that actually knows about the various memory models? If there
> is such a thing I am sure the community here (me included) would be
> super-interested to know.
Not quite, but SubC exists, and I have made modifications
to it myself, and have paid someone else to make
modifications to it, and I have already verified that
as86 can handle its output.

I have been trying to think of an easy way to get it to
do more than small memory model, and my current thought
is to bump up the size of "int" to 32-bits using dx+ax
etc, and use large and maybe huge memory model so that
pointers are also 4 bytes.

That should produce valid 8086 code, which is at least
a starting point.

But before doing that I want to get 80386 working
satisfactorily, where I don't need to mess around
with that. And the barrier there is isolating a
subset of C90 that is close enough for my code to
work, or perhaps I can make some small changes to
my code. It depends what is possible. Also I don't
know if I can survive without "unsigned" (which I
currently define as nothing). I'll probably get
back to SubC soon, but as86 is the current priority
since it is being actively worked on.

> My original point was that not everything that corporations do should be
> attributed to nefarious intent. If you can easily end up doing the same
> things without nefarious intent, then why not other people?
Sure, I didn't mean to suggest that every corporate
action was due to nefarious intent. It's more just
the two monopolies (Microsoft and IBM) trying to
maintain their monopoly that is not so much nefarious -
it is not their job to break their own monopoly -
but needs to be recognized.

> So I will not be surprised if a lot of design decisions, such as recent
> versions of Windows requiring x86-64's with certain CPU features, turn out
> to be due to practical considerations.
I guess that's possible. But I don't like Microsoft
bragging about their carbon footprint when they're
the ones forcing people to upgrade PCs, which is
where they make money. I'd rather they just kept
quiet. If they're not going to keep quiet, they
should be exposed for their hypocrisy.

BFN. Paul.
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
18.11.2022, 02:56

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

I realized there was a problem with my code
so I have committed a new version.

BFN. Paul.
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
21.11.2022, 13:49

@ tkchia
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> I do not suppose you have actually found a public domain (N.B.) C compiler
> for x86-16 that actually knows about the various memory models? If there
> is such a thing I am sure the community here (me included) would be
> super-interested to know.
Jean-Marc (PDAndro) has said that he is going to
start working on SubC for the i386.

Can you tell me why you are interested in a public
domain C compiler for x86-16?

He might be willing to give that target priority
after doing i386.

The work on i386 will likely be applicable to all
other targets anyway, as it is the front-end
language processing that is lacking, not the code
generation.

BFN. Paul.
DosWorld

21.11.2022, 16:40

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> Jean-Marc (PDAndro) has said that he is going to
> start working on SubC for the i386.
IMHO this is has not so much sense.
More cause problem - lack of compilers backend (gcc-grade, but without gcc), we have gcc:
a) strong require use full gcc-toolchain (which has strange assembler syntax, own file formats and have "overfat" size etc)
b) this gcc is old

---
Make DOS great again!

Carthago delenda est, Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse.
glennmcc

Homepage E-mail

North Jackson, Ohio (USA),
21.11.2022, 17:41

@ DosWorld
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> > Jean-Marc (PDAndro) has said that he is going to
> > start working on SubC for the i386.
>
> IMHO this is has not so much sense.
> More cause problem - lack of compilers backend (gcc-grade, but without
> gcc), we have gcc:
> a) strong require use full gcc-toolchain (which has strange assembler
> syntax, own file formats and have "overfat" size etc)
> b) this gcc is old
Full agreement here.... that's total nonsense.

All of the 'tools' already exist that are needed for compiling programs
to run on all currently existing CPUs and OSs
(most are available to download free)

IMHO, Attempting to write new compilers is simply reinventing the wheel.

And _this_ is what happens when you reinvent the wheel.
http://glennmcc.org/images/reinvented-wheel.jpg
:-D

---
--
http://glennmcc.org/
DosWorld

21.11.2022, 19:09
(edited by DosWorld, 21.11.2022, 19:21)

@ DosWorld
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> lack of compilers backend
Also, if somebody work in this direction, i am will be happy to join.

We have 3 "problem":
1. Compiler frontend (not a big problem)
2. Compiler backend
3. Linker

I am try to start from #1 (few times), but need understand #2 and #3 limits to have a success on step #1.
Each time, i am receive (as result) student-grade compiler with similar problem (one of example).

