MS-DOS VS linux

This 4.0 code contains references to 4.00, though: https://github.com/microsoft/MS-DOS/blob/main/v4.0/src/BOOT/...

I recently stumbled across the MS-DOS 1.25 and 2.0 source code [1].

[1] https://github.com/microsoft/MS-DOS

“Despite this reduction in scope for MS-DOS 2.0, it did carry many bits of XENIX. The system adopted I/O redirection via less-than and greater-than symbols, piping, a hierarchical directory tree, file handles […]”

The source code for MSDOS 2 is available and the file descriptor stuff appears to be in https://github.com/microsoft/MS-DOS/blob/master/v2.0/source/... and XENIX2.ASM. It stands in contrast to the File Control Block API which MSDOS 1 (née 86-DOS) modeled after CP/M’s API.

Asynchronous I/O figures in prominently in Windows NT. I was really surprised to see[0]:

Each driver in the chain defines two entry points; the strategy routine and the interrupt routine. The 2.0 DOS does not really make use of two entry points (it simply calls strategy, then immediately calls interrupt). This dual entry point scheme is designed to facilitate future multi-tasking versions of MS-DOS. In multi-tasking environments I/O must be asynchronous, to accomplish this the strategy routine will be called to queue (internally) a request and return quickly. It is then the responsibility of the interrupt routine to perform the actual I/O at interrupt time by picking requests off the internal queue (set up by the strategy routine), and process them. When a request is complete, it is flagged as "done" by the interrupt routine. The DOS periodically scans the list of requests looking for ones flagged as done, and "wakes up" the process waiting for the completion of the request.

I didn't realize that kind of forwarding-looking perspective was going into the design of MS-DOS.

[0] https://github.com/microsoft/MS-DOS/blob/master/v2.0/source/...

>Any others I'm missing?

I would suggest MS-DOS: https://github.com/microsoft/MS-DOS

FFS predates FreeBSD and is in some capacity supported by all 3 major BSDs. I'm fairly confident that Linux actually supports it through the ufs driver ( https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/fs/ufs ); whether the use of different names in different places makes it better or worse is an exercise for the reader.

These are a bit easier to see what's going on:

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/d5cf50dafc9dd5faa1e...

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/d5cf50dafc9dd5faa1e61...

Unfortunately Github doesn't have a way to render symbols for whitespace, but you can tell by selecting the spaces that the previous version had leading tabs. Linus changed it so that the tokens `default` and the number e.g. `12` are also separated by a tab. This is tricky, because the token "default" is seven characters, it will always give this added tab a width of 1 char which makes it always layout the same as if it were a space no matter if you use tab widths of 1, 2, 4, or 8.

There was also a Gentoo effort to run atop FreeBSD[0]. The challenge of course is that afaik none of the BSD kernel ABIs are considered stable. The stable interface is the BSD libc. That said, with binfmt_misc, I don't see a reason you couldn't just run (at least some) FreeBSD binaries on Linux with a thin syscall translation layer (rather something like qemu-system) and then your layer hooked via binfmt_misc. I'm not aware of anyone who has done this for FreeBSD, but prior efforts existed as alternate binfmts for SysVr4/5 ELF binaries[2]. Either way would take some elbow grease, but you *might* even be able just reuse binfmt_elf and just have a new interpreter for FreeBSD elf.

[0] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_FreeBSD

[1] https://docs.kernel.org/admin-guide/binfmt-misc.html

[2] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/fs/binfmt_elf....

> The original less-than check was deemed incorrect

It was only deemed incorrect because of an information leak. Not because it's a valid use-case for user space to copy smaller portions of *hwrpb into user space. https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/21c5977a836e399fc71...

Correct. And the combined work needs to carry the MIT license text and copyright attributions for the MIT software authors. With binary distribution it must also be overt, not hidden in some source code drop, but directly accompanying the binary.

Many people who talk about relicensing never credit the MIT developers or distribute the MIT license text. "Because it's GPL now."

I don't think that you believe that, but many developers do.

Some don't see the need for source code scans for Open Source compliance, because the license.txt says GPL, so it's GPL. Prime example is the Linux kernel. There is code under different licenses in there, but people don't even read https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/COPYING till the end ("In addition, other licenses may also apply.") and conclude it's simply GPL 2 and nothing else.

Also be aware that sublicensing is not the same as relicensing.

> Does he have something against it?

He notoriously hates GNU Emacs, yes.

https://marc.info/?m=122955159617722

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/...

So If we would only count code and not comments, it is only 9489 LoC Rust. Which would be about 0.03% and if we take all lines and not only LoC it would be around 0.05%

[0] https://github.com/XAMPPRocky/tokei

[1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/b401b621758e46812da...

AIUI fsync is built on futex_waitv which has been upstreamed. So this has to be more than that.

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/a0eb2da92b715d0c97b...