The idea has been self censored by the author.



@forum mod: lock the 3ad.

I don't think it'll be very possible, but then again, if there's a will, there's a way.

Count Me In!

Things to consider:
ReactOS
Wine
Linux Kernel

Well, ReactOS is an NT clone.
Wine & Linux are not so mutch compatible with drivers.

The unique way would be E/OS LX, but "is based on parts of linux, freebsd, reactos and wine sources" so it just could help.

Anyway my idea have a different approach that allows you to have a fully functional system since 0.0.0.0.0.1

Nothing to see here people, move along.

Everything you could possibly want is already available, here are some quickies/popular ones:
LiteStep - a shell alternative
OpenOffice / Star Office - word processing & spreadsheets
A ton of open source media player like apps.
A ton of open source text editors
FireFox - web browsing

Of course now it's time for monkey wrench throwing... Using open source just for the sake of it being open source is mindless!

I could also add that while there's nothing wrong with using open source apps, I do, but isn't it an oxymoron to become a open source zealot but yet still use Windows. If you're going to be a zealot, then go to Linux while you're at it.

Rhelic, You misunderstood his goal. It's not about using open source for the sake of sport.

If someone wants to write, let's say a replacement dll for w98 (the Graahl beeing rewriting the kernel) let's put his creation in the compilation, easily available for everyone, all the new stuffs in one place!

Some w98 files are open sources, others are not, but it's not forbidden to write repacements for the original ones. Doing so will avoid having hacks of hacks on the limits of legality.
(Now, in the packs available here we are limited to files officialy issued by M$.)

Little by little, maybe in 20 years we will have a w98 open source, written by passionate geeks at 90%...

Well, if the same patent laws that apply for other sectors of industry apply also to the software industry (and I believe there is no reason they should not), then Windows 95 source code will be public domain in 2015.


I think you confuse open source and freely redistributable here.

@rhelic : I quite agree with your all of your views about open source. I also believe that many open source devellopers are in fact working for free for the corporate. It's the corporate who benefits the most from open source I believe. Linux on servers being the most obvious example.

Huh... I didn't know that E/OS was publicly available, let alone released... guess I'm behind the times somewhat.

I'll take a look at it, and see what can be improved upon, as long as it doesn't take all day to accomplish...

Anybody still running Win9x in 20 years is either a historian or insane, stop sniffing glue people, Win98 isn't that great.

Perhaps except MS isn't required to hand out the code, nor will they as they don't want other OSs to have Windows compatibility.

I'm not a zealot 'cause i don't have a server ah home (Linux is _only_ for servers, in my opinion).
I don't like so mutch windows (i'm an old OS/2 fan), but if it will be open, many other OSes could benefit.


On the other side, if is open source it can evolve to a better stage...

Anyway, remember that i'm not a developer and this is just an idea.

Linux is definitely not just for servers. Windows has various versions, some for servers and some for workstations. Linux does not. Any Linux machine can offer services to other machines, or not.

By the time Microsoft's licensing rights on Windows 95 expire so much will have developed that it won't be worh the time to redevelop it as a non-propriety solution. The yet-to-be-released Windows Vista will be history by then. You might as well start work on OS/3.

Eidenk,

Developers who would want to replace a component that is not open-sourced by M$, will have to start from scratch. If it's open source, they can use the existing code and improve it.

And the result code of a modified open source, is bound by agreement to be open source too. Of course it doesn't means it's freely distributable but I still don't know of a unofficial service pack that was payware.

I think that when program become open source, the owner almost always specify that recompiled versions cannot be sold. That means they must be freely distributed unless of course, they reach an agreement with the owner for some commercial exploitation.

So far I don't know of any Windows (whatever version) component that has been open-sourced by MS. Please let us know if you know any .


What is the point you are trying to make here ?

I always thought open source software could be freely distributed by anyone provided no fee is charged for the software and it includes the source code.


I know that there are different types of licences, GPL, LGPL and probably others. I think some are extremely strict and totally forbid the use of the code in any commercial application. Those who put together and distribute commercial Linux distros for example seem to fall in the category you say.

Is there an owner of the code in open-source ? I would think that anyone who open-source a piece of code does not own it anymore.

I wonder if MS could not empeach anyone to use Win9x code commercially in the future by open-sourcing it before it falls in the public domain.

But does open-source code also fall into the public domain after a while and hence its use becoming totally free (also usable commercially by anyone) ?

I find open source very confusing.

eidenk,

I know for sure that M$ has started open)sourcing some of their code. TBS, I don't know if it involves W98 parts or only periferic softwares.