So, i am stop try to create frontend and start go in reverse direction - from step #3. Now, i am had solve #3 (16/32 bit linker).

---
Make DOS great again!

Carthago delenda est, Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse.
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
21.11.2022, 23:38

@ DosWorld
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> > lack of compilers backend
>
> Also, if somebody work in this direction, i am will be happy to join.
You're willing to work on SubC?

I thought you said it didn't make sense?

It makes sense to me because I want a public
domain compiler, for the same reason that the
GCC copyright owners refuse to make theirs
public domain.

BTW, I noticed that your linker is copyrighted.
Are you happy to release any work on SubC as
public domain?

> We have 3 "problem":
> 1. Compiler frontend (not a big problem)
This is actually the major problem. Finding
someone with the skills to get this close
enough to C90. It's already very close.

> 2. Compiler backend
This already exists for 8086, 80386 and ARM,
which is all I'm really interested in. Well,
I'm interested in S/370 too.

> 3. Linker
We already have pdld386 for the 80386 and now
we have ld86 for the 8086. I am not aware of
any problem with either of them for the purpose
I require.

> I am try to start from #1 (few times), but need understand #2 and #3 limits
> to have a success on step #1.
> Each time, i am receive (as result) student-grade compiler with similar
> problem (one of example).
I'm happy to live with student grade so long
as it works. Improving that is a job for future
generations.

BFN. Paul.
DosWorld

22.11.2022, 19:19

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> > 2. Compiler backend
> This already exists for 8086, 80386
Which one?

---
Make DOS great again!

Carthago delenda est, Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse.
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
23.11.2022, 01:10

@ DosWorld
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> > > 2. Compiler backend
> > This already exists for 8086, 80386
>
> Which one?
Both of those targets are available. Plus
ARM32 and x64.

Note that 8086 is small memory model only
currently.

BFN. Paul.
DosWorld

23.11.2022, 12:00

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> > > > 2. Compiler backend
> > > This already exists for 8086, 80386
> > Which one?
> Both of those targets are available. Plus
> ARM32 and x64.
Sorry, i am use wrong words.
Which one compiler backend you mean?

---
Make DOS great again!

Carthago delenda est, Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse.
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
23.11.2022, 12:28

@ DosWorld
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> > > > > 2. Compiler backend
> > > > This already exists for 8086, 80386
> > > Which one?
> > Both of those targets are available. Plus
> > ARM32 and x64.
>
> Sorry, i am use wrong words.
> Which one compiler backend you mean?
I don't understand your question. You are the
one who said that "compiler backend" was a
problem.

I mentioned that SubC already generates 8086
assembler (small memory model only).

That's the backend, right?

BFN. Paul.
DosWorld

25.11.2022, 18:20
(edited by DosWorld, 25.11.2022, 18:35)

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> I mentioned that SubC already generates
> 8086 assembler
> That's the backend, right?
No. This is compiler frontend plus zero-level (or stub-level) backend. IMHO, this is wrong way, because generated code quality could not be greater then Turbo Pascal 6/7.0 or gcc -O0.

Here is example of standalone backend. (+LLVM etc).

Here is article and code by Alexfru which could be as a first step.

---
Make DOS great again!

Carthago delenda est, Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse.
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
25.11.2022, 19:38

@ DosWorld
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> > I mentioned that SubC already generates
> > 8086 assembler
> > That's the backend, right?
>
> No. This is compiler frontend plus zero-level (or stub-level) backend.
> IMHO, this is wrong way, because generated code quality could not be
> greater then Turbo Pascal 6/7.0 or gcc -O0.
Ok, I don't know much about compilers.

And I'm not very good with complex algorithms.

I have skills - I don't know how to describe
them - but they aren't algorithms.

My dad convinced me to do engineering instead
of computer science, but in the 2nd year of
university I quit after they started teaching
differential equations and I decided this
wasn't for me.

I managed to get work as a tape jockey when I
was 18.

I looked at your link. Maybe if I spent enough
effort I could understand it, but for now I
want to avoid it.

What I know is that for literally 50 years, no-one
has been willing to release even a basic C90-compliant
compiler. Everyone who has the skills wants to lock
it down with a copyright. SubC is where it's at.
It's not far from being usable. Well, "not far" may
still be another 50 years, no-one knows for sure at
the moment.

BFN. Paul.
DosWorld

25.11.2022, 22:27

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> I quit after they started teaching
> differential equations
I am also ate this cactus (in 90's), but remember about it the same as you.
So, you don't waste time. :-D

> I looked at your link. Maybe if I spent enough
> effort I could understand it, but for now I
> want to avoid it.
For me, it will be great improvement - we can speed up our software x2/x3 times just recompile it. But it not so easy way. May be i am will try.

---
Make DOS great again!

Carthago delenda est, Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse.
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
25.11.2022, 22:34

@ DosWorld
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> > I looked at your link. Maybe if I spent enough
> > effort I could understand it, but for now I
> > want to avoid it.
>
> For me, it will be great improvement - we can speed up our software x2/x3
> times just recompile it.
I'm curious why you're not recompiling your software
for x64 or ARM instead.

But yeah, I do agree that it would be nice for people
to improve compilers, and make all software bug-free
too, instead of just replacing one bit of buggy
software with a new version with a different set of
bugs.
DosWorld

25.11.2022, 22:39

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> I'm curious why you're not recompiling your software
> for x64 or ARM instead.
Because i love real mode dos. For me it sort of non-commercial art.
If can't run it - i'll use VM with x86 bytecode :-D

---
Make DOS great again!

Carthago delenda est, Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse.
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
26.11.2022, 09:31

@ DosWorld
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> > I'm curious why you're not recompiling your software
> > for x64 or ARM instead.
>
> Because i love real mode dos. For me it sort of non-commercial art.
> If can't run it - i'll use VM with x86 bytecode :-D
Can you tell me more about the "art"? Is it the
thrill of provably being able to run in less
than 640k?

Or is it 16-bit?

How would you feel about running in PM16, still being
able to do INT 21h, but having more than 640k of
memory available, and also your application runs in
kernel mode.

It should then be identical to RM16, shouldn't it,
except you have more memory?

But if low memory is the attraction, that is useless.

Are you interested in going lower, e.g. programming
the C64? What about the 68000 Amiga 500? It came with
512k memory from memory.

BFN. Paul.
glennmcc

Homepage E-mail

North Jackson, Ohio (USA),
26.11.2022, 17:24

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> Are you interested in going lower, e.g. programming
> the C64? What about the 68000 Amiga 500? It came with
> 512k memory from memory.
>

Perhaps you should go back to BASIC & ASM programming for the
Z80 CPU in the RadioShack TRS-80 model 1 with 4KB of RAM ? :-D ;-)

---
--
http://glennmcc.org/
DosWorld

26.11.2022, 22:53
(edited by DosWorld, 27.11.2022, 00:08)

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> Can you tell me more about the "art"? Is it the
> thrill of provably being able to run in less
> than 640k?
> Or is it 16-bit?
1. Partly, yes. Dos (memory model) can be full applicable to solve all problems, until your program have 'size(int) < 65536'. Also, dos is real-time (or very near).

2. Over-engineering (over-complicated) applications (which consume too much resources) with low quality of programmers in modern 'industrial programming' (enterprise etc). Example of this over-engineering - web browser engines. When i do programming for dos - i am free (not need reproduce/reuse over complicated things to solve something simple).
When you have interview, I don't recommend talk about B+Tree and restrict your brain to student-level knowledge about binary/avl/red-black tree (one time, i was looks like a person who tells wonderful-lie story) and learn very well all syntax sugar in modern language (which you will use).

You talk about memory restrictions - imho it is not so important.
(I am more restricted with 2gb file limit)

> Are you interested in going lower, e.g. programming
> the C64? What about the 68000 Amiga 500? It came with
> 512k memory from memory.
It is a little bit different scene, for me.
And this is more about home-computer.
I have no idea, why home computer must have more then one core and tons of features from mainframes (enterprise computers). And consume too much of energy. Also, Personal Computer (PC) with multiuser OS. Does it sounds strange? (next, need expect multiuser toothbrush :-D on market)

This is applicable for normal life (when you live a happy life and can waste resources), but we live in mad world with crazy people ("sorry, i have no better planet for you" (c) me). It will be broken with first small problem. At last blackout this week, i have only one real working source of news. Hey! Where is yours web2.0? I dont see it! :-D :-D
But my HP LX200 can continue work near to unlimited time.

---
Make DOS great again!