The only open source Microsoft has (and will ever have) is new utils, and they currently all revolve around .Net development like side features for Visual Studio. Almost all of them are housed somewhere on http://GotDotNet.com and some quick ones I've seen are:
WebMatrix (a full blown ASP.Net IDE)
two different 'Code Snippet Editors' (for Visual Studio 2005)

MS will not "open source" their OS code because it still exists in newer versions of windows for compatibility reasons. MS DOS may not be used as the boot-up for Win2x,XP,2003,etc but it still exists inside command.com or some DLL.

Also give up this concept you guys have about "public domain", I don't think you understand what it means. There is no magic date that comes and MS has to give out the source code. All it means is that one day somebody can attempt to reverse engineer the code, without worrying about being sued, but I'll tell you now that's next to impossible, even for uber geeks. And IIRC

Also recreating the 'under the hood' part of Windows 9x only leads to 2 places, Linux or Win 2000. So anybody even attempting this is re-creating the wheel and goes back to my original point where you should jump to Linux or upgrade to 2000 or newer. Yes there are tons of improvements that can be done to 9x, and they are called Win 2000. So by improving 9x, that's where you'd be heading anyways.

Rhelic is right.

Win98 is crap. Why bother spending any time and effort on it. By the time you can legally do so, why would you want it in the first place.

If you're going to replace OS components with open-source versions, do it with Win2k. Win 2k came out in 99 so you'll have to wait 1 year longer to do it legally, big whoop.

Also, since so many corp. use Win2k, if you get it going you may actually end up with corporate support.

WinXP is not that much better than Win2, if at all (some would say WinXP is a step back because it adds so much useless crap to the OS).

Well there should be I think. For example, when a drug company patents a new molecule they have created, their exclusive rights for manufacturing and selling that molecule lasts only for twenty years. After that anyone can manufacture and market the molecule. But it's also valid for glues and whatever else whatever the developement and licensing costs. And hence you have branded and generic drugs for example. So why shouldn't this apply to software ?


See above. Other example : Dupont did invent PTFE and patented the name Teflon for it but today, because of what I explain, not only you can buy pans coated with PTFE labelled Teflon and manufactured by Dupont but you also can buy pans coated with PTFE not labelled Teflon and manufactured by other companies than Dupont. It is not because a company still commercialize a product after the expiration of their exclusive rights that they maintain those exclusive rights. The only exclusive rights they can keep is the use of their brand name.


Is this true ? Win2000 is an improved WinNT not an improved Win9x. NT 3.51 coexisted with 95. NT 4 with 98 and 2000 with ME.

The goal is not the re-invent the wheel but to have several windows/dos compatible OS'es concurencing each others.
Mac and Linux don't realy make concurence to M$ because those who would turn to Mac or Linux would have not only give up windows, but all the softwares they used so far, (except for the rare case when a version exists for these OS'es).
Only alternative windows compatible OS'es can make a serious concurence to M$. And it's good for M$ because it force them to constantly improve their product. (note the singular)

To do that, there are two ways:

1/reinventing the wheel: Those who tried that, except Linus, never went very far. You can read on their website that soon the new version will support e-mail client. Last update: dec. 2002. How encouraging...

2/changing what's already there: new component for existing windows OS.
Until now, only M$ has been done that to critical w98 parts. Proof that such process is paradoxaly positive for M$.
First it set the long term value of their product(s ?). Poeple know that in seven years, there are chances that there will still be updates for the OS they buy today.
Second it's R&D. Doing that they may find new ideas for something new.

Aleternative Windows also revelates the demand of some M$ potentialy renewed clients. The need for something else than mainstream XP.
We are all here, at the "Unofficial Win98 SE Service Pack" forum because we want an OS the way we want it and not the way it was forced upon us.

I don't think they will ever release the source code. Software is copyrighted not patented. Copyrights do not expire.

Hi RJM,

So what about Linux ? If I understand well, it is written after UNIX code (of the sixties ?). Was not UNIX code also copyrighted and/or patented and fell in the public domain before being worked upon by Torvalds and then the other Linux devellopers ?

who needs open source when people in here are slicing dicing 9x and making it better,as far as w2k goes its got a better kernel like i care.and w2k like 6 months older than 98se anyway.if u use 98se its because u like the simpicity its light easy 2 use and u probably arent on a massive network or give a rats a** about sercurity u playing pogo games and emailing granpma or yahoo messenging your friends you probably couldnt care less about the guts of 98se only appeciate the little proggies that enchance the look.if u can run 99%of your stuff on it who cares if xp or 2000 got more stupid features.im tech savy but ill run anything thats got a browser.it always seems 2 come back to the 98se is a dinosaur bit ,lets face it its all old including 2001 xp home.why dont they stop making new versions and settle on a base os and update it with service pack every 2 years be alot easlier maybe ill call bill at remond probably home ill straightn this out np. open source is always a good idea it allows people to prefect things.that explains microsofts problems lol.i know your reading this bill email me anytime same addy chow.

Hi eidenk, Here is the UNIX LIUNX story.

In 1994 Novell (who had acquired the UNIX systems business of AT&T/USL) decided to get out of that business. Rather than sell the business as a single entity, Novell transferred the rights to the UNIX trademark and the specification (that subsequently became the Single UNIX Specification) to The Open Group (at the time X/Open Company). Subsequently, it sold the source code and the product implementation (UNIXWARE) to SCO. The Open Group also owns the trademark UNIXWARE, transferred to them from SCO more recently.

Today, the definition of UNIX ® takes the form of the worldwide Single UNIX Specification integrating X/Open Company's XPG4, IEEE's POSIX Standards and ISO C. Through continual evolution, the Single UNIX Specification is the defacto and dejure standard definition for the UNIX system application programming interfaces. As the owner of the UNIX trademark, The Open Group has separated the UNIX trademark from any actual code stream itself, thus allowing multiple implementations. Since the introduction of the Single UNIX Specification, there has been a single, open, consensus specification that defines the requirements for a conformant UNIX system.

There is also a mark, or brand, that is used to identify those products that have been certified as conforming to the Single UNIX Specification, initially UNIX 93, followed subsequently by UNIX 95, UNIX 98 and now UNIX 03.

The Open Group is committed to working with the community to further the development of standards conformant systems by evolving and maintaining the Single UNIX Specification and participation in other related standards efforts. Recent examples of this are making the standard freely available on the web, permitting reuse of the standard in open source documentation projects , providing test tools ,developing the POSIX and LSB certification programs.

And another link http://www.davids-website.com/linux/linux.html

You are correct!

These comparisons of teflon and source code are apples and oranges.

Anyways if this "magic date source code for all" myth was true, can anybody tell me where to get the MS Dos 1.0/2.0/3.0/5.0/etc source code, because according to this myth logic, it was released a long time ago

Apples and oranges have so many things in common. They are both fruits growing on trees. And when I go at the market they have both the same status.


Interesting question.

Question : When was Free Dos born ? Was it born only when the principles used by MS to write MS-DOS weren't patented anymore ? Or is it simply a clone that outwardly mimics the behaviour of Dos like Reactos mimics Windows NT without using any of its internals.

Whoa... so many misconceptions here.

1. Open source software can in fact be sold.
2. Open source/free software can in fact be developed and shipped commercially (eg, GNU Ada)
3. Linux is not an operating system, it is a kernel. The operating system commonly called "Linux" really is GNU/Linux
4. Linus only developed Linux, not the whole GNU/Linux operating system; in fact, he hasn't done anything outside of the kernel! the GNU operating system started in 1983, 1991 was only the date that Linus plugged his kernel (Linux) into the GNU operating system. Linux is not the official GNU kernel, and that's why the resulting operating system is called GNU/Linux instead of just GNU.
5. Linux is not based off of any Unix code. Likewise, GNU for the most part doesn't have any Unix code either, except in cases where it has become public domain or free software, which is rare but it has happened and sometimes been incorporated into GNU (eg, BSD code).

http://gnu.org/
http://fsf.org/
http://opensource.org/
http://kernel.org/
k

It seems we only disagree on semantics here, not the issue. Yes, Win9x can be mimic'd, it probably could have been mimic'd 10yrs ago (assuming MS wouldn't have sued). Oneday MS loses the ability/feasibility to sue over this mimicking. My point is (and has been) that MS doesn't have to release the source code, nor will they ever do so for many reasons.

This sounds like an insult (to me) for the active people that works on Unofficial Service Packs !


THEY ? Who ? Microsoft ?

My idea is to WRITE (or better, to gradually substitute) any windows 9x component with an open source one.
Why 'wasting' time on closed source Service Packs (that is unauthorized in any case), when you can save an os _permanently_ from the certain death ?

Patch, apologies, no insult was intended towards you and all the great work that's been done by you and others to improve Win98SE.

Of the Win9x versions, its' the OS I like the best. I always had crash problems with it, however, and when I switched to Win2k, the stability was so much better that I converted.

I've taken the time to read the Win98 forums and I'm amazed at the work you guys have done on this OS.

Although I'm a big Win2k fan, I have 2 really old laptops (128MB RAM, 450 and 500Mhz PIII) with relatively small hard disk drives.

After reading through the great work you guys have done, I'm tempted to install Win98 on 'em again, install the service pack you guys have put together (2.02 I believe), run 98lite, and then install the WinME files.

My only thought at looking at all this is, wow, the steps involved to do this require multiple installs. You guys should check out HFSLIP (click logo at bottom) and see if you can do something similar for this.

Take a look at the about section of Freedos.org: http://freedos.org/freedos/about/

The FreeDOS project began in 1994 as a small project called PD-DOS (see above link mentioned). At the time, DR-DOS's source code wasn't available, but once it was, pretty much full-compatibility of MS-DOS apps became apparent in FreeDOS. I remember running Free-DOS on an old laptop, around 1998, and having trouble running any MS-DOS- based software. Now-a-days, it seems that the inclusion of DR-DOS code has made is possible to mimic MS-DOS with fully GPL'd code.

That system, to clarify, had 4MB of RAM, and probably was not suited to run FreeDOS anyway.

If anyone wants to join such a project they should join either the ReactOS or E/OS LX. It is not impossible to start a project buy why start from scratch when two projects have already done so much work in the area. If anyone wanted to start from scratch 20 years really would be a good timeline. I think it is quite safe to say that computers 20 years from now will not even run on windows 98.

that (ignoring the rest of the topic) is untrue.
copyrights do expire.

(afaik on work produced after January 1, 1978, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter) also it worth remembering that national laws do not apply everywhere (stated example is under US law).

http://www.piercelaw.edu/tfield/copySof.htm

as for the rest of the topic seems like reinventing the wheel to me but them thats been done before sooooo i dunno, but i ain't gonna jump on anybody.

Copyrights expire in 95 years, or 125 years! That's great!

By the time Win98's copyrights expire and I can use a version based on the source code legally, I'll be . . . dead.

Open Source fonts too !!!

DejaVu fonts
MgOpen typefaces
Free UCS Outline Fonts

and more...

So what are we waiting ? Let's open windows 9x !

note: i'm not a developer

Interesting topic...
Not too impossible... remember that most of the components of 98se were compiled and compilers back then weren't as efficient and produced code which was generated in fixed patterns and easily decompiled. With advanced technology in analysis and a team of experienced reversers it would be possible to eventually dissect the entire workings of Win98se and possibly write an enhanced version. It's not too far from reality.

I've disassembled an entire DOS 3.20 kernel myself and modded it with my own code... it's now running on an old 386 being used as a print server. (Microsoft definitely isn't going to sue me for that!)

In the Win9x area, I'm currently inspecting the IDE driver (ESDI_506.Pdr) and working on a version that will enable 98se to work with hdds up to 2 terabytes in size. It isn't very difficult. Gradually, little by little, components will be replaced with non-MS replacements and eventually we'll have an open-source extensible OS with only the architecture of 9x. I assume the final step would be a replacement kernel.

nt dlls disassemled and reprogrammed....

http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t...der=asc&start=0

Since we'll probably have an open source Revolution Pack, i have remembered another great open source alternative to MS-Windows bundled apps: Media Player Classic !

We also have an interesting discussion @ ROS forum about an MS-Paint clone/substitute...

1. Current hardware doesn't support Win9x anymore

2. Current commercial software doesn't support Win9x anymore (with few exceptions)

3. Open-source developers don't support Win9x anymore (also with few exceptions)

4. Online content started not to support Win9x anymore

Conclusion: either join forces and create a Windows-compatible open-source OS with a light, fast and powerful kernel that will be compatible with current AND future hardware/software, or just drop the subject.

I'm a Win98SE addict myself and it hurts to say, but Win9x's time is over. MS killed its children.

...good reasons for open sourcing Win9x !


If your conclusion is true, why this forum exist then ?

We all know that *official* Win9x support is dead, but many enthusiasts are still working to continue its development... as already sayd, switching to open source could help other projects too !

Another good reason to still try to maintain Windows 98SE running is that projects like ReactOS may probably work on getting Windows 98 compatible in a couple of years, so you need to have a working Windows 98 machine for reference testing, kernel debugging, etc.

What kind of s*** is this? The Internet is platform-agnostic!
If you're talking about things like Flash, well, they're proprietary, and not in the spirit of the web.

Dunno if there's someone interested, but here's an interesting discussion about the open source MS-Paint alternative...

(...and here's a preview of the young baby imagesoft ! )

Tell that to the guys at VH1.com. I had a subscription to their site but have been visiting it very rarely. Recently when I tried to follow a link in one of their e-mails, I got a nice message saying "sorry but your operating system is no longer supported by our site" or something like that. I have no idea if it was about Media Player version or anything else, they just said my OS was bad. So I said "f*ck them" and sent an unsubscribe reply (as instructed). At least twice. They still send me those stupid news e-mails and I keep marking them as junk.

As for Flash... that's funny, but I currently have installed v9.0.28 and it works fine. But I disabled it in my browser using Nir Sofer's TurnFlash, and enable it only when needed. And no, that was not the reason for the VH1.com rejection.

You did the right thing! But can somebody explain me how the f*** a web site can be OS dependant? Does M$ give them dollars to ban people who use OSes they don't wanna see around anymore? Because I don't see any other reason.

I guess we can still spoof our user-agent... But really, why do they even waste their time creating an OS check just to virtually exclude people using Win9x?

Beats me... MS can do about whatever they want. We can only keep barking at the moon.

Use Proxomitron. It can make other websites think you're running whatever OS or browser you want. In fact, I'm sure more than one server admin is a bit puzzled that someone is still using DOS 3.2 and Lynx as a browser

The web is not dependant to OSes. However there are some script capable of detecting your OS and telling you that based upon this information, your system is not up to date to browse their website.
Of course that's BS but they just don't want to read complains from poeple who made no update in the last 6 years.
So if you have w2000, they are sure that at least, your IE is from that year and not earlier.
The wrose thing is that websites are increasingly dependant on scripts and on useless scripts which only makes thing slower and buggier. So to avoid system crashes, they don't correct or simplify the scripts, they just tell w98 users to keep away.
The main difference with softwares, is that online scripts and even online applications are perfectly compatible with any computer able to handle javascript and less importantly vbscript. Normaly no website is supposed to include applets which are calling to XP specific ActiveX components...except to hack your system.

Yet I'm still waiting for the website that won't open on my fully updated w98 machine.
Y!MailBeta wasn't supposed to run on my w98 but I use it it on a daily basis.

Thanks, but that would be cheating. There's lots of software saying they don't support Win9x and when you mess with winver and make it report you're running 2k or later, they install and run flawlessly. It's like admitting myself as guilty to escape capital punishment in favor of life sentence, while in fact I'm completely innocent. Does that seem right?!

I havent' messed much with my system (yet) except for a few system files that I had to upgrade. I'm testing an application in its alpha stage and I need the OS to be as basic as possible. Will upgrade it after I build a test machine. Meanwhile try subscribing to vh1.com and see if you can access their videos or whatever other online content linked to in their newsletters. I'm curious if you'll get rejected too.

As for Y!MailBeta... Yahoo is vital for me to get replies from forums posts, friends, etc. I always rejected their upgrade offers, but I know there will come a time when it'll be forced upon us. I wonder which would be the needed system upgrades that'll allow running it safely on a 9x system. And how long will it take until Win9x will permanently be banned by everybody, heavily upgraded or not...

You're not making any sense

You guys talking about VH1 just need to change your user agent in the browser that your using.

see my post:

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=82947

Just look at the bit about the user agent (there's a screen capture there too).

For Firefox get this extension:

https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/59/

Under User agent add the following line:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; nl; rv:1.8) Gecko/20051107 Firefox/1.5.0.7

Leave the rest of the lines blank. Remember you can change the Agent for the current session only.

I'm assuming that the latest Flash doesn't work under Windows 95, just like Sun's latest Java Virtual Machine doesn't (at least it doesn't want to install).

None. Your browser interacts with the website's code, not the OS.

Am I too deep? Let me try again: here's a quote from X2 - X-men united, a talk between Kurt Wagner and Mystique:

- Excuse me... They say you can imitate anybody, even their voice.
- [imitating his voice] "Even their voice"
- Then why not stay in disguise all the time? You know... look like everyone else.
- Because we shouldn't have to.

Steven W: so this is all about DRM, isn't it? MS wants to stick a tag to my ear, hang a cowbell onto my neck and watch each and every step I take. Well, I'll refrain from expressing all the nice words that come to my mind related to this and I'll just say: "no, thanks".