Carthago delenda est, Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse.
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
10.12.2022, 05:54

@ DosWorld
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> > I mentioned that SubC already generates
> > 8086 assembler
> > That's the backend, right?
>
> No. This is compiler frontend plus zero-level (or stub-level) backend.
> IMHO, this is wrong way, because generated code quality could not be
> greater then Turbo Pascal 6/7.0 or gcc -O0.
Ok, again, I don't know which one this is, but
we do have a new player:

https://github.com/wxwisiasdf/cc23/tree/master

It's being actively worked on as we speak.

And I asked him if he could do 8086 huge
memory model too, and he said yes.

BFN. Paul.
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
12.11.2022, 11:34

@ tkchia
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> I thought
> democracy is supposed to be, at least in part, about the freedom to
> disagree?
By the way, I sent an email to the Chinese dictator
asking him to nuke Canberra because I wanted the
Australian constitution changed to be like the
Chinese one.

The reasons for sending the email were far more
complex than that, but one of the things I wanted
to test was whether I could goad the Australian
government into arresting me for expressing an
extreme political opinion.

The Australian government yawned.

I've run out of things to actually say, so have
moved on from testing my own institutions.

BFN. Paul.
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
12.11.2022, 11:38

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

Oh yeah, and I called the cops on myself (anonymously)
for one of my posts where I was saying I was going to shoot
my wife because she was in pain because she had cancer.

I wasn't married. No-one I knew had cancer. I don't
own a gun.

The police did turn up, and I was taken to see a
psychiatrist, but they refused to arrest me for
anything.

I haven't read the 253,729,122 and counting laws
in Australia and NSW, but apparently there's
nothing in there that can actually stick.

BFN. Paul.
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
12.11.2022, 11:43

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

By the way - the Australian constitution doesn't
guarantee freedom of speech, nor do we have a
bill of rights.

It does say that the Governor General controls
our Navy though.

Like all pieces of paper, it's a joke.

Chamberlain once waved around a piece of paper
too, making a fool of himself.

BFN. Paul.
DosWorld

12.11.2022, 11:35
(edited by DosWorld, 12.11.2022, 11:49)

@ tkchia
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> What does it even mean to "win" a "War on Terror"? I can understand waging
> specific wars on specific groups, such as Al-Qaeda, or the Islamic State,
> or the Taliban. But how does one stamp out all possible "terrorist"
> activity in the past, present, and even future? At which point can one
> truly declare, "mission accomplished"?
1. There is no strong terrorism, there is a weak West.
2. It is easier to fight terrorism, seksism (sorry, word filter), racism and toxicity than with a real military opponent (or real problem). Where is all of this fighters? I don't see anyone here. ZER0. (excluding Banksy - we see some his works here, 2, 3)

---
Make DOS great again!

Carthago delenda est, Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse.
DosWorld

10.11.2022, 19:43
(edited by DosWorld, 10.11.2022, 19:59)

@ kerravon
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> And that the only people who will still be able to
> manufacture processors will be universities, and
> they will only be able to do 8-bit computers, not
> 16-bit.
Computers - not need. Just use your imagination.
https://www.amazon.com/-/dp/0998379417/

I hope, author of this book will write the same book, but about Word and Excel.

PS: :-D

PPS: Seriously, why should humanity follow the path of technocracy again? They may choose a completely different way. For example, they can see 8086 memory model, 68 genders, get horrified and say "never again!", and become druids.

---
Make DOS great again!

Carthago delenda est, Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse.
kerravon

Ligao, Free World North,
10.11.2022, 23:25

@ DosWorld
 

nuclear war

Post reply

> > And that the only people who will still be able to
> > manufacture processors will be universities, and
> > they will only be able to do 8-bit computers, not
> > 16-bit.
>
> Computers - not need. Just use your imagination.
> https://www.amazon.com/-/dp/0998379417/
>
> I hope, author of this book will write the same book, but about Word and
> Excel.
>
> PS: :-D
>
> PPS: Seriously, why should humanity follow the path of technocracy again?
> They may choose a completely different way. For example, they can see 8086
> memory model, 68 genders, get horrified and say "never again!", and become
> druids.
I'm not saying they will or they won't.

I'm only saying that while the possibility exists,
I would like to plan for it.

BFN. Paul.
Back to index page
Thread view  Board view
22049 Postings in 2034 Threads, 396 registered users, 78 users online (0 registered, 78 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